Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Quinn, iBackups, Wikipedia
Peter Quinn exonerated. An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw is reporting that Peter Quinn, the man who terrified Microsoft by moving part of the Massachusetts government to ODF, has been exonerated of any alleged impropriety concerning his trips to tell others about Massachusetts' move to ODF."
Honda debuts new ASIMO robot. Tomo Hiratsuka writes "Honda's ASIMO robot has received his annual refit and now has the power to carry objects with a cart, serve drinks, and run with both feet off the ground at up to 10mph."
911 now available to Vonage users. Ben writes "Only a month after Vonage 911 Deadline Passed the VoIP phone service announced today that all of its customers now have access to 911 services."
Nathan Peterson pleads guilty to copyright infringement. Chris Bradshaw writes "iBackups' owner Nathan Peterson pled guilty to two counts of criminal copyright infringement for illegally copying and selling nearly $20 million worth of computer software. The FBI was first alerted to possible software piracy by the Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) back in 2003. iBackups was selling pirated copies of software over the internet claiming that they were "backup copies" to be used by software owners in case of system crashes."
Wikipedia still just as effective as normal encyclopedia. AxelBoldt writes "The Australian newspaper The Age reports that Nature has run a formal comparison of the science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. From the article: 'The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, around three.'"
Citizen e ink clock makes its debut. Tim Jones writes "The flexible e ink clock that Citizen announced what seems like ages ago is finally making an appearance in the real world. It's apparently going to be displayed at a Tokyo exhibition this week."
$100 laptop not quite so ineffectual. segphault writes "Ars Technica posted a response to Intel chairman Craig Barret's criticism of MIT's $100 laptop. From the article: 'Despite Barret's criticism, interest in the $100 laptop remains as strong as ever, and lightweight, affordable technology continues to weave its way into the classroom with great results. Young students in Olathe, Kansas now read their textbooks on Palm handheld computers. According to survey statistics, 28 percent of American school districts offer handheld computers for student and teacher use. A study done at a high school in South Dakota in 2001 found that the the availability of school-provided handhelds actually improved student grades. Eric Johnson, educational sales director for Palm, says the public schools represent a US$300 million market. If handheld computers can do so well in the public school system, surely the $100 laptop can too.'"
While I knew Britannica has inaccuracies, and while I know inaccuracies often remain for quite a while there due to their revision model, I didn't believe it would fare that well, and rather that it would have much less but staying for a longer time. 42 entries may be a small sample size though; I'd rather see a few hundreds in a larger test, and also from more than science.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I wonder if the newspaper people then fixed the inaccuracies in the wikipedia articles, making it 0 to 3, which would be a clear win for wikipedia?
What happens when the power goes out for Vonage customers? I read the description, but didn't see anything about this.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
The interesting part is that Wikipedia did so well so quickly. Wikipedia's only been around since 2001, but they wrote the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1771. Britannica has had more than 200 years to get their process together, and their accuracy rates are still pretty close to Wikipedia's.
Honda's ASIMO can now run at 6 kph not 10 mph. 6 kph is 3.73 miles per hour. This is doulbe the old 3 kph of ASIMO.
Actually, I've got no idea where they got 10mph from.
:)
The article states 6km/h
It seems they multiplied instead of dividing, when making km / mile conversion.
6Km = 3.728 miles
6Miles = 9.654 km.
Nelson, your line
I'd like to see a law stating that you get your money back or a free fixed edition if you buy an encyclopedia with an error.
That should make the damn overcharging industry start taking the accuracy of their material seriously and stop throwing stones at community efforts. If Wikipedia's wrong - well, I got what I paid for - but if I fork out hundreds of dollars for something it should be held to some sort of standard.
If not, what is it I'm paying for?
There are an awful lot of Wikipedia articles (esp. articles on historical figures) which are heavily based on the 1911 edition of Britannica, an edition that is in the public domain. As an example, I found this one with hardly any effort.
So the question of "which model is better" is not as simple as you make it seem.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
What I think many of us want to know can be stated simply: What in the world is going on with * * Beatles-Beatles? Here are some of the facts of concern: ." formula to introduce his own summary of the article.
- * * Beatles-Beatles does post some nice, thought-provoking articles.
- * * Beatles-Beatles posts often come in clumps of two or more, with three straight (two on the front page) on December 11th.
- The vast majority of his submissions are posted by ScuttleMonkey.
