Slashdot Mirror

theodp writes: "Bill Gates famously spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, implement and promote the now controversial Common Core State Standards," reports the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "He hasn't stopped giving." In the last seven months, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has poured more than $10 million into implementation and parent support for the Core. Strauss adds: "Gates is the leader of education philanthropy in the United States, spending a few billion dollars over more than a decade to promote school reforms that he championed, including the Common Core, a small-schools initiative in New York City that he abandoned after deciding it wasn't working, and efforts to create new teacher evaluation systems that in part use a controversial method of assessment that uses student standardized test scores to determine the 'effectiveness' of educators. Such philanthropy has sparked a debate about whether American democracy is well-served by wealthy people who pour part of their fortunes into their pet projects — regardless of whether they are grounded in research — to such a degree that public policy and funding follow." If you're still on the fence about Common Core after viewing it, the Onion just came out with a nice list of the pros and cons of standardized testing that may help you decide.

New submitter wmofr writes: Major U.S. and British publications refused to publish related satirical cartoons, at least those about the "prophet", after the terrorist attack in Charlie Hebdo's office, which had 12 people killed. An editor of the Independent said:"But the fact is as an editor you have got to balance principle with pragmatism, and I felt yesterday evening a few different conflicting principles: I felt a duty to readers; a duty to the dead; I felt a duty to journalism – and I also felt a duty to my staff. I think it would have been too much of a risk to unilaterally decide in Britain to be the only newspaper that went ahead and published so in a sense it is true one has self-censored in a way I feel very uncomfortable with. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make." But still many media organizations bravely publishing those cartoons, declining self-censorship. Charlie Hebdo's surviving staff say the magazine will publish again next week, saying, "stupidity will not win." Meanwhile, cartoonists around the world have published strips in response to the attack. The Onion has a poignant take as well. With regard to the attackers, one suspect turned himself in to police, and the other two remain at large.

theodp writes "In a classic example of parody coming to life," writes GeekWire's Todd Bishop, "a newly published patent filing reveals Google's ambitions to solve one of the most troublesome challenges known to humanity: Splitting the bill at the end of a meal." In its patent application for Tracking and Managing Group Expenditures, Google boasts that the invention of six Googlers addresses 'a need in the art for an efficient way to track group expenditures and settle balances between group members' by providing technology that thwarts 'group members [who] may not pay back their entire share of the bill or may forget and not pay back their share at all.'

Nerval's Lobster writes "For comedy publication The Onion, a recent cyber-attack by the Syrian Electronic Army was no laughing matter. The SEA managed to compromise The Onion's Twitter account, plastering it with insults aimed at the United Nations, Israel, and Syrian rebels. 'UN retracts report of Syrian chemical weapon use: "Lab tests confirm it is Jihadi body odor,"' read a typical (and perhaps one of the more printable) ones. When the Tweets appeared, some Onion Twitter-followers questioned whether the newspaper was playing some sort of elaborate meta-joke, perhaps riffing on a recent series of high-profile cyber attacks. But the SEA was serious, and so was The Onion about flushing the attackers from its systems. In a new posting on theonion.github.io, the publication's IT crew details exactly what happened. On May 3, attackers from the SEA fired off phishing emails to Onion employees, at least one of whom clicked on a malicious link. From there, the attackers compromised a handful of systems. 'In total, the attacker compromised at least 5 accounts,' the account concluded. 'The attacker logged in to compromised accounts from 46.17.103.125 which is also where the SEA hosts a website.' But following the crisis, The Onion couldn't resist swiping at its attackers. 'Syrian Electronic Army Has a Little Fun Before Inevitable Upcoming Deaths at Hands of Rebels,' read the headline for a May 6 article that described a fictional massacre of the SEA in gruesome detail."

Okian Warrior writes with word that, as of Monday evening, multiple police agencies and the military were "conducting training exercises over Miami and elsewhere in the county. The exercise includes military helicopters firing machine-gun blanks while flying over highways and buildings. This YouTube video shows helicopters strafing highways with blank rounds near the Adrian Arts center. There are reports of similar actions in Houston From the Houston article: 'if you see the helicopters or hear gunfire, it's only a drill.'" Note: this time, it's not in The Onion.

J053 writes "FARS, the Iranian news agency, ran a story about a Gallup poll which showed that 'the overwhelming majority of rural white Americans said they would rather vote for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than U.S. president Barack Obama.' '"I like him better," said West Virginia resident Dale Swiderski, who, along with 77 percent of rural Caucasian voters, confirmed he would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad.' Only problem was, it was a story from The Onion. Not only that, they took credit for it! The Onion responded by stating that 'Fars is a subsidiary and has been our Middle Eastern bureau since the mid 1980s.'"

Long before Stewart or Colbert were on TV you could count on The Onion to bring you your daily dose of fake or funny news. After the recent publication of their 1000th issue, a small but growing movement has started pushing for the Pulitzer Prize to be awarded to the satirical site. The Americans for Fairness in Awarding Journalism Prizes website encourages readers to submit videos on why they think The Onion deserves the honor. The movement has grown so large that you can find videos from Tom Hanks and Arianna Huffington among the user submissions.

Slashdot regular contributor Bennett Haselton writes "In my last article, I proposed an algorithm that Facebook could use to handle abuse complaints, which would make it difficult for co-ordinated mobs to get unpopular content removed by filing complaints all at once. I offered a total of $100 for the best reader suggestions on how to improve the idea, or why they thought it wouldn't work. Read their suggestions and decide what value I got for my infotainment dollar."

In my last article, I proposed an algorithm that Facebook could use to handle abuse complaints, which would scale to a large number of users while also making it difficult for co-ordinated mobs to get unpopular content removed by filing complaints all at once. I offered a total of $100 to readers sending in the best suggestions for improvements, or alternative algorithms, or fatal flaws in the whole idea that would require starting from scratch. As the suggestions were coming in, Facebook obligingly kept the issue in the news by removing a photo of two men kissing from a user's profile, sending a form letter to the user that they had violated Facebook's prohibition on "nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually suggestive content". (It would be a cheap shot to say that a photo of a man and a woman kissing probably would not have been removed; in truth, probably just about anything will get removed from Facebook automatically if enough users file complaints against it, which is the problem for unpopular but legal content.)

How would these complaints have been handled under my proposed algorithm? The gist of my idea was that any users could sign up to be voluntary reviewers of "abuse complaints" filed against public content on Facebook. Once Facebook had built up a roster of tens of thousands of reviewers, new abuse complaints would be handled as follows. When a complaint (or some threshold of complaints) is filed against a piece of content, a random group of, say, 100 users could be selected from the entire population of eligible reviewers, and Facebook would send them a request to "vote" on whether that content violated the Terms of Service. If the number of "Yes" votes exceeded some threshold, the content would be removed (or at least, put in a high-priority queue for a Facebook employee to determine if the content really did warrant removal). The main benefit of this algorithm is that would be much harder for co-ordinated mobs to "game the system", because in order to swing the vote, they would have to comprise a significant fraction of the 100 randomly selected reviewers, and to achieve that, the mob members would have to comprise a significant fraction of the entire reviewer population. This would be prohibitively difficult if hundreds of thousands of users signed up as content reviewers.

All of the emails I received -- not just "almost" all of them, but really all of them -- contained some insightful suggestions worth mentioning, although there was some duplication between the ideas. If you didn't see the last article, you might consider it worth while to stop reading before proceeding further, and mull over the description of the algorithm above to see how you would improve it. Then read the suggestions that came in to see how well your ideas matched up with the submissions I received.

The upshot is that nobody found what I believed to be completely fatal flaws, although one reader brought something to my attention that might cause trouble for the algorithm after a few more years. Beyond that, reader suggestions could be divided essentially into two categories. The first category of suggestions related to ensuring that the basic premise would actually work -- that the votes cast by a random sample would be representative of general user opinion, and could not be gamed by a coordinated mob or a very resourceful cabal trying to game the system. The second category of suggestions started by assuming that the voting system would work, and suggested other features that could be added to the algorithm -- or, in one case, an entire alternative algorithm to replace it.

