Slashdot Mirror

In more detail: the internal FAQ.

The actual proposal answers this question.

The actual proposal (not the Bill Thompson version) does in fact answer your concerns. Including the George W. Bush article being opened for general editing again, rather than being in semi-permanent semi-lockdown.

No, Bill Thompson is being Bill Thompson. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2006_proposed_appro val_for_anonymous_edits is from the horse's mouth.

From Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:

What is changing?

We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.

We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20 website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August 2006 -- http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the readers.

The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a 'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The idea is to enhance the reading experience, and free us to enhance the editing experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.

Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and vandalism -- this will assist their work and we do not expect new delays.

We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other language Wikipedias.

These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the front page itself to full unrestricted editing.

When was this proposed?

Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late 2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a very high-quality article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_ea rthquake) very quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost the start of the project, in 2001.

No, real world encyclopedias don't cite all their sources, but they do double check every statement they make in the article.
Here's a podcast from Wikimania 2006, where the editor in chief(?) of Worldbook talks about their fact-checking process. He clearly states that they check every fact and statement in at least two reliable sources.

MP3

I agree with you, but Wikipedia doesn't have thousands of edits per second. Not even per minute. Check this out. 3.6 million edits in June means 120000 per day, or 5000 per hour.

You might be interested in reading the results of the RPI Lighting Research Center's study on "Full Spectrum" lighting, it's pretty interesting.

That being said, I think that most of your problems with CFL's probably have to do with low color rendering index - older/cheaper CFL's have pretty miserable CRIs (50-60s). (why colors look like crap)

You can commonly get good CFLs in the 80s, and like someone mentions later on in the thread, you can even get one with a CRI of 96 (the cheapest I've seen that bulb is $16/bulb), but over the lifetime of the bulb you should still save money (w/ at my current kWH rate you would save about $100/bulb in electricity over the bulb lifetime).

Those Lumiram Ecolumes, besides having a 96 CRI are at 5000K ("daylight") and put out a pretty impressive 1300 Lumens and might be worth giving a try. (they also claim to be "full spectrum," but from the charts of the studies, it looks like nothing, not your GE Reveals or Flourescent FSI puts out anything close to resembling D65).

(and remember, their servers and bandwidth costs are covered by corporate donations, not yours and mine)

Wikimedia Foundation projects are broken out by languages, not countries. French wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/ is edited from every continent, because the language is spoken in so many different places. Norwegian is less-widely spoken, and has two different wikipedias due to two different spelling systems (Nynorsk http://nn.wikipedia.org/ and Bokmål http://no.wikipedia.org/).

So Wikipedia is available in more than 220 languages already (complete list of current languages/projects http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix. More than two dozen of those languages are spoken in Africa, and more languages are actively under development. It's not that Africa is treated as a monolithic whole; it's that some languages have more people online and interested in developing a 'pedia for themsleves than others.

I second the parent poster, it seems to be a non-issue. Maybe people in Africa just do not use Wikipedia that frequently, or use the English version or are just not inclined to contribute.

And if you look here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias/ , the numbers of wikipedia articles is absolutely not proportional to the number of users of a specific language, meaning that Wikipedia is used differently over the world.

For example, the Polish version has about double the amount of articles as the Spanish version, although Spanish is arguably used and spoken by far more people all over the world. Same thing with Esperanto and Arabic.

You mean like this butterfly?

As for the rest of your comment, I'd really love to know how someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality can be allowed to have kids.

Why the hell is it written as "Okami" everywhere, when the first letter is clearly written with a macron ...? I could understand "Ookami" if you can't produce U+014C on your keyboard, but why the shortening of the first vowel? Well, at least the Wikipedia gets it right.

Geologically, I didn't think there were those kind of metals in abundance in Eturia, as it was Etruscan marble that was so fameous. If you are talking about metals in a Roman statue, then perhaps, but those were usually made of bronze or marble. If it is some other Luna, then I am not sure what you are talking about.

The "intended" launch rate for the Atlas V and Delta IV was 20 vehicles per year. They are right now flying 5/year. The cost of the metal in the machines is not the issue. The Atlas V especially is a very simple machine with far fewer elements and components than an equivalent Falcon. Costs are in the people to support the missions and keep the machine alive through years.

