Quake 3 Arena is probably the prime example of that. The demo was so good that there was absolutely no reason to buy the game. The only map that anyone ever played was the one that came with the demo anyway.
Well it's not like Obama said, "I enjoy palling around with Bill Ayers because I like the fact that he bombed white people." And yet just the fact that they worked together forty years after the fact was enough to get people riled up.
If the Republicans went crazy over Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers, just wait until they find out what Bill Joy said about Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) in Wired.
Every fact on Wikipedia has a link back to the primary source. All you have to do is tell kids to look up the fact from the primary source and cite that, and obviously not to cite it if there is no link back or they can't find the material. Any teacher who is too intellectually lazy to take the time to understand this is by definition a bad teacher. You aren't allowed to cite Britannica in any real class either, you have to follow the exact same procedure, so there is no difference. I don't even see how someone could defend a teacher who would lie to kids about the purpose of an encyclopedia.
I don't really see what the problem is. If he really was a tenured professor and was going around telling people he was a high school dropout, would anyone care? His edits need to be factual and sourced just like anyone else's. This is Wikipedia's biggest strength. Larry Sangar is starting a Wikipedia fork where the biggest difference is that it will still let 12 year old kids edit, but it will prevent the 12 year old kid from editing the work of a PhD prof. The thing is, if the work of a PhD can't stand up to the criticisms of a 12 year old then that certainly says something. The only reason you would take someone with a PhD more seriously is if you are unable to think for yourself.
Any system where a certain class of people are given a free pass and aren't forced to defend their ideas can only result in intellectual bankruptcy.
The fact that the Wikipedia community is up in arms about this suggests to me that some of the core ideals may be going by the wayside.
>Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in the traditional sense, to hide his identity. He did not present himself as someone with qualifications he did not have or earn.
Not true. Ben Franklin used a pseudonym to present himself as a free man, when in fact he was a runaway apprentice.
>I strongly recommended going through the tutorials, he took the time and now raves about how quick and easy it is to do complex tasks that used to take for ever.
The only problem is that the tutorials aren't being developed so much anymore. I got up to the dice tutorial on Wikibooks, but it pretty much stops after that.
Does this mean we could take, say, one second worth of light coming into a camera and then slow it down so that we could get a picture at a super high shutter speed at any point during that one second period?
So has anyone else noticed it seems like there is nothing new happening in the Internet in the last couple months? Well actually there is interesting stuff happening, it's just that Reddit and Digg have been taken over by spammers so you'd never know it otherwise. The thing is the more eyeballs a certain website has the more temptation there is to cause mischief, so a website can never go above a certain quality threshold without an identity system to ban trouble makers. Both Reddit and Digg have hit this threshold, so it will be impossible to get better news without a system like this.
The problem though is that OpenID is currently just a framework. There is no way to prevent people from making 100 accounts, which is still the problem. Once we have a way of making sure each person only has one account, even if we don't know who that person is and can't identify them in any way, then and only then will social software be able to break through this quality barrier that it is currently capped it. I wrote about one way of doing this here, and there are other ways. Hopefully within the next ten years we can have this problem solved, to enable the next generation of web apps that aren't even possible today.
Green tea has been studied extensively, and has been consumed for thousands of years. This isn't going to do any damage. The only issue is that you can buy really high quality loose leaf green tea online for a few bucks a pound, whereas this stuff is like two bucks a serving.
Not the fact that gaming is popular is South Korea, but rather the fact that the submitter describes it as forward thinking. I love Nethack and Q3A as much as the next guy, but there are some things playing a real sport will do that videogames won't.
*Get you in shape *Teach you teamwork *Teach you leadership *Teach you commitment *Get you laid
Make fun of athletes all you want, but the fact is that varsity collegiate athletes make more money than non-athletes after they graduate college. Competing and being part of a team that's bigger than yourself teaches you something that I'm not sure videogames can replicate. Years of studying Go is one thing, Starcraft is another entirely.
I know lot of Slashdotters like John Taylor Gatto's work. He used to be very much against sports, but after analyzing the differences between public and private schools he has since changed his position. He now says that playing sports in high school isn't just an option, it's the only way to achieve grace.
Slashdot Mirror
Just saying. :-)
If this book doesn't make them think that math is cool, nothing will.
If only Apple hadn't stripped out the DRM this would have never happened!
Quake 3 Arena is probably the prime example of that. The demo was so good that there was absolutely no reason to buy the game. The only map that anyone ever played was the one that came with the demo anyway.
