I was burn in 1984. Since then the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall have fallen. But I don't live in the old USSR or Germany. In terms of events that have happened within the US and within my lifetime, there are probably bigger things. But I can't think of any. Can you name a few?
"Neither Britannica, its affiliates, nor any third-party content providers or licensors makes any warranty whatsoever, including without limitation that the operation of the Site will be uninterrupted or error-free; that defects will be corrected... or as to the accuracy, reliability, availability, suitability, quality, or operation of any information, software, or service provided on or accessible from the Site or as to any information, products, or services on the Internet in any way. In addition, Britannica does not assume any responsibility or risk for your use of the Internet.
THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."
This is from the disclaimer on the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Actually in scientific papers there can be malicious mistakes too. If you read this Wikipedia article on Peer Review you would see that peer review can only be used to correct small mistakes, but can't actually detect outright fraud. This is why there have been so many completely falsified scientific papers that weren't found out until years later even though they were peer reviewed. In many cases wikipedia articles have more accuracy than scientific papers because of their policy of "no original research", whereby if someone posts a fact you aren't sure about then all you have to do is google it. However in a scientific paper this doesn't work because you would actually have to duplicate the experiment yourself, which many times isn't feasible.
If you believe everything you read on the internet, well, you get it.
If you believe anything you read, anywhere, from only one source than you get it. wikipedia is certainly no exception to this rule. However, if you and other people think this phenomena is only limited to Wikipedia and the internet and not books, magazines, newspaper etc. then this is a far bigger problem than small inaccuracies in 'the pedia' ever will be.
With more than 100 million words and 1 million articles within the next 15 days, Wikipedia is more than just a quick reference. It is not something to cite in a paper, but is a great overview of any subject. Once you find a fact in wikipedia or any encyclopedia you must look it up in a primary source before citing it in any real paper. If you don't believe me, read the disclaimer in Britannica about how none of their information is guaranteed to be accurate and they cannot be held responsible for the misinformation within. Anyone who has ever failed a paper for citing facts soley from the encyclopedia will know what I'm talking about here.
Yes, specifically if you go to the Wikipedia page Making Fun of Britannica they have a whole list of britannica errors. Furthermore, if you look at the disclaimer on Britannica you notice that they do not guarantee any of the validity of their article contents. It is true that there are less errors per sentence in Britannica than in Wikipedia, but Britannica has been around hundreds of years. In the last month alone, according to Wikistats the English version of Wikipedia has grown from 99 million words to 107 million words, 8 million words in a single month. Wikipedia as a whole will hit the 1 million article mark between september 15th and 20th. So if you give Wikipedia just a few more years until there are articles about every major topic and the current topics are just edited again and again, the accuracy of Wikipedia will be comparable with Britannica.
Also it is worth pointing out that one should never cite sources in a paper from an encyclopedia, rather you should find the sources the encyclopedia gets its facts from and cite those. Anyone who has ever failed a paper for getting all of their facts from the encyclopedia, be it Britannica or Wikipedia, will know what I mean by this. So in this sense it doesn't even matter so much because if a Wikipedia fact isn't true then one just won't be able to find it in a primary source so citing it in a paper incorrectly won't be an issue. The problem is that teachers lie to little kids and brainwash them in thinking that an encyclopedia is an unquestionable source of all truth, when really nothing could be further from the case.
I wrote a diary with my letter to the guy who wrote this when it first came out. It is posted on kuro5hin.org, and you can read it here. Also, a good thread to read about this saga is the August wiki-list.
Despite the fact that Al writes newspaper articles which are reviewed by one or two other people and thinks these are unbiased truth, he thinks that wikipedia articles written and then reviewed by one or two other people are full of lies. Sure, if someone tries to sneak errors into wikipedia they can do it, just as someone could sneak errors into the newspaper or britannica if they wanted to.
The is a common misconception about what an encyclopedia is. It is not a place to cite as a source in a research paper, rather a place to get an overview of a subject. everything you find in an encyclopedia you need a source for before you can quote it in a paper, so in that sense it really doesn't matter if there are a couple of innacuracies because then you just can't find them in a primary source so that's it, end of story. The funny thing is Britannica and every other major encyclopedia has a huge disclaimer about how there is no guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained, yet Al continues to insist on it being gospel truth.
Lastly, for those who don't know, September 15th-20th is going to be one of the biggest moments in the history of Freedom. Wikipedia will hit 1 million articles, firefox 1.0 will be released, Adbusters starts their blackspot sneaker marketing blitz (which I don't necessarily agree with). In our country if you take a rich man, strip him ass naked and throw him in the middle of the woods, then in a week or two he will be relatively well off again. If you take a poor ignorant man and do the same then in a week or two he will be just as poor. Knowledge and social savvy is what separates the classes in the United States, not money itself. Information is a key foundation of knowledge. Wikipedia aims to bridge the information gap between the rich and poor, and if this Al Fasoldt guy can't see the good in that then there really isn't anything more that can be said for Wikipedia.