I see you're not counting the development costs for the early ICBM days of the Atlas series. Encyclopedia Astronautica claims that part is another $2.23 billion in 1965 dollars. Using the GDP deflator, that becomes more than $10 billion in today's dollars. So total development cost is around $12 billion, assuming you're right about the Atlas I through V costs and those costs are in current dollars.

And while an Atlas V doesn't have as many engines as the Falcon V design would have, visual inspection of pictures indicates that the Atlas's engines are far more complex than the proposed Falcon 9 engine (or here for a CAD drawing). There's a lot less plumbing associated with SpaceX's Merlin engine meaning if SpaceX can maintain that level of complexity, they'll have an engine that is far easier to assemble than the RD-180 that the Atlas V uses.

The ability to generate any visible light frequency would not only extend the gamut to the full human range (unlike other schemes, like the 6-color Iridori system presented at SIGGRAPH 2004), but it would also allow tetrachromats to enjoy television and computers much better (this issue was discussed previously on slashdot).

Of course, as the article suggests, they will still have to use multiple emitters per pixel, as it can only generate colors on the edge of the CIE Color Space (warning, you can't see what colors they are, because your monitor cannot display anything outside the RGB Triangle). And of course tetrachromats are rare but have been found.

...is that the mandatory black turtle-neck sweaters easily get stuck in dangerous machinery. On the plus side, the jeans were supposedly not so bad. Unfortunately, the factories with mandatory kimono dress codes do have even higher accident rates.

He also used a really funky "one slide per emphasized word" method of presentation that David Weinberger took great pleasure in parodying in his own talk two days later. :-)

Buy.com used to operate in the UK, and I placed an order for a bunch of stuff from them years ago. It appeared that buy.com only ever had 1 size of packing box which they used for everything, about 2' x 1.5' x1', which then had a plastic sheet inside to hold down the goods in the box. My order was a few boxes, but one had only 1 DDS tape in the bottom, with the rest of the box being fresh air!

(I know what /. is getting like, so here's what a DDS tape looks like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum b/1/1d/DSS1_Tape_wScale.JPG/800px-DSS1_Tape_wScale .JPG)

Well, there is FCKeditor. Tie that together with a decent wiki, and you have a pretty good CMS, IMHO. I know Oddmuse supports this kind of integration, and I'm sure other wiki's do, as well (I know MediaWiki has got experimental integration).

Granted, the setup was simpler and it required a bit of trust from all participants, but I've had a home-made random number generator for years now.

Rosie was perched atop a single roller skate, from what I can tell and remember.

And he certainly looks close to 91 in this pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a c/Eddie_van_halen.jpg/150px-Eddie_van_halen.jpg

Politicians will ALWAYS make statements that will come back to haunt them. President Carter made an odd statement that he "lusted in his heart" for women other than his wife back in 1976 (granted it WAS a Playboy article!). And the elder President Bush made the inopportune statement in 1988 about http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Geor ge_Bush_1988_No_New_Taxes.ogg "Read My Lips: No New Taxes". The fact that they DO make errors like that make them human. And situations like the younger President Bush saying some great ones, just makes me giggle at times...

Fears about the current government of China are well founded. Perhaps the decision to exclude Lenovo where inspired by this man. If so, then I applaud.

Try looking again ... the pretty picture lists the average depth of Lake Superior at 483 ft -- NOT the 500 ft. you listed. (Yes, I too can use bold in my post to make a point) Not to mention the fact that the average depth on the site you linked to lists the exact same average depth. I gues you better start questioning your own ability to read.

Taking a look at what others have done to solve these issues seems like the best option.
I think it's very unlikely you will find books in that area considering that when you reach a certain level of complexity technology changes too fast to make a book relevant.

my my aren't we a troll

can you prove to me the 2004 election was fraud free? can you even support the statement that it was fraud free? Of course fucking not, even a cursory glance at Ohio will tell anyone who has a brain that we can never know if bush really was the honest winner of that state (not to mention several others) or not.

Why did they make up a fake terrorist threat claim on the last county to count it's votes (which prevented all observers from seeing the count)? We know it wasn't a real threat, and we know counting votes in secret like that is one of the fundmantal signs of a flawed election.

How about the ESS tech who, without authorization, accessed on of the voting machines used in voting between the voting and the "recount" (retabulating insecurable inauditable unreliable data tables doesn't constitute a recount).