To begin with the attacks and counter-attacks against the basic voting algorithm. Walter Freeman and Haydn Huntley independently suggested monitoring for users who vote in a small minority in a significant portion of vote-offs, and reducing their influence in future votes (by either not inviting them to vote on future juries, or sending them the future invites but then ignoring their votes anyway). The assumption is that if a user is frequently among the 10% who vote "Yes [this is abuse]" when the other 90% of respondents are voting "No [this is not abuse]", or vice versa, then that user is voting randomly, or their point of view is so skewed that their votes could safely be ignored even if they are sincere. I like the idea of eliminating deadweight voters, but this might also incentivize voters to vote the way they think the crowd would vote, instead of voting their true opinions -- for example, if they were called to vote on an anti-Obama page that showed Obama wearing a Hitler mustache. Some people's knee-jerk reaction would be to call the page "racist" or "hate speech" or "a threat of violence", even though comparing Obama to Hitler is not, strictly speaking, any of those things. If I were voting my honest opinion, I would count that page as "not abuse". But if I knew that I were voting along with dozens of other people, and my future voting rights might be revoked if I didn't vote with the majority, I might be tempted to vote "abuse".

Similarly, Walter Freeman and reader "mjrosenbaum" both suggested setting deliberate traps for deadweight users, by creating artificial cases where the answer was pre-determined to be obviously yes or obviously no, calling for votes, and revoking privileges for users who gave the wrong answer. This would eliminate the problem of borderline cases like the one above, where smart users think, "I suspect the majority will give the wrong answer, so I'm just going to go with the crowd, to keep my voting rights." On the other hand, it's more labor for Facebook to create the cases, and any public content authored by them -- especially content that is deliberately crafted to be "questionable" -- would probably have to run a gauntlet of being reviewed by lawyers and PR mavens before being released. My suggestion would be to use these artificial scenarios periodically to make sure that the system is working (i.e. that juries are giving the right answers), but it would be too inefficient to use it to try and weed out problem voters.

In fact, these and several other suggestions fell into a category of ideas that could possibly improve the efficiency of the algorithm by reducing voter shenanigans (where "efficient" means that fewer users have to be invited to each vote-off in order to get statistically valid results), but might not be worth the effort. As long as most of the votes cast by users are sane and sincere, all you have to do is invite enough voters to a vote-off, and the majority will still get the correct answer most of the time, even if you have problem voters in the system. That's the simplest possible algorithm. The more complicated an algorithm you come up with, the more likely that Facebook (or any other site you recommended this to) would just throw up their hands and say, "Sounds too hard", and leave the idea dead in the water. That's why I like the algorithm as lean and tight as possible.

So it's not quite like designing an algorithm for your own use, where you could feel free to introduce more complications as long as you're responsible for keeping track of them. In recommending an algorithm for widespread adoption, the basic form of the algorithm should be as simple as possible. In the case of the voting algorithm some interesting wrinkles may come up if you don't eliminate problem voters, but this is not fatal to the idea as long as it's still true that, given a large enough random sample of voters, the majority will tend to vote the correct answer.

For example, James Renken pointed out that as voters dropped out due to boredom, the remaining users casting votes would tend to be either (1) weirdos who just wanted to view questionable material; and (2) prudes bent on removing as much material from Facebook as possible. But that's OK, as long as those two groups vote sanely enough (or as long as there are enough sane users outside those two groups) that material which does violate the TOS, tends to get more "Yes [this is abuse]" votes than material that doesn't. Then all you have to do is make the jury size large enough to make a statistically significant distinction between those two cases.

Similarly, Joshua Megerman suggested surveying users for their religious, political, and other beliefs when they sign up as volunteer reviewers (they could of course decline the survey). This makes it possible, insofar as people answer truthfully, to make sure that a jury is composed of a group with diverse belief sets. (On the other hand, users could game the system by reporting beliefs that are the opposite of what they truly feel. For example, if you're a leftist, register as a right-winger. Then when an abuse case comes before you, if it's a piece of content more offensive to leftists, then the real leftists on the jury will tend to vote against it -- but as a registered right-winger, you'll be able to cast a vote against it as well, and you'll be displacing a real right-wing voter who probably wouldn't have voted that way, so your vote will be worth more!) Again, it's fine if Facebook wants to do this, but even without collecting this data and simply selecting jurors at random, it should still be true that genuinely abusive pages get more "Yes" votes in a jury vote, than non-abusive pages.

Lastly in the "keep the jurors honest" category, Paul Ellsworth suggested allowing jurors to anonymously review each other -- when a given juror is chosen for the "hot seat" (perhaps randomly, perhaps as a result of a history of skewed voting), other jurors are randomly selected from the voting pool, to review that juror's voting record and decide whether that juror has been voting honestly and judiciously, or not. When I first read this idea, I instinctively thought that because a contaminated jury pool would be reviewing itself, it would not be able to reduce the percentage of problem voters, but a little more thought revealed that this isn't true. Suppose initially your jury pool consists of 80% "honest voters" and 20% "dishonest voters", that honest voters who review the voting record of another voter will always vote correctly whether that person is "honest" or "dishonest", and that dishonest voters will always vote incorrectly. It's still the case that when a voter's record is reviewed by a panel of, say, 20 other voters, virtually 100% of the time the majority will get the right answer. If you strip voting rights from a voter whenever a jury of other voters determines them to be a "dishonest voter", then over time, the percentage of honest voters in the system will creep from 80% to 100%. So again, this might work, and again, it might just be adding unnecessary complexity if the basic algorithm could work without it.

Note that none of these precautions would address the case of a "sleeper" voter -- a voter who joins the system with the sole intention of voting incorrectly on particular types of cases (perhaps planning on voting "yes" to shut down pages made by a particular organization, or pages advocating a particular view on a single issue), while still planning to vote correctly on everything else. By voting honestly in all other cases, they prevent themselves from being flagged by the system for casting too many minority votes, or from being blacklisted by other jurors for having a questionable overall voting record. The only real way I can see to address this problem is to hope that such users are outnumbered by the honest users in the system, and that juries are large enough that the chances of "rogue voters" gaining a majority on any one jury are nearly zero.

Which brings us to the one potentially fatal weakness in the system that I'm aware of: reader George Lawton referred me to a program run by the U.S. government to create armies of fake accounts to infiltrate social media, named, apparently without irony, Earnest Voice:

The project aims to enable military personnel to control multiple 'sock puppets' located at a range of geographically diverse IP addresses, with the aim of spreading pro-US propaganda.

An entity with the resources of the U.S. military could potentially create enough remote-controlled voters to overwhelm the system. I'm not sure if there is a way to deal with a system if the majority of voters are compromised. Presumably by making all decisions appealable to a core group of trusted Facebook employees at the top (although this then creates a bottleneck and limits scalability, especially if filing an appeal is free and all the parties who lose abuse cases are constantly filing appeals to the next level up).

Now. On to the second category of suggestions: Assuming the majority of voters are honest, what other features would be desirable to build into the system?

Walter Freeman, on the subject of filing appeals, suggested putting appealed pages in a special queue where they could be publicly viewed and users could comment on the ongoing appeals process, in addition to reading arguments posted by either side; this also negates the censorship itself due to the to the Streisand effect. I agree, but it's not obvious why this is a desirable feature. This does create perverse incentives, since some users could get extra traffic for their content by creating a page that makes whatever argument you're trying to promote, spiking it with some TOS-violating content, waiting for the page to get shut down, appealing the decision, and enjoying all the extra Streisand attention that it gets while on public display during the "appeal".

Meanwhile, James Renken pointed out that the system would work best for content that was originally public anyway, like a controversial Facebook page or event. If someone filed a complaint regarding a private message that they received, and they wanted a "jury vote" about whether the content of the message constituted abuse, then either the sender or the recipient would have to waive their right to privacy regarding the message before it could be shared with jurors. If the message really was abusive, then in some cases the recipient might waive their privacy rights -- reasoning that they didn't mind sharing the nasty message that someone sent them, in order to get the sender's account penalized. The problem arises if the message also contains sensitive personal facts about the recipient, which they wouldn't want to share with anonymous jurors. The system could allow them to black out any personal information before submitting the message for review, but that creates a recursive problem of abuse within the abuse system -- how do you know that someone didn't alter the content (and thus the offensiveness) of the message through their selective blacking-out? So it's not obvious whether this idea could be applied to non-public content at all.

Reader George Lawton suggested allowing content reviewers to vote on the funniest or weirdest content they had to review, to be posted in a public "Hall of Infamy". I love the thought of this, but I think Facebook's lawyers would be uncomfortable glamorizing anything questionable even if it were ultimately voted to be non-abusive (and certainly if it was voted to be abusive). Besides, this also has the perverse-incentives problem -- tie your message to something that you know will not only get an abuse complaint, but will hopefully end up in the Hall of Weird. (Even without the abuse jury system, there are already plenty of incentives for people to make a political point and hope that it will go viral.)

