> I am annoyed about how they're trying to rid of trivia sections.
The actual guidelines say (or said last I checked) that the information in trivia sections are better rewritten in the main body text, but that trivia sections can be a good way to get started.
But a lot of editors seem to think trivia is bad, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Which is madness, the main use of encyclopedias are as sources of trivia.
I tried "Albania" and "Pokemon", both seemed pretty good to my ignorant eyes.
Sowhat is the problem?
Are you one of those kids trying to masquerade as adults by being pretentious about which subjects are considered "worthy" by some ill-defined criteria? Your selection of topics to try out could indicate that. If so, I suggest you grow up.
A "worthy" topic for an encyclopedia is a topic readers seek information about.
Multiple editors is needed for Wikipedia
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Wikipedia only works if there are multiple competent editors interested enough in the subject to corrects each others mistakes. Without that, it just becomes a soapbox / blog representing one persons opinion.
I see the "notability" criteria as an effort to make it likely the articles will be cross checked.
Additionally, if the software is popular and the original vendor provides poor support, someone else will step in with a better offer. A market economy is always better for the customer than a state granted monopoly.
[ BTW: I guess most people "make money" on free software not by support or sponsorship, by being paid in advance by the customer for the development. I know I do. ]
No, the parent conflated two assertions, one of which was incorrect.
What he wrote was a single assertion unlocked with a SIM card slot which is correct. You can guess that he meant to write unlocked or with a SIM card slot. And you may be right. But replacing a correct statement with an incorrect statement, and then criticizing someone for the incorrect statement, is not cool.
Stave Ballmer sometimes have trouble expressing himself verbally, so here is what he meant to say: "The algorithms that reads your mail on a gmail acoount are more advanced than the algorithms that reads your mail on a hotmail account."
This is one of the cases where I agree with them. If you sell below market price, the market will correct your mistake. If a ticket is worth US$50 for a poor person, and US$500 for a rich person, and you sell it for US$50 to the poor person, the only thing that makes economic sense for him to resell it for US$500 to the the rich person. He has then US$450, nine times as much as the ticket was worth to him. And the rich person got his ticket, so he is happy too. This is a win for everybody.
If you do this sufficiently often, the poor man will likely make it his livelihood to correct you mistakes, spreading joy and making a buck at the same time.
> Do you mean that wireless providers in Europe are explicitly required to unlock your > phone (if you ask, for some fee)?
Depends on the country.
In Denmark, they are obliged to unlock the phone after 6 months, which is the longest legally binding period for this kind of contracts. They are not allowed to require a fee for that.
I used that for my first cell phone, there were no problems.
These days, the six month subscription fee tend to be a pretty good match for the price difference between a locked and an unlocked phone. And some subscription plans have a sharp drop in the subscription fee after six months.
My current vendor doesn't even bother sim-locking the phones.
>I'm not really sure why this myth continues to propagate. iPhone has a SIM slot.
The slot is not of much use when the phone is locked to a specific SIM card. Which is what the GP complained about. Switching to a local SIM card when you come to a new country will of course save you a lot of money, when the phone will refuse to operate. But keeping your phone turned off will save you the same amount, and be much simpler.
> Uh, since when is being opposed to a racist, oil-fueled war not honourable?
Nothing in the history of France would suggest that it would especially oppose an racist, oil-fueled war. Even if was so rather than just an incompetent son trying to outdo his fathers achievements.
The opposition from France was more likely due to the war not promoting French interest in the region, a desire to keep a good relationship with Germany, and the incredible diplomatic incompetence of the US administration. Most political commentators here at the time expected France to join the coalition eventually (after some posturing) as they usually do, but Donald Rumsfelt made it impossible for France to do so without losing face. Only an incredible stubbornness on the side of Tony Blair prevented Rumsfelt from also kicking UK out of the coalition.
> Wikipedia then becomes argued not in terms of academic quality but in terms of "ideally, > it'd work!" or "it gets gradually better!" or, worst of all, "it's popular, so it must be > good!" So is Windows.
How about "it works for me".
When I first heard of Wikipedia, I immediately dismissed it as "totally unworkable", will be dominated by trolls, kooks and spammers, based on my experience with how Usenet was destroyed.
So I ignored it, until Google started directing me to Wikipedia articles, and I noticed that these now were better than what Google otherwise would direct me to.
And yes, it has been extremely helpful at work lately, where I have had to develop a new module to a program together with a co-worker who knows more math than me (I know more programming than him). Wikipedia has enabled my to understand the math concepts he is trying to explain to me.
So I come from the opposite point of view, there is no way Wikipedia should work. Somehow, nonetheless, it does.
Actually, it seems to me that the most vocal opponents are the very kooks I was sure would be one of the groups destroying Wikipedia, angry that their pet peeves aren't presented as the ultimate truth they see it as.
At least it is my experience that it is mostly older people who value memorized data, while younger people put relatively more value in knowing how to find the data.
> A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything
A mechanistic model can be used to demonstrate non-obvious system effects in a complex system, by combining well understood simpler models.
Empirical models, on the other hand, works only for prediction.