Insecure elections is NOT a partisan issue, just like jerrymandering ISN'T a partisan issue. The last two national election cycles the insecurities in the voting system have merely happen to have been taken advantage by the republicans - there Is no gaurantee that the democrats wouldn't do that same thing, and I have no illusions that they are immune to the temptation.

Insecure balloting techniques, jerrymandering, etc should ALL be illegal. Jerrymandering is impossible in exactly ONE state in the nation: Iowa, where I happen to live. One state with only 5 house reps is the only state where you cannot jerrymander

Unjerrymandered:
Iowa http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/77GA/Congressional /Maps/Map.gif
Hawaii http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/HI-d istricts-108.JPG
(probably) Idaho http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/ID-d istricts-108.JPG
NH http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/NH-d istricts-108.JPG

Jerrymandered:
Texas http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/w/texas_congre ssional_map.png
California http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/C D_STATE8X11.JPG
Florida http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizations /karin/images/congressionalmap.gif?
Illinois http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/IL-d istricts-108.JPG

see the difference? Jerrymandering leads to complex districts most of the time, unjerrymandered districts are as geographically simple as possible.

rather obvious are they not? Jerrymandering is just another form of election fraud and both parties engage in it.

my my aren't we a troll

can you prove to me the 2004 election was fraud free? can you even support the statement that it was fraud free? Of course fucking not, even a cursory glance at Ohio will tell anyone who has a brain that we can never know if bush really was the honest winner of that state (not to mention several others) or not.

Why did they make up a fake terrorist threat claim on the last county to count it's votes (which prevented all observers from seeing the count)? We know it wasn't a real threat, and we know counting votes in secret like that is one of the fundmantal signs of a flawed election.

How about the ESS tech who, without authorization, accessed on of the voting machines used in voting between the voting and the "recount" (retabulating insecurable inauditable unreliable data tables doesn't constitute a recount).

Insecure elections is NOT a partisan issue, just like jerrymandering ISN'T a partisan issue. The last two national election cycles the insecurities in the voting system have merely happen to have been taken advantage by the republicans - there Is no gaurantee that the democrats wouldn't do that same thing, and I have no illusions that they are immune to the temptation.

Insecure balloting techniques, jerrymandering, etc should ALL be illegal. Jerrymandering is impossible in exactly ONE state in the nation: Iowa, where I happen to live. One state with only 5 house reps is the only state where you cannot jerrymander

Unjerrymandered:
Iowa http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/77GA/Congressional /Maps/Map.gif
Hawaii http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/HI-d istricts-108.JPG
(probably) Idaho http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/ID-d istricts-108.JPG
NH http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/NH-d istricts-108.JPG

Jerrymandered:
Texas http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/w/texas_congre ssional_map.png
California http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/C D_STATE8X11.JPG
Florida http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizations /karin/images/congressionalmap.gif?
Illinois http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/IL-d istricts-108.JPG

see the difference? Jerrymandering leads to complex districts most of the time, unjerrymandered districts are as geographically simple as possible.

rather obvious are they not? Jerrymandering is just another form of election fraud and both parties engage in it.

my my aren't we a troll

can you prove to me the 2004 election was fraud free? can you even support the statement that it was fraud free? Of course fucking not, even a cursory glance at Ohio will tell anyone who has a brain that we can never know if bush really was the honest winner of that state (not to mention several others) or not.

Why did they make up a fake terrorist threat claim on the last county to count it's votes (which prevented all observers from seeing the count)? We know it wasn't a real threat, and we know counting votes in secret like that is one of the fundmantal signs of a flawed election.

How about the ESS tech who, without authorization, accessed on of the voting machines used in voting between the voting and the "recount" (retabulating insecurable inauditable unreliable data tables doesn't constitute a recount).

Insecure elections is NOT a partisan issue, just like jerrymandering ISN'T a partisan issue. The last two national election cycles the insecurities in the voting system have merely happen to have been taken advantage by the republicans - there Is no gaurantee that the democrats wouldn't do that same thing, and I have no illusions that they are immune to the temptation.