David Piepgrass suggested that new content reviewers should be allowed to specify certain types of content that they don't want to be asked to review -- nudity, graphic violence, etc. This sounds like a good idea. He adds that users probably shouldn't be able to opt-in only to review certain categories of content (or jurors might sign up only to review nudity, and then who would be left to review the death threats?).

Finally, in the other corner: Jerome Shaver suggested bypassing the jury voting system altogether and working on a heuristic algorithm to determine when abuse reports were being submitted by organized mobs of users, based on the patterns shown by mutual friendships between the users filing the abuse reports. The difficulties in designing such an algorithm, are too complicated to summarize quickly, and could fill an entire separate article. (Convince yourself that it's not an easy problem to solve. You can't just ignore abuse complaints from clusters of users that have many mutual friendships, because it can happen that real tight-knit communities of users might file abuse complaints against a piece of content, where the complaints are actually genuine.) But again, there is the problem that if a proposed solution is too complicated or too nebulous, Facebook has the excuse that they are "weighing several options", that they're "already working on something similar internally", etc. The jury vote system has the advantage that it can be described in just a few sentences, and the general public always knows whether it has been implemented or not -- which means that as long as abuses of the complaint system continue, people can ask, "Why doesn't Facebook try this?"

You'll notice this is just a laundry list of the ideas I received, without any definitive conclusions about which ones are good or bad, but that's all I was going for. The original algorithm, I could argue with the force of mathematical proof that, under certain reasonable assumptions, it would work. There's no such proof or disproof for any of the suggested modifications, so I don't feel as strongly about any of them. But at the top of the article I suggested for readers to stop reading and see how many of these ideas they could come up with on their own. How did you do?

The final honor roll of readers who were each the first, or only, person to submit an original idea: Walter Freeman (bonus points for getting in several good ones), James Renken, Joshua Megerman, Paul Ellsworth, George Lawton, Jerome Shaver, and David Piepgrass. Most of them volunteered to donate their winnings to charity, and agreed to let me donate their share to Vittana, which arranges microloans to college students in developing countries. One preferred a charity of their choosing, and only one actually kept the money. To be clear, for future contests, it's awesome if you want to donate the money to charity, but it's not dickish to keep it. That was the original deal after all.

So, all very clever and interesting suggestions, some of which might inspire readers to keep coming up with their own further variations. I said which ideas I probably would have incorporated and which ones I wouldn't, and I'm sure many of you would tell me that I'm wrong on some of those points. Although from here on out you're doing it for free.

theodp writes "In response to a complaint, Rackspace has shut down the websites of the Dove World Outreach Center, a small 50-member church which has received national and international criticism for a planned book burning of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The center 'violated the hate-speech provision of our acceptable-use policy,' explained Rackspace spokesman Dan Goodgame. 'This is not a constitutional issue. This is a contract issue,' said Goodgame, who added he did not know how long it had hosted the church's sites. Not quite the same thing, but would Kurt Westergaard's cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad also violate Rackspace's AUP? How about Christopher Hitchens' Slate articles? Could articles from one-time Rackspace poster child The Onion pass muster?"

Hugh Pickens writes "In the summer of 1980, MIT graduates Donald Faber and Peter Haberle moved into an empty two-car garage and started work building the first-ever 'personal home computer.' Now almost 30 years later, what began as a humble two-man operation has since grown into an even more humble, even more cramped computer company, based out of an even smaller single-car garage. According to Faber and Haberle, a lot has changed since Xalaga was first founded. What was once a struggling $7,500-a-year business with only a dozen or so paying customers is now a desperate $6,400-a-year business with only a half dozen or so paying customers. Faber, who turned down a promising position with GE in order to start Xalaga, a decision he now says he regrets each and every waking day, told reporters that he knew almost immediately that his company had something not-at-all special on its hands. 'We sold only one computer that first year, then the following year it was three computers, then suddenly 10 computers, then just as suddenly five computers, then back down to three computers again, and finally only one or two machines every other year for pretty much the next decade,' said Faber, standing up from the plastic milk crate that now serves as his desk. 'Had someone told us when we first started that we'd be here today, operating out of a much smaller, somehow less expensive garage, we probably would have laughed right in their face.'"

theodp writes "Betty or Veronica? Mary Ann or Ginger? Proportional or Monospaced? There's renewed interest in an old blog post by Maas-Maarten Zeeman, in which M-MZ made the case for programming with proportional fonts, citing studies that show proportional fonts can be read 14% faster than fixed-width fonts. Try it for a couple of weeks, he suggests, and you might like it too. Nowadays, Lucida Grande is M-MZ's font of choice on OS X, and he uses Lucida Sans on Windows. Helvetica, anyone?"

stoolpigeon writes "The popularity of web site Will It Blend? is indicative of how people enjoy mashing things together. Of course this kind of sharing and combining has been going on in the arts for quite some time. The new Lev Grossman novel, The Magicians asks 'will it blend?' of two rather popular fantasy series, J.K. Rowling's world of Harry Potter and the tales of Narnia from C.S. Lewis. Grossman's thoughts on both are tossed on top and then the author begins to play a symphony across the full range of buttons from stir to liquefy. What comes out is not children's fantasy but at times a rather bitter mix." Keep reading for the rest of JR's review. The Magicians author Lev Grossman pages 402 publisher Viking rating 7/10 reviewer JR Peck ISBN 978-0-670-020550-3 summary Boy feels socially akward...boy discovers he's magical...boy gets into private magical school. Grossman is an author and critic for Time and has written for a number of high-profile magazines. He is a talented writer and handles his story telling with skill. His characters have depth and this story takes on a very gritty sense of reality, something that is not often found in fantasy. I was impressed with his writing, yet at the same time I was torn with how I felt about the book. I found it to be compelling and at the same time difficult. It took me a few weeks to process the whole thing and get an idea of why the book impacted me the way that it did. I'm going to lay that all out now, but I have to say that when reviewing fiction I work very hard to avoid discussing plot. In this case, it will be impossible to some extent. I don't think I'm going to give away anything that the promotional material doesn't make pretty obvious, but anyone who wants to go into this book knowing as little as possible should stop reading now.

The protagonist, Quentin Coldwater, is a nerd. He's an academic over-achiever living a life of privilege, set on a path of success. He's also extremely unhappy, feeling disconnected from the rest of the world. He struggles with his inability to connect with others and the meaninglessness of life. He has sought out and found some respite in the fantasy world of Fillory, a magical land created and explored in the books of an American author that lived in England. At the start of The Magicians Quentin in on his way to an interview as part of the admissions process for Princeton. But this does not end up as another normal day for Quentin. Rather than his ultimate destination, Princeton, Quentin ends up at Brakebills. Brakebills is a university in upstate New York where students learn magic.

While Hogwarts was not the first literary school of magic, it is the model Grossman has in mind and he is very up front about that fact. The students take part in a magical game called Welters. At one point a team member of Quentin's, Josh, is absent at the start of a match. Quentin hunts him down and the following interaction takes place between the two of them.

Josh stood up. He saluted smartly. "Send me an owl."

"Come on, they're waiting for us. Fogg is freezing his ass off."

"Good for him. Too much ass on that man anyway."

Quentin got Josh out of the library and heading toward the rear of the House, though he was moving slowly with a worrying tendency to lurch into door frames and occasionally into Quentin.

He did an abrupt about-face.

"Hang on," he said. "Gotta get my quidditch costume. I mean uniform. I mean welters."

"We don't have uniforms."

"I know that, " Josh snapped. "I'm drunk, I'm not delusional. I still need my winter coat."

This sliver does a lot to reveal the similarities and differences. Brakebills is very much like Hogwarts in external ways, and completely different in substance. The school is for adults, not children and the life that Grossman portrays is much more in line with reality than fantasy. This is not a book to pick up for a young child. This story contains profanity, sexual content, graphic violence, as well as alcohol and drug abuse. This is where I ran into my first issue with The Magicians. I'll get to that shortly, but first I'd like to finish laying out what the book involves.

Not all of Brakebills is lifted straight from Hogwarts, though I don't think the reader with much experience in reading fantasy will find anything that could really be called new. What there is, as I have mentioned, is very well done. Grossman builds up to moments of palpable tension. He pulls the reader into the life of Quentin and shows real finesse at times. His characters very much come alive, in their brief moments of joy and in their many moments of pain, frustration and loss. Anyone who has felt the hurt of being outside, dealing with the cruelty of others or a general questioning of meaning will be able to relate well to the protagonist.

Eventually school is over and the students graduate. And here is the turn that I think the promotional material makes obvious but some may not want to know about going into reading the book. The second section of the story begins as Quentin and his fellow Brakebills alumni find out that Fillory is real. They immediately prepare to set out on an expedition to the land they've loved since childhood. That Fillory is better spelled N-a-r-n-i-a is just as obvious as the connection to Rowling's work. Quentin and company enter Fillory using magic buttons that take them to an intermediary world of fountains. Jumping into each fountain takes a person to a different world. They have to take care to jump into the correct pool at the base of the fountain that will take them to Fillory. Fillory is a land of talking beasts and magical creatures.

So what sets The Magicians apart from lesser books that lift heavily from other works? Why is The Magicians a strong story while something like Eragon is a weak rip-off? I think it boils down to two elements. First is Grossman's strong writing. Even if this were just a big piece of fan fiction, it would be well written fan fiction. Secondly, this isn't just an homage to the work of others. While Grossman has lifted the settings and externals, the substance is completely different often to the point of taking a position that is completely antithetical to the original work.

My first problem, which I tie to the very adult content is wrapped up in why I read fantasy. I read fantasy on many levels as a form of escape, much like Grossman's character Quentin did. Much of the fantasy I've read is not only fantasy but it is written for children. At the bottom of it all there is no real risk or fear. I read with anticipation, not of an outcome but rather how that outcome will be worked out by the author. There is often death or treachery but it takes on a fairy tale like quality. It does not feel real or cruel but rather cartoonish. Grossman completely jettisons any of this kind of approach. He tackles the safety of these children's tales and eviscerates it. The violence in The Magicians is not cartoonish, it is often cruel even sadistic. There's not much in the way of escapism here. What Quentin finds is that magic doesn't change the basic underlying facts of life, not even traveling to another world does this. This is combined with the fact that much of Grossman's realism includes behavior and speech that isn't something that I would consider normal or appropriate. It may be for others but this isn't a book I would feel comfortable recommending to friends or family.

Then there is my second issue. I've read that Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy is intended to be a type of anti-Narnia. Well Grossman doesn't just create an alternative world that is contrary to Narnia. He destroys Narnia from the inside. And this caused issues for me in both sections of the book at times. Not because of ideological difficulties with what Grossman puts forward but because it would frequently push me outside the story as it felt like Grossman would move from telling his own story to commenting on the story of another. It isn't that what he has to say about the other stories isn't interesting and that he doesn't bring up intriguing issues and criticisms of both, but rather that it jarred me out of the narrative as the story became more a work of exposition. Something like the flashbacks to History and Moral Philosophy class that fill so much of Starship Troopers. The author shows his hand, that he is more interested in making a point than telling a story.

The fact that a major component of the book is polemic in nature means much of the discussion around the book will not be about plot or setting but rather about the argument the author sets forth. I don't agree with Grossman's premise or conclusions but I do admire how well he states his case throughout the entire book, not only in those portions that might feel a bit preachy. I've read in an interview Grossman did about The Magicians that he feels that Rowling lets her characters solve their problems, rather than resting on divine intervention like the characters of Lewis's works. This is reflected in how he handles the world of each, though I would argue that this is not the case, especially in light of how Rowling's series ended. I think it does explain why he is so much rougher on Lewis.

Anyone looking for a dark story that questions the assumptions and underlying principles of those that are not so dark should really enjoy this book. Any parent that picks it up for their young one because they hear it compared to Harry Potter is in for a rude surprise. Those looking for a fun little escape from the real world wont find it here, though things are so grim at times they may find the real world a bit of a relief after the weight of Grossman's. The Magicians held my attention and I was impressed with Grossman's ability, unfortunately at the same time I was a bit disappointed with how he used that ability. With something this subjective your mileage may vary, and since release The Magicians has hit number nine on the New York Times best sellers list.

Viking set up a number of web sites to support the release of The Magicians. This is not so much about the book itself but will be of interest to readers and I think is an interesting development for book lovers in general. There are four sites TheMagiciansBook.com is a normal promotional site with information on the book. ChristopherPlover.com brings to life the fictional author of the Fillory books. Brakebills of course has a site, obfuscated just like the school itself. Finally there is Embers Tomb a wealth of Fillory related information. The Fillory and Plover sites come across as very genuine and will probably snag a reader or two into some level of confusion. The Brakebills site is a bit too over the top to be taken seriously but then again, with real news sites quoting The Onion and the occasional uproar I see over humor sites like Objective Ministries there probably will be some who think it is a real school.

You can purchase The Magicians from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Mixel writes "Two Bangladeshi newspapers have apologized after publishing an article taken from a satirical US website which claimed the Moon landings were faked. From the article: 'The Daily Manab Zamin said US astronaut Neil Armstrong had shocked a news conference by saying he now knew it had been an "elaborate hoax." Neither they nor the New Nation, which later picked up the story, realised the Onion was not a genuine news site.'"

CommonCents noted an Apple announcement a few hours before the anticipated keynote. He says "Apples' latest must have gadget does away with the keyboard. With the new MacBook Wheel, Apple has replaced the traditional keyboard with a giant wheel."

theodp writes "In an Onion-worthy move, the USPTO has decided that IBM inventors deserve a patent for splitting a restaurant bill. Ending an 8+ year battle with the USPTO, self-anointed patent system savior IBM got a less-than-impressed USPTO Examiner's final rejection overruled in June and snagged US Patent No. 7,457,767 Tuesday for its Pay at the Table System. From the patent: 'Though US Pat. No. 5,933,812 to Meyer, et al. discussed previously provides for an entire table of patrons to pay the total bill using a credit card, including the gratuity, it does not provide an ability for the check to be split among the various patrons, and for those individual patrons to then pay their desired portion of the bill. This deficiency is addressed by the present invention.'"

Bennett Haselton contributes the following essay on the consequences of license choice as it applies to sites based on user contributions; read on below for more of his big idea for making Knol a more useful resource. "Google Knol should allow its writers to publish under a Creative Commons Share Alike license. The preceding sentence may not mean much to you, but if you've ever wanted to cite a Wikipedia article as a source, or simply read a Wikipedia article with some assurance that someone wasn't pulling your leg with some creative editing, or if you've wanted to contribute to Wikipedia but couldn't afford the time unless you received some modest compensation for it, then the addition of this one simple feature to Knol might make all the difference." (More below.)

I've been suggesting for some time that Wikipedia, or some fork of Wikipedia, should allow users to "sign off" on a version of an article, and then lock that article against future edits until the signer had approved them. The signing off would allow people to cite a Wikipedia article as a source that had been vetted by at least one person (with confidence in the source depending on that person's credentials). The signer's identity (and sometimes, their credentials) could be confirmed using several methods, such as verifying an .edu e-mail address. Users could still submit edits, but they would have to be approved by the article verifier. Different users could sign off on different versions of the same article, and readers would still have the option of viewing the latest version of an article, with all of its unmoderated edits (which is what you're looking at on Wikipedia most of the time).

Knol, which allows users to submit articles on any topic they want, has incorporated all of the above features (adding, for example, the ability to verify authors' real names using credit cards), and gone one step further by allowing users to place AdSense ads in their articles. However, there's one stumbling block to Knol incorporating all of Wikipedia's content and blessing it with the verification of credentialed experts: Currently, although you have to dig a bit deep to find this out, Knol's Terms of Service do not allow content to be copied from Wikipedia.

Content on Wikipedia is published under the GNU Free Documentation License -- when you click any of the "edit" links in a Wikipedia article and begin typing in new content, you're agreeing to submit your content under the terms of the GFDL. When you publish on Knol, on the other hand, your options are to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-BY), a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License (CC-BY-NC), or a traditional "All Rights Reserved" copyright model. Both the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution licenses are popular with content creators who want to give content altruistically "to the world" -- these licenses all allow content to be redistributed freely without modification. The main difference is in the rights that they grant to people who want to create derivative works (modifying or expanding on the original work).

The GFDL is intended as a "viral" license -- if you take a work that is published under the GFDL, and publish a derivative work created from that, your derivative work must also be published under the terms of the GFDL -- that is, also allowing other users to redistribute your work freely and create derivative works from it as well. If a site mirrors Wikipedia articles without including the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia encourages users to send notifications to those sites pointing out that they're violating Wikipedia's copyright, and if necessary to escalate the matter to their Web hosting provider for noncompliance. You can mirror Wikipedia all you want, and even put put ads all over your mirror site, but you cannot change the terms.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licenses, on the other hand, allow users to create derivative works and publish them under almost any terms they want, including an "All rights reserved" model, provided that they give attribution to the author of the original work. If Susan publishes an article under CC-BY, you can create a derivative work by expanding on her article, and -- assuming your contributions are substantial enough to be copyrightable in themselves -- you can prohibit other users from redistributing your article or creating derivative works from it, something that would not be possible if Susan had published her article under the GFDL. (Obviously, you cannot prohibit others from redistributing Susan's article or creating their own derivative works from it, but you can restrict these rights as applied to your own derivative work.)

