George R R Martin is experiencing a similar pain with his series, as did Terry Goodkind. The fact that you can not tell Martin from Goodkind is all the evidence we need that your literary criticisms carry all the weight of a gnat-fart. Goodkind is another Jordan, a talentless hack who's writing style is juvenile and cliche, who can't develop a character to save his life, who's female characters read like parody, and who's plots and themes are simply terrible.
This is a collection of stories about seperate individuals following seperate paths each intertwined in common fates inside of an expansive world. This is really no different than the Dragon Lance series You just keep digging yourself in deeper.
If this is more than you can follow, (not to say too complex, but simply the sheer volume of information and time required to invest in it) or if the collection is simply longer than your attention span, then I can reccomend many other great authors to you, and I will caution you to avoid Tad Williams, Neil Stepheson, George Martin... How you can seriously mention those three in the same sentence as Jordan? Seriously, can you honestly see no difference? Okay, I'll admit I liked Star Wars, even though I thought it was crap. I like the Phlinx of the Commonwealth series even though Alan Dean Foster is a hack writer. The difference, I know when something I like is utter crap, and I have the decency to act embarrased when I admit to liking it. You can like The Wheel of Time and no one will disrespect you (much) for it. But to try to defend it as literature only opens you up to mockery.
Please, you name some very good writers as well as some very, very bad ones. Try to figure out what the difference is. It isn't just, "I like this guy." There's plenty of writers I don't like at all, that I know are good, and plenty of writers I like who aren't very.
I'm not even that close to the affair. That's probably why I have the dispassion to look at your position equitably. It's not that important, really: you and I have both seen the like before. Maybe you've come at it from the inside, and I've come at it from the outside, more frequently? It would explain our inherent bias.
I've seen things from the outsider's perspective too frequently to give carte blanch to the insiders. And I've seen the ratio's of online communications, I know the prototypical ratio of status quo attackers to defenders. It's always seemed to me like the defenders have the advantage, and I habitually favor the underdog.
Anyway, I think we can both agree it would be a damn shame if the schism destroyed something as valuable as Wikipedia. I hope the entrenched power elite can look at the criticism of the outsiders with an open eye. And perhaps it would behoove people such as I to remember that most people, most of the time, really do care about the welfare of all. Even the elitists, for the most part, despite their ineffective methods.
Damn, the rebel part of my self finds that hard to admit that.
You sure don't deserve a flamebait or troll mod for speaking your mind. And I believe you when you say it's an affront to your sense of honor and dignity rather than a defense from a member of the cabal. But I do believe there is more going on at wikipedia than just a bunch of clueless but well meaning people who don't have a PR manager. I think there is real craziness over there. Institutionalized paranoia, a kind of group psychosis, us vs. them mentality, lack of trust in other's motives, and lack of insight into their own. The nutters have taken over the nuthouse, and they are defending it with venom and bile. It's a sad state of affairs, but one I've seen happen online since before the Internet ever went public, at places like CompuServe and GEnie.
I started playing around with computers in 1976, my friend's dad was a comp-sci prof at UNLV and he would let us play with the mainframe in a limited account over teletype. Then my dad got a TRS-80 in 1978, that's when I started to program. Next, I got a TI-99/4A, which was a piece of crap but it was mine. Finally, I got a C64, and I was in heaven. So much memory, such good documentation, such a great scene including pirate bulletin boards and crazy-ass demos. I loved that computer.
There are plenty of people saying that this "scandal" somehow affects every article on Wikipedia, Show me who says that.
They don't like the idea of Wikipedia, or they are natural conspiracy theorists who think all power and centralized control is evil, and are willing to take Wiki down in their cause to reform it on an idealistic model of total anarchy, which anyone with a lick of sense knows wouldn't work, as evidenced by the vandalism problems Wikipedia has had. This is exactly the paranoid line of thinking espoused by the cabal. The cabal is confusing themselves with wikipedia. They think they are wikipedia, and any attack on them is an attack on the whole. Nothing could be further from the truth. These "conspiracy theorists" don't want to destroy wikipedia, they want to save it from the people who are actually destroying it.
The cabal do not make wikipedia useful. It is the horde of small contributors that the cabal continuously screws over that actually do the work that makes it useful. If the inner circle of wikipedia were to fall off the face of the planet tomorrow, the site would be better for it.
