I gotta say this is a brilliant idea. I've been listening for the last half hour and I'm hooked. I am tempted to sit planted in front of the computer listening for the rest of my ten hours but I can't because now I have to go to the record store....
LOL... that's awesome. I admit it, I got taken in; didn't see any reason to disbelieve it. Just call me Mr. Gullible. Anyone got some land in New Orleans they want to sell me?
(I still like the faux-Louis version better than Britney though)
He produced the song; he didn't write it. The comment below lists a 1932 Louis Armstrong version of the song. (I just listened to it, and while I can see why it was never a big hit, it certainly blows Britney away. But what do you expect, it's Louis Armstrong.)
Number-wise, the main conflict in Iraq is the foreign-led terrorists vs. Iraqis, with Coalition casualties coming up second.
You are joking, right? I realize the numbers have changed somewhat since this study, but have you seen more recent figures that are that significantly different from these?
Most other articles you cite will have identifiable authors and editors. Wikipedia sort of does too, but not really suitable for citation purposes. I tell my students like the grandparent suggests -- use Wikipedia as a springboard for finding further information on something. Even on the hot button political topics, there tends to be a lot of good resources linked to wikipedia entries. Especially on those, in fact, since the POV-bashers on both sides usually demand careful documentation of every sentence. While that does little to reduce POV in the articles, it does a lot toward making them more useful as resources for information.
The interesting question for me about wikipedia is about licensing the content -- anyone at any time can start an online or hardcopy encyclopedia and use wikipedia content as the base (the same way wikipedia started with an old britannica). Dependent on the moment of collection of this information it could have all kinds of incorrect information there. Smart editors will weed out the garbage, and wikipedia will be the basis for many interesting projects in the future. Probably some garbage and vandalism will find its way into print sources this way but not a lot. Also, journalists will use wikipedia to look things up (this is already happening) and we will see these things mentioned in news articles, etc. More interesting than vandalism that escapes notice will be the more subtle things that do - quirky choices of facts or quotations that get repeated often will suddenly become the standard reference point for talking about an issue. The way this information is licensed allows it to become far more ubiquitous than it would if confined to a regular encyclopedia.
Make no mistake - as messed up as Wikipedia can be (I spend far too much of my time engaged in pointless arguments on the talk pages there, as do many others), I really think Wikipedia is an important historical moment in the accumulation knowledge, perhaps comparable to Diderot's Encyclopedie in the 1700s. By the nature of its model of organization and distribution (and especially in the current climate of commodification of knowledge), it cannot not have a major influence, no matter how crappy it may be.
I used to have SuSE installed on my PPC 604-based Power Computing machine. I eventually got a G4 and after OSX I haven't looked back, but of all the ppc-based distros I installed I liked SuSE's config tools the best too. But the best part about installing SuSE was changing the name of the distro on the bootup screen and login environment so it greeted me with "Welcome to DuDE Linux."
I've always thought that it was the height of human arrogance to presume that life on other worlds would be recognizable to us as "life" at all. There may be life on the moon for all we know. We assume certain organic forms, but why? Our experience with the world beyond earth is infinitesimal; how can we assume anything? what if there is life that doesn't exist as bacteria, as flora and fauna, as little green men, etc. Life elsewhere might be made of substances and energies that we don't even know exist. Evolution here took place in a particular context and environment -- who's to say what could happen in other environments? When it comes down to it, there is a whole lot we don't even know about life here on earth -- how can we assume that our assumptions about life here will have any relevance on other worlds?
The photo shows one of these Martian-like creatures at work in their natural habitat. Apparently they look just like coke dealers here on earth filling up baggies for distribution. Except they are all red with purple hands.
The maps could be used for some new weird map porn for example, and the city couldn't do anything about it. I know that's not likely, but the point is that they could be used for any unknown purpose and the MTA wants to make sure their use can be controlled.
Why? I mean, really, what's wrong with weird map porn if that's your thing? This information is provided to the public so we can find our way around the city, but what harm is done if we find some more creative way to use this information? Obviously the notion of "map porn" is pretty far fetched, but would it be in the city's interest to move to stop an art exhibit based on the subway map, for example? Even offensive art? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, welcome our tiny new overlords....
...the new model is much snappier?
