Another is that online registrations are invasive, you don't need to know my date of birth, really you don't.
I wonder what they think they're using all that accumulated birthday/birthyear information for anyway? I make up a different number for every registration I sign up for.
What I disagree with is the statement that molecular bonds cannot be broken in much more complex molecules by weak radiation. With such a large structure as a chain of DNA or some proteins, the microwaves could set up harmful oscillations and harmoinc motion that could magnify the effect of the radiation, and snap the chain in a weak spot.
They don't even have to do it directly. There have been studies recently suggesting significant effects of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier, which could cause any number of brain-damaging compounds to cross the barrier. The studies I saw covered wireless router / bluetooth wavelengths and power levels, and indicated potentially harmful effects there, but I haven't seen any yet at cell phone wavelengths.
Occasionally the administrators will take steps to prevent the most overt forms of bias (for example, locking the page on George W. Bush)
Actually, administrators are not supposed to lock pages because they detect bias. That's not the wiki way. Administrators lock pages because people are just edit warring, rather than making productive contributions. Then the page is locked and the discussion of what to do about it moves onto the discussion pages. It's always up to the community to remove bias, and bias will tend to follow what that community thinks is closest to neutral.
It doesn't always get the most neutral answer possible, but seriously, propose a better system. How do you objectively decide neutrality? Do YOU choose them all? Without knowing you, I bet you're biased about a number of things. I also bet that any small group of editors at a traditional encyclopedia is also biased, but then you only get the bias of a small set of people rather than the averaged bias of an entire community.
Sometimes Wikipedia detects bias and deals with it by presenting point-counterpoint sections which outline multiple views. This doesn't present the most stylistically nice form of writing, but it does outline the multiple perspectives when there is a high degree of controversy.
You talk of the democratizing effect of the Internet but ignore the fact that without libraries, many of the poorer areas around the country would go without any access to the Internet or even computers.
I don't think you'd like what the world (or at least US) would be without libraries. You may not realize it but they've done alot to fight much of the same issues we see here on/.
I expect libraries to undergo transitions. I hope we don't start destroying books anytime soon, since paper has lasted us longer than any single bit has ever lasted, but I expect public libraries will shift more money toward public internet access stations. After all, that's where a lot of the information is now, and libraries are all about being information nodes.
The problem with Wikipedia is that the one person who knows the correct answer is taken out by the 100 who 'think' they know the correct answer and yours is wrong.
It's worse than that, actually. Two people who "think" they know the answer can easily trump five people who actually do, if those two people have nothing better to do than sit at their computers and revert changes all day. But with that said, it's still a pretty good system. Like Democracy, it will often fluctuate away from the most optimal solution, but it will usually tend toward the better ones.
For instance creationism doesn't have the theory of evolution or any counter argument listed as a related topic.
10 minutes have passed since you posted this. It seems to have evolution listed as a related topic now.:)
It means that the grand parent, and myself, stopped watching after the first season because it was so horrible that is was painfull to watch. It just goes to show that some people will watch anything no matter how bad it is.
I stopped watching it then too because it was so horrible. I could only take so many two-people-adrift-about-to-die-and-talking-about-i t plots. But then I caught one of the more recent ones in the third series and I went back and started watching the old episodes. The series seemed to turn around somewhere in the middle of the second season, when it started using interesting arching plots. It's just that the show had unfortunately already pissed off most of its target audience by the time it fixed this, and too few of them realized it had improved.
I am waiting for the time comes when i purchase a movie, place it in my dvd player (flash upgrade) or in my computer and it will auto-install tracking software.
Yeah, except it won't be called "auto-install tracking software", it will be called "The Movie Fun Feature Expansion Pack", or something ridiculous like that. And people will accept it, because it will say that it's providing access to special websites for behind the scenes information.
Part of the reason why hard drives haven't kept up with other components is because consumers don't demand more features. Seems like people don't want their hard drives to do more
They would if they understood how big of an impact HD speed has on system performance. Sounds like a marketting problem to me. The first person who develops significantly faster storage, and markets it correctly, wins.