You have no sense of humor, do you? I've been reading the reg for years, and they use the phrase "black helicopters" as a joke on themselves and people who believe in such things. Anyone who reads the reg knows this. They had a "spot the black helicopters on google maps" contest. They joke about secret robot conspiracies to take over the world. It's a self deprecating joke.
I think you understand that. I think you are being disingenuous in order to present your bias as fair. By pretending to be outraged, you distract criticism from that which you are trying to protect. The more I read of what you write here, the more I am convinced you are a part of the wikiclique.
Don't doubt for a second that people are banned from wikipedia for reasonable criticism, I've seen it happen dozens of times. By the way, would you care to point out where in the article you see "bombastic, ridiculous writing?"
I know what a cabal is. I've been following the story for a while, and I'm pissed off at the behavior of a small group of people conspiring on the secret mailing list to ban people they dislike. Perhaps the writer in question here deserved it, but dozens more did not. This isn't about protecting wikipedia from vandals. This is about a small group of people acting in secret to crush those they dislike and to protect each other's interests.
I find it hard to believe that anyone uninvolved in the cabal could be as shrill and defensive about it as you appear to be. It seems as though you are taking attacks on this small group of people personally, why is that? We aren't attacking wikipedia, which is a great institution, but the selfish, childish, and paranoid people who are destroying it. Why should this bother you so much if you are not one of them?
Wow, that is some serious defensiveness. Wikipedia is above criticism, huh? Guess what, mature individuals and organizations welcome criticism. The inner circle of wikipedia are paranoid loons in an echo chamber, all reinforcing each others paranoid delusions. I find wikipedia useful in spite of the horrid things they do, not because of them. This isn't about the useful things the majority of wikipedians do, this is about the craziness perpetrated by the cabal that is destroying the useful things the majority do.
The cabal are the ones being childish. No one is attacking wikipedia here, we are attacking the nutters who are ruining it. Running the cabal out on a rail will only make wikipedia better, so why are you fighting it?
Once as a boy I was told something about absolute power...now how did that go again? Um, absolute power is a lot of fun as long as it's you that has it? Absolute power is the absolute aphrodisiac? Absolute power, it's not just for breakfast anymore?
Selective enforcement of laws and institutionalized racism ensure that blacks will be incarcerated for doing the same damn things a white man will get away with. You mention that statistic as if it indicts blacks. It does not. It just points out how incredibly racist the US still is. The fact that you mention it just points out the incredible bias in the minds of most Ron Paul supporters.
Even bad changes at this point would be better than no change. Dude, that doesn't even parse. By definition, a bad thing is, well, bad. It is not better than nothing. If it is better than nothing, it is good, by the definition of the words "good" and "bad." We don't need fruitcake Ron Paul making things worse. We need someone like Dennis Kucinich, who will actually make good, rather than bad, changes.
Deflation can be just as much of a problem as inflation. We can control the amount of dollars in circulation so that they reflect the size of the economy. When it gets bigger, more dollars. When it shrinks, less. This strikes a balance between inflation and deflation. With gold, there is only so much of it in circulation, and most new gold produced goes to important industrial applications. So the amount of gold in circulation can not keep up with a fast paced economy, and deflation occurs. People's savings disappears. Bad things happen, just like with inflation, but we have no control.
You overestimate the danger of inflation. Why is it bad, exactly? Why is it worse than deflation?
To top it all off, those industrial applications I mentioned? What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics, and those hoping to profit off of the first group.
Scientists are quick to point out that, say, intelligent design isn't science. And neither is this, it's propaganda from people who want to prove that free markets always work. As for the directors, you'll need to give me a few days. I used to have a link to a great web program that would diagram the connections between the boards of any fortune five hundred companies. It was truly eye opening. But it hasn't been working for the last few years, so I'll need to find some other sources.
Now that I think about it, I'm sure you are right. They probably started with trying to balance a one legged robot because it is simpler and would give them a clearer picture of the actual problems involved. Duh. *smacks head*
It's the blind leading the blind out there. And not only that, they distrust the sighted. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man isn't king. He's a dangerous lunatic.
Our entire society is entranced by the "me, Me ME!" attitude. We worship the self, and raise selfishness on a pedestal. Anything community or socially oriented is seen as "commie." The most selfless acts are claimed to be motivated by selfishness. Greed is not only good, it's taken on a divine aura. There's nothing greed can't do! Is it any wonder that this attitude exists in hams, too?
