Of course. Unearned income is a huge multiplier for wealth while borrowing does the opposite. And you are right about renting vs. owning though I think it is a bit more nuanced. Often in locations ownership can approach or pass 200 months rent in which case renting is the far better option.
X is a citation behind an expensive paywall, P. Either a) P is well regarded and mainstream and thus large numbers of people have access b) P is niche
In case (b) a counter point from a well regarded site would overwhelm the facts from P. If a consensus appeared to emerge contradicting P the fact would be removed even without the citation ever being refuted.
academic: if someone has a published paper saying X then saying X is not original research Wikipedia: if someone has a published paper saying X then saying X is not original research
step 1: Get "the truth" published in high quality locations step 2: Get "the truth" published in wikipedia step 3: Get "the truth" published in low quality mainstream sources.
Wikipedia has never wanted to try and be a replacement for step 1.
I think that you get the policy that an academic consensus is going to be taken over a popular position. As far as your sources being deleted and... that's Wikipedia's obnoxious culture not the ban on original research. No question after 2006 the culture for Wikipedia became more obnoxious. However what GP was talking about above was something that even if Wikipedia were functioning properly would still be a violation of policy.
I'd say the situation you are describing that:
a) There exists a clear academic consensus X b) There exists a clear popular consensus Y c) X and Y disagree
Mostly though Wikipedia wants to reflect the truth in popular sources not the consensus of specialist literature. Both views probably need to be reflected. That approach is also less likely to get reverted or rejected in time. Trying to maintain a position that the academic view is right even while Y is still maintained in the popular literate is not going to fly. Ultimately the question is going to be "why is the academic position being rejected by popular writers?" As far as the changes in time. Wikipedia represents the best opinion of editors at the time of their edits. Articles flow back and forth depending on who shows up. A specialist can help influence an article in a positive direction and those changes might stick, but they might not. Ultimately the best way for the specialist to affect Wikipedia would be t write a piece of popular literature on the topic and thus destroy the popular consensus around Y.
In theory if the authors of those books published elsewhere (like a blog) that they were wrong that would be a better source. Experts are allowed to refine their opinion. But they would have to do the retraction off wikipedia.
A document that claims to be summary of the opinion of authorities is not committing a fallacy when it makes an appeal to said authorities. The appeal to authority fallacy requires a dismissal of evidence. Wikipedia doesn't evaluate the evidence at all.
It isn't the coffee table book. It is best sources. But mostly they went the other way on that. They want non-mainstream out not in. I agree it can be frustrating and I think they often go too far but their position is they don't want to get involved in arguments. Have the arguments elsewhere with other experts not on wikipedia.
I don't think I could have made corrections but I can see problems.
For example your first article: San Diego Men's Chorus the history of how and why it was founded as well as by whom is short. It is missing detail. There is still obvious work to be done in filling this in. There are language problems and missing detail example: " SDMC performed some of the finest choral literature from a variety of genres. ". Obvious thing is to fine what they performed and what genres.
On your second article you have Jeffrey Scholten who had the world record as a redlink. The notes are unclear as to their meaning (what does "ADV" mean)...
Not really. Reliable in wikipedia is defined in terms of mainstream acceptance. Things like: strong academic credentials, strong sales... objective criteria that don't require topical knowledge.
The amount of free information in 2015 is much higher than it was in 2003. The number of people with access to paywalled internet sites is higher than 2003. I don't see what you are claiming changed after 2006 regarding paywalls.
What you are describing is original research and has been against policy since even before 2006. Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources. It makes no claims to represent a "truth" beyond that. If something is wrong in the mainstream press, fix it there.
Finder is replaceable, mac ships with a system scripting language and has for decades, the setting for icons on the taskbar is a set by you to shrink mine and most everyone else's expand when you mouse over....
I think that's a completely inaccurate apologetic. And I say that as a guy who wrote a lot of Perl 5 code during the 1990s. Perl 6 was born from the Perl 5 community's desire to make major changes to Perl. If it had come out in 2002 it would certainly have been "the next major release of Perl". It's just that the community bit off way more than it could handle, failed repeatedly...
No question the Perl work market was harmed by the Perl 6 fiasco. Failure to build a new version in a timely fashion creates an opening for competitors. Quark, Visual Basic, Flash, Common LISