Slashdot Mirror

Nicotine is very addictive, although I've never heard of it being ranked as more addictive than Coke or Heroin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

That being said, there's no shortage of controversy about the extent to which the substance itself is the main factor in addiction:

http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.12-health-rat-trap/

Below are some other recommended magazines for depth. These are worth supporting much more than your average newspaper.

The New Yorker
The Atlantic
Harper's
Lapham's Quarterly (not news coverage, exactly, but still great)
(Canadian) The Walrus
(Australian) The Monthly
(Australian) Quarterly Essay
(UK) Standpoint
(UK) Prospect
(India) The Caravan
(Spain) Catalan International View

Malcolm Gladwell is one of those people, not precisely stupid, but so shallow and lacking in insight that he makes Chris Anderson, who is simply a hack, look brilliant by comparison. Gladwell, lest we forget, specializes in gushing soft journalism pieces on people whom he has designated as "great". He's what I call a Mensa bottom feeder - he produces work for people who like to think about how smart they are, which is not how actually-smart people spend their time.

  Gladwell wouldn't know what to do with an actual idea if he had one (I envisage a dog with a great piece of artwork, sort of chewing on it.) Now, Anderson's piece is competent hackery, which is better than most people could do I don't mean this critically, but something about it intersects with the sort of faux-highbrow pablum that Gladwell thinks he understands. This is very threatning to Gladwell - going back to the dog analogy, it's like he's got some glimpse of a world of ideas and there's a threat to him there that he can't really understand. Gladwell is getting good money to stick his nose up Bill Gates' behind and there's an army of other dogs willing to do that for free. So he lashes out in a rage, and since he can dimly percieve Anderson (but not the more interesting and provocative people whose work Anderson has extended), Anderson becomes his target.

  Again, I have nothing against a competent hack. But I do have some real criticism for Anderson - seriously, you admire Gladwell?

The Walrus, a Canadian magazine, ran an article about this a while ago:
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.10-joe-dimaggio-56-games/

I don't have time to re-read it right now, but as I recall the basic thesis was that it's *highly* likely that the streak didn't really happen, and that it was...ahem...aided along by willing assistance on the part of officials.

Good grief. What would Charlie Brown say? Our nation turns it lonely eyes to you.

So...is there a difference between this type of assistance and the...blurg...assistance the modern home run kings had in their pursuit of Hank Aaron's record?

First, if this new scheme works, it will likely lead to Google ranking their own knols up and Wikipedia pages down, which could severely reduce Wikipedia's reach. I think there is a conflict of interest brewing here, unless the Google knols are displayed among the ad results.

As for article quality on Wikipedia, I think Fermi estimation applies: you get 80% quality by throwing many bits of text into the air to see what sticks, but rarely much above that. If you think about it, the original Nupedia approach generated quality at an appalling pace. It's never been obvious to me why quality suddenly becomes easier after you have erected 2 million shacks in various stages of dilapidation. Most the shacks have something useful inside, few are pretty to look at.

It not surprising, either, that many of the people who thrived at Wikipedia in the barn raising stage are leaving the project as it meanders sideways when confronted with a much harder problem. One could argue that Wikipedia is the most successful knock-up ever.

I've never ceased to be amused by the number of people who stumble upon Wikipedia in relation to pop culture, then learn about the vastness and rapid growth and conclude "well, if everyone is doing this, it must be good" only to examine the actual articles and find obvious flaws abounding. Anyone who uses MySpace as their basis step (if everyone is doing it, it must be good) was due for a rude eye opening to begin with.

When Bill Cameron, a wonderful CBC news personality, was dying of cancer he wrote, in an award-winning article for the Walrus, "Hair loss. If you want to wound a television performer, take his hair away." Here's a man who devoted his life to the service of truth and poetry, who in his dying days referenced his hair as among his chief instruments.

I'm never sure when people comment on quality whether the underlying question is not actually "does it have a good hair?" The woman pictured in the picture beside the Google knol has a thick head of hair. What could be better than that: a Wikipedia with good hair?

I think Wikipedia begins to stumble the moment it triggers the human grooming reflex among its contributors. At given point in time, 99% of the articles on Wikipedia are having a bad hair day. So far, it can be anything but consistently well groomed.

Two issues seem readily apparent to me: 1. Good drama relies on character development and a strong narrative, rather than technobable laden dialogue. (Part of the reason why the new Battlestar Galactica series is so much better than Star Trek ever was.) 2. Anyone who thinks that Hollywood and the US government should work collaboratively together ought to pick up the most recent issue of The Walrus (http://www.walrusmagazine.com/article.pl?sid=05/0 7/07/1748233) and read the article "Arsenal of Illusion". In a nutshell: the Pentagon is like any other branch of government - interested only in expanding its sphere of influence and increasing its budget. Scary stuff when you think about it.

TOS or not, if I can sell my chainmail right now for $50.00, then it has value. As much as the Federal Reverve would like you to think otherwise, the value of currency will always be decided by supply and demmand.

This article is a very interesting look at the realities of the online gaming economy. It notes that per-capita wealth of EverQuest players is $2,266 (Real Cash $$), making it richer than China.

The Walrus(recentlt y minted Canadian current affairs mag) and Granta(the bleeding edge of english prose) and don't forget GIANT ROBOT(great Asian-American culture mag), probably the hippest read going.

Bonus: This is a magazine.

Who said I wasn't eclectic?

Care to cite your sources? I read that the per capita income of each character inside EverQuest is about $2,266 USD annually. That is greater than the GDP of contries like India, Bulgaria, and China. However that has nothing to do with the stock market.

I found this to be quite interesting, and is also relevant.

Game Theories.

Somewhat related, The Walrus runs on the same software as Slashdot ( customized by Canadian company Openflows Networks Ltd. )