Well it's not like Obama said, "I enjoy palling around with Bill Ayers because I like the fact that he bombed white people." And yet just the fact that they worked together forty years after the fact was enough to get people riled up.
If the Republicans went crazy over Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers, just wait until they find out what Bill Joy said about Ted Kaczynski (the unibomber) in Wired.
Joey, have you ever been in a turkish botnet?
1) Do you want a VP who came to power by covering up genocide?
2) Do you want a VP responsible for the slaughter of over a million innocent people?
"They'd just wander around all day, picking people's pockets and teleporting away."
Like nethack.
Every fact on Wikipedia has a link back to the primary source. All you have to do is tell kids to look up the fact from the primary source and cite that, and obviously not to cite it if there is no link back or they can't find the material. Any teacher who is too intellectually lazy to take the time to understand this is by definition a bad teacher. You aren't allowed to cite Britannica in any real class either, you have to follow the exact same procedure, so there is no difference. I don't even see how someone could defend a teacher who would lie to kids about the purpose of an encyclopedia.
Where can I get music legally? Covers both free and paid music, and where to discover new music.
Fair enough, I 100% support that then.
I don't really see what the problem is. If he really was a tenured professor and was going around telling people he was a high school dropout, would anyone care? His edits need to be factual and sourced just like anyone else's. This is Wikipedia's biggest strength. Larry Sangar is starting a Wikipedia fork where the biggest difference is that it will still let 12 year old kids edit, but it will prevent the 12 year old kid from editing the work of a PhD prof. The thing is, if the work of a PhD can't stand up to the criticisms of a 12 year old then that certainly says something. The only reason you would take someone with a PhD more seriously is if you are unable to think for yourself.
Any system where a certain class of people are given a free pass and aren't forced to defend their ideas can only result in intellectual bankruptcy.
The fact that the Wikipedia community is up in arms about this suggests to me that some of the core ideals may be going by the wayside.
>Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in the traditional sense, to hide his identity. He did not present himself as someone with qualifications he did not have or earn.
Not true. Ben Franklin used a pseudonym to present himself as a free man, when in fact he was a runaway apprentice.
>I strongly recommended going through the tutorials, he took the time and now raves about how quick and easy it is to do complex tasks that used to take for ever.
The only problem is that the tutorials aren't being developed so much anymore. I got up to the dice tutorial on Wikibooks, but it pretty much stops after that.
My favorite is when it tells me I got 11.2 points out of a maximum of 10, and the class average was 13. No wonder why my GPA is so bad.
Does this mean we could take, say, one second worth of light coming into a camera and then slow it down so that we could get a picture at a super high shutter speed at any point during that one second period?
For the obscenely wealthy person whose never purchased anything.
The problem though is that OpenID is currently just a framework. There is no way to prevent people from making 100 accounts, which is still the problem. Once we have a way of making sure each person only has one account, even if we don't know who that person is and can't identify them in any way, then and only then will social software be able to break through this quality barrier that it is currently capped it. I wrote about one way of doing this here, and there are other ways. Hopefully within the next ten years we can have this problem solved, to enable the next generation of web apps that aren't even possible today.
Did anyone else read the headline and think that's what it was about?
There is a video on the website that explains how this works.
Green tea has been studied extensively, and has been consumed for thousands of years. This isn't going to do any damage. The only issue is that you can buy really high quality loose leaf green tea online for a few bucks a pound, whereas this stuff is like two bucks a serving.
>That is an excellent arbitrary non-factual fact you have there... proof?
If you read The Game of Life, it's in there. Or I'd imagine you could just search JSTOR for studies on future earnings potential of athletes.
Not the fact that gaming is popular is South Korea, but rather the fact that the submitter describes it as forward thinking. I love Nethack and Q3A as much as the next guy, but there are some things playing a real sport will do that videogames won't.
*Get you in shape
*Teach you teamwork
*Teach you leadership
*Teach you commitment
*Get you laid
Make fun of athletes all you want, but the fact is that varsity collegiate athletes make more money than non-athletes after they graduate college. Competing and being part of a team that's bigger than yourself teaches you something that I'm not sure videogames can replicate. Years of studying Go is one thing, Starcraft is another entirely.
I know lot of Slashdotters like John Taylor Gatto's work. He used to be very much against sports, but after analyzing the differences between public and private schools he has since changed his position. He now says that playing sports in high school isn't just an option, it's the only way to achieve grace.
Wikipedia -- The sum of all human cheating?