Insecure balloting techniques, jerrymandering, etc should ALL be illegal. Jerrymandering is impossible in exactly ONE state in the nation: Iowa, where I happen to live. One state with only 5 house reps is the only state where you cannot jerrymander

Unjerrymandered:
Iowa http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/77GA/Congressional /Maps/Map.gif
Hawaii http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/HI-d istricts-108.JPG
(probably) Idaho http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/ID-d istricts-108.JPG
NH http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/NH-d istricts-108.JPG

Jerrymandered:
Texas http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/w/texas_congre ssional_map.png
California http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/C D_STATE8X11.JPG
Florida http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizations /karin/images/congressionalmap.gif?
Illinois http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/IL-d istricts-108.JPG

see the difference? Jerrymandering leads to complex districts most of the time, unjerrymandered districts are as geographically simple as possible.

rather obvious are they not? Jerrymandering is just another form of election fraud and both parties engage in it.

my my aren't we a troll

can you prove to me the 2004 election was fraud free? can you even support the statement that it was fraud free? Of course fucking not, even a cursory glance at Ohio will tell anyone who has a brain that we can never know if bush really was the honest winner of that state (not to mention several others) or not.

Why did they make up a fake terrorist threat claim on the last county to count it's votes (which prevented all observers from seeing the count)? We know it wasn't a real threat, and we know counting votes in secret like that is one of the fundmantal signs of a flawed election.

How about the ESS tech who, without authorization, accessed on of the voting machines used in voting between the voting and the "recount" (retabulating insecurable inauditable unreliable data tables doesn't constitute a recount).

Insecure elections is NOT a partisan issue, just like jerrymandering ISN'T a partisan issue. The last two national election cycles the insecurities in the voting system have merely happen to have been taken advantage by the republicans - there Is no gaurantee that the democrats wouldn't do that same thing, and I have no illusions that they are immune to the temptation.

Insecure balloting techniques, jerrymandering, etc should ALL be illegal. Jerrymandering is impossible in exactly ONE state in the nation: Iowa, where I happen to live. One state with only 5 house reps is the only state where you cannot jerrymander

Unjerrymandered:
Iowa http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/77GA/Congressional /Maps/Map.gif
Hawaii http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/HI-d istricts-108.JPG
(probably) Idaho http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/ID-d istricts-108.JPG
NH http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/NH-d istricts-108.JPG

Jerrymandered:
Texas http://z.about.com/d/uspolitics/1/0/w/texas_congre ssional_map.png
California http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/cngplan/CNGMAPS/C D_STATE8X11.JPG
Florida http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizations /karin/images/congressionalmap.gif?
Illinois http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/IL-d istricts-108.JPG

see the difference? Jerrymandering leads to complex districts most of the time, unjerrymandered districts are as geographically simple as possible.

rather obvious are they not? Jerrymandering is just another form of election fraud and both parties engage in it.

Heresy!!!! Are you INSANE???? How can you say that the original Macintosh looked anything like the IBM PC. That's like saying that you can stick some makeup, a blonde wig and strap on hooters on a pig and it's Jenna Jameson!!! And I would say Apple had style down much earlier than the iMac when you consider just how beautiful the Mac II was for it's day. Sure, there are plenty of PCs today that just slightly make it past the door when compared to OLD Macs, but let's face it... Apple KNOWS style.

Heresy!!!! Are you INSANE???? How can you say that the original Macintosh looked anything like the IBM PC. That's like saying that you can stick some makeup, a blonde wig and strap on hooters on a pig and it's Jenna Jameson!!! And I would say Apple had style down much earlier than the iMac when you consider just how beautiful the Mac II was for it's day. Sure, there are plenty of PCs today that just slightly make it past the door when compared to OLD Macs, but let's face it... Apple KNOWS style.

Heresy!!!! Are you INSANE???? How can you say that the original Macintosh looked anything like the IBM PC. That's like saying that you can stick some makeup, a blonde wig and strap on hooters on a pig and it's Jenna Jameson!!! And I would say Apple had style down much earlier than the iMac when you consider just how beautiful the Mac II was for it's day. Sure, there are plenty of PCs today that just slightly make it past the door when compared to OLD Macs, but let's face it... Apple KNOWS style.

Consider, for example, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World; only one of them is left, wich gives us a 14.2% success rate.

Over a 5000 year scale, I could accept that. More important is that the Colossus of Rhodes stood less than a century, and most lasted only a few centuries.