The caveat when using mechanistic models for demonstration purposes is of course twofold, are the simpler model really that well understood, and are there any factors missing from the system description. Both caveats obviously apply to a high degree to the climate models. They are mechanistic in nature, and really do constitute a valid "best bet" for our climate, but systematic uncertainly is still very large, even if they have become much more trustworthy the last couple of decades.
> This bothers me. Why is there such a vocal minority regarding "open up the > iphone/ipod/appletv/iwhatever ZOMG" (including comments in this article) but absolutely NOBODY > is whining about how the Zune (and Zen, and everything else) are completely utterly closed?
There are two issues, and none of them involve a conspiracy against Apple:
1) I'd like to buy an iPhone, had it been less closed. I'm sure others feel the same. It is Apples choice, I just believe they have made a poor choice.
2) I don't care about music players, but I care about monopoly power, so I complain about the iPod/iTunes binding. This is similar to how people (and important ones, like EU) complain about Microsoft bundling applications with MS Windows, but not about Apple bundling similar applications with MacOSX.
Trolltech, MySQL and Mozilla all also encourage you to test your patch before submitting it. Microsoft *forbids* you to test your patch, or even to write it through normal means. The license does not allow modifying or building the libraries. The code is only there for visual inspection.
The license forbids you to build the code on any platform (including MS Windows), so it is unlikely to help any porting efforts. The code is there purely for visual inspection. Think of it as a more detailed documentation.
It is more a case of a poor summary and/. readers not reading the friendly article, rather than any deliberate spin. Not exactly anything new around here.
> You know, terminology is important in our industry, so let's get it right.
Yes.
> Open source means you can see the source code.
If you thin it is important to get the terminology right, why don't you look up the term "open source" before demonstrating yoyur ignorance to everybody?
Please look it up now, to make up for your mistake, correct the next 10 people who, like you, abuse the term.
The meaning of "open" obviously depend on the noun it is applied to, the Webster definition above makes no sense for "an open door".
The term "open source" was not used for source code before 1998, where a number of free software developers decided on a new term for free software, without ambiguity or the political connotations of "free". Their definition of the term is what can now be found on the OSI home page.
[ I challenge anyone to find a earlier reference. I have searched the Usenet archives myself, you won't find it there. ]
Slashdot Mirror
Is it you, Professor Farnsworth?
> I am annoyed about how they're trying to rid of trivia sections.
The actual guidelines say (or said last I checked) that the information in trivia sections are better rewritten in the main body text, but that trivia sections can be a good way to get started.
But a lot of editors seem to think trivia is bad, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Which is madness, the main use of encyclopedias are as sources of trivia.
I tried "Albania" and "Pokemon", both seemed pretty good to my ignorant eyes.
Sowhat is the problem?
Are you one of those kids trying to masquerade as adults by being pretentious about which subjects are considered "worthy" by some ill-defined criteria? Your selection of topics to try out could indicate that. If so, I suggest you grow up.
A "worthy" topic for an encyclopedia is a topic readers seek information about.
Wikipedia only works if there are multiple competent editors interested enough in the subject to corrects each others mistakes. Without that, it just becomes a soapbox / blog representing one persons opinion.
I see the "notability" criteria as an effort to make it likely the articles will be cross checked.
Additionally, if the software is popular and the original vendor provides poor support, someone else will step in with a better offer. A market economy is always better for the customer than a state granted monopoly.
[ BTW: I guess most people "make money" on free software not by support or sponsorship, by being paid in advance by the customer for the development. I know I do. ]
> If we accept people being dishonest in court, we have no justice system, and no rule of law.
I thought we in general accepted that the defendant could lie, without any additional punishment. Unlike other witnesses.
At least for a criminal case.
Stave Ballmer sometimes have trouble expressing himself verbally, so here is what he meant to say: "The algorithms that reads your mail on a gmail acoount are more advanced than the algorithms that reads your mail on a hotmail account."
Which is true, so no reason to get angry at him.
Plenty of them have posted here before you.
This is one of the cases where I agree with them. If you sell below market price, the market will correct your mistake. If a ticket is worth US$50 for a poor person, and US$500 for a rich person, and you sell it for US$50 to the poor person, the only thing that makes economic sense for him to resell it for US$500 to the the rich person. He has then US$450, nine times as much as the ticket was worth to him. And the rich person got his ticket, so he is happy too. This is a win for everybody.
If you do this sufficiently often, the poor man will likely make it his livelihood to correct you mistakes, spreading joy and making a buck at the same time.
> Do you mean that wireless providers in Europe are explicitly required to unlock your
> phone (if you ask, for some fee)?
Depends on the country.
In Denmark, they are obliged to unlock the phone after 6 months, which is the longest legally binding period for this kind of contracts. They are not allowed to require a fee for that.
I used that for my first cell phone, there were no problems.
These days, the six month subscription fee tend to be a pretty good match for the price difference between a locked and an unlocked phone. And some subscription plans have a sharp drop in the subscription fee after six months.
My current vendor doesn't even bother sim-locking the phones.
