Slashdot Mirror

*sigh* - Show me some long term data, not cherry picked ranges. For example, when the five-year running average slopes down, it starts to become interesting. (the five year slope is pretty flat currently, so it could go either way next year)

Here's the same data source for 1979 through 2008. It's apparent that it has not been cooling for the last six years. At best you could claim 2 years, but that is not enough to claim a trend when you're talking about global climate.

Here's a comparison of satellite temperatures and direct surface measurements. All of the data agree that there is an overall warming trend, they merely disagree on the extent of the warming.

Let me be clear - I am not claiming that this is a doomsday scenario. My only point is that the data does not support the claim that we are in a cooling trend.

There have been debates over the taxonomy of odd creatures (with similarities to other known creatures) forever. Sometimes simple physical resemblence just doesn't really tell the tale. Of course, evolution producing similar looking/behaving birds is nothing new either (just look at how similar African parrots and South American parrots are to one another).

The really great debates come when zoologists get into trying to classify an animal that looks like (or behaves like) two DIFFERENT known creatures. One of my personal favorites is the Red Panda. The bottom of its body and claws look like a bear's (you can see it clearly in this picture) and it eats only bamboo, just like a Giant Panda. But the rest of it looks like a raccoon. This cute little furball finally had to be given its own unique family, because no one was quite sure where to put the little bastard. And it's still debatable if it truly deserves its own family.

So they replaced windowskey + r with ctrl + esc and you are Blown away by the ingenuity!

And to do all that, they need a search indexer constantly indexing the drive. Oh the bloat!
its not XP's fault that you just learned OS shortcut keys.. They have been there for years.

"On Vista, a snippet of that webpage is sitting on my desktop in the form of a Vista Gadget."

Perhaps your too young to remember, but they had an activeX type channel push bar in windows 98. I believe the google app does this as well. Hardly a reason to install a gigantic bloatship of an OS.

I'm not buying a Bluray movie until I can rip them. Why? (1) I want to play in a player which will skip region coding and UOP crap. (2) I want to play them on any device, and a frequently rip DVDs and move them around at the moment.

Am I a dirty "pirate"? No. In fact I've only ever made an unauthorized copy of one movie, and that was because the movie is unavaiable through any other means. (Great film by the way ...)

I have stacks and stacks of purchased DVDs at home.

Rich.

I'm not buying a Bluray movie until I can rip them. Why? (1) I want to play in a player which will skip region coding and UOP crap. (2) I want to play them on any device, and a frequently rip DVDs and move them around at the moment.

Am I a dirty "pirate"? No. In fact I've only ever made an unauthorized copy of one movie, and that was because the movie is unavaiable through any other means. (Great film by the way ...)

I have stacks and stacks of purchased DVDs at home.

Rich.

Nothing alone is going to replace this magical black liquid made from millions of years of compressing carbons into a very energy dense medium.

Actually, algal biodiesel could do it even at current rates of per square foot production.

This is the area required to do so at current production efficiency (about a seventh of the land being used for corn production). And marginal lands can be used. Think about that. And production can use ocean water and wastewater — it doesn't require fresh water. And the process can get part of its input by filtering out CO2 from power plant exhaust.

Algal fuel is something to look into.

May I humbly suggest that there are more than one or two slashdotters? There are many thousands of them, many with wildly different opinions. Is it so hard to imagine that there could very well be different subsets of the Slashdot crowd having different opinions on various matters? Then there would be no hypocrisy.

Slashdotters are not one uniform group of people, with one set of opinions. But of course, what can I really expect from a troll?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Same page below his picture, look for "Signature".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/41/Nikola_Tesla_signature.png/128px-Nikola_Tesla_signature.png

whats the point in putting error bars on spectrum if your just going to ignore them?
spectrum of HD 189733b
Surely the line has to go through those points, so either thier detector is broken and there should be huge error bars OR there is a major peaks at ~10, ~12, in fact the only place where the spectrum seams to be a reasonable fit is in the useless tail end where the error bars are huge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Antarctica%2C_territorial_claims.svg/600px-Antarctica%2C_territorial_claims.svg.png

These people. (Map)

On the bright side, Peter I Island and Marie Byrd Land seem untaken (although there is probably a reason for that).

