They wouldn't. Which is why it's a good idea to get a couple sources for anything, as I said. Just because it's harder to get multiple sources outside the internet doesn't mean those articles are more accurate.
It's funny, because despite science's success I've often noted how the gatekeeper model has prevented progress in some areas. How many good ideas struggle for acceptance but are never adequately looked into by the gatekeepers because it would challenge their opinions?
Sure, decent ideas usually break through eventually anyways -- but they break through precicely because even in science there is some democratization because there is no _one_ gatekeeper. Or even one gate.
Let's ignore the religious overtones for a moment and think of evolution and creationism as they apply to any progress, from social to technical.
I don't think evolution claims that progress is made directly by chance, but rather that lots of things (good and bad) happen by chance, and the ones that resemble progress tend to survive.
This in itself is indisputable. Whether you think it works well enough to have given rise to life or a decent encyclopedia is another question. In my experience, it has.
Um, in this specific example, yes. If you take a random sampling of pages, though, that is most obviously not the case. The vast majority of pages tend to get better over time. Check it out for yourself with the random page link.
Of course Wikipedia has errors and ommisions. All encyclopedias do. It probably has more than most. But let's see how it develops. It's already gone far beyond what anyone criticizing it would have imagined.
Really? Is the reader in some non-internet connected vacuum? If I came across an inconsistency like that I'd do some searches. Chances are I would find an article somewhere online that dealt with this. In fact, the first result on Google for "Alexander Hamilton Birth" includes the text:
Interestingly, the exact year of Alexander Hamilton's birth is unknown because historians have found two sets of birth records. One set claims Hamilton was born on January 11, 1755, while the other says he was born in 1757. Hamilton himself maintained that he was born in 1757.
Issue resolved. I had to step outside the Wikipedia to do so, but that is the nature of our world now, where information exchange is so cheap. Yes, ten years ago single sources needed to be more precise because there was no simple way to cross check things. Now it seems that things can work reasonably well when you've got a lot of independent sources with unknown reliability. And aren't even the best sources really of "unknown reliability" anyways?
How does the need to go outside it reflect on the Wikipedia? Well, obviously it means that it's not the end-all be-all of information. It is a good start, though. And users should be aware that if they sense something is not quite right then they should look elsewhere, too. This isn't much different than with information from anywhere people always need to do a little thinking if they want The Truth.
Traditional Encyclopedias are sure to have errors and ommissions as well. Probably far less than the Wikipedia. But they are also more mature, so let's see in another ten years. And they are sure to have more gaps with current information, probably the opposite of the Wikipedia. Depending on what you're doing I think both have their place. For example, I doubt any print encyclopedia has a better network of articles on modern cryptography. Start with a search for "block cipher" for example. I just used this in research for my job last week.
If the author at least admitted how amazing the Wikipedia is, even given its shortcomings, I'd have more respect. As it is he comes across as a narrow minded old grouch who doesn't like that something useful can be created by a committee that's probably not as well educated as him on average.
But I guess I'd rather have an ineffective wishy washy politition in there than a guy who really thinks God wants him to invade other countries and turn our nation into a theocracy.
Not to pick nits, but only just a hair over half of the voting public wanted this. Yes, that's still depressing, but about 50% of the voting americans know very well how stooooopid it was to put Bush back in office. It's just that we're slightly outnumbered by morons.
But then how do you control speed of scrolling? I would consider that an important feature in a nice scrolling control... I imagine it does something like a digital clock, where it accellerates the longer you hold it down.
Anyways -- I'm just thinking about the finer points here. Enjoy what you have:)
I've used the joystick for scrolling -- not on the Nitrus, but on my Toshiba laptop a few years back. It is certainly nicer than the Rio scroll wheel (I used a similar interface on a creative labs mp3 player). But it's not quite as nice as the ipod interface.
As i mentioned in another post, our fingers seem more able to be precise with movement over pressure. Which is why a tablet or mouse is better for detail work than an eraserhead control.
BTW -- these interfaces we are discussing are all certainly adequate. There's nothing wrong with any of them. I just think the ipod one has a slight edge.
Having used both the eraserhead and the scroll wheel I've got to say that the scroll wheel seems much better to me. I think that motor control is more highly developed than pressure control (for my hands, anyways) so I can adjust finger speed more accurately than finger pressure.
Anyways, there are many ways to do a scrolling list. I think the ipod is near optimal.