- Rather than posting the original article summary (if there even is one), ScuttleMonkey uses the "* * Beatles-Beatles tells us . .
- * * Beatles-Beatles links to a number of sites, mostly the George Harrison one, which seem "shady" to put it lightly (that is they have a bare-bones amount of content and a lot of links, news feeds, and popups).
- * * Beatles-Beatles is utilizing all these Slashdot posts to increase his Google page rank (Googling for George Harrison puts him result number 5 on the second page).
- Despite a growing chorus of complaint by loyal Slashdot readers, we have had absolutely no communication (that I am aware of) from the editors on this issue.
I (and some others, I think) would like to use the Slashback forum to get some answers from any editor. This situation stinks of unethical behavior (or just plain ineptitude on the part of the editors,) and it makes me question the integrity and professionalism of the Slashdot system. If there is no response, I think I will take my concerns directly to CmdrTaco (malda@slashdot.org) through email, and from there (assuming the issue is not addressed) I will have to contact OSTG (editors@OSTG.com). I encourage anyone else who shares my concern to do the same. This is all motivated by the fact that I love Slashdot. I hate to a wonderful community-driven site corrupted by such an influence.
P.S. If the * * Beatles-Beatles thing is just leading up to the best April Fool's post of all time, I am cool with that.
It's not just a matter of accuracy, but of how exhaustive they are. Does Britannica have these articles?
- $100 laptop
- ASIMO
- Vonage
- OpenDocument
I take every piece of information with a grain of salt. If I want to know something, I try to find a primary source. Just because something is called CNN, Britannica, or NYTimes doesn't mean you should trust their information blindly.
Supposedly, Wikipedia is no good because it's not accountable. Oh, and Brittanica is? From their terms of use:
Limitation of Liability: IN NO EVENT SHALL BRITANNICA, ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SHAREHOLDERS, PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, AGENTS AND LICENSORS, OR CONTENT PROVIDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE, INABILITY TO USE, PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF BRITANNICA WAS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE IN CONTRACT, TORT, UNDER STATUTE, IN EQUITY, AT LAW, OR OTHERWISE.
Indemnification: To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to indemnify and hold Britannica, its directors, officers, shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and licensors harmless from and against all losses, expenses, damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of the use or unauthorized copying of the Services or any of their content, the violation of these Terms of Use or any applicable laws or regulations.
Wikipedia much more effective than normal encyclopedia. AxelBoldt writes "The Australian newspaper The Age reports that Nature has run a formal comparison of the science coverage of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. From the article: 'The exercise revealed numerous errors in all encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was phenomenal: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained no inaccuracies; Britannica, around three hundred.'"
Wow! The wikipedia model does work!
Well, maybe not run, but, given that, at least from the pictures on the Honda site, ASIMO looks a bit like a kid with a backpack, perhaps they were thinking of a certain other robot who could certainly move rather fast with both feet off the ground, although, admittedly, that's not running....
(In any case, what the page at the Honda site said was "Through proactive control of ASIMO's posture while both feet are off the ground, the running speed was doubled from the previous 3km/hour to 6km/hour.", so it's not as if both its feet are always off the ground when running; I guess they just fixed it so that it works better in the part of the step when one foot's pushed off the ground but the other one hasn't made contact with the ground yet.)
Despite a few areas of marginal success, there are still fundamental structural difficulties in Britannica as a project, that its founder (Colin "Jimbo" Macfarquhar) has yet to address.
Now, don't get me wrong, Britannica is acceptable for satisfying incidental questions, perhaps a good tool for satisfying children's curiousity, but I wouldn't rely on it as a serious reference tool.
Some say they prefer the tactile sensation of a book over our more traditional, electronic forms of learning. But I don't think Britannica can rely on such an obvious gimmick for too long.
It's clear to anyone who thinks seriously about this issue that an encyclopedia which doesn't allow immediate revision of errors by anyone who finds them will never have the credibility of a wiki.
Britannica's slow production schedule and restriction of edits to a tiny, select group of so-called 'experts' will always plague it with difficulties. I, for one, will have nothing to do with it, and hope they abandon this foolhardy experiment before people begin to hastily grant them an ounce of credibility.
This Nature editorial asks scientific experts to kick in: "Select a topic close to your work and look it up on Wikipedia. If the entry contains errors or important omissions, dive in and help fix them. It need not take too long. And imagine the pay-off: you could be one of the people who helped turn an apparently stupid idea into a free, high-quality global resource."