Exponential growth, my friend. When you share it with a couple of friend, you are sharing it with all their friends...and all their friends...and all their friends...and all their friends...until you have global distribution.
Most people don't have two VCRs (and even those who do don't keep them hooked through each other). Try doing exponential growth when everyone has one VCR.
Your proposed experiment certainly has a possible 'success' outcome, but the 'failure' outcome cannot actually be detected.
This is no different from the search for the Higgs boson. The nonexistence of the Higgs can't be detected, only its existence can. All we can say is, "Hmm, didn't detect it there that time." Science often works like this.
That does not make it flawed. Here's a hypothesis: Everyone who goes through a specific one-way door will be immediately eaten by a grue.
This hypothesis is easily falsifiable: Go through the door. If you are not immediately eaten by a grue, the hypothesis is false. If you are, the hypothesis might be true, even though you won't be around to remember that.
(This is identical to the hypothesis, "there is no afterlife".)
I guess hearing opinions you disagree with is just too much to take, isn't it?
I know, I'm feeding the troll. But I don't have a problem with opinions I disagree with. I have a problem when opinions become news. News should be about reporting facts, investigating, digging for information, and expert analysis. When it becomes opinion from one party line or from two party lines, both are terrible.
I personally do... have faith that there is a God (paraphrase).
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Another is that online registrations are invasive, you don't need to know my date of birth, really you don't.
I wonder what they think they're using all that accumulated birthday/birthyear information for anyway? I make up a different number for every registration I sign up for.
What I disagree with is the statement that molecular bonds cannot be broken in much more complex molecules by weak radiation. With such a large structure as a chain of DNA or some proteins, the microwaves could set up harmful oscillations and harmoinc motion that could magnify the effect of the radiation, and snap the chain in a weak spot.
They don't even have to do it directly. There have been studies recently suggesting significant effects of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier, which could cause any number of brain-damaging compounds to cross the barrier. The studies I saw covered wireless router / bluetooth wavelengths and power levels, and indicated potentially harmful effects there, but I haven't seen any yet at cell phone wavelengths.
wtf is a fud? shit i cant find it in this new godamn dictionary, wtf ever happend to books?
I don't know what this "book" thing is, but you can find "FUD" here.
Occasionally the administrators will take steps to prevent the most overt forms of bias (for example, locking the page on George W. Bush)
Actually, administrators are not supposed to lock pages because they detect bias. That's not the wiki way. Administrators lock pages because people are just edit warring, rather than making productive contributions. Then the page is locked and the discussion of what to do about it moves onto the discussion pages. It's always up to the community to remove bias, and bias will tend to follow what that community thinks is closest to neutral.
It doesn't always get the most neutral answer possible, but seriously, propose a better system. How do you objectively decide neutrality? Do YOU choose them all? Without knowing you, I bet you're biased about a number of things. I also bet that any small group of editors at a traditional encyclopedia is also biased, but then you only get the bias of a small set of people rather than the averaged bias of an entire community.
Sometimes Wikipedia detects bias and deals with it by presenting point-counterpoint sections which outline multiple views. This doesn't present the most stylistically nice form of writing, but it does outline the multiple perspectives when there is a high degree of controversy.
You talk of the democratizing effect of the Internet but ignore the fact that without libraries, many of the poorer areas around the country would go without any access to the Internet or even computers.
/.
I don't think you'd like what the world (or at least US) would be without libraries. You may not realize it but they've done alot to fight much of the same issues we see here on
I expect libraries to undergo transitions. I hope we don't start destroying books anytime soon, since paper has lasted us longer than any single bit has ever lasted, but I expect public libraries will shift more money toward public internet access stations. After all, that's where a lot of the information is now, and libraries are all about being information nodes.
I just looked up Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and the article is garbage.
So check it in 12 months. Articles have a habit of evolving nicely with time.
The problem with Wikipedia is that the one person who knows the correct answer is taken out by the 100 who 'think' they know the correct answer and yours is wrong.
:)
It's worse than that, actually. Two people who "think" they know the answer can easily trump five people who actually do, if those two people have nothing better to do than sit at their computers and revert changes all day. But with that said, it's still a pretty good system. Like Democracy, it will often fluctuate away from the most optimal solution, but it will usually tend toward the better ones.