Russell Potter, a Professor of English at Rhode Island College and a Citizendium contributor who explained this difference to me, points out that CC-BY licenses are more friendly to academics who want to reuse content in a published book or in a conference presentation. "Say an academic (me) contributes a long article on London's Crystal Palace," he wrote. "Others edit it in modest ways, but the article is still about 90% my own work. Perhaps I want to give a paper at a conference based on this entry, or use large bits of it in a book I'm writing. GFDL would have made either impossible." (Impossible, that is, unless the book publisher released the book under the GFDL, but most book publishing companies are reluctant to do that.)

And therein lies the logical incompatibility between the GFDL and the CC-BY publishing options currently allowed by Knol. If you copy GFDL-licensed content from Wikipedia, you are agreeing that for any copies or derivative works that you create, you will not only permit other users to remix them, but that you will require those other users to agree to the same terms for the remixed works that they publish. If you published such content on Knol under the CC-BY option, you would be granting the reader permission to incorporate the work into their own derivative work which they could then publish under an All Rights Reserved license. And the GFDL doesn't allow you to grant that permission to the reader. Section 5.5 of Knol's Terms of Service explicitly states that GFDL content cannot be re-published under a CC-BY license, and Mike Linksvayer makes this point on the Creative Commons blog as well. Some authors have begun copying Wikipedia content to Knol anyway, and even though that particular article included a link to the GFDL, users have pointed out in the comments that it's still a TOS violation anyway. Google appears to be lax about policing these violations for now, but in the right-hand column, the links to "Similar Content on the Web" show that Google can trivially detect if content is copied from other sites, and may be planning to remove such content or demote it in search results if it's copied from a site like Wikipedia that doesn't allow copying under Knol's terms.

However, the Creative Commons family of licenses also includes the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA), which is written in the same spirit as the GFDL -- if a work is released under CC-BY-SA, any published derivative works created from that work must also be released under the same license. In fact the Free Software Foundation, which writes new versions of the GFDL, announced in December 2007 their intention to make the next version of the GFDL explicitly compatible with CC-BY-SA, so that any work published under the GFDL can be incorporated into a work published under CC-BY-SA, and vice versa. This new version of the GFDL has not been released yet, but the FSF replied by e-mail to say they're working on it.

(Perhaps you might be wondering, as I did, how already-existing content on Wikipedia can be said to be "licensed" under a new version of the GFDL when it comes out. How can past Wikipedia contributors have agreed to a future version of the license that didn't exist yet? The answer is that when you submit edits on Wikipedia, you're agreeing to submit your edits under the "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version", and it's the "or any later version" that means contributors are deemed to have agreed to the next version of the GFDL, which will presumably be CC-BY-SA-compatible.)

If Google Knol adds the ability to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, and the FSF releases a new version of the GFDL that is compatible with this license, then I think we will finally see what I hoped for in February 2008 -- a "gold rush" of users copying content from Wikipedia to Knol, where it can be verified by credentialed users and protected against vandalism. Some users' verifications will be more valuable than others -- a physics article verified by a physics professor is more trustworthy than the same article verified by an anonymous user, and even an article about The X-Files may be more trustworthy when it's verified by a physics professor, not because it's the professor's area of expertise, but because a professor with a valued reputation would be less likely to sign their name to unverified garbage.

Will Knol add the Share Alike option? Perhaps they may be nervous about what would happen if they allowed unlimited copying from Wikipedia, especially with financial incentives. At the moment, Knol seems to be downplaying the fact that you can make money from writing articles, even as everyone else buzzes about it. On their front page, under "Learn More", Knol lists the reasons you should contribute: "Visibility - We value and promote authorship. Great content will be visible on any search engine. Community - You can connect with other experts in your area of interest to share and grow knowledge," etc. Really? That's all? AdSense isn't mentioned in the FAQ, and only briefly at the end of a posting about "Knol bugs and workarounds". And officially the site never mentions Wikipedia at all, except in the knols about it.

But many of the articles on Wikipedia -- especially the kind of articles that academics would be willing to sign their names to -- would probably enhance the Knol site, not drag it down. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales correctly predicted that Knol would generate a lot of articles about Viagra. If Knol can tolerate that garbage (and under their own policies, there is little grounds for removing those articles, unless the authors lifted the content from some other site), they should welcome the addition of articles about stochiometry, Shakespeare, and Serbia, even if they were copied from Wikipedia and then vetted by a university professor or journalist. (None of those topics have their own Knol yet, although there was room for Knols about Simon Cowell, Superman, and sex addiction.)

After all, the incentives that AdSense creates for Knol writers are roughly the same as the incentives for Web publishers in general -- you can try to turn a quick buck, or you can invest in your site's reputation for the long run -- and while there is a new "made-for-AdSense" site born every minute, few would disagree that the rise of AdSense has been good for content on the Web in general.

While copying from Wikipedia to Knol is against the rules right now, there's no reason in principle to be against creating a Wikipedia sub-fork on Knol, if Google allows Knol writers to select the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike publishing option. One user, responding to the unauthorized use of Wikipedia articles, posted in the Knol users' group on Google Groups: "What I REALLY want to see Google do is crack down on these clowns who are copying and pasting articles from Wikipedia." I say, just change the rules and send in the clowns.

Slashdot welcomes original submissions; many thanks to Bennett for this one.

theodp writes "Is Google preparing to launch its own Navy? In its just-published application for a patent on the Water-Based Data Center, Google envisions a world where 'computing centers are located on a ship or ships, which are then anchored in a water body from which energy from natural motion of the water may be captured, and turned into electricity and/or pumping power for cooling pumps to carry heat away from computers in the data center.' And you thought The Onion was joking when it reported on Google's Fleet of Naval Warships!"

Imagine how big you could get in a zero-g environment.

With the spokesdrone rolling off the line it can't be long before the Cheney quail hunting buddybot is unveiled.

This is Blizzard's best idea yet. The only thing more fun than playing Warcraft for 8 hours is watching someone else play it. I hope they remembered to let you sit through your characters installation process at the beginning.

eldavojohn writes "How would you like to have a data center that uses just 14.5 watts and weighs 255g? It's also only as big as a shoe box! The Register looks at a few solutions to network area storage that make buying a dedicated data server on a rack look like a relic of the past. Yes, it runs Linux."

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks many industries have been hit hard but none as hard as the dubious container industry. Many family owned providers of heavily taped and strangely leaning packages are facing a dire financial future.

If you don't teach her how to field strip and reassemble her rifle with her eyes closed, who will?

samzenpus writes "Even though Christmas has come and gone, someone is acting as a secret Santa for people in need of a new kidney. It's nice to see a story about people helping people."

samzenpus writes "With all the scrutiny that Diebold has received in past few years you'd think that they would be more careful but apparently due to a malfunction in some machines, they have leaked the results to the 2008 presidential race early. Hopefully this will be the nail in Diebold's coffin. Surely we have another company in this country that can run a sham election better."

samzenpus writes "Many people reach a point in their lives when they realize what they have done doesn't really matter or at least could be done by someone else just as well if not better. This anteater expert has reached that point."

samzenpus writes "Valentines Day was tough for the undateable before the internet. Now with a click of the mouse even the most disfigured and emotionally vacant person can have their last remaining spec of self worth stomped out in a few seconds rather than waiting for a call that will never come."

samzenpus writes "Children can be greedy, especially when they don't have much time left."

samzenpus writes "US child-soldier aptitude has now fallen to an all time low when compared to their African child soldier counterparts. Is this a race we can afford to lose?"

WASHINGTON, DC -- Top physicists from several major American universities appeared before a Congressional committee Monday to request $50 billion for a science thing that would further U.S. advancement science-wise and broaden human knowing.

Frequent Slashdot Contributor Bennett Haselton writes "I'm a Wikipedia junkie. There's nothing more fun than switching back and forth between reading about the history of human evolution, and following the latest speculation about the identity of the mysterious R.A.B. in the Harry Potter books, and Wikipedia is the best site to find it all in one place. But as a fan, it's always been frustrating for me knowing that Wikipedia could never improve beyond a certain point -- as it becomes more popular, it becomes more tempting to vandalize, and in turn becomes less reliable, a point that many have made already. That's why I'm excited that sites like Citizendium are approaching the same problem with a different model, one that could enable them to become what Wikipedia almost was, but which its intrinsic nature kept it from being: a central, reliable source of freely redistributable information about almost anything. The main difference is that Citizendium articles, after initially being built up through the same collaborative process that Wikipedia uses, will go into an editor-approved stage, at which point an editor (publicly identifiable on the article's history page) signs off on the accuracy of the article, and further edits also have to be approved by an editor."