This is expected to be Doohan's last public appearance as he suffers from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and lung fibrosis as well as recently diagnosed Alzheimer's disease.
That's actually good. The trick is you have to get multiple diseases so then they start attacking eachother instead of you.
Remember ten years ago when the porno used to load line by line? I remember being 13ish when my friend linked me to some surprise.jpg and it loaded line by line for like 5 minutes and then at the bottom the girl had a penis. What the fuck. I should really sue AOL for scarring me for life.
Oh My God it's in some freaky alien language. I always knew Steve Jobs was an alien. No wonder the aliens are always the first to know about the new Apple products.
I agree with you that books like where's waldo should be banned. This isn't anything to do with free speech, but a lot of these books are total garbage and little kids flock to them which prevents them from actually learning how to read. People can't both complain that kids should read real literature and also that books with no educational value should not be banned because it violates free speech, but apparantly many people hold this contradictory beliefs. No one is banning these from the bookstore, but why would anyone want to encourage kids to 'read' books like this instead of true classic kids books like The Giver, Tuck Everlasting, etc.
You see here a can of pepsi pepsi. You drink the pepsi. The pepsi was poisoned. The poison was deadly. Do you want your posessions identified? Try a refreshing blessed +2 rustproof coca-cola next time.
You know my parents never gave me the facts of life, but I always wished they had. I remember I was 13 the first time I learned about / and backslash (\?) on AOL. I didn't really understand it, I just hoped sat there reading in horror hoping leia would suck off Tarkin so he wouldn't blow up Kashyyk with the grenade strapped to his 'rock hard cock.' Then I remember being 14 and see goatse. Oh god the pain. How many years I wasted using Lycos to look for porno before ninenine and later autopr0n came along, and I learned about the titty board on tfproject.org and boobdex.
BTW this is intended as humor but all of the above is actually 100% true. I'm 19 now btw.
That people both make and buy shit like this while the only maker of good dvorak keyboards (dvortyboards.com is the only I know of at least) can't even sell enough to stay in business. I went to comp USA the other day and saw a Doom 3 keyboard. What the hell.
Here is a question for you. Have you ever gone to a store and seen a product and wondered if that store has ever sold one of those?
This campaign is not so much against IE, but for the use of safer and more user-friendly browsers.
No this campaign of "switchers" has clearly reversed engineered Apple's ad campaign strategy and will most definitely be sued quickly under the DMCA by apple. How dare they try to make their knowledge and opinions interoperable with those of Apple users.
The coolest tech out there is definitely finishlynx. It takes pictures of who crosses the finish line only a pixel or two wide and stitches them together so you know exactly who crossed the line in what order and what their times were since the times are exactly proportional with the pics. In this pic of me in the men's lightweight single dash I am finishing 3rd (Alex Krupp, lane 1). The reason I appear so bloated compared to everyone else is I put on a huge fucking sprint at the finish and even though I was a full boat length of open water down on 5th place with 100 meters left I managed to finish 3rd. Not bad for not eating shit or drinking much in 2 days to make weight. Anyway because I was going so much faster than everyone else at the finish I appear in the least number of pixel wide images, thus making me appear bloated and compressed compared to all the other boats. The reason all the oars are swirly is because they change positions from when the first part of the oar crosses the line to when the whole boat is passed, thus creating a cool real time motion blur.
Slashdot Mirror
I was burn in 1984. Since then the Soviet Union and Berlin Wall have fallen. But I don't live in the old USSR or Germany. In terms of events that have happened within the US and within my lifetime, there are probably bigger things. But I can't think of any. Can you name a few?
Slashdot.
THE SITE AND ALL INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND OTHER CONTENT (INCLUDING THIRD-PARTY INFORMATION, PRODUCTS, AND CONTENT) INCLUDED IN OR ACCESSIBLE FROM THIS SITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND (EXPRESS, IMPLIED, AND STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF TITLE AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), ALL OF WHICH BRITANNICA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."
This is from the disclaimer on the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Actually in scientific papers there can be malicious mistakes too. If you read this Wikipedia article on Peer Review you would see that peer review can only be used to correct small mistakes, but can't actually detect outright fraud. This is why there have been so many completely falsified scientific papers that weren't found out until years later even though they were peer reviewed. In many cases wikipedia articles have more accuracy than scientific papers because of their policy of "no original research", whereby if someone posts a fact you aren't sure about then all you have to do is google it. However in a scientific paper this doesn't work because you would actually have to duplicate the experiment yourself, which many times isn't feasible.
If you believe anything you read, anywhere, from only one source than you get it. wikipedia is certainly no exception to this rule. However, if you and other people think this phenomena is only limited to Wikipedia and the internet and not books, magazines, newspaper etc. then this is a far bigger problem than small inaccuracies in 'the pedia' ever will be.
If your post was on Wikipedia I could correct your post calling Wikipedia a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia.