A scroll wheel is nothing like the clickwheel on the ipod. On the ipod you can scroll through the entire list in a continuous fluid motion. On a scroll wheel you have roll and reposition, roll and reposition, roll and.... well, just try out a scroll wheel vs. an ipod somtime and you'll immediately see the difference.
Is that worth losing a GB and some battery life? I don't know... for me it is, but perhaps not for some. My point is just that the devil is in the details. This is the one thing Apple does really get. Just because they both have some type of "wheel" does not mean they are equivalent.
I'm going to take a guess that you've never had to change the course of your life because of legal threats. I've had this happen to myself and my family a couple times. And I can tell you that it has about the same effect as any physical threat -- except it's worse because it's "legal".
I don't know why you feel comfortable speculating that the fellow wasn't put out by this, or that XM wasn't really behind it, that the threat is hollow. I'm adressing only a simple fact: XM sent a threat to someone who is making a tool that Supreme Court precident has shown to be legal.
They have the right to do this, but it's still a lousy thing to do. It's using threat of overpowering money to stop otherwise legal activities. Sorry, it's something I won't condone no matter how nice their product otherwise is.
I realize this doesn't have an major effect, but I prefer to stand and be counted for what I feel is right -- even if it's not a big deal yet.
I guess I feel that a threatened lawsuit is a powerful thing and shouldn't be thrown around anymore than threatened violence.
The purpose of the threat is to get him to stop him using intimidation. Since in law, like violence, your success has as much to do with your size as the legality, intimidation by companies against individuals is an effective form of control even if there is no law backing up the suit.
I understand that anyone can sue anyone. Fine. And I'll even accept that there are little or no penalties for frivolous lawsuits. But I take exception to acting like their bullying isn't an act of aggression. Whether a bully follows through isn't the point. I won't support them. That's all.
I thought that frivolous lawsuits were illegal? But even if they're not, the original post I was replying to wasn't really discussing the legality of it, but more or less saying that people should get off XM's case because it was no big deal.
Having been on the receiving end of a couple of meaningless lawsuits I can honestly say I would have much rathered if they threw a fake punch. The lawsuits caused me and my family huge amounts of wasted time and emotional suffering.
So legal or not -- the people bringing this lawsuit are assholes and they are messing with a human being's life in a serious way without much regard. Anyone who thinks that is wrong should place them on their personal sh*t list.
They haven't sued the guy, they've just had their lawyer send a nasty-worded letter
And I didn't punch him in the face, I just said I would and then took a fake swing. Guess what: that's illegal, as it should be. How is this any different?
Sure, the idea of flying cars is cool. But it's just terribly impractical. First off, you've got to spend a huge amount of energy keeping yourself off the ground. And once you've done that you immediately lose a whole set of really fundamental benefits -- like turning and stopping by using friction against the ground.
And if that wasn't enough, you've also got to deal with people (who can barely manage 2D interactions) driving in three dimensions. It's exponentially harder. Not to mention how speed changes things. I remember being up with a pilot friend of mine and having a small jet go from an invisible speck to slightly too close for comfort before we were sure what it was.
Anyways, maybe they'll find solutions to all this. But I'm not holding my breath. I just appreicate that we've got such practical wheel based transportation at all. It's still pretty cool:)
I don't see what penis size has to do with picking up chicks. Every chick I've picked up was already getting naked by the time the penis size thing came up. And then you've got to be super-small for things to stop at that point.
Also, I happen to know (from a few swinging episodes) that I have a larger dick than most of my friends. I'm not bragging and saying it's big. It's just a hair above average. And most of them are average or a hair below. And most of them get more tail than me.
Oh, and penis size does matter to women, just not as much as you think. And most girls I've talked to perfer a thicker, average length penis to a longer average thickness penis.
I knew a girl once who had great sex with a guy with a three inch penis, or so she claimed. She said it was "very small but he knew how to use it".
Repeat after me: theme and variation, theme and variation; art is not created in a vacuum.
Of course there is a line where being derivitive (as all art is to some degeree) becomes a fault. However I think that the original SW (and ESB) added more than enough new elements, or combined existing elements in new ways that it stands as a decent little film.
Cheers.
Re:I'll stick to my LaserDiscs....
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Qualms? No. I just doubt the guy would be willing to sell it for fear of legal repercussions.