>I'm not really sure why this myth continues to propagate. iPhone has a SIM slot.
The slot is not of much use when the phone is locked to a specific SIM card. Which is what the GP complained about. Switching to a local SIM card when you come to a new country will of course save you a lot of money, when the phone will refuse to operate. But keeping your phone turned off will save you the same amount, and be much simpler.
> Uh, since when is being opposed to a racist, oil-fueled war not honourable?
Nothing in the history of France would suggest that it would especially oppose an racist, oil-fueled war. Even if was so rather than just an incompetent son trying to outdo his fathers achievements.
The opposition from France was more likely due to the war not promoting French interest in the region, a desire to keep a good relationship with Germany, and the incredible diplomatic incompetence of the US administration. Most political commentators here at the time expected France to join the coalition eventually (after some posturing) as they usually do, but Donald Rumsfelt made it impossible for France to do so without losing face. Only an incredible stubbornness on the side of Tony Blair prevented Rumsfelt from also kicking UK out of the coalition.
Even if it sometimes doesn't feel so, many of us do stuff other than writing proposals.
And often what wo do (including writing proposals) is stuff that involves both our "area of expertise" and something we are less familiar with.
That you didn't have to do jail time for your offense.
> Wikipedia then becomes argued not in terms of academic quality but in terms of "ideally,
> it'd work!" or "it gets gradually better!" or, worst of all, "it's popular, so it must be
> good!" So is Windows.
How about "it works for me".
When I first heard of Wikipedia, I immediately dismissed it as "totally unworkable", will be dominated by trolls, kooks and spammers, based on my experience with how Usenet was destroyed.
So I ignored it, until Google started directing me to Wikipedia articles, and I noticed that these now were better than what Google otherwise would direct me to.
And yes, it has been extremely helpful at work lately, where I have had to develop a new module to a program together with a co-worker who knows more math than me (I know more programming than him). Wikipedia has enabled my to understand the math concepts he is trying to explain to me.
So I come from the opposite point of view, there is no way Wikipedia should work. Somehow, nonetheless, it does.
Actually, it seems to me that the most vocal opponents are the very kooks I was sure would be one of the groups destroying Wikipedia, angry that their pet peeves aren't presented as the ultimate truth they see it as.
At least it is my experience that it is mostly older people who value memorized data, while younger people put relatively more value in knowing how to find the data.
> A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything
A mechanistic model can be used to demonstrate non-obvious system effects in a complex system, by combining well understood simpler models.
Empirical models, on the other hand, works only for prediction.
The caveat when using mechanistic models for demonstration purposes is of course twofold, are the simpler model really that well understood, and are there any factors missing from the system description. Both caveats obviously apply to a high degree to the climate models. They are mechanistic in nature, and really do constitute a valid "best bet" for our climate, but systematic uncertainly is still very large, even if they have become much more trustworthy the last couple of decades.
> This bothers me. Why is there such a vocal minority regarding "open up the
> iphone/ipod/appletv/iwhatever ZOMG" (including comments in this article) but absolutely NOBODY
> is whining about how the Zune (and Zen, and everything else) are completely utterly closed?
There are two issues, and none of them involve a conspiracy against Apple:
1) I'd like to buy an iPhone, had it been less closed. I'm sure others feel the same. It is Apples choice, I just believe they have made a poor choice.
2) I don't care about music players, but I care about monopoly power, so I complain about the iPod/iTunes binding. This is similar to how people (and important ones, like EU) complain about Microsoft bundling applications with MS Windows, but not about Apple bundling similar applications with MacOSX.
Trolltech, MySQL and Mozilla all also encourage you to test your patch before submitting it. Microsoft *forbids* you to test your patch, or even to write it through normal means. The license does not allow modifying or building the libraries. The code is only there for visual inspection.
The license forbids you to build the code on any platform (including MS Windows), so it is unlikely to help any porting efforts. The code is there purely for visual inspection. Think of it as a more detailed documentation.
> Anyone else know of a major open source project where your patch of the day is guaranteed to end > up in main line code?
Nope. On the other hand, I know of no free software project where you are forbidden to test a patch before submitting it.
It is more a case of a poor summary and /. readers not reading the friendly article, rather than any deliberate spin. Not exactly anything new around here.
> You know, terminology is important in our industry, so let's get it right.
Yes.
> Open source means you can see the source code.
If you thin it is important to get the terminology right, why don't you look up the term "open source" before demonstrating yoyur ignorance to everybody?
Please look it up now, to make up for your mistake, correct the next 10 people who, like you, abuse the term.
The meaning of "open" obviously depend on the noun it is applied to, the Webster definition above makes no sense for "an open door".
The term "open source" was not used for source code before 1998, where a number of free software developers decided on a new term for free software, without ambiguity or the political connotations of "free". Their definition of the term is what can now be found on the OSI home page.
[ I challenge anyone to find a earlier reference. I have searched the Usenet archives myself, you won't find it there. ]
> That's not how the law is written
...but hopefully you realize the idea and spirit of HOV lanes is" did you have trouble understanding?
What part of "they don't really specify...