On the other hand, two (the Great Pyramid and the Lighthouse of Alexandria) made it past the thousand-year mark... which is quite respectible. With most candidates for any list of Modern Wonders, once you rule out those already a millenium old, it would be astounding if any last another thousand years... depending on how you define a Wonder of the World.

No, money is not at the root of the power, it is a byproduct. The real power of the ruling elite is in their ability to control the minds of the public. To sell a version of history and values that ensures the continuation of their rule. They attain their power through the manipulation of the masses by using the modern mass media, aka propaganda. We have been so propagandized, so programmed, so indoctrinated throughout the course of our lives that we cannot see the slavery and control that has been held over us.

It is a very startling and awakening process to remove yourself from that mode of thinking. Believe me, I have experienced it and now i see the whole world as fake and embroiled with the lies we have been sold. I see that the U.S. actually has such a large population of people more devoted to their country and national identity than to their God. A country whose power, according to the declaration of independence, is endowed by our creator. Essentially, its saying that the government does recognizses a higher authority from which it gains its power; an authority higher than the state itself.

Since the patriot act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security we have seen the liberties and rights we have enjoyed for so many years legally negated. Whether the government actually exercises their new legal authority is less of a matter of if but more of a matter of when, if it hasn't already.

A system that recognizes no authority higher than itself, denies civil liberties, has totalitarian power over its population, and wages war without the consent of the governed can be described in one word: FASCIST. Why do I choose fascism over the many other systems of governance that could fit that description? Well, its easy. In the house of representatives, behind where the speaker of the house resides is a large wall with an american flag hanging upon it. On either side of the flag you will see two roman Fasci, as seen HERE, the fasci is the symbol of world fascism, of a one world government aka a new world order. The direction in which the United States is headed.

The governing elite have all but completely taken control over the minds and therefore bodies of the masses that one cannot help but feel a sense of hopelessness about the state of affairs.

Take 9/11 for example, there is such an overwhelming mountain of evidence that does not coincide with the official story, yet most Americans have never been introduced to it nor do they even want to know of it in the first place. It is so unimaginable to them that their country could be less than the picture of virtue that they envision. An ethical person who is truly informed citizen, will see through the falsities of what they're being told and break free of the prison they have been born into in order to aid in the escape of their bretheren from this prison of the mind.

My suggestion is to read as much as possible about the opinions and views of people who do not conform with the status quo. You do not have to agree with them, but you will find that there are elements of truth in what they say. Currently, I am reading the communist manifesto, although I do not agree with its solutions to the problems of the current system I espeically find the first section rather insightful in defining it; that is, the current system.

The clearer picture you can attain of the world, the more able you will be to see its corruption.

Well no sane person is trying to compare India to the US. That would be ridiculous. Compared to the US, even Ireland (a relatively developed country otherwise) is a bona fide dump. That's a loaded comparison. Compared to other third world countries, we are generally much more progressive.

  It's just that you don't HEAR much about the goings on in most third world countries due to repressive governments, suppressed and non-free news media, jingoistic propaganda etc.

  We have the immense burden of being one of few third world democracies, where all information (even the dirty laundry) is exposed for all the world to see. The media hates the government, the people curse the government and relect new people. All the corruption makes it to the headline news by the end of business etc.

  That is why you see the poverty in India splashed all over the news, and yet the greater poverty of a semi-theocratic dictatorial pseudo-democracy like Pakistan is ignored...

Out Gini index is comparable to many European nations:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd /World_Map_Gini_coefficient.png

  I'm assuming you didn't go to one of your famous American public schools and can actually find India on a map. You will see that it has the same shade as most European countries:

  List of some countries (with India in it) ranked by Gini index (bear in mind that lower gini index is better)

29 Bulgaria 31.9
30 Kazakhstan 32.3
31 Spain 32.5
32 India 32.5
33 Tajikistan 32.6
34 France 32.7
35 Pakistan 33

  There are many other criteria one needs to judge the full economic state of a country. However, our H.D.I stinks ass. Though I suspect that someone like you would continue to hate us even if we eliminated all poverty from our country, put computers in every household and built freeways from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Oh well...

The only truly free license is public domain.

"Public domain" is not a license. It is the absense of copyright. This, strange as it may seem, can be less free than copyrighted with a liberal license: some countries don't permit authors to disclaim copyrights. If a country doesn't, the material is copyrighted, and no license is granted to distribute and/or modify it. The same effect as what is intended by simply "public domain" can be got using the WTFPL, Wikipedia's approach, or something similar.