Fixed the link for you

Mycroft lets you change the search box in firefox to use secure wikipedia, which should make it secure from any UK-based censorship efforts.

If you are not "notable" enough, and you don't have enough "significant" coverage from "reliable sources" you can be "salted", "A7"d, "prod"ed, "AFD"d, and also added to Wikipedia's own blacklist.

This is to say that Wikipedia's hands aren't exactly clean when it comes to censorship issues, and remember that Wikipedia is a top 8 website acording to multiple sources, and frequently is the number one on Google. This makes it that wether you are on Wikipedia or not makes a huge difference.

Remember when you donate, to remind them to combat deletionists, who do like to censor things in the name of "notabillity"

Why stop there?

What about the disgusting child porn proudly features on Nirvana's Nevermind album, Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy, Blind Faith's self-titled album; also Van Halen's Balance album cover, The Coppertone Girl, and all the Family guy jokes about child sex and bestiality(Stewie: "I'd do her, do her, lose the pigtails and we'll talk, ugh who hasn't done her?" as well as Brian's relationships with human women), The now well-discussed showing of Bart's pecker in the Simpsons movie, The Winger song "Seventeen", The Police song "Don't Stand...".

Hmmph. I guess we're all guilty of possessing and consuming what people call "child pornography".

While some canadians tell me that they believe people that this dude thinks that he is this dude, I completely disagree, however I think that

this guy believes himself to be this guy.

This asshole really wants to be this asshole

This goof is really this goof.

While some canadians tell me that they believe people that this dude thinks that he is this dude, I completely disagree, however I think that

this guy believes himself to be this guy.

This asshole really wants to be this asshole

This goof is really this goof.

While some canadians tell me that they believe people that this dude thinks that he is this dude, I completely disagree, however I think that

this guy believes himself to be this guy.

This asshole really wants to be this asshole

This goof is really this goof.

While some canadians tell me that they believe people that this dude thinks that he is this dude, I completely disagree, however I think that

this guy believes himself to be this guy.

This asshole really wants to be this asshole

This goof is really this goof.

Through the magic of https (which prevents this kind of man-in-the-middle attack), the page can be viewed. They would have to block all https connections to the secure wikimedia server to block the page.

Regular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Secure: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Virgin_Killer

-molo

I wrote about this at length here:
  "Re: Do artifacts (even money) have politics? (German WWII example with Hans Posse)
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/62929d07d2c68be5
but this goes to show the unexpected creative sparks that can fly from these sorts of efforts.

From there:
"""
So, yesterday, I looked at probably thousands of thumbnails, just flipping
through page after page of the uncategorized ones for over an hour,
occasionally looking at enlarged ones. I saw smiling faces and people proud
of their accomplishments in agriculture, construction, sports, child-rearing
and so on. My parents are both from the Netherlands (Holland), but I
undoubtedly have ancestors from Germany at some point given my last name,
and I learned German in school as it was the closest thing offered to Dutch,
so I could guess at some of the captions for the few I looked at.
I kept seeing faces here or there which reminded me of relatives. My wife
agreed this one looked a lot like me: :-)
"Dr. Hans Posse, 1910"
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-2003-0709-500,_Dr._Hans_Posse.jpg
"Scherl Bilderdienst Dr. Hans Posse, der neue Direktor der Dresdener
Gemäldegalerie. 1910. ... Scherl picture service Dr. Hans Posse, the new
director of the Dresdener picture gallery. 1910." ...
But here is a picture of him standing next to Hitler I just found this moment by coincidence through
Google as I tried to look up his bio:
      "Posse (links [left]) mit Hitler"
      http://residence.aec.at/rax/kun_pol/UND/BIOS/posse.html
Thought-provoking stuff to see someone who looks a lot like you standing
next to Hitler... Especially if you *also* have relatives who perished in
concentration camps... ...
As I flipped through those pictures, and knowing a little about history, I
realized that WWII could not have happened without the manufacturing
competence of the German people; they needed their tanks and submarines and
synthetic fuel from coal plans to work well. They also needed effective
logistics for their military plans, and so they needed intellectual
competence too. But, the Germans would not have invaded other countries
without some less positive world views too -- both a sense of superiority
and a sense, from World War One, of previous unfair treatment. (Echoes of
Iraq for the USA?) It's been said that intelligence is knowing how to do
things, wisdom is knowing what is worth doing, and virtue is actually doing
it. So, the Germans in WWII and the times leading up to it then had
intelligence and a sort of hard-working virtue, but not a lot of good wisdom. ...
If the Germans had not been individually and collectively competent at
industrial arts, WWII would not have happened. But if they had not had gone
beyond pride into arrogance (thinking collectively they had a right to
others land from some innate superiority), then it would not have happened
either. Anyway, that's a lesson for US Americans to reflect on too, with all
too many parallels to those times in some ways. ...
"""

