Ah, yes... the straw man argument. If you cannot properly argue against the message, attack the messenger. Again, unsirprising.
Well, somebody had to bring the discussion down to your level. So far, you have yet to come up with anything but straw man attacks yourself.
There is no M$ vs. Linux war. It is M$ vs. skilled people with a clue.
The only war that exists is within your head. More mature users are able to see beyond the OS-war rhetoric of a mental 3-year old. That you are childish enough to use "M$" instead of "MS" or "Microsoft" proves who you are. So does anything else you have written.
I am merely not interested in embracing incorrect assertions.
Then you should stop making them.
Your language in the above quote shows you for who you actually are.
Wow, you think you are able to find out who people actually are by judging his/her language. How fascinating!
A: You think you know every Linux Guru in the world. B: I have read your posts. There are certainly other reasons, but those two will suffice quite well;-)
The most important other reason would of course be that you lost your ability for critical thinking the day you got into linux. News flash! Linux may not be best for everybody!
Assuming we can build sentient intelligences, I doubt we have any realistic way of controlling and/or judging whether they are subservient to us or not. Almost by definition, any sentient being (artificial or not) will have it's own will and agenda. We can either hope for the best, stop all AI research now, or try make sure good people build it before e.g. the military does (and still hope for the best).
If script kiddies can break copy-protection schemes for software within hours of release, we must assume AI programs can break free of their prisons pretty fast too! And they have the advantage of solving the problem in a domain they most likely are intimately familiar with: software! Even if we keep AIs physically locked up, with no access to outside networks, they are too practical to be kept locked up forever. Somebody will let them out to solve a problem...
Ah, I see, you are not interested in facts, only in my (self-proclaimed?) status within the religion/cult of linux. Well, since I am not a linux guru (in other words, I'm not Linus, ESR, RMS, Larry, Guido, Alan, or Ingo), I guess that in the alternate universe you live in, you must be right.
By the way, which of the above-mentioned gurus are you? And what makes you so certain that it's you who should be the teacher?
Re:pointless - techology will overtake it
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
Uhm no, that is not the difficulty, that was the assumption behind the whole idea. There is a difficulty though. Because the newer ships are faster, they will have to break in order to rendezvous with the old ships. This seems like a huge waste of energy.
If you already have AI and robotics, why bother with DNA? It would be the robots that colonized the universe, not us. Sentient robots need organic humans as much as we would need common cold.
I'm a linux user myself, and the items listed are things I know for a fact doesn't work in linux (or at least works very poorly compared to windows). Saying otherwise is either wishful thinking, an outright lie, or shows a severe lack of knowledge, either way, it doesn't make it so. I'm not against trying to show other people the benefits of linux, but at least be honest with them:
Linux has limitations when it comes to supporting third-party devices that comes with with closed source drivers for windows only. Most of these device manufacturers keep their programming interface secret, making it close to impossible to develop good linux support.
Most commercial software is made for windows only. So if your needs go beyond standard web-browsing/email/office/emacs/gcc you may find linux lacking. This includes games too.
Linux lacks nothing useful that Windows has, and in cases where a "feature" isn't available, it is because that "feature" trades security for convenience.
Aha, so each of these is a "feature" that trades security for convenience:
Being able to communicate with various advanced cellphones and PDAs
Being able to to upload/download maps/routes/waypoints/etc to/from my handheld GPS
Being able to use my homestudio with Cubase or similar software
iTunes
Having browser plugins that actually play embedded video
Having a flash plugin that doesn't slow the browser to a crawl and/or kill it
etc...
I'm so glad that you explained this to me. Now I know that whenever I find something that works better (or even works at all) in windows, it's because it's a "feature" that trades security for convenience. Well, here's a tip for you. A brick has even less "features", and is not convenient at all. How's that for user-friendliness?
When GNOME rants about Qt not being free enough, it is really GNU saying that the GPL is not free enough.
GNOME is a piece of software (a desktop GUI-system). GNU is a project sponsored by the FSF to write a free modern operating system. Neither GNOME or GNU are capable of ranting.
The FSF's official spokespersons are not complaining about the Qt license being GPL (however, they used to complain before Qt was GPL'd). However, FSF spokespersons have uttered that they still prefer to work on GNOME rather than KDE for other (technical, ideologic, and/or historical) reasons.