Well, just for the record, wikimedia is very open about their server configurations, and (big surprise) they're LAMP solution is multiplexed across many machines. So, before you claim that a technology won't scale, you should make sure there's not a widely known example of its scalability.

In the summary, can we please have the actual links to the projects?

http://opengarden.org/
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki

map of the shootings if you are curious.

Of course there might have been false positives, but keep in mind police were looking for "a white van" instead of the blue Chevrolet Caprice that was used in the shootings. (Fun exercise: next time you are in a major metro, count the number of white vans.) I bet a list of cars in vicinity of 2 shootings would be in single digits. Just check 'em all out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tian asquare.jpg

I think they have a right to be a tad dramatic.

But even if they weren't, it's hardly a revolutionary weapon that will stamp out tyranny.

If they eventually create a tool that Chinese dissedents can use to easily communicate with one another without being tracked, it could very well be such a tool.

A somewhat related issue is using a Wiki to prepare contents for a book. I believe that there is lot of future in this since writing is more difficult than formatting, and using a wiki helps to organize ideas and collaborative work (testing it right now).

Now, for MediaWikis there is a sort of procedure. The German Wikipedia community seems to have the best experience so far and some reader really have been published in paper form.

WikiReader Handbuch and a Magnus' magic MediaWiki-to-XML-to-stuff converter

Btw there is also the idea that one could some day directly produce PDF from Wiki. A script for print on demand is on source forge .

Maybe a ./ reader went through the experience making a book from Wiki and could tell us how it went ...

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/07/13/16542 00.shtml Apollo 11 TV Tapes Go Missing

Let me ask, have YOU seen any of these "thousands of hours" of high-res tapes that you refer to. Have you seen a single original frame? The fact is that Williams and Kranz (top brass in charge of the archives and missions at NASA) conceed that the original data is misplaced, believed wiped.

All we have now is re-filmed qvga-res shit: tv-grabs, literally.
But don't despair, for NASA, like the OJ, just might finally find the reel killer.

What's funny is that one would need post-doctoral training to even understand just the kind of info one could extract from high-quality TV scans; I do not expect you to understand.

The bottom like is that whether the TV feeds came from the Moon or from a set we will not know until the original tapes can be examined.

Doesn't that prick Rumsfeld stand all day at his desk? Good enough reason to do the precise opposite, if that walking fucktard does it.

And the philosophy of sharing "all significant points of view" is ridiculous. Who writes for the Amish? What about illiterate Chinese? Who writes for the majority of the society that can't tell the difference between URL and IP address? No one.

That one sets high goals isn't necessarily ridiculous. All forms of scholarship share the concerns that you raise. Does that mean we should close down the universities, smash the presses, and burn the libraries? Or that should we pursue an eventualist approach while trying to counter systemic bias?

Also, what is the object seen at least 3 times as the camera rotates? It is most visible at 3:32 and resembles the object someone called a "lens flare" in the upfacing video. It is too solid to be a lens flare here.

You feel the need to put lens flare in quotes as if you've never heard of it or don't know what it is and yet in the very next sentence you feel qualified to say something looks too "solid" to be a lens flare.

Why would NASA go to the trouble of faking something like this with CGI? You realise that a space craft and launch vehicle can be clearly seen on the pad, by the public, before launch. Then that same public can watch it lift off and then it is gone from the pad. Where does it go I wonder?

It must be a conspiracy which requires CGI!!!!! Lens flare which affects all lenses to varying degrees is just an excuse for this government cover-up!!!!

For example, here can clearly be seen moonlings attacking the moon lander! No wait, that's not possible, because we have not been to the moon! Umm, it's... lens flare from the strong lights NASA used in the desert! Yeah!

Ric

It is a well known fact that many internet geeks have never seen a real breast.

It reminded me a bit of this (real) picture.

Wikipedia is of course an excellent resource. However I'd wish that people would also have an eye for Wikimedia Commons, a giant multimedia library to which everyone can upload files, all perfectly categorized. More importantly, every file that's in there can be linked to by Wikipedia.

From the help page:
The Wikimedia Commons (or "Commons") is a repository of free images, sound and other multimedia files. Uploaded files can be used as local files by other projects on the Wikimedia servers, including Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wiktionary.