For instance creationism doesn't have the theory of evolution or any counter argument listed as a related topic.
10 minutes have passed since you posted this. It seems to have evolution listed as a related topic now.
That's why you don't want to fork outside of protected mode.
It means that the grand parent, and myself, stopped watching after the first season because it was so horrible that is was painfull to watch. It just goes to show that some people will watch anything no matter how bad it is.
i t plots. But then I caught one of the more recent ones in the third series and I went back and started watching the old episodes. The series seemed to turn around somewhere in the middle of the second season, when it started using interesting arching plots. It's just that the show had unfortunately already pissed off most of its target audience by the time it fixed this, and too few of them realized it had improved.
I stopped watching it then too because it was so horrible. I could only take so many two-people-adrift-about-to-die-and-talking-about-
this isn't redundant, you stupid moderator
:)
Technically, posting a mirror is informative redundancy.
I am waiting for the time comes when i purchase a movie, place it in my dvd player (flash upgrade) or in my computer and it will auto-install tracking software.
Yeah, except it won't be called "auto-install tracking software", it will be called "The Movie Fun Feature Expansion Pack", or something ridiculous like that. And people will accept it, because it will say that it's providing access to special websites for behind the scenes information.
Perhaps we need to overclock the editors??
;)
So they can post each story twice a day?
I've had three drives in a row that fail to spin up after 12 months.
And what brand are you buying?
Part of the reason why hard drives haven't kept up with other components is because consumers don't demand more features. Seems like people don't want their hard drives to do more
They would if they understood how big of an impact HD speed has on system performance. Sounds like a marketting problem to me. The first person who develops significantly faster storage, and markets it correctly, wins.
Exponential growth, my friend. When you share it with a couple of friend, you are sharing it with all their friends...and all their friends...and all their friends...and all their friends...until you have global distribution.
Most people don't have two VCRs (and even those who do don't keep them hooked through each other). Try doing exponential growth when everyone has one VCR.
It is intellectually dishonest to reply with such an answer.
And/or funny.
Alan Cox has a patch up for the 2.6.10 kernel, available here.
The file is patch-2.6.10-ac8.bz2 (or later)
This is also still considered "testing" until merged.
Linux is having too many kernel-level vulnerabilities
Having, or fixing?
Your proposed experiment certainly has a possible 'success' outcome, but the 'failure' outcome cannot actually be detected.
This is no different from the search for the Higgs boson. The nonexistence of the Higgs can't be detected, only its existence can. All we can say is, "Hmm, didn't detect it there that time." Science often works like this.
Second, it'll probably be patched rather quickly.
There is a preliminary patch in testing for the 2.4 series.
Look here.
The file is patch-2.4.29-rc1.bz2
Note that it's in TESTING, because it probably needs testing yet. But if you're desperate to patch it up quickly at your own risk, then there you go.
That does not make it flawed. Here's a hypothesis: Everyone who goes through a specific one-way door will be immediately eaten by a grue.
This hypothesis is easily falsifiable: Go through the door. If you are not immediately eaten by a grue, the hypothesis is false. If you are, the hypothesis might be true, even though you won't be around to remember that.
(This is identical to the hypothesis, "there is no afterlife".)
I guess hearing opinions you disagree with is just too much to take, isn't it?
I know, I'm feeding the troll. But I don't have a problem with opinions I disagree with. I have a problem when opinions become news. News should be about reporting facts, investigating, digging for information, and expert analysis. When it becomes opinion from one party line or from two party lines, both are terrible.
Tucker is spewing the shit for the purpose of debate
You misspelled "blind raving lunacy and pumping the party line".
Try giving a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"
Only after you give me a straight (correct) answer to the question, "Is Light a Chicken or an Egg?"
When I look at a chicken light looks like a chicken, and when I look at an egg light looks like an egg. So which is it?
Ask the wrong question, and you get the wrong answer.
I personally do ... have faith that there is a God (paraphrase).
What testable predictions about the observable universe result from this assumption? If there are none, you must entertain the posiblity that your statement has no meaning.
Die and find out.
Testable != Publishable.