I see your updated maxims, and raise you a diatribe. Which leaves me wondering why this used to be so hard not too long ago...

Haha

This is a phone I could buy now that it will work on T-Mobile and 3rd-party apps are popping up like well, they should. Oh, that and the phone is actually Competitive with other smart phones (atleast as far as the T-Mobile network goes).

The media has an Apple bias!

It does, and you cannot convince me otherwise!

Now, on to the disturbing part:
The media has a conservative bias too,
and I dislike conservatives,
ergo, I dislike Apple as well.

It isn't enough that the food supply has been reduced to this (the whole NYT article is worth a read):

"So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight? ... Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend ... [he] found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice."

Now they have to go after chocolate!, apparently, the demand for chocolate isn't enough for a profitable and satisfied Hersheys:

"The US Food and Drug Administration is considering redefining 'chocolate' to allow substitution of vegetable oil ($0.70/lb.) for cocoa butter ($2.30/lb.), and whey protein for dry whole milk"

You can submit a comment to the FDA by tomorrow, this website has everything you need.

Pirates and Emporers

"pageinistas"

Wikiality can't seem to get it's own page on Wikipedia or Wikitionary (My account or my IP are banned from the latter from further editing), and for what reason?

1) There is no verifiable printed source which used the term.
2) The term won't be remembered.

I like the wikipedia editors as much as the next guy, but they need to take a more "if it doesn't hurt anything else, we'll allow it" view of this. The word is describing some sort of consensus reality (the idealist kind) prevalent on wikipedia because of it's anyone-can-edit nature and as I said, adding a Wikipedia page on it isn't going to hurt anything. In fact, there is nothing in the general rules laid out that says it can't be allowed. If the best place they can put it in is the Vandalism of Wikipedia in popular culture section of Wikipedia in popular culture, the term is being misunderstood.

Consensus will probably happen once someone uses it in print to describe the uniqueness of creating/changing/getting formal or informal information from Wikipedia. I'm not flaming, and I don't really care that much. :)

The Euston Manifesto

They're for open source! Where do I sign up?

"14) Open source.As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries."

Set it, and forget it...

This is why the The Daily Show wins Peabody's and Emmy's. Showing the ridiculous parts of the debate like no news show has. It's beyond irony. It may be because the show doesn't have a pretense like news shows do to be unbiased towards individuals or the story...

Slateiness is next to Googliness

Put simply, reading Slate clarifies things in a way I have yet to see a newspaper do. Starting with good writers (Daniel Gross, Fred Kaplan, even Hitchens), great guest writers (Henry Blodget), great conversations, great cartoons, and with little things like using hyperlinks. It's fascinating to me how online newspapers still get away without linking to obvious online sources, government websites, research papers, other news websites (for those stories about a single scandalous quote). Slate is different in a lot of ways, and what says it perfectly to me is: A Slate writer never wastes a readers time. I don't know if I can say that for any other news source, apart from very few blogs, and one monthly news magazine (Harpers).

After The Washington Post Company bought Slate from Microsoft (1 out of 1.5 good things the company has started), and sqished the Business and Technology section into one, it's hasn't changed much editorially, which is good. The website sadly still looks the same since I regularly started reading Slate in 97-98 maybe. The search function could use some Googleiness. I have no complaints otherwise.

Prototype racing is good for you, especially on the radio.