Yes it does.

It's not like Wikipedia has any explicit images on it, after all. God forbid the thought.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_man_racking_himself_in_The_Meatrack_on_Fire_Island.jpg is certainly encyclopedic content, as is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_15.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zack_Randall_by_David_Shankbone.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female) would definitely not be considered to be explicit, along with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(male) or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(male) etc etc etc

No, none of that would be considered as SFW in the majority of workplaces.

As for Gerard, the man who covered up his friend FT2's edits regarding bestiality at arbcom election time by quietly deleting them - well...

I don't mind porn myself, but hey, I wouldn't suggest it as being "encyclopedic". The image in question, well - fine, it's a bit of a dubious album cover, and even in the 70s it was considered "dodgy" enough not to have been used in the majority of countries, I'd say it's borderline. Images aside, there is a lot of paedophile agenda-pushing on wikipedia, though - look through the "pederasty" articles if you can stomach it.

It's not like Wikipedia has any explicit images on it, after all. God forbid the thought.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_man_racking_himself_in_The_Meatrack_on_Fire_Island.jpg is certainly encyclopedic content, as is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_15.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zack_Randall_by_David_Shankbone.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female) would definitely not be considered to be explicit, along with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(male) or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(male) etc etc etc

No, none of that would be considered as SFW in the majority of workplaces.

As for Gerard, the man who covered up his friend FT2's edits regarding bestiality at arbcom election time by quietly deleting them - well...

I don't mind porn myself, but hey, I wouldn't suggest it as being "encyclopedic". The image in question, well - fine, it's a bit of a dubious album cover, and even in the 70s it was considered "dodgy" enough not to have been used in the majority of countries, I'd say it's borderline. Images aside, there is a lot of paedophile agenda-pushing on wikipedia, though - look through the "pederasty" articles if you can stomach it.

It's not like Wikipedia has any explicit images on it, after all. God forbid the thought.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_man_racking_himself_in_The_Meatrack_on_Fire_Island.jpg is certainly encyclopedic content, as is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_15.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zack_Randall_by_David_Shankbone.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female) would definitely not be considered to be explicit, along with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(male) or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(male) etc etc etc

No, none of that would be considered as SFW in the majority of workplaces.

As for Gerard, the man who covered up his friend FT2's edits regarding bestiality at arbcom election time by quietly deleting them - well...

I don't mind porn myself, but hey, I wouldn't suggest it as being "encyclopedic". The image in question, well - fine, it's a bit of a dubious album cover, and even in the 70s it was considered "dodgy" enough not to have been used in the majority of countries, I'd say it's borderline. Images aside, there is a lot of paedophile agenda-pushing on wikipedia, though - look through the "pederasty" articles if you can stomach it.