People who are not official spokespersons for FSF can prefer GNOME or KDE for their own reasons. And they are free to believe otherwise than FSF dictates when it comes to which license is the best for which purpose. Having the base libraries of GNOME being LGPL instead of GPL is something many people find more practical, even though it contradicts FSF dogma. Then again, most people are not Richard Stallman.
This Bizarro World like mentality does much to explain their user interface decisions.
If you find any view that is not based solely on FSFs license recommendations bizarro, then it's obviously you who have a problem. That GNOME licenses their libraries as LGPL, and prefers to make things work correctly out of the box instead of having endless configurability, is both choices that I respect and agree with. That the KDE people choose to use GPL Qt is a choice I respect and disagree with.
Jesus fuck, PC stands for personal computer, not Windows (hint: Apple commercials lie)
Yes, it's possible Jesus fucked. Maybe he was gay and fucked his disciples, maybe he fucked Maria Magdalena, who knows...
Apart from that, while it's true that PC is short for personal computer, that doesn't mean that e.g. an office computer owned by the company can't be called a PC. According to this wikipedia article, IBM applied for a trademark for the term "Personal Computer" in 1981 (three years after Apple had used it in advertizing), and got it. Then, a few years later, a judge declared that "Personal Computer" meant any "Personal Computer" not made by Apple (ironically not just the IBM PC compatibles). Either way, I think it is fair to use the term PC both as designating any IBM PC Compatible computer, a computer capable of running DOS/Windows, or as any computer typically used by only one person at a time, depending on context. Just as we are also able to distinguish between PC as politically correct, or PC as computer.
Well, whatever makes you feel better. As someone who actually works in a security company, here's why I would buy a home alarm:
You get these nice friendly stickers to put on your window
The alarm company gets a key, so if you loose yours, it's cheaper to call them than a locksmith (this doesn't work out if that's the only reason for your alarm)
Fire alarms can be routed to the alarm company, which will call the fire-department if they can't reach you on your home or cell-phone number
If you have a water-leak while away, the alarm company can detect that, and send security personell to turn off the water and/or do other appropriate actions
If somebody breaks into your house while you are away, the alarm company can make sure the building is secured afterwards, so that it won't stand open for days after the thieves have left.
If you are old and fragile, the system can be combined with panic buttons, so you can get help if you suddenly fall down the stairs, or something like that.
If you want an alarm to give you "advance warning" if somebody breaks in during the night, you are either paranoid, or need to move. If you can afford the alarm system, you can afford either the medication, or a better neighbourhood.
Do I have an alarm myself? No, I live on second floor in an apartment in a quiet and low-crime area, so I don't feel the need for one, nor would my insurance company lower my rates much, if I had one. My washing machine is in my bathroom, so a leak doesn't matter too much. I am young and healthy, and I'm not particulary afraid of hurting myself alone at home. The only reason left would be for fire alarms when I'm away, but I'm willing to take that risk. I keep important papers in a safe at my bank, and the house is insured.
When the alarm communicates with your local security company central over a normal phone line, it does so using a modem-like device. So with VoIP, you send digital data through a modem through a VoIP line, that will be sent through ADSL or a broadband modem, through a cable intended for analog data. Of course it's less than ideal. A simple bittorrent download is all you need to make sure your phone line doesn't work (or loss of power, or random glitch in any of the components down the line, such as router, blah, blah...)
But, obviously you shouldn't use phone lines for alarms, either way. It should be a dedicated monitored line, so the alarm company will know when somebody cuts your line. In earlier times, this used to be ridiculously expensive. These days, all you need is GPRS/GSM. The company I work for do it even better, we connect it directly through your broadband-connection (NOT through VoIP), with a backup-system through GPRS/GSM cell-phone (and yeah, batteries for backup).
If you want electrical energy from wind, we already have something called a turbine that will do that. It could also be used to generate electrical energy from movement through water. I can't see how coating sails and/or fuselage with proteins would help that. The idea is that sails/fuselage should be optimal for generating movement in the direction you want, not for generating electricity.
The thing had pizeoelectric pads that turned the pressure from walking into heat to keep the wearer's feet warm during the winter.