Re:I'll stick to my LaserDiscs....
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Wow -- you're the DVD f'n master! I was just gonna import it straight and burn it out. Too bad I can't buy copies off you!
Cheers.
Re:I'll stick to my LaserDiscs....
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 1
My buddy has these, and every few years we do a viewing with an LCD projector. They are the best versions that a person could hope to own: good picture and sound, and original theatrical content.
Only problem is the LD swap thing. We've considered putting them on DVD. I bet someone already has and is selling them. Which I'd pay for.
I won't pay for this garbage that Lucas is releasing, though.
Thanks for setting everyone straight. I'm sure they'll all be much better off if they used your value system and life goals.
Personally I can't find much use in friendster. But I don't see why some people are so outraged by it's usage by others. There's a billion people doing things that I think are a waste of time. But if they're enjoying themselves and not hurting anyone in the process... well... live and let live.
Sorry if I got your hopes up -- the answer is "they don't know". But current theories include increased exposure to chemicals like pesticides. My point was just that there are some disturbing (though not catastrophic) trends that might be worth looking into.
Here's a couple links to articles on the research -- it was just on Google News yesterday:
Why is it the replies to this stuff always fall into two camps:
1) The sky is falling, we're doomed 2) There is no way anything I find useful could be harmful
How about a little balance, folks. There are plenty of times throughout history where something in widespread use was later found to be more dangerous than it was worth. Asbestos and DDT come to mind. Hell, some of the early scientists who worked with radioactive materials thought it was neat that they could warm their hands over it.
The world is not doomed. Neither is the world a safe place. I hope they continue the research, take any findings with healthy skepticism, and then implement appropriate measures to improve our quality of life.
An unrelated example: brain disease has tripled in the past two decades in most developed countries. But not in Japan. Aren't you curious as to why? Or would you rather stick your head in the sand and proudly proclaim everyone who is curious to be an alarmist?
Slashdot Mirror
They wouldn't. Which is why it's a good idea to get a couple sources for anything, as I said. Just because it's harder to get multiple sources outside the internet doesn't mean those articles are more accurate.
Cheers.
It's funny, because despite science's success I've often noted how the gatekeeper model has prevented progress in some areas. How many good ideas struggle for acceptance but are never adequately looked into by the gatekeepers because it would challenge their opinions?
Sure, decent ideas usually break through eventually anyways -- but they break through precicely because even in science there is some democratization because there is no _one_ gatekeeper. Or even one gate.
Cheers
Let's ignore the religious overtones for a moment and think of evolution and creationism as they apply to any progress, from social to technical.
I don't think evolution claims that progress is made directly by chance, but rather that lots of things (good and bad) happen by chance, and the ones that resemble progress tend to survive.
This in itself is indisputable. Whether you think it works well enough to have given rise to life or a decent encyclopedia is another question. In my experience, it has.
Cheers.
Um, in this specific example, yes. If you take a random sampling of pages, though, that is most obviously not the case. The vast majority of pages tend to get better over time. Check it out for yourself with the random page link.
Of course Wikipedia has errors and ommisions. All encyclopedias do. It probably has more than most. But let's see how it develops. It's already gone far beyond what anyone criticizing it would have imagined.
Cheers.
Really? Is the reader in some non-internet connected vacuum? If I came across an inconsistency like that I'd do some searches. Chances are I would find an article somewhere online that dealt with this. In fact, the first result on Google for "Alexander Hamilton Birth" includes the text:
Interestingly, the exact year of Alexander Hamilton's birth is unknown because historians have found two sets of birth records. One set claims Hamilton was born on January 11, 1755, while the other says he was born in 1757. Hamilton himself maintained that he was born in 1757.
Issue resolved. I had to step outside the Wikipedia to do so, but that is the nature of our world now, where information exchange is so cheap. Yes, ten years ago single sources needed to be more precise because there was no simple way to cross check things. Now it seems that things can work reasonably well when you've got a lot of independent sources with unknown reliability. And aren't even the best sources really of "unknown reliability" anyways?
How does the need to go outside it reflect on the Wikipedia? Well, obviously it means that it's not the end-all be-all of information. It is a good start, though. And users should be aware that if they sense something is not quite right then they should look elsewhere, too. This isn't much different than with information from anywhere people always need to do a little thinking if they want The Truth.
