This is the most comprehensive list of gateways I've found:

https://github.com/cubiclesoft/email_sms_mms_gateways/blob/m...

That "law" occurred to me too, but I kept an open mind until I reached the sentence:

"On paper Jimenez seems an unlikely backer for one of the most revolutionary medical breakthroughs any company has ever tried to develop. He’s a marketer by trade"

At that point I stopped reading. The answer is indeed "no."

Typo.

> I like using a word beyond my normal inner-dictionary that is the right one, in the right place.

This is often referred to as le mot juste.

It seems to me the problem is that people think there even exists such a thing as an authoritative source.

Really? What if we were debating where nollidge was born and where he went to school. Would you not be an authoritative source of information on these subjects?

Not really. According to Wikipedia you are not an authoritative source on yourself, e.g. Philip Roth <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/philip-roth-wikiped... and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPSPS>

I know. But Wikipedia's rules about authority only have bearing within their universe, and no bearing upon what is actually authoritative. Are you really saying that you are "not really" an authority about what you had for breakfast because Wikipedia wouldn't allow you to claim to be one?

IIRC, one of the first public Wikipedia "scandals" involved a guy who was irate because his Wikipedia entry was wrong and he was told he wasn't allowed to edit it. Cue much hemming and hawing.

Only the "wrong" was that it included "director" among a long list of accomplishments, on account of he had directed a film. The guy's beef was that he didn't like the film and didn't want to be noted for it, and he demanded sole authority over his own historical record.

Sometimes there are good reasons to not let people edit their own articles. Sometimes there aren't. But you need some sort of coherent policy.

Why would you be one? Maybe you don't know the difference between cilantro and parsley, but your omelet contained one of them. That mystery sausage in the back of your fridge that you ate and claimed was chorizo? Maybe the wait staff didn't like you so there was abnormally large amount of spit in your breakfast. Being Authoritative on your breakfast should only apply if you actually know what you ate, not just think you do.

Yes, that is absolutely what I'm saying. Obviously not because it's Wikipedia's policy, but because all information is provisional. All information should be regarded with varying levels of confidence never approaching 100%.

If you ask about my breakfast, I could be lying to you or recall yesterday's breakfast instead of today's or whatever.

How would you know I'm telling you the truth?

I wouldn't. Authorities can lie, and often have an agenda. But I can still cite you as an authority on things that you are an expert about. And if your lying ways become known, you will lose your reputation, and status as an authority who should be cited. If, however, you anonymously seed Wikipedia with lies, you have nothing to lose.

I don't see why you have to impersonate me to make this point.

Why are you impersonating noIlidge?

How can there be no screenshots?

> That 250MB password will be run through scrypt by javascript

No, it will not. Nobody does this.

How is this a rebuttal? If anything, this furthers the author's case.

EDIT: nevermind, the language was fixed.

I did not successfully parallel park in my test and still passed. Thankfully I learned how on my own, but still.

U.S.? If so, me too, and I think we have horribly insufficient driving instruction here. Maybe it varies by state, but yeah, we didn't go on the freeway, I didn't really learn how to parallel park, I didn't learn anything about highway ettiquette (i.e. keep right unless passing), etc.

I wish we were required to have many, many more training hours before being licensed, especially in the colder climates with icy conditions on the regular.