Link doesn't work - is there another source for that mashup?
I gotta say this is a brilliant idea. I've been listening for the last half hour and I'm hooked. I am tempted to sit planted in front of the computer listening for the rest of my ten hours but I can't because now I have to go to the record store....
The "B" side is the inside of the cylinder. Very difficult to play, but that's where the best music is kept.
(I still like the faux-Louis version better than Britney though)
He produced the song; he didn't write it. The comment below lists a 1932 Louis Armstrong version of the song. (I just listened to it, and while I can see why it was never a big hit, it certainly blows Britney away. But what do you expect, it's Louis Armstrong.)
You are joking, right? I realize the numbers have changed somewhat since this study, but have you seen more recent figures that are that significantly different from these?
The interesting question for me about wikipedia is about licensing the content -- anyone at any time can start an online or hardcopy encyclopedia and use wikipedia content as the base (the same way wikipedia started with an old britannica). Dependent on the moment of collection of this information it could have all kinds of incorrect information there. Smart editors will weed out the garbage, and wikipedia will be the basis for many interesting projects in the future. Probably some garbage and vandalism will find its way into print sources this way but not a lot. Also, journalists will use wikipedia to look things up (this is already happening) and we will see these things mentioned in news articles, etc. More interesting than vandalism that escapes notice will be the more subtle things that do - quirky choices of facts or quotations that get repeated often will suddenly become the standard reference point for talking about an issue. The way this information is licensed allows it to become far more ubiquitous than it would if confined to a regular encyclopedia.
Make no mistake - as messed up as Wikipedia can be (I spend far too much of my time engaged in pointless arguments on the talk pages there, as do many others), I really think Wikipedia is an important historical moment in the accumulation knowledge, perhaps comparable to Diderot's Encyclopedie in the 1700s. By the nature of its model of organization and distribution (and especially in the current climate of commodification of knowledge), it cannot not have a major influence, no matter how crappy it may be.
Linux is an encyclopedia now?
Oh. You mean emacs.
Time Travel 1.0 is proprietary Apple technology.
They tried naming it like that but Apple legal wasn't too happy to hear that some German open-source types were going to be releasing SuSE OS X.
I used to have SuSE installed on my PPC 604-based Power Computing machine. I eventually got a G4 and after OSX I haven't looked back, but of all the ppc-based distros I installed I liked SuSE's config tools the best too. But the best part about installing SuSE was changing the name of the distro on the bootup screen and login environment so it greeted me with "Welcome to DuDE Linux."
This is a utility that protects malware from virus scanners and the like.
Of course it isn't. There are several other internets.
I don't want to sound too crazy with my radical notions, but they could just drop the ".org" from the name.
He was calculating the percentage using MS Excel on an old Pentium III.
Yeah, poor things. How do they sleep at night?
Oh yeah, I forgot.
On top of a pile of money, with many beautiful ladies.
Even worse, what happens when your fancy machine gets taken over by rare and complex microbial monsters?!
I've always thought that it was the height of human arrogance to presume that life on other worlds would be recognizable to us as "life" at all. There may be life on the moon for all we know. We assume certain organic forms, but why? Our experience with the world beyond earth is infinitesimal; how can we assume anything? what if there is life that doesn't exist as bacteria, as flora and fauna, as little green men, etc. Life elsewhere might be made of substances and energies that we don't even know exist. Evolution here took place in a particular context and environment -- who's to say what could happen in other environments? When it comes down to it, there is a whole lot we don't even know about life here on earth -- how can we assume that our assumptions about life here will have any relevance on other worlds?
The photo shows one of these Martian-like creatures at work in their natural habitat. Apparently they look just like coke dealers here on earth filling up baggies for distribution. Except they are all red with purple hands.
Can it teach?
Why? I mean, really, what's wrong with weird map porn if that's your thing? This information is provided to the public so we can find our way around the city, but what harm is done if we find some more creative way to use this information? Obviously the notion of "map porn" is pretty far fetched, but would it be in the city's interest to move to stop an art exhibit based on the subway map, for example? Even offensive art? I don't think so.
And if you misbehave in class, forget being sent to the principal's office. RoboProf will just spit fire at you!
Hmmmm... chaffing, super-sensitive, huge hole.... is this a subliminal advertisement for condoms?