Traditional Encyclopedias are sure to have errors and ommissions as well. Probably far less than the Wikipedia. But they are also more mature, so let's see in another ten years. And they are sure to have more gaps with current information, probably the opposite of the Wikipedia. Depending on what you're doing I think both have their place. For example, I doubt any print encyclopedia has a better network of articles on modern cryptography. Start with a search for "block cipher" for example. I just used this in research for my job last week.
If the author at least admitted how amazing the Wikipedia is, even given its shortcomings, I'd have more respect. As it is he comes across as a narrow minded old grouch who doesn't like that something useful can be created by a committee that's probably not as well educated as him on average.
Cheers.
dual party suckage: vigorously agreed.
But I guess I'd rather have an ineffective wishy washy politition in there than a guy who really thinks God wants him to invade other countries and turn our nation into a theocracy.
Cheers.
Not to pick nits, but only just a hair over half of the voting public wanted this. Yes, that's still depressing, but about 50% of the voting americans know very well how stooooopid it was to put Bush back in office. It's just that we're slightly outnumbered by morons.
Cheers.
In my experience a whole lot of redundant but singularly inadequate systems beats a single well designed system.
:)
Of course the ultimate would be redundant well designed systems, but we do have resource limitations, you know
Cheers.
But then how do you control speed of scrolling? I would consider that an important feature in a nice scrolling control... I imagine it does something like a digital clock, where it accellerates the longer you hold it down.
:)
Anyways -- I'm just thinking about the finer points here. Enjoy what you have
I've used the joystick for scrolling -- not on the Nitrus, but on my Toshiba laptop a few years back. It is certainly nicer than the Rio scroll wheel (I used a similar interface on a creative labs mp3 player). But it's not quite as nice as the ipod interface.
As i mentioned in another post, our fingers seem more able to be precise with movement over pressure. Which is why a tablet or mouse is better for detail work than an eraserhead control.
BTW -- these interfaces we are discussing are all certainly adequate. There's nothing wrong with any of them. I just think the ipod one has a slight edge.
Cheers.
Having used both the eraserhead and the scroll wheel I've got to say that the scroll wheel seems much better to me. I think that motor control is more highly developed than pressure control (for my hands, anyways) so I can adjust finger speed more accurately than finger pressure.
Anyways, there are many ways to do a scrolling list. I think the ipod is near optimal.
Cheers.
A scroll wheel is nothing like the clickwheel on the ipod. On the ipod you can scroll through the entire list in a continuous fluid motion. On a scroll wheel you have roll and reposition, roll and reposition, roll and .... well, just try out a scroll wheel vs. an ipod somtime and you'll immediately see the difference.
Is that worth losing a GB and some battery life? I don't know... for me it is, but perhaps not for some. My point is just that the devil is in the details. This is the one thing Apple does really get. Just because they both have some type of "wheel" does not mean they are equivalent.
Cheers.
I'm going to take a guess that you've never had to change the course of your life because of legal threats. I've had this happen to myself and my family a couple times. And I can tell you that it has about the same effect as any physical threat -- except it's worse because it's "legal".
I don't know why you feel comfortable speculating that the fellow wasn't put out by this, or that XM wasn't really behind it, that the threat is hollow. I'm adressing only a simple fact: XM sent a threat to someone who is making a tool that Supreme Court precident has shown to be legal.
They have the right to do this, but it's still a lousy thing to do. It's using threat of overpowering money to stop otherwise legal activities. Sorry, it's something I won't condone no matter how nice their product otherwise is.
I realize this doesn't have an major effect, but I prefer to stand and be counted for what I feel is right -- even if it's not a big deal yet.
Cheers.
I guess I feel that a threatened lawsuit is a powerful thing and shouldn't be thrown around anymore than threatened violence.
The purpose of the threat is to get him to stop him using intimidation. Since in law, like violence, your success has as much to do with your size as the legality, intimidation by companies against individuals is an effective form of control even if there is no law backing up the suit.
I understand that anyone can sue anyone. Fine. And I'll even accept that there are little or no penalties for frivolous lawsuits. But I take exception to acting like their bullying isn't an act of aggression. Whether a bully follows through isn't the point. I won't support them. That's all.
Cheers.
Well, there's "wrong" and "illegal".
I thought that frivolous lawsuits were illegal? But even if they're not, the original post I was replying to wasn't really discussing the legality of it, but more or less saying that people should get off XM's case because it was no big deal.