It's not like Wikipedia has any explicit images on it, after all. God forbid the thought.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_man_racking_himself_in_The_Meatrack_on_Fire_Island.jpg is certainly encyclopedic content, as is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_15.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zack_Randall_by_David_Shankbone.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female) would definitely not be considered to be explicit, along with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(male) or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(male) etc etc etc

No, none of that would be considered as SFW in the majority of workplaces.

As for Gerard, the man who covered up his friend FT2's edits regarding bestiality at arbcom election time by quietly deleting them - well...

I don't mind porn myself, but hey, I wouldn't suggest it as being "encyclopedic". The image in question, well - fine, it's a bit of a dubious album cover, and even in the 70s it was considered "dodgy" enough not to have been used in the majority of countries, I'd say it's borderline. Images aside, there is a lot of paedophile agenda-pushing on wikipedia, though - look through the "pederasty" articles if you can stomach it.

It's not like Wikipedia has any explicit images on it, after all. God forbid the thought.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A_man_racking_himself_in_The_Meatrack_on_Fire_Island.jpg is certainly encyclopedic content, as is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_making_of_an_adult_film_15.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Zack_Randall_by_David_Shankbone.jpg, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(female) would definitely not be considered to be explicit, along with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Shaved_genitalia_(male) or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pubic_hair_(male) etc etc etc

No, none of that would be considered as SFW in the majority of workplaces.

As for Gerard, the man who covered up his friend FT2's edits regarding bestiality at arbcom election time by quietly deleting them - well...

I don't mind porn myself, but hey, I wouldn't suggest it as being "encyclopedic". The image in question, well - fine, it's a bit of a dubious album cover, and even in the 70s it was considered "dodgy" enough not to have been used in the majority of countries, I'd say it's borderline. Images aside, there is a lot of paedophile agenda-pushing on wikipedia, though - look through the "pederasty" articles if you can stomach it.

Try http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg
The other URL is just the information page about the actual image.

Other links to see how exactly your access is being filtered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Virgin_Killer

Try http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg
The other URL is just the information page about the actual image.

Other links to see how exactly your access is being filtered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Virgin_Killer

Thats nothing there are are at least 4 other ways to view the actual page:
view it over ssh
view it at the alternate address
a grease monkeys script
an addon

The fact that the ISPs didn't even look at what happened last time somebody used a transparent proxy to proxy Wikipedia doesn't inspire much confidence.

Try this for the image page or this for the image itself.

There's a bug report about the proxy issue already: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16569

... and not IP/domain based, can you guys in the UK use this HTTPS page?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page

You can also substitute "wikipedia" in the above URL for Wikimedia Foundation's other projects to access them using SSL. e.g. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Main_Page for Wikisource. To use them in other languages, simple replace "en" with another language code (e.g. "de" or "ja").

... and not IP/domain based, can you guys in the UK use this HTTPS page?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page

You can also substitute "wikipedia" in the above URL for Wikimedia Foundation's other projects to access them using SSL. e.g. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Main_Page for Wikisource. To use them in other languages, simple replace "en" with another language code (e.g. "de" or "ja").

Your suspicions about a proxy server are correct.

See: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16569

Try this, this or this.

So, what's going on in this picture from 1936? here

A link to the actual photos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_German_Federal_Archive

-molo

Some of the captions are in need of being rewritten into a reasonable form even in German, especially older ones that are either out of date or hilariously biased. The worst are probably those that were apparently entered during World War II and never updated.

For example, this one (which has in fact been updated), originally came with a caption that reads roughly:

Poland, Jew ordered to perform hard labor

For the first time they can make themselves useful. These Polish Kaftan-Jews (?), whose activity so far has only consisted of working against the volk-conscious German nation in the most detestable and conniving manner, receive the opportunity on the eastern front to make themselves really useful for the first time in their lives. Here they can be seen ready to embark on their work orders.

For any German speakers out there: Most (all?) of these pictures lack English captions. I'm sure the people on Commons could use all the assistance they can get translating the German captions (especially into English). You can register an account on Commons and help.

Also, props go to Wikimedia Deutchland, which arranged this donation.