Editor control over articles is controversial within the "radical collaboration" community; the Wikimedia foundation lists five "foundation issues that are essentially beyond debate", which includes "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering". (In practice there are some safeguards in place to protect articles that are frequent targets of vandalism, like the George W. Bush entry.) But I'm fanatically results-oriented in my thinking, and I always ask: What are the purposes of this project, and how does this feature help achieve those purposes? It seems to me that a free online encyclopedia fills four main needs:

1. A source of information about pop culture that can be fun to read even without being 100% sure that it's accurate (like who R.A.B. is)
2. A source of information that can be freely and legally redistributed, e.g. by printing out copies for a class to read
3. A source of information on subjects where you need to be close to 100% certain that the information is reliable -- at least as certain, say, as you would be if you read the same fact in several books
4. A source of information that you can cite in a school paper as being reasonably authoritative and reliable

Anonymous authorship and real-time edits don't affect #1 or #2, and they actually hinder #3 and #4. Citizendium founder (and former Wikipedia board member) Larry Sanger said in a comment for this article, "There is no reason that [projects like Citizendium] even need be collaborative. What we're mainly interested in is reliable, independent/neutral, and free information." Such a statement -- "no reason that they even need to be collaborative" -- may be regarded by some Wikipedia devotees as heresy, but I think it hits the nail on the head. The purpose of such a project is defined by the quality of the information it produces. Collaboration is a possible means to that end, but collaboration itself is not the point.

For the reliability problem, I can't improve on this priceless sentence from Wikipedia's own "Citing Wikipedia" page:

For many purposes, but particularly in academia, Wikipedia may not be considered an acceptable source. ^{[ citation needed ]}

Wikipedia has actually done much better than I would have expected -- a study done in 2005 found that Wikipedia averaged about 4 errors per article compared to Britannica's 3, which is pretty good for a site where anybody can write that Columbus sailed to the New World in ships named the Ninja, the Pinto, and the Santa Fe. But for a site that harnesses the efforts of volunteers all over the world, I think the goal should be to surpass what has been done before, not just to tie with Britannica. And even if Wikipedia's error rate someday beats Britannica's, under its current model Wikipedia can never have the key property that Britannica has, which is that you can cite it as an authoritative source without sounding silly.

Citizendium's model of editor-approved articles, and editor approval of further edits to those articles, can help to achieve the benefits of collaboration, harnessing the efforts of volunteers, without falling into Wikipedia's traps. Assuming you can verify an editor's credentials (and we'll get to this in a minute), having an editor manage an article means two things: (a) you know the page wasn't vandalized in the last five minutes, and (b) you ought to be able to cite the work as a reference in a paper if your teacher isn't a total Luddite and you can explain to them how Citizendium works. Meanwhile, volunteers can still contribute without their own credentials being checked out; they can write as much as they want for an editor-approved article, as long as it's approved by the editor before going live.

There are still loopholes, of course. Currently Citizendium asks people to edit under their real name, but says that "we will use the honor principle to begin with", so anyone could claim to be a professor or a lunar astronaut. But the key words are "to begin with"; the difference between Wikipedia and Citizendium is that Citizendium views this as a loophole and not an intrinsic "community value", and loopholes can be fixed. To make the reliability as airtight as possible, I hope that Citizendium will eventually implement some sort of verification system, such as checking a professor's contact information on a Web page in the "faculty" section of an .edu Web server. I'm not instinctively thrilled by the thought of checking out volunteers' contact information, but it seems like the only way to achieve goals #3 and #4 above, so if it's as simple as sending a verification e-mail to an .edu address, that's a lot of gain for little effort. (Remember, this only has to be done for editors who sign off on articles, not for all volunteers. A non-editor volunteer could still ask to have their credentials checked out, so that they can be cited by their real name in the "end credits" of an article that lists volunteer contributors. But impersonation among regular volunteers is not likely to be a problem, since the editorial approval process ensures that only value-adding edits will be allowed, and it's unlikely that Alice would pretend to be Bob so that Bob can take all the glory of Alice's contributions to the project!)

Besides verifying authors' credentials, the one change that I hope Citizendium considers in the future is to give authors and editors credit at the top of each article -- or, for articles with many contributors, perhaps editors would be listed at the top and the "end credits" would list all contributors, on a separate page if necessary. This is because credited authorship for an article can help improve the article's usefulness in two ways -- the article can be cited as a reliable source, and the "name up in lights" factor rewards people for contributing more and better articles. Having authors listed only on the history page of an article, as they are in the current model, achieves the credibility benefit but not the "name up in lights" benefit. Larry Sanger suggested that having authors listed at the top of each article might put off readers from submitting edits -- if an article is perceived as being "owned", then others might feel like it's rude for them to change it. For me personally, this could go either way -- on the one hand, I might not realize that I was welcome to edit an article, but on the other hand, I think I might be more inclined to submit edits if I knew there was an editor in charge to keep someone else from frivolously overwriting my edits later. But in any case, to address this problem, each article could carry a banner at the top saying "Readers are encouraged to submit edits and other suggestions", and each paragraph could be accompanied by an "Edit" link, similar to Wikipedia (except that edits would go into a queue to be reviewed by the editor instead of going live). This would address the ownership-intimidation problem without taking away from the "name up in lights" factor. Sanger says that the Digital Universe Encyclopedia -- comprising the Encyclopedia of Earth and an Encyclopedia of the Cosmos, under development -- has plans to join with Citizendium and will use the credited-author model on their version of the site.

You might say that editors having their "name up in lights" would be an ego thing for editors, and I think you'd be right -- but I don't think this would be a bad thing, inasmuch as ego would motivate more people to become editors and do their best work. Perhaps I'd be wrong about this. Maybe a limited experiment could be carried out with two sites that are similar in every respect except that one allows editors and authors to take credit for their work, as might turn out to be the case with Citizendium and Encyclopedia of Earth. The point is that I don't think such a suggestion should be judged by whether it goes against the "spirit" of the project (as it certainly does in the case of Wikipedia!), but rather whether it helps to achieve the projects goals, such as goals #1 through #4 listed above.

There are still some problems that Citizendium's differences from Wikipedia won't solve. Many schools discourage citing Wikipedia not because it's written anonymously or because it contains errors, but because it's an encyclopedia. Yale's guidelines for citing Wikipedia state:

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is written for a common readership. But students in Yale courses are already consulting primary materials and learning from experts in the discipline. In this context, to rely on Wikipedia -- even when the material is accurate -- is to position your work as inexpert and immature.

Presumably many academics would have the same objections to a student citing Citizendium. I understand what these teachers mean, but I think this is a case of not thinking in terms of results. If the purpose of an assignment is to collect and present information, then any means of accomplishing that goal should be valid, including the easiest method of looking up the information in an encyclopedia. To make a student look beyond the encyclopedia, an assignment can simply require depth of research that goes beyond what the encyclopedia would provide. (Students, if you're worried that your teacher will take this to heart and make your assignments harder, just be happy that your teacher is hip enough to be reading this in the first place.) Some things are hard, but they should only be hard if they're intrinsically hard, not because you handicapped yourself with arbitrary rules.

But there is another, more permanent problem -- even with verification of authors' credentials, how do we know that the information in Citizendium articles is accurate? How do we know the author didn't make a mistake, or lie? This gets into deeper issues because these problems exist no matter what source you're consulting. There are books in print that deny the Holocaust or the possibility of evolution, and they're printed on real paper, with ISBN numbers and everything. Some of them even make it into libraries. How skeptical should we be of we read in books? In January two advocacy groups presented a report to Congress in which many government scientists said they felt pressured by the Bush administration to downplay the global warming threat in their statements. Does that mean statements from government scientists are inherently suspect?

