Slashdot Mirror

According to Wikipedia Lodz's; tram is called the Cityrunner by Bombardier. A picture of a tram is on wikimedia commons.

In the UK the slightly more expensive Acorn BBC Micro competed with the C64. It was released a year earlier, and had a great keyboard (except for maybe the positioning of the 'delete' key).

You know, almost all of those astronomical images are artificially colored and enhanced to maximize their ascetic appeal. Have a look at some of the various images of the cat's eye nebula to see. A quick Google turns up 5 different colorings:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Cats_Eye_Nebula.jpg
http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~panders/Images/AstroImages/03_CatEyeNebula.jpg
http://www.spacetoday.org/images/Hubble/HubbleBeauty/CatsEyeNebulaNASA.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/NGC6543.jpg
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Cats_Eye_Nebula_2.jpg

The interpretation of the horsehead nebula is at least consistent (most of the time), but there is still plenty of artistic license being taken.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/52238main_MM_image_feature_89_jw4.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/45506main_MM_Image_Feature_73_rs4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/scott_metz/alternity/graphics/horsehead_nebula.jpg
http://www.sidewalk-astronomy-club.com/img/horsehead-nebula.jpg
http://www.fourthdimensionastroimaging.com/sitebuilder/images/horsehead-712x571.jpg

I was sort of disappointed when I found that out...

The problem is that it's an incredibly incestuous relationship.

And the question arises as to just how much of the resources of the NON PROFIT Wikipedia are now being used for the FOR PROFIT Wikia CORPORATION.

Note E - Related Party Transactions

The Organization receives donated office space from a
related entity, Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by
the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Two current members and one former member of the
Organization's board of directors also serve as employees,
officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc.

Ok, let me see if I understand this.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that can't have proofs or in depth reference materials, because more detail is out of scope for really no reason.

But, they can somehow try and turn wiki into another google or a facebook.

I can't find anything in terms of documentation on Wikia, but it appears Wikia search is blocking sites on Wikipedia's blacklist from being listed in the search engine. I've pulled a few examples from the blacklist and searched for them and have yet to receive any results on any of those searches.

Can anyone confirm or refute this? Maybe it's just because the Wikia is in alpha it hasn't indexed much yet?

If this is the case I'd probably steer clear of Wikia; I'm not sure I ant my search results to be filtered like that.

imagine a Beowulf cluster of Suns!

Guess what!!! some people don't mind paying for software. Especially if it is good software.

Guess what!!! The overwhelming majority of people hate paying for software. Especially if it is mundane productivity software.

People only pay for Windows because they don't know they do. They only pay for games because they don't think of them as "software". They only pay for office and accounting software because they "have to".

This is the whole point. If Linux would focus on its one clear huge benefit over its competitors it would win the desktop war in a year. Instead we have Ubuntu trying to out-Windows Windows. It's bloated, slow, buggy, and requires expensive hardware to run. This is what we get when all the big-time Linux distros are desperately wishing for thousand-seat corporate rollout contracts where stuff needs to look expensive and have a million esoteric features.

Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE... self-indulgent bloatware as bad as any version of Vista. People don't want The Homer, they want something that feels as fast as Windows XP. Tell people that they can have all the stuff they're used to in XP, plus a super-easy software installer (Synaptic) that can install games and word processors absolutely free, and that they won't need to buy a new computer any more except when they actually want a better model, and they'll bite your fucking hand off.

she's the spitting image of Loni Anderson (picture is from wikipedia when the linked picture was taken, only a little shorter, a tiny bit heavier, with bigger tits and with black hair.

In the journals I confused two TV shows, Anderson was on "WKRP", I said "Taxi" in the journals. I probably got them confused because Amy is a cab driver.

Great looking broad, too bad she's a psycho.

I'm surprised you said that, considering your advice sounds a lot like what this sort of book recommends.

The obvious conclusion is that GP is one of those peculiar idiots that, even when they are right, thinks everyone else must have it wrong.