With more than 100 million words and 1 million articles within the next 15 days, Wikipedia is more than just a quick reference. It is not something to cite in a paper, but is a great overview of any subject. Once you find a fact in wikipedia or any encyclopedia you must look it up in a primary source before citing it in any real paper. If you don't believe me, read the disclaimer in Britannica about how none of their information is guaranteed to be accurate and they cannot be held responsible for the misinformation within. Anyone who has ever failed a paper for citing facts soley from the encyclopedia will know what I'm talking about here.
Also it is worth pointing out that one should never cite sources in a paper from an encyclopedia, rather you should find the sources the encyclopedia gets its facts from and cite those. Anyone who has ever failed a paper for getting all of their facts from the encyclopedia, be it Britannica or Wikipedia, will know what I mean by this. So in this sense it doesn't even matter so much because if a Wikipedia fact isn't true then one just won't be able to find it in a primary source so citing it in a paper incorrectly won't be an issue. The problem is that teachers lie to little kids and brainwash them in thinking that an encyclopedia is an unquestionable source of all truth, when really nothing could be further from the case.
Despite the fact that Al writes newspaper articles which are reviewed by one or two other people and thinks these are unbiased truth, he thinks that wikipedia articles written and then reviewed by one or two other people are full of lies. Sure, if someone tries to sneak errors into wikipedia they can do it, just as someone could sneak errors into the newspaper or britannica if they wanted to.
The is a common misconception about what an encyclopedia is. It is not a place to cite as a source in a research paper, rather a place to get an overview of a subject. everything you find in an encyclopedia you need a source for before you can quote it in a paper, so in that sense it really doesn't matter if there are a couple of innacuracies because then you just can't find them in a primary source so that's it, end of story. The funny thing is Britannica and every other major encyclopedia has a huge disclaimer about how there is no guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained, yet Al continues to insist on it being gospel truth.
Lastly, for those who don't know, September 15th-20th is going to be one of the biggest moments in the history of Freedom. Wikipedia will hit 1 million articles, firefox 1.0 will be released, Adbusters starts their blackspot sneaker marketing blitz (which I don't necessarily agree with). In our country if you take a rich man, strip him ass naked and throw him in the middle of the woods, then in a week or two he will be relatively well off again. If you take a poor ignorant man and do the same then in a week or two he will be just as poor. Knowledge and social savvy is what separates the classes in the United States, not money itself. Information is a key foundation of knowledge. Wikipedia aims to bridge the information gap between the rich and poor, and if this Al Fasoldt guy can't see the good in that then there really isn't anything more that can be said for Wikipedia.
That's actually good. The trick is you have to get multiple diseases so then they start attacking eachother instead of you.
Remember ten years ago when the porno used to load line by line? I remember being 13ish when my friend linked me to some surprise.jpg and it loaded line by line for like 5 minutes and then at the bottom the girl had a penis. What the fuck. I should really sue AOL for scarring me for life.
35 Years Ago Today: Frist PSOT!!!1
I thought JenniCam got shut down?
Oh My God it's in some freaky alien language. I always knew Steve Jobs was an alien. No wonder the aliens are always the first to know about the new Apple products.
No way. College students are way too busy studying to do things such as playing video games and drinking.
I agree with you that books like where's waldo should be banned. This isn't anything to do with free speech, but a lot of these books are total garbage and little kids flock to them which prevents them from actually learning how to read. People can't both complain that kids should read real literature and also that books with no educational value should not be banned because it violates free speech, but apparantly many people hold this contradictory beliefs. No one is banning these from the bookstore, but why would anyone want to encourage kids to 'read' books like this instead of true classic kids books like The Giver, Tuck Everlasting, etc.
Ben Stiller...In the library...With the candlestick
You see here a can of pepsi pepsi.
You drink the pepsi.
The pepsi was poisoned.
The poison was deadly.
Do you want your posessions identified?
Try a refreshing blessed +2 rustproof coca-cola next time.
AM or PM? It's not clear whether you mean those to be the working day hours or the friday night hours.
BTW this is intended as humor but all of the above is actually 100% true. I'm 19 now btw.
Here is a question for you. Have you ever gone to a store and seen a product and wondered if that store has ever sold one of those?
No this campaign of "switchers" has clearly reversed engineered Apple's ad campaign strategy and will most definitely be sued quickly under the DMCA by apple. How dare they try to make their knowledge and opinions interoperable with those of Apple users.
The coolest tech out there is definitely finishlynx. It takes pictures of who crosses the finish line only a pixel or two wide and stitches them together so you know exactly who crossed the line in what order and what their times were since the times are exactly proportional with the pics. In this pic of me in the men's lightweight single dash I am finishing 3rd (Alex Krupp, lane 1). The reason I appear so bloated compared to everyone else is I put on a huge fucking sprint at the finish and even though I was a full boat length of open water down on 5th place with 100 meters left I managed to finish 3rd. Not bad for not eating shit or drinking much in 2 days to make weight. Anyway because I was going so much faster than everyone else at the finish I appear in the least number of pixel wide images, thus making me appear bloated and compressed compared to all the other boats. The reason all the oars are swirly is because they change positions from when the first part of the oar crosses the line to when the whole boat is passed, thus creating a cool real time motion blur.
but Scotty doesn't know.