Rugged individualist libertarian types hate being told what to do, even if it's the right thing. If you told them they are required to breath oxygen, they'd pass out in minutes.
I mean Rudy, jeez, why do I always think "9/11" when I think Rudy Guiliani? He's done so much for 9/11. I mean New York. If he's elected president, I know he'll 9/11 the whole 9/11 into a brand new bright and shiny 9/11.
It's not just the companies involved or the straight percentages. Media is a far larger market now, and worldwide, so even though the top ten companies own only a little more, percentage wise, they own a much larger mindshare. And even that is a minor point. The article doesn't look at the composition of the boards. Those ten companies aren't really competing, they are controlled by a small group of individuals. Most board members sit on the boards of several companies.
About the source, I'll just say that when you start with a desired conclusion, it isn't hard to come up with data to support it. Reason isn't interested in finding out if free markets are they best, they take that on faith. They are out to prove what they already believe.
Slashdot Mirror
What good is an unnecessary war between EMACS and vi without a comment touting the merits of ed?
Ed is the standard text editor!
Please, you name some very good writers as well as some very, very bad ones. Try to figure out what the difference is. It isn't just, "I like this guy." There's plenty of writers I don't like at all, that I know are good, and plenty of writers I like who aren't very.
Too true. Hungover on a Saturday morning, so that is all, for now.
I'm not even that close to the affair. That's probably why I have the dispassion to look at your position equitably. It's not that important, really: you and I have both seen the like before. Maybe you've come at it from the inside, and I've come at it from the outside, more frequently? It would explain our inherent bias.
I've seen things from the outsider's perspective too frequently to give carte blanch to the insiders. And I've seen the ratio's of online communications, I know the prototypical ratio of status quo attackers to defenders. It's always seemed to me like the defenders have the advantage, and I habitually favor the underdog.
Anyway, I think we can both agree it would be a damn shame if the schism destroyed something as valuable as Wikipedia. I hope the entrenched power elite can look at the criticism of the outsiders with an open eye. And perhaps it would behoove people such as I to remember that most people, most of the time, really do care about the welfare of all. Even the elitists, for the most part, despite their ineffective methods.
Damn, the rebel part of my self finds that hard to admit that.
You sure don't deserve a flamebait or troll mod for speaking your mind. And I believe you when you say it's an affront to your sense of honor and dignity rather than a defense from a member of the cabal. But I do believe there is more going on at wikipedia than just a bunch of clueless but well meaning people who don't have a PR manager. I think there is real craziness over there. Institutionalized paranoia, a kind of group psychosis, us vs. them mentality, lack of trust in other's motives, and lack of insight into their own. The nutters have taken over the nuthouse, and they are defending it with venom and bile. It's a sad state of affairs, but one I've seen happen online since before the Internet ever went public, at places like CompuServe and GEnie.
I started playing around with computers in 1976, my friend's dad was a comp-sci prof at UNLV and he would let us play with the mainframe in a limited account over teletype. Then my dad got a TRS-80 in 1978, that's when I started to program. Next, I got a TI-99/4A, which was a piece of crap but it was mine. Finally, I got a C64, and I was in heaven. So much memory, such good documentation, such a great scene including pirate bulletin boards and crazy-ass demos. I loved that computer.
The cabal do not make wikipedia useful. It is the horde of small contributors that the cabal continuously screws over that actually do the work that makes it useful. If the inner circle of wikipedia were to fall off the face of the planet tomorrow, the site would be better for it.
You have no sense of humor, do you? I've been reading the reg for years, and they use the phrase "black helicopters" as a joke on themselves and people who believe in such things. Anyone who reads the reg knows this. They had a "spot the black helicopters on google maps" contest. They joke about secret robot conspiracies to take over the world. It's a self deprecating joke.
I think you understand that. I think you are being disingenuous in order to present your bias as fair. By pretending to be outraged, you distract criticism from that which you are trying to protect. The more I read of what you write here, the more I am convinced you are a part of the wikiclique.
Don't doubt for a second that people are banned from wikipedia for reasonable criticism, I've seen it happen dozens of times. By the way, would you care to point out where in the article you see "bombastic, ridiculous writing?"