While I'm here: a few things I have noticed in commercial GUIs:

1. Quit exposing your goddamn implementation, you morons. I don't ever want to see a label reading V_NAME, or any other equally meaningless thing from your database.

2. Quit with the funny colors. You can be as inventive as you want when you make your own OS and can set the standard. But red buttons on electric blue backgrounds in your Windows app are not allowed. I don't care how boring you think the default is. You're not fixing it; you're just setting your makeup gun to "whore".

3. No, you may not do that either. I'm glad you listened to #2, but you may not invent your own toolkit that resembles nothing else under the sun (I'm looking at you, MOTU). Please no: bizarre color schemes that make all the windows blur together, strange new widgets like sliding trays, idiosyncratic window management, or rows of cryptic title bar buttons that don't even use standard symbols.

4. Kudos to you for using regular widgets. You're halfway there. But try using them right next time. Tree lists are actually not meant to be used to navigate your interface. Don't make a tree unless you have something to put in the tree, see? Menus are not supposed to act like buttons. I don't want to see "Quit" floating in my menu bar, because (a) the menu bar is for menus and (b) there's already a button for that. It's up there in the left. Do you see it?

The initial Cyrillic alphabet looked quite different from what is used today in Russia and Bulgaria; the appearance of the modern Cyrillic alphabet is due to a reform by Tzar Peter I of Russia. Peter I imposed visual style similar to the one of the Roman font.

BTW, the Cyrillic alphabet was not the only creation of Constantine-Cyrill. He had invented another alphabet to be used by the Slavs which was called "glagolitsa" and visually was totally different from the Cyrillic one. This radical design was not very successful, although I've heard it had been used in Croatia until 2-3 centuries ago.

Here is a four-column table of the original Cyrillic alphabet and the Glagolic one ("glagolitsa"). The first column is the name of each letter (yes, each one had a name; if the names are read sequentially they form a saying, quite deep and meaningful at that), the second is the cyrillic glyph, the third is the glagolic glyph, the fourth is the numeric value.

My response? That you are misleading people.

There are a huge number of sites in the interwiki linnk map:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map

Including for example, uhm, slashdot. And Citizendium. And Merriam-Webster.

And finally, I have nothing to do with the list. I've never edited it, never asked anyone to edit it, and I have no input into what goes on it.

I am sure you will apologize for spreading this information. Right?

Actually, it looks more like this then the old Hero.

Parent is telling the truth. It is no coincidence that the great civilization builders - the Europeans and the Asians - also have the highest IQs. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/RaceIQ-mockup-SVG_1.svg/723px-RaceIQ-mockup-SVG_1.svg.png

You must only go out with ugly girls.

What I would really like is the tabs to be arranged as a tree, on a sidebar, based on the navigation. Mostly like iRider (IE based browser) does.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Irider_screenshot_optimized.jpg

The full-size version of the second image is at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg

Welcome to the world of the Fighting Illini at the University of Illinois.

The NCAA has outlawed any pictures or representations of our Mascot. Take a look and you can see why (if you can't, your in sensitive clod).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Illinilogo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg/200px-2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg

Welcome to the world of the Fighting Illini at the University of Illinois.

The NCAA has outlawed any pictures or representations of our Mascot. Take a look and you can see why (if you can't, your in sensitive clod).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Illinilogo.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg/200px-2006-11-11_-_Chief_Illiniwek.jpg

Above this post, there is a thread between me and The One and Only which got incredibly nasty. This made me rethink my opinions about Wikipedia, my original post, and everything I've said since then. So here's what I need to add to this discussion.

1) I was absolutely wrong to use such inflammatory language in my original post. As someone who decries the polarizing nature of our current political culture, I truly regret being so reckless in saying what I did. These kinds of statements needlessly puts the opposition on the defensive, and no common ground can be found in such a climate. I had been associating with/reading the postings of like minded people in this debate, and this is always a mistake is it got my blood boiling on this topic.