And almost anyone who has had more than two articles written about them, knows the feeling of reading the article and reacting, "Wow, I had no idea that I was a transgendered NRA member who volunteers with the Moonies!" The New York Times is hosting an article about me from 2000 claiming that I was fired from Microsoft, when I actually quit. I showed them a copy of my personnel file with "Voluntary resignation" printed on it, but they have still refused to change the article. (When I first wrote to the paper's "Public Editor" about the matter, created to restore "reader credibility" after the Jayson Blair scandal, they replied that they wouldn't change the error because it never appeared in the print version of the paper. Huh?) I put up my own webpage to tell my side of the story, but if you were a Wikipedia or Citizendium editor and you had conflicting information from different sources, who would you believe, the New York Times, or a Web site called PublicEditorMyAss.com?

And yet, I freely admit that even today, I would trust a fact from the New York Times more than a fact from Bob's Bait And Tackle Shop And Technology Blog. We instinctively trust sources because of their reputation; we figure that they must have gotten their reputation somehow. This is not a great algorithm for deciding trustworthiness, but it may be the best that we can do -- in a world where we can't verify every fact firsthand, what choice do we have but to rely on sources that have provided mostly-reliable information in the past? (Wikipedia vandals are able to hack this mental algorithm because we think of Wikipedia as "one source" with a high average reliability, when it's really comprised of many sources, some of whom are deliberately less reliable than others.)

So, I think the Citizendium model is a move in the right direction -- taking into account the limits of what we can know from third-party sources, and doing the best we can within those limits. The least we can do is to know who has signed off on the accuracy of an article, so we can factor that into our decision to trust it. Last month Citizendium released their first editor-approved article, a single article about Biology. It may not look like anything revolutionary right now, but the difference between that and the Wikipedia entry is that you can't change the title of the Citizendium article to LARRY SANGER IS A BUTT BRAIN HA HA. You have to go through an editor for that.

BartlebyScrivener writes "An article in The Economist examines Moore's Law as applied to razor blade technology: 'For the most cynical shavers, this evolution is mere marketing. Twin blades seemed plausible. Three were a bit unlikely. Four, ridiculous. And five seems beyond the pale. Few people, though, seem willing to bet that Gillette's five-bladed Fusion is the end of the road for razor-blade escalation. More blades may seem impossible for the moment — though strictly speaking the Fusion has six, because it has a single blade on its flip-side for tricky areas — but anyone of a gambling persuasion might want to examine the relationship between how many blades a razor has, and the date each new design was introduced'" I'm legally obligated to mention the Onion article that predicted this.

SloppyElvis writes "CNN is reporting that scientists have proven that Dolphins can communicate with each other by name. From the article: 'researchers synthesized signature whistles with the caller's voice features removed and played them to dolphins through an underwater speaker' to which the mammals responded. This form of identification in language was previously only known to exist in the human world." Thankfully they still haven't evolved opposable thumbs.

EdwardianDandy writes "Web designer Khoi Vinh, whose firm Behavior is responsible for the redesign of the Onion, argues on publish.com that an upcoming contest to overhaul Slashdot's look will yield interesting results, but the outcome will suffer because the underlying architecture is off limits." Normally I don't post stuff "About" Slashdot here since I find meta naval gazing very boring, but this article has many good points about architecture and design, even if his whole premise is based on a contest that we haven't spent more than about 5 minutes thinking about, and is mostly just meant to be a fun way for users to contribute themes to Slashdot. If Khoi wants to enter the contest, we'll consider his designs along with everyone else's. (I'm sure we can't afford him tho). And if he (or anyone) wants to make changes more substantial than cosmetic CSS, I'd consider them too. The upcoming Slashdot Redesign contest is intended to be more about design than architecture, but good ideas are good ideas.

linolium writes "Executives at Google, the rapidly growing online-search company that promises to 'organize the world's information,' announced Monday the latest step in their expansion effort: a far-reaching plan to destroy all the information it is unable to index. 'Book burning is just the beginning," said Google co-founder Larry Page. 'This fall, we'll unveil Google Sound, which will record and index all the noise on Earth. Is your baby sleeping soundly? Does your high-school sweetheart still talk about you? Google will have the answers.'" FYI; it's The Onion, so yes, it's a joke.

agonist writes "Has anyone seen The Onion in 2056? I accidentally ran across it after clicking on one of the hyperlinks in my weekly Onion email." It's been awhile since we link The Onion. Always good for numerous laughs.

An anonymous reader writes "The Onion AV Club, the entertainment section of the satirical periodical The Onion, has expanded its coverage of movies, music and books to include reviews of video games. Also, they will host a game history column by Wil Wheaton: "Each week, [Wheaton] will take a look back to games past with his Games Of Our Lives column, reaching beyond Pac-Man and Donkey Kong to find the dusty arcade games and worn-out cartridges that paved the way for the games of today." The first expanded issue posted yesterday, featuring an interview with industry legends Will Wright (The Sims, SimCity) and Howard Scott Warshaw (Atari)."

sootman writes "The Onion has an interview with Arthur C. Clarke in this week's issue. My favorite line: 'The asteroid [named after me] is number four thousand and something, and the International Astronomical Federation, which deals with these sorts of things and numbered it, apologized to me because number 2001 wasn't available, having been given to somebody named "A. Einstein."'" Reader ronys point out that Despite the source, the interview is not a spoof or satire."

TommyTyker writes "According to this CNet article, Microsoft is using England as a test bed for the iLoo -- a 'PortaJohn' that allows the 'user' to surf the net while taking care of 'business.' MSN is even looking at getting TP manufacturers to create some of their product with URL's printed on them. Pooptastic!" Life does not imitate the Onion. No, sir.

Citywide writes "Ars has a very thorough technical piece up entitled Understanding the Microprocessor. It's pitched lower than many Ars articles (all of which are a bit over my head, to be honest), but that's why it's worth checking out: it explains the fundamentals is a very clear and useful way. And as the author notes, this kind of information is really crucial to get a grip on before Hammer arrives."

radiokills writes "Ars Technica has a highly-informative technical paper up on Hyper-Threading. It's a technical overview of how simultaneous multithreading works, and what problems it will introduce. It also explains why comparing the technology to SMP is Apples to Oranges, in a sense. Starting with the 3 GHz Pentium 4, this tech will be standard in Intel's desktop lines (it's already in the Xeon), so this is important stuff."

jonerik writes "The Washington Post has this article today on the disappearance of traditional 'small' (8 oz.) cups of coffee in favor of a larger concept of 'small' (12 oz.). In the case of Starbucks, for example, a truly small 8 oz. cup of coffee is still available, but it's called a 'short' and isn't listed on the menu. Why not? 'We still have it,' says Starbucks spokeswoman Lara Wyss, 'but we don't advertise it because of the size of the menu board, the physical constraints.' Yeah, sure. Disposable cup manufacturers have taken notice of the popularity/compulsory nature of larger cup sizes. The Sweetheart Cup Co. started manufacturing a successful 24-ounce hot-beverage cup about two years ago, and Kathy Deignan, the company's national vice president of marketing and account sales says 'The eight- and 10-ounce cups are pretty much gone.' Sweetheart also manufactures 7-Eleven's 44-ounce Super Big Gulp cups, and Deignan says the company is considering producing an 80-ounce cold drink cup - that's 5 pints, folks. Christ, how much do these companies think people need to drink, anyway?"

Anonymous Coward writes "The NYTimes has a little story on a recent conference at New York University's Courant Institute where mathematicians gathered to discuss potential attacks on the Riemann hypothesis. The Clay Mathematics Institute had announced an award of a million dollars for a proof (or refutation) of the Riemann hypothesis during the millenial celebrations. That million dollars won't be worth much if it takes as long as that Last Theorem by Fermat to solve. There were some interesting observations such as the statistical distribution of the zeros looked just like calculations on the energy levels of large atoms." We did a related story on hard math problems two years ago.

While perusing the Onion today, I came across this review of Real Genius on DVD. No longer must we lower ourselves to watching crumbling VCR tapes of this movie copied off of Cinemax in the early 90s.

Slashback (below) brings you tonight more on the fate of Mobilix, "borrowing" from the Onion, keeping track of campus, the recent (partial) eclipse, and animated television. Enjoy!

I want you to hear my side of the story. R. Benjamin Shapiro writes "Hi There, After reading the reactionary (and slanted) Salon story (of which I am a subscriber) and the responses to it, I thought I'd point the /. community to a paper describing what we are actually doing. Many of the suggestions posted on /. are things we have been doing for some time now. Thanks very much for your feedback!"

A minor but nice victory. Werner Heuser writes "In the hearing from June 12th the court has rejected the arguments of 'Lés Editions Albert René.' The court says the words 'MobiliX' and 'Obelix' can hardly be mixed up with each other. Also the work of MobiliX is dedicated to another audience. This is a great success for the Free Software Community.