You don't need this when walking. It's when you stand still you start freezing on your feet. That's why you've never heard anything more of the idea. But if you want heated innersoles now, you can buy (or make yourself) one with batteries quite easily. 1/2 - 5 watts per shoe is enough, so a few AA-batteries will suffice. Unless your requirements are extreme (e.g. tight dancing shoes, standing still outside in the snow, -30 degrees), I would go for the lower end, e.g. 1-2 watt.
Just because your username can be different from your real name doesn't mean that your actions are completely without consequences. Not that I have a lot of sympathies for either Fox, ECOTtotal, Fox viewers, viewers of the TV-show 24, people who upload copyrighted stuff to youtube, people who watch copyrighted stuff from youtube, or even people in general. But I do enjoy myself when corporate greed wins over stupid people.
It's also the only potential mass-market use for a lot of cores.
Either that, or your imagination is lacking somewhat. Personally, I've wanted lots of cores sinces I was in kindergarten. I'm quite sure I can find a use for them all.
For sparse matrices, you can use algorithms that are vastly more efficient than the algorithms you otherwise would use for non-sparce matrices of the same size. This is called sparse linear algebra. If you can't use the algorithms for sparse linear algebra, it doesn't matter whether you call it "dense", "average", "standard", "normal", "regular", "common", or what the fuck else.
# Structured grids
# Unstructured grids
Are there any other types?
Again, this refers to the algorithms used. There are different algorithms you use in each case. And sure enough, there are other types, such as grids structured in non-standard ways, that some mathematicians might have developed special algorithms for. However, these are the common types of computations run.
(** Warning: Car analogy...)
Isn't that kind of like selling a car and listing on the spec sheet:
# Goes slow
# Goes fast
No. It's like listing the major uses of motorized vehicles, and among them putting "transport of goods", and "transport of people", and then have some dude on the Internet point out that this sounds funny.
I fail to see why this is of relevance in a discussion about wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has never aimed for, or ever been, the place to put original research. Scientists haven't published their findings on wikipedia in the past, they doesn't do it know, and they will not do so in the future.
However, if you are a scientist, and want to write an article about something you know a lot about, in a way that is dumbed down for the masses, wikipedia might be an interesting target for that article.
Furthermore, academic articles have traditionally been published in academic journals related to the field of study. Limiting federally sponsored research to write their articles in journals/websites for federally sponsored research, seems a bit limiting. How about research sponsored partly by industry, partly by the local state, partly by the federal government, and partly by the navy. Where do you want to publish that? Should it be published in "journal for research funded partially by the federal government, partly by the state of Michigan, partly by General Electrics, and partly by US Navy"? How many journals do you really want?
Because Joe schmoe computer user doesn't care about the bottlenecks. He goes to the store with the impression of "Hey Faster Ram = Faster Computer" even if there's another problem elsewhere.
This is how big corps make money - they keep improving the stuff the no-nothing wants and they make big bucks off minor 'improvements' that don't really help.
Apart from the fact that...
RAM speed is a major bottleneck for computer performance
Even if there are other bottlenecks elsewhere, reducing one as important as RAM speed is undoubtedly going to make a huge difference
Corporations doesn't make money by creating stuff nobody wants
...I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
For random I/O, they are obscenely fast for the price...about twice the speed of two striped Raptors with a good controller.
Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to buy a real computer with room for more RAM, so you didn't have to use a hardware device to imitate another hardware device, so that you could use software to imitate the drivers of the other hardware device, so that you could use it as the first kind of hardware device, just with lower speed and convenience? Or in other words: wouldn't it be better to just run the database in RAM?
Most likely, ten years from now 80GB flash drives will be common place enough and not super expensive. But until then, spinning platers!
I expect to see 80GB flash drives long before 10 years. Assuming a growth rate of doubled capacity every 18 months, true enough, we'd reach about 80 GB in 10 years, but so far, flash memory has increased much faster than Moores law. Also I assume that the amount of data our computers manipulate continue to increase with each version of windows/HD-DVD/whatever, so we still need larger/slower storage mediums in 10 years, such as harddisks.
In fact, the whole idea of using a (set of) rotating platter(s) with magnetic coating and radially movable read/write head(s) for storage, has been so successful for so long, and continue to improve at such an astonishing rate, that I doubt it will go away any time soon. In the far future, it's more difficult to predict what would happen. But even today, wheels are important, fire is our main source of (non-food) energy, primitive cutting tools are regulary used in any household, and in general, assuming things fail to change, is rarely wrong (we still haven't got flying cars!)