2) Related to the above, this carried through in the responses I made to deletionists. I continued to use the inflammatory language of "asshole", and this continued to push and antagonize people. This I am deeply sorry for, because it wasn't just a rant to the world, but a direct response to someone.

3) I am also guilty of interpreting deletionists responses in the most offensive way. With an open mind, I could have asked, "So are you saying XYZ about my postition?" in the debate, and clarification may have been provided that would have cooled me off. As I've often said but regretfully forgotten, when you're looking for offense, you'll probably find it.

So had I the chance to say it all again, it would have been worded as:

**

I think right now, Wikipedia is going through this(the Failure Cascade) as it relates to good editors being driven away by deletionism. There's a real anger out there with people getting frustrated by their good work(well referenced, neutral point of view) which usually represents hundreds of hours of labor being removed based on incorrect accusations self promotion, company propaganda, or the current, excessively restrictive, and unfairly applied criteria of non-notability.

This isn't just happening to new articles, but older ones which have already had a lot of work done on them. And retroactively removing someone's hard work(and this includes trivia sections which many readers like , plot synopses) with a few 3 letter acronyms (e.g. WP:NOT, WP:NOTE) leads to a feeling of being cheated out of those hours.

This is a very big problem because people take pride in their work, and that's good and absolutely necessary. It means they will watch for vandalism, update their articles when necessary, and maintain the articles' overall quality and accuracy. Wikipedia greatly benefits from this, so to remove work in a way which I think is often done thoughtlessly, corruptly (there are examples of keep votes being tossed that are questionable), and too quickly leaves a bitterness in the minds of the content creators who acted in good faith but now feel they've been scammed by the invitation of Wikipedia to add their knowledge to its pages. It's even worse when you consider that the same person who wrote an article on some obscure topic that got deleted may have written a big part of the C++ article. The latter definitely will be kept, but that's one less good editor to watch over it if he leaves the project.

Volunteer projects survive when they acknowledge the hard work of the volunteers. These volunteers provide the labor, and oftentimes the money. Right now, Wikipedia can only achieve 1/4 of their fundraising goal, and I interpret that as angry content creators taking both their time and money with them. I am among this group, and I feel sad about it because I had really liked the idea of a free encyclopedia. Although their fundraisin

And the standard of care would suck.

Hey, here's a radical thought. Health care is something everyone needs, or will need at some point in their lives (something about rubber, or was it elastic?), so we all pool our resources with taxes to make sure we all get the same high standard of care without all the corner cutting off a for-profit entity. Wow and I just thought of this; we could even have safety standards so people who could otherwise only afford the cheap insurance would be safe too! Wild I know, I'm not really sure if it'll catch on. I think we need to let it cook a while longer before we go rushing into something. It's not like it's a proven system used by dozens of countries in the world already.

Some people might have to cut down on the number of yachts and luxury cars, but I think it's worth it since we are saving people from dying and all

It'd be nice if he followed the looks of the Smaug in the old animated movie. He was "original" enough to be LOTRish with the cat/wolf hairy appearance, but stereotypically dragon enough to be cool and identifiable. http://www.thehobbit-movie-buzz.com/photos/44/smaug-the-dragon-from-the-hobbit-animated.php Despite loving the movies and books... i had problems with about half of the monsters in LOTR being disappointing. I'm of the mind that monsters should be more cool than ugly, and more menacing than plain disgusting. The Uruk-hai were too apelike(?) or something and were generally gross. Maybe it was just the actors that moved like apes for all the orcs... i dunno, many didn't seem orcish to me very much. Some were cooler than others (the more monstrous ones were extremely cool)... but things like 90% of gums showing instead of teeth on the Uruk-hai's snarl were just nasty/annoying. Like the following would have been good if not for the gums: http://geekspeak.org/articles/comic_con_2004_the_show/weta_uruk-hai_220x293.jpg The fell beasts were too ugly and eel-like or something instead of being more dragon-like. Gothmog (I think the name of the white orc with elephantitis, elephantitis???, in the movie) was just too disgusting despite having a slick demeanor. The oliphaunts, Gollum, etc. were very cool at least. The ringwraiths were VERY cool... they made up for all the effects that I disagreed with. Oh, and the Balrog was perfect, too! The WitchKing looking badass here, and even the winged beasty looks good at this angle. It may have been more of their movements that made them too eel-like. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Fellbeast.jpg

I don't have stairs.