MobiliX is a very well-known site dedicated to Linux and BSD on mobile devices (like laptops, PDAs, cell phones and more). In November 2001 Werner Heuser, owner of the Open Source project MobiliX - UniX on Mobile Computers was charged by 'Lés Editions Albert René,' which is owner of the trademark 'Obelix.' In their opinion the names Obelix and MobiliX are very similar. The charge aimed for a deletion of the trademark 'MobiliX' and a compensation fee. The charge has been discussed in many newsgroups and mailing lists. It seems to be a very important case for the Free Software Community, because there are many projects, which names are also ending on 'iX.' Some other projects have even silently withdrawn their names, because the financial risk of losing a trademark case is high. The documentation of the case is available online. It includes the letters from MobiliX lawyers Jaschinski Biere Brexl - JBB."

In 10,000 years, these plates will be mandatory. An Anonymous Coward writes "The director of the Nevada DMV has denied the application for a custom plate depicting a mushroom-shaped cloud. The plates where apparently 'insensitive' and otherwise politically incorrect. .. "

Truer than you know. Zeekamotay writes "Referring to this previously reported story, The Beijing Evening News has now apologized to its readers for printing a story that originated from The Onion. They don't quite seem to grasp the concept of satire though: 'Some small American newspapers frequently fabricate offbeat news to trick people into noticing them, with the aim of making money,' the paper said. 'This is what the Onion does.'"

One more item for your bazillion-hour PVR. Stalke writes "This is a little old, but Tripping the Rift, first mentioned in a previous slashdot article, has been picked up by the SCI FI channel as their first ever animated series. For those of you that don't know, this is a parody of Starwars and Star Trek that takes place on the "Free Enterprise" and includes Chode, a purple alien, Six, a half-naked android, and a dark clown named Bobo. A higher res version of the original movie linked by the previous article is also available on their website."

Some of the "Sun" projectors were just down for scheduled maintenance. leananglemorgan writes "Just in case anyone missed the ol' Solar Eclipse on the 10th, here is a link to quick snaps I took ... Not the greatest, but reasonable enough to get some 'Hey that's cool!' remarks. Enjoy! I thought a couple came out good enough to share!" Another reader submits: "Thought everyone would enjoy this eclipse video I found."

mattsucks writes "Reuters is reporting a story about the Beijing Evening News. Apparently, they too believe that everything they read on the internet is true, republishing a story from The Onion. Or at least one of their freelance writers believes it...." This is absolutely great.

hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.

Hobart writes "Berke Breathed, author of Bloom County has granted an interview to Tasha Robinson of the The Onion's AV Club. This is the second interview I've seen in six months (previous interview link) after the six years of silence since the end of Outland. He even calls for volunteers to help with his site! ;)"

One year ago, we ran a story about the effects of Napster on the RIAA's 1999 profits, which Michael gave the great title: "Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry." It's a year later, the new numbers are out, and the RIAA is lying through their pointy little teeth about them. The AP wire story's second paragraph says "Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year," which they would have quickly seen was a blatant lie if they'd bothered to look at the numbers. Fortunately, Slashdot is here to bust up the spin. Keep reading, if you aren't afraid of numbers.

(Update one hour later by J : The story was on the AP wire, e.g. here, so it's not the BBC's fault. It was unfair of me to single out the Beeb when they just happened to be the source the submittor submitted this morning.)

The RIAA's figures were released last week, but the AP story was delayed until Monday, when the story would get the most exposure.

CD sales plummeted last year in the U.S. and record industry officials say the figures prove that Napster, the Internet music-sharing service, has harmed their business.

Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

"Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA president Hilary Rosen.

This article reads like it might have been ghost-written by someone from the record industry. It isn't until paragraph ten that journalistic integrity kicks in enough for the AP to quietly mention what they're actually talking about:

Some experts say [sic] the drop of CD singles as being part of an industry-wide slump, due to economic factors and a weak year musically. (Emphasis mine.)

That's right, CD singles. Unit sales for the singles were down 39%, revenue down 36% (they raised prices, of course).

And CD singles account for how much of the RIAA's profits?

Not quite one percent.

Yes, that's right: they lost 36% of 1% of their profits.

And the news media is reporting it as a 39% loss.

The facts are that their "CD sales" are up this year, even over last year's stunning performance. The RIAA increased the average price of a full-length CD from $13.65 to $14.02, and still managed to sell 3,600,000 more of them.

Total profit increase on this, the core of their business, was 3.1%, or just shy of an extra $400,000,000.

But full-length CDs only account for 92% of the RIAA's revenue. They did have weak performance in the other 8%. CD singles, as already noted, dropped revenue by 36%. But the real casualty percentage-wise was cassingles, which lost over 90% of its revenue from last year.

Gee, why could that be? Maybe because nobody wants them?

In fact, the RIAA's only real money-losing format of any significance was cassettes, which, along with music videos, were the only format actually cut in price. Cassette revenue dropped $436 million.

Wait a minute, what am I saying? "Money-losing"? They aren't losing money on cassettes -- they're just not raking it in this year as fast as last year. And gee, why might that be? Again, because nobody wants them?

And it's not like the RIAA is struggling to get by on slim profits. The big picture is that, in the last nine years, they have tripled their annual income.

But they are desperate to spin this as a loss. The actual fact is that their total revenue is down 1.8% from 1999. Last year, they made $14,584,500,000. This year, they made $14,323,000,000.

But how could they blame Napster if they told the truth? What would they say? "Napster is killing us! Our income is down almost two whole percent! We are only pulling in $14,323,000,000 this year!"

That probably wouldn't fly.

Especially because in the three categories which Napster has precisely zero effect on -- cassettes, vinyl, and music videos -- their combined year-to-year loss was $579.5 million.

That's right. In the digital formats which Napster can trade, they are making more money: $318,500,000 more revenue. In the analog and video formats where Napster is irrelevant, they are making less money: $579,500,000 less revenue.

That's the real story here.

But don't trust the press to report this one fairly. Don't trust the RIAA's press release. Go read the RIAA's numbers yourself.

(Hell, don't even trust those numbers -- they don't add up. I was silly enough to type them into a spreadsheet, and someone over there has some problems doing simple arithmetic. Their 1998 total revenue includes the DVDs twice.)

The RIAA is desperately trying to spin this so that they won't look like greedy bastards for turning down Napster's offer of a billion dollars over the next five years.

If they just took that generous offer, then -- in a year that the AP wire suggests might be an "industry-wide slump, due to economic factors and a weak year musically," and in a year for which Bertlesmann admits "we didn't put that much good stuff out" -- their revenue would only be down $111,000,000 from last year. And that would have been $750,000,000 more than they made in 1998.

But that isn't enough for them.

Why would anyone think the RIAA is greedy? They just want what's coming to them.

(Update one hour later by J : Mea culpa. Three paragraphs up, I originally calculated the numbers as if the billion dollars was all applied in one year; that isn't so. The billion would have been applied equally over the next five years. Actually it probably wouldn't have been applied to year-2000 revenue at all, so it's more of a rhetorical point than anything. Thanks to dachshund for pointing out that it wasn't a lump-sum payment.)

(Update four hours later by J : The AP wire seems to have updated its story, now stating explicitly that it's CD singles, not "CDs," which dropped 39%. I see factually correct versions now at CNN, Salon, Yahoo, and wire.ap.org (search on Napster). The BBC version is still incorrect. In my opinion, the new versions are still misleading. Focusing on a large percentage drop within a subcategory which is a tiny percentage of the whole is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. But compare this to the RIAA's press release, claiming that CD singles had "flat growth in '98 and '99," though 1998 revenue actually dropped 22% -- that's just plain lying.)

Allright, while Gore has 260 electoral votes, and Bush has 246, it all comes down to florida. Its amazingly close: Gore actually has won the popular vote. He appears to actually have about a 200,000 vote lead over Bush across the US, but as anyone who's taken any civics class knows, the people don't elect the president in the US. One thing is for sure: this election isn't over. Florida is split even, with bush ahead by about 2,000 votes (Out of nearly 6 million voters!), but Florida law requires a recount when the election is this close.

Some interesting side notes in florida:

• Apparently font and layout issues on ballots caused about 2000 seniors in Palm Beach with less then 20/20 vision to vote for Buchanen instead of Gore. They showed the ballots, and it is definitely confusing.
• Absentee ballots are going to be counted. There were 2700 in 96 although I don't know how many there are this year. Absentee votes are largely military, which tend to be republican.
• The recount could be done by the end of the day.

If you're looking to laugh (and I know I am) I suggest reading the Onion's election story, which is even funnier considering just how close the election is.