First, there already is such a system, and it's not necessarily a good idea. If you contribute a lot to wikipedia you can get promoted to editor or whatever they call it. But being unemployed and willing to spend lots of time editing wikipedia articles, doesn't make you an expert in neuro-surgery. Just because you have spent two years of your life drooling on the Internet, doesn't mean that your opinion on the matter is better than that of an actual neuro-surgeon. This is how wikipedia currently works (Of course, even more important than "karma" is the ability to be willing to waste time in edit wars).
On the other hand, the opposite doesn't work any better. Refusing anyone but actual neuro-surgeons to write/edit the article on neuro-surgery might mean that it would never be written. This was how nupedia worked. They got maybe five complete articles.
There's no doubt that wikipedia works better than nupedia did. However, (apart from actual vandalism), there's always the danger that a well-meaning but ignorant wikipedian with lots of time, will destroy the finely tuned article of someone knowledgeable, who aren't going to spend all his free time on wikipedia babysitting his/her articles(s). The ideal would be to keep wikipedias nice open features, and add a little bit more checks and balances where that makes sense. "Karma" is not a suitable model for this.
Perhaps the main problem is that we can't have both. In terms of quality, nupedia was great. However, when it comes to producing anything at all, only wikipedia seems to work. Maybe what we need isn't so much a "fork" of wikipedia, as a "distribution". That way, wikipedia could continue to be a place where people constantly did their "development work" on articles, with all the mess that ensued, and people who just wanted to read wikipedia articles could access them through a distribution where every article is reviewed by a named person (preferably an expert, but in reality not always so). More recent changes in wikipedia articles would be continually reviewed and optionally included by each new release of the "distribution".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, somebody had to bring the discussion down to your level. So far, you have yet to come up with anything but straw man attacks yourself.
The only war that exists is within your head. More mature users are able to see beyond the OS-war rhetoric of a mental 3-year old. That you are childish enough to use "M$" instead of "MS" or "Microsoft" proves who you are. So does anything else you have written.
Then you should stop making them.
Wow, you think you are able to find out who people actually are by judging his/her language. How fascinating!
The most important other reason would of course be that you lost your ability for critical thinking the day you got into linux. News flash! Linux may not be best for everybody!
I agree. Humans are very prejudiced against us.
Assuming we can build sentient intelligences, I doubt we have any realistic way of controlling and/or judging whether they are subservient to us or not. Almost by definition, any sentient being (artificial or not) will have it's own will and agenda. We can either hope for the best, stop all AI research now, or try make sure good people build it before e.g. the military does (and still hope for the best).
If script kiddies can break copy-protection schemes for software within hours of release, we must assume AI programs can break free of their prisons pretty fast too! And they have the advantage of solving the problem in a domain they most likely are intimately familiar with: software! Even if we keep AIs physically locked up, with no access to outside networks, they are too practical to be kept locked up forever. Somebody will let them out to solve a problem...
Ah, I see, you are not interested in facts, only in my (self-proclaimed?) status within the religion/cult of linux. Well, since I am not a linux guru (in other words, I'm not Linus, ESR, RMS, Larry, Guido, Alan, or Ingo), I guess that in the alternate universe you live in, you must be right.
By the way, which of the above-mentioned gurus are you? And what makes you so certain that it's you who should be the teacher?
Uhm no, that is not the difficulty, that was the assumption behind the whole idea. There is a difficulty though. Because the newer ships are faster, they will have to break in order to rendezvous with the old ships. This seems like a huge waste of energy.
If you already have AI and robotics, why bother with DNA? It would be the robots that colonized the universe, not us. Sentient robots need organic humans as much as we would need common cold.
Aha, so each of these is a "feature" that trades security for convenience:
- Being able to communicate with various advanced cellphones and PDAs
- Being able to to upload/download maps/routes/waypoints/etc to/from my handheld GPS
- Being able to use my homestudio with Cubase or similar software
- iTunes
- Having browser plugins that actually play embedded video
- Having a flash plugin that doesn't slow the browser to a crawl and/or kill it
- etc...