Wrong stereotype I'm afraid. I think this action will affect pictures like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Einsatzgruppen_Killing.jpg

So hopefully clusterfucks like this won't happen in future

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Einsatzgruppen-Killingfull.jpg

Before deleting the Torchic page, you should have to prove that the information is false.

Prove Torchics don't exist.

Otherwise everything that is not referenced would be deleted! Wikipedia never used to be like that.

Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia (May 2006):

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

(Full disclosure: this is not an official ultimatum on Wales' part, just his own interpretation of the rules he wrote for his own site.) This is being applied more strongly in the last few years than it was at the site's inception, but the site's only 8 years old. Wikipedia's going to be around for a very long time. It's just getting started. The rules, as written, have always been clear on the need for sources. The direction Wikipedia is moving in is toward higher standards, toward following its own policies, which is how it was intended.

If something happened on an episode of Pokemon, it happened! It's a fact. Why does it need a reference?? Really the reference should be the show, and before deleting the article you should have to view the show to disprove the points of the article. Why should a secondary source be used?

You might want to read the article (that's what was in the article when it was deleted). It barely touched on Torchic's appearance in the show. Most of its content had to do with its name, its "biological characteristics", its appearance in the games/manga/whatever. None of that can come from the cartoon. Most of the article's sources were fansites which could have pulled their information from anywhere.

Deletionists are the reason Wikipedia has turned to shit. Imagine if back in the early days everything was deleted. People barely referenced anything originally - if all that info was deleted automatically Wikipedia would never have got off the ground.

No, shitty articles are the reason Wikipedia has turned to shit. There were shitty articles when it started, there will be shitty articles ten years from now. As the number of articles increases, the ratio of shittiness will increase, as the long tail of articles is an inevitable shit storm of shittiness. The point of enforcing strict standards is to at least allow a few good articles to rise from the overwhelming abyss of shittiness that is Wikipedia. The point of deletionism is to say "hey, stop ignoring the rules that have been in place since day one, because you're turning Wikipedia to shit".

I was first struck with how it looked straight out of the 50s X planes...the X-1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Bell_X-1_color.jpg

Compare that to:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2238/2215031466_18acd44909.jpg

Oh yeah. How did they get around the reentry stabilization problem? Or do they actually leave the influence of atmosphere?

You also have to account for any differences between the earth-star distance and the earth-cloud distance

One could start by assuming that the points which are being illuminated now and have the biggest angular separation from the star are at the same distance from earth as the star. Those points form a circle with a 436 light-year radius. The size of that circle as seen from earth will give you the distance to the star.

I'm assuming that there is enough dust everywhere in space to return a detectable reflection, but even if this isn't true an imperfect circle would still give us usable data. At the distance that star is, about 7500 light-years, this would probably more accurate than other methods.

Supernova 1987A has had its distance measured by a similar method, look in this picture how the reflections appear.

1) Order Kubuntu disk off website
2) Install on all computers
3) Change theme to red flag's.
4) Watch as inspectors don't notice a difference
5) .....
6) profit!!?

If you don't think Red Flag is meant to be a Windows replacement, take a look at Wikipedia's screen shot of Version 6 (presumably out of the box).

Isn't this the part where Gates shits his gourd and asks to meet with Hu Jintao? Then baits the large part of greater China with free software that he writes off as a goodwill donation? I mean, we are talking a serious part of the world's population ...

Well, there is .er, so in theory, someone could register cheezburg.er or so. Unfortunately, the domain seems to be abandoned/non-functional in practice.

The European parliament in Strassbourg (France): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4292.jpg

I see my country's flag. Yet my voice can not be heard.

I vote for Chilly Willy

A stinkin cartoon? Why don't you guys grow up and use a more serious mascot?

At first I honestly thought he meant the Acorn Computer. Yeah, I'm that much of a geek.

a Reuters report on research out of Sweden indicating that a diet rich in fat, sugar, and cholesterol could increase the risk of Alzheimer's, at least in mice.

The poster neglected to link to the pic of the test subject.