I know what a cabal is. I've been following the story for a while, and I'm pissed off at the behavior of a small group of people conspiring on the secret mailing list to ban people they dislike. Perhaps the writer in question here deserved it, but dozens more did not. This isn't about protecting wikipedia from vandals. This is about a small group of people acting in secret to crush those they dislike and to protect each other's interests.
I find it hard to believe that anyone uninvolved in the cabal could be as shrill and defensive about it as you appear to be. It seems as though you are taking attacks on this small group of people personally, why is that? We aren't attacking wikipedia, which is a great institution, but the selfish, childish, and paranoid people who are destroying it. Why should this bother you so much if you are not one of them?
Wow, that is some serious defensiveness. Wikipedia is above criticism, huh? Guess what, mature individuals and organizations welcome criticism. The inner circle of wikipedia are paranoid loons in an echo chamber, all reinforcing each others paranoid delusions. I find wikipedia useful in spite of the horrid things they do, not because of them. This isn't about the useful things the majority of wikipedians do, this is about the craziness perpetrated by the cabal that is destroying the useful things the majority do.
The cabal are the ones being childish. No one is attacking wikipedia here, we are attacking the nutters who are ruining it. Running the cabal out on a rail will only make wikipedia better, so why are you fighting it?
Absolute power is the absolute aphrodisiac?
Absolute power, it's not just for breakfast anymore?
Selective enforcement of laws and institutionalized racism ensure that blacks will be incarcerated for doing the same damn things a white man will get away with. You mention that statistic as if it indicts blacks. It does not. It just points out how incredibly racist the US still is. The fact that you mention it just points out the incredible bias in the minds of most Ron Paul supporters.
Deflation can be just as much of a problem as inflation. We can control the amount of dollars in circulation so that they reflect the size of the economy. When it gets bigger, more dollars. When it shrinks, less. This strikes a balance between inflation and deflation. With gold, there is only so much of it in circulation, and most new gold produced goes to important industrial applications. So the amount of gold in circulation can not keep up with a fast paced economy, and deflation occurs. People's savings disappears. Bad things happen, just like with inflation, but we have no control.
You overestimate the danger of inflation. Why is it bad, exactly? Why is it worse than deflation?
To top it all off, those industrial applications I mentioned? What do you think will happen to the cost of things that use gold, like computers, when gold is used as currency? In short, the gold standard is a stupid and outmoded idea promulgated by two types of people: those without a basic understanding of economics, and those hoping to profit off of the first group.
Scientists are quick to point out that, say, intelligent design isn't science. And neither is this, it's propaganda from people who want to prove that free markets always work. As for the directors, you'll need to give me a few days. I used to have a link to a great web program that would diagram the connections between the boards of any fortune five hundred companies. It was truly eye opening. But it hasn't been working for the last few years, so I'll need to find some other sources.
Now that I think about it, I'm sure you are right. They probably started with trying to balance a one legged robot because it is simpler and would give them a clearer picture of the actual problems involved. Duh. *smacks head*
New and Improved! They take a kicking and keep on licking!
I saw a show on the Discovery channel over a decade ago showing a one legged robot that could recover it's balance when kicked.
This is hardly new. I've had a something that gets fatter the more you stretch it for as long as I can remember.
Our entire society is entranced by the "me, Me ME!" attitude. We worship the self, and raise selfishness on a pedestal. Anything community or socially oriented is seen as "commie." The most selfless acts are claimed to be motivated by selfishness. Greed is not only good, it's taken on a divine aura. There's nothing greed can't do! Is it any wonder that this attitude exists in hams, too?
Rugged individualist libertarian types hate being told what to do, even if it's the right thing. If you told them they are required to breath oxygen, they'd pass out in minutes.
I mean Rudy, jeez, why do I always think "9/11" when I think Rudy Guiliani? He's done so much for 9/11. I mean New York. If he's elected president, I know he'll 9/11 the whole 9/11 into a brand new bright and shiny 9/11.
9/11!
It's not just the companies involved or the straight percentages. Media is a far larger market now, and worldwide, so even though the top ten companies own only a little more, percentage wise, they own a much larger mindshare. And even that is a minor point. The article doesn't look at the composition of the boards. Those ten companies aren't really competing, they are controlled by a small group of individuals. Most board members sit on the boards of several companies.
About the source, I'll just say that when you start with a desired conclusion, it isn't hard to come up with data to support it. Reason isn't interested in finding out if free markets are they best, they take that on faith. They are out to prove what they already believe.