I'm so glad that you explained this to me. Now I know that whenever I find something that works better (or even works at all) in windows, it's because it's a "feature" that trades security for convenience. Well, here's a tip for you. A brick has even less "features", and is not convenient at all. How's that for user-friendliness?GNOME is a piece of software (a desktop GUI-system). GNU is a project sponsored by the FSF to write a free modern operating system. Neither GNOME or GNU are capable of ranting.
The FSF's official spokespersons are not complaining about the Qt license being GPL (however, they used to complain before Qt was GPL'd). However, FSF spokespersons have uttered that they still prefer to work on GNOME rather than KDE for other (technical, ideologic, and/or historical) reasons.
People who are not official spokespersons for FSF can prefer GNOME or KDE for their own reasons. And they are free to believe otherwise than FSF dictates when it comes to which license is the best for which purpose. Having the base libraries of GNOME being LGPL instead of GPL is something many people find more practical, even though it contradicts FSF dogma. Then again, most people are not Richard Stallman.
If you find any view that is not based solely on FSFs license recommendations bizarro, then it's obviously you who have a problem. That GNOME licenses their libraries as LGPL, and prefers to make things work correctly out of the box instead of having endless configurability, is both choices that I respect and agree with. That the KDE people choose to use GPL Qt is a choice I respect and disagree with.
Yes, it's possible Jesus fucked. Maybe he was gay and fucked his disciples, maybe he fucked Maria Magdalena, who knows...
Apart from that, while it's true that PC is short for personal computer, that doesn't mean that e.g. an office computer owned by the company can't be called a PC. According to this wikipedia article, IBM applied for a trademark for the term "Personal Computer" in 1981 (three years after Apple had used it in advertizing), and got it. Then, a few years later, a judge declared that "Personal Computer" meant any "Personal Computer" not made by Apple (ironically not just the IBM PC compatibles). Either way, I think it is fair to use the term PC both as designating any IBM PC Compatible computer, a computer capable of running DOS/Windows, or as any computer typically used by only one person at a time, depending on context. Just as we are also able to distinguish between PC as politically correct, or PC as computer.
If you want an alarm to give you "advance warning" if somebody breaks in during the night, you are either paranoid, or need to move. If you can afford the alarm system, you can afford either the medication, or a better neighbourhood.
Do I have an alarm myself? No, I live on second floor in an apartment in a quiet and low-crime area, so I don't feel the need for one, nor would my insurance company lower my rates much, if I had one. My washing machine is in my bathroom, so a leak doesn't matter too much. I am young and healthy, and I'm not particulary afraid of hurting myself alone at home. The only reason left would be for fire alarms when I'm away, but I'm willing to take that risk. I keep important papers in a safe at my bank, and the house is insured.
But, obviously you shouldn't use phone lines for alarms, either way. It should be a dedicated monitored line, so the alarm company will know when somebody cuts your line. In earlier times, this used to be ridiculously expensive. These days, all you need is GPRS/GSM. The company I work for do it even better, we connect it directly through your broadband-connection (NOT through VoIP), with a backup-system through GPRS/GSM cell-phone (and yeah, batteries for backup).
There was a movie called the matrix that said otherwise. There even was a matrix 2 and 3, so it can't be completely without merit.
If you want electrical energy from wind, we already have something called a turbine that will do that. It could also be used to generate electrical energy from movement through water. I can't see how coating sails and/or fuselage with proteins would help that. The idea is that sails/fuselage should be optimal for generating movement in the direction you want, not for generating electricity.
You don't need this when walking. It's when you stand still you start freezing on your feet. That's why you've never heard anything more of the idea. But if you want heated innersoles now, you can buy (or make yourself) one with batteries quite easily. 1/2 - 5 watts per shoe is enough, so a few AA-batteries will suffice. Unless your requirements are extreme (e.g. tight dancing shoes, standing still outside in the snow, -30 degrees), I would go for the lower end, e.g. 1-2 watt.
I think it's the first option.
Just because your username can be different from your real name doesn't mean that your actions are completely without consequences. Not that I have a lot of sympathies for either Fox, ECOTtotal, Fox viewers, viewers of the TV-show 24, people who upload copyrighted stuff to youtube, people who watch copyrighted stuff from youtube, or even people in general. But I do enjoy myself when corporate greed wins over stupid people.
Either that, or your imagination is lacking somewhat. Personally, I've wanted lots of cores sinces I was in kindergarten. I'm quite sure I can find a use for them all.
For sparse matrices, you can use algorithms that are vastly more efficient than the algorithms you otherwise would use for non-sparce matrices of the same size. This is called sparse linear algebra. If you can't use the algorithms for sparse linear algebra, it doesn't matter whether you call it "dense", "average", "standard", "normal", "regular", "common", or what the fuck else.
Again, this refers to the algorithms used. There are different algorithms you use in each case. And sure enough, there are other types, such as grids structured in non-standard ways, that some mathematicians might have developed special algorithms for. However, these are the common types of computations run.
No. It's like listing the major uses of motorized vehicles, and among them putting "transport of goods", and "transport of people", and then have some dude on the Internet point out that this sounds funny.
I fail to see why this is of relevance in a discussion about wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has never aimed for, or ever been, the place to put original research. Scientists haven't published their findings on wikipedia in the past, they doesn't do it know, and they will not do so in the future.
However, if you are a scientist, and want to write an article about something you know a lot about, in a way that is dumbed down for the masses, wikipedia might be an interesting target for that article.
Furthermore, academic articles have traditionally been published in academic journals related to the field of study. Limiting federally sponsored research to write their articles in journals/websites for federally sponsored research, seems a bit limiting. How about research sponsored partly by industry, partly by the local state, partly by the federal government, and partly by the navy. Where do you want to publish that? Should it be published in "journal for research funded partially by the federal government, partly by the state of Michigan, partly by General Electrics, and partly by US Navy"? How many journals do you really want?
Apart from the fact that...
Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to buy a real computer with room for more RAM, so you didn't have to use a hardware device to imitate another hardware device, so that you could use software to imitate the drivers of the other hardware device, so that you could use it as the first kind of hardware device, just with lower speed and convenience? Or in other words: wouldn't it be better to just run the database in RAM?
I expect to see 80GB flash drives long before 10 years. Assuming a growth rate of doubled capacity every 18 months, true enough, we'd reach about 80 GB in 10 years, but so far, flash memory has increased much faster than Moores law. Also I assume that the amount of data our computers manipulate continue to increase with each version of windows/HD-DVD/whatever, so we still need larger/slower storage mediums in 10 years, such as harddisks.
In fact, the whole idea of using a (set of) rotating platter(s) with magnetic coating and radially movable read/write head(s) for storage, has been so successful for so long, and continue to improve at such an astonishing rate, that I doubt it will go away any time soon. In the far future, it's more difficult to predict what would happen. But even today, wheels are important, fire is our main source of (non-food) energy, primitive cutting tools are regulary used in any household, and in general, assuming things fail to change, is rarely wrong (we still haven't got flying cars!)
First, there already is such a system, and it's not necessarily a good idea. If you contribute a lot to wikipedia you can get promoted to editor or whatever they call it. But being unemployed and willing to spend lots of time editing wikipedia articles, doesn't make you an expert in neuro-surgery. Just because you have spent two years of your life drooling on the Internet, doesn't mean that your opinion on the matter is better than that of an actual neuro-surgeon. This is how wikipedia currently works (Of course, even more important than "karma" is the ability to be willing to waste time in edit wars).
On the other hand, the opposite doesn't work any better. Refusing anyone but actual neuro-surgeons to write/edit the article on neuro-surgery might mean that it would never be written. This was how nupedia worked. They got maybe five complete articles.
There's no doubt that wikipedia works better than nupedia did. However, (apart from actual vandalism), there's always the danger that a well-meaning but ignorant wikipedian with lots of time, will destroy the finely tuned article of someone knowledgeable, who aren't going to spend all his free time on wikipedia babysitting his/her articles(s). The ideal would be to keep wikipedias nice open features, and add a little bit more checks and balances where that makes sense. "Karma" is not a suitable model for this.
Perhaps the main problem is that we can't have both. In terms of quality, nupedia was great. However, when it comes to producing anything at all, only wikipedia seems to work. Maybe what we need isn't so much a "fork" of wikipedia, as a "distribution". That way, wikipedia could continue to be a place where people constantly did their "development work" on articles, with all the mess that ensued, and people who just wanted to read wikipedia articles could access them through a distribution where every article is reviewed by a named person (preferably an expert, but in reality not always so). More recent changes in wikipedia articles would be continually reviewed and optionally included by each new release of the "distribution".