Having been on the receiving end of a couple of meaningless lawsuits I can honestly say I would have much rathered if they threw a fake punch. The lawsuits caused me and my family huge amounts of wasted time and emotional suffering.
So legal or not -- the people bringing this lawsuit are assholes and they are messing with a human being's life in a serious way without much regard. Anyone who thinks that is wrong should place them on their personal sh*t list.
Cheers.
They haven't sued the guy, they've just had their lawyer send a nasty-worded letter
And I didn't punch him in the face, I just said I would and then took a fake swing. Guess what: that's illegal, as it should be. How is this any different?
Cheers.
Sure, the idea of flying cars is cool. But it's just terribly impractical. First off, you've got to spend a huge amount of energy keeping yourself off the ground. And once you've done that you immediately lose a whole set of really fundamental benefits -- like turning and stopping by using friction against the ground.
:)
And if that wasn't enough, you've also got to deal with people (who can barely manage 2D interactions) driving in three dimensions. It's exponentially harder. Not to mention how speed changes things. I remember being up with a pilot friend of mine and having a small jet go from an invisible speck to slightly too close for comfort before we were sure what it was.
Anyways, maybe they'll find solutions to all this. But I'm not holding my breath. I just appreicate that we've got such practical wheel based transportation at all. It's still pretty cool
Cheers.
I don't see what penis size has to do with picking up chicks. Every chick I've picked up was already getting naked by the time the penis size thing came up. And then you've got to be super-small for things to stop at that point.
Also, I happen to know (from a few swinging episodes) that I have a larger dick than most of my friends. I'm not bragging and saying it's big. It's just a hair above average. And most of them are average or a hair below. And most of them get more tail than me.
Oh, and penis size does matter to women, just not as much as you think. And most girls I've talked to perfer a thicker, average length penis to a longer average thickness penis.
I knew a girl once who had great sex with a guy with a three inch penis, or so she claimed. She said it was "very small but he knew how to use it".
Anyways...
And Tolkein stole it from real-life Hannibal.
Repeat after me: theme and variation, theme and variation; art is not created in a vacuum.
Of course there is a line where being derivitive (as all art is to some degeree) becomes a fault. However I think that the original SW (and ESB) added more than enough new elements, or combined existing elements in new ways that it stands as a decent little film.
Cheers.
Qualms? No. I just doubt the guy would be willing to sell it for fear of legal repercussions.
Wow -- you're the DVD f'n master! I was just gonna import it straight and burn it out. Too bad I can't buy copies off you!
Cheers.
My buddy has these, and every few years we do a viewing with an LCD projector. They are the best versions that a person could hope to own: good picture and sound, and original theatrical content.
Only problem is the LD swap thing. We've considered putting them on DVD. I bet someone already has and is selling them. Which I'd pay for.
I won't pay for this garbage that Lucas is releasing, though.
Cheers.
Thanks for setting everyone straight. I'm sure they'll all be much better off if they used your value system and life goals.
Personally I can't find much use in friendster. But I don't see why some people are so outraged by it's usage by others. There's a billion people doing things that I think are a waste of time. But if they're enjoying themselves and not hurting anyone in the process... well... live and let live.
Cheers.
Sorry if I got your hopes up -- the answer is "they don't know". But current theories include increased exposure to chemicals like pesticides. My point was just that there are some disturbing (though not catastrophic) trends that might be worth looking into.
t ory.jsp?story=551590
8 5& sid=altFc_IHm248&refer=europe
Here's a couple links to articles on the research -- it was just on Google News yesterday:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/s
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100000
Cheers.
Why is it the replies to this stuff always fall into two camps:
1) The sky is falling, we're doomed
2) There is no way anything I find useful could be harmful
How about a little balance, folks. There are plenty of times throughout history where something in widespread use was later found to be more dangerous than it was worth. Asbestos and DDT come to mind. Hell, some of the early scientists who worked with radioactive materials thought it was neat that they could warm their hands over it.
The world is not doomed. Neither is the world a safe place. I hope they continue the research, take any findings with healthy skepticism, and then implement appropriate measures to improve our quality of life.
An unrelated example: brain disease has tripled in the past two decades in most developed countries. But not in Japan. Aren't you curious as to why? Or would you rather stick your head in the sand and proudly proclaim everyone who is curious to be an alarmist?
Cheers.