More people live in apartments -- high-rise, low-rise, and sections of houses -- than live in houses with stairs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Sg_woodlands_a7_01.jpg

In my limited observation of the phenomenon, the consensus has generally been reached among mathematical WP editors that the proofs do not belong in the main article about the "Foo function", and they are often not notable as articles themselves (i.e. "Proof of the foo function" pages). As a result, attaching relevant proofs to an article as a subpage has become something of a pattern. I've seen it well done in some of the General Relativity articles (it functions nicely as a sort of appendix for the article where all of the relevant proofs are collected). Anyways, this problem has been solved before with dictionary definitions. (i.e. moved to http://wiktionary.org/) It seems to me like a similar solution would work here. In fact now that I look, it seems that someone has proposed such a project, although not targeted at solving this particular issue. It seems to have not gotten very far though.

If it's ok for the advertisers to hit me with a concentrated beam of sound energy, then it's ok for me to hit the advertiser's speaker with a concentrated beam of kinetic energy, right?

...I do honestly think that Windows should protect such vital files at all cost - including against Administrator level process (e.g. a prompt "you dumbass - are you sure?" will do).

I've been very bad...

I think Wikipedia is a prominent example of this. Assholes(deletionists) are driving away the people who made it great in the first place(content creators) with their elitism and petty power grabs. And now, Wikimedia is only able to achieve 1/4 of their fundraising goal because a lot of the content creators were probably money contributors as well.

Congratulations asshole deletionists. You may finally achieve the ultimate deletion-the entire encyclopedia.

Yeah, I agree with you on the spirit of your response it's Someone who needs to be reminded of this important rule of Slashdot mods.

I guess it would if you came upon one of these signs!

The BBC says that "Mr Allgar pointed out the trustworthy nature of paid-for, thoroughly-reviewed content, and noted that Wikipedia is still prone to vandalism ... but Britannica and Wikipedia should not be seen as direct competitors. Wikipedia, he said, had made the use of encyclopaedias "trendy and popular" with young people, which could only benefit Britannica's subscription-led service."

That's a new tack! This has basically been the same thing that the WMF has been saying for years now ("Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia Foundation projects, are not in competition to EBI or other companies in the business of reference works. Our goals differ significantly from other reference publishers, and only overlap in that we are all striving to create accurate and useful knowledge tools.")

Is this a turning point in relations between the two projects? Are we going to see an end to the stupidity of Robert McHenry style "toilet" comparisons?

Here is a graph showing requests over the past day. Pay attention to the scale; peak levels are around 45,000 requests per second. Slashdot's traffic in its entirety would barely be visible on that scale.

The article was protected because of edit warring. You, 209.200.52.180 and various other people . In such a situation administrators do not take sides. Seriously, make all the accusations you like. They don't. They simply protect the page, in whatever state it is in when they get there, as reverting to their preferred version would, of course, be seen as taking sides. Of course, those unfortunate enough not to have their changes in the protected version will immediately start making accusations, usually simply of Protecting the Wrong Version(tm), but sometimes conspiracy theorists such as yourself seem to like to go a bit further. Perhaps you should read this.

Ha! And the article of the day on the wikimedia fundraising blog is 'Can you trust wikipedia'? http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/12/07/can-you-trust-wikipedia/ Pfft.

Yes, this happens to international space photography every now and then too -- from the US, Europe, Russia... Often it's actually far more noticeable than in this case, and I seriously think that the controversy of this case actually comes from that the stitching is so *little* noticeable. That can make people come up with conspiracy theories. They probably wouldn't if the stitching was far more obvious, like from someone combining two images with even more differing perspectives (see the northern parts of that photo). That, and of course being a Chinese experiment (damn Commies, etc, etc) plays against them per definition.

There's loads of through traffic from the rest of Europe. Just stand by one of the big ferry ports, or alternatively at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel (where they put the whole lorry on a train in Calais, take it through the tunnel, and it can drive off at Folkestone).

They should set up lots of desks, arranged in a grid formation...

Jesus effing Christ, everybody on this thread seems to be drunk.

Go to Wikipedia and figure it out yourself. Or better yet: go to bed and sleep. Look out of the window when you wake up tomorrow and try to find out why on earth you're not seeing the Chinamen in the far distance.

I prefer Hooked on Monkey Phonics.

I've seen propaganda for the Antarctic. See this link!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Tux.png/180px-Tux.png

Underground trains have expensive (or impossible) infrastructure requirements.

Yeah, they're real cool cats. Let's hope they give the dog a bad name and hang him.

Well... sort of...

The warming during the medieval period was not as hot as it is today. This is a chart that comports with what I have seen elsewhere from reputable sources.

And if you look at THIS you will see that right now we are very close to the highest inter-glacial temperatures. Basically, beyond our present temperature is something that is pre-Holocene. Unfortunately, the tundra and ocean floor, due to the consistently lower temps for the past few million years (punctuated by short periods of warmth) have been storing up the methane like crazy. If present temperature increases continue, and there is presently no reason for them not too, and a lot of research showing that it will, and will increase at a faster rate than ever, it puts the entire biosphere at risk.

One can argue that humans are not responsible for the warming - it doesn't matter - the point is we ARE contributing to it, and that must stop ASAP. It's the right and reasonable thing to do.

RS

What if Microsoft had designed the train?

What if Microsoft had designed anti-baldness cream?

What if Microsoft designed a house?

What if Microsoft designed the Katana?

Can I get some AdSense money now?

Just for starters, when nutritionists talk about calories, they're not really talking about calories like a physicist would. They're really talking about "food calories," which I believe are equivalent to kilocalories. This may be a minor point, but it serves to illustrate that if you think nutrition science maps directly onto physics, you are wrong.

There is no difference in calories...we call them calories because if your cereal said it had 100 kilocalories per bowl people wouldn't know what that means. This is fitting since it is the Thanksgiving season in the US... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1133564, and as evident by that story, it maps perfectly to physics. The thing is this, ever think how many C-C bonds or C-H or C-N bonds are in your 6oz of corn flakes? Sufficient to say, not enough to be counted by "calories" and certainly 100,000 calorie breakfast would turn some heads. Lets not even mention that measuring in calories is like measuring in drams, or a pound...the world has long since moved on to the joule, for energy, in science anyway.

Nutritionist, in the ICU for example, use the Harris-Benedict equations for determining caloric needs for patients in various stages of hurt.

Second, and more importantly, any good college chemistry instructor will tell you that the body does not "release energy" from the chemical bonds in food

Again, not to pick here, but that good college professor would be 100% incorrect. Your body, thankfully does release energy from chemical bonds, particularly oxidative phosphorylation. This, aside from generating a bulk of our ATP (energy) allows us to maintain a 37.3C body temperature within a wide range of environmental conditions.

In short...to simplify, digestion isa complex process, not all food is equal, but not in the way you think (Carbohydrate 4 kcal/gram,Protein:4 kcal/gram,Fat 9 kcal/gram, Alcohol 7 kcal/gram) and you can measure the "calories" in a food as if you had a gas gauge, for all intents and purposes. I mean this in the general sense of "if I continue to the level of activity, but halve my food intake, you will lose weight. Will it all be fat? No, if you ran and consumed and extra 3500kcal, would you lose exactly 1 pound? Not exactly, but enough to get close.

1. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002457.htm
2. http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS31_02%2FS0029665172000412a.pdf&code=a16c418636d75bd92cf84720c13bb8d5
3. http://www.adajournal.org/article/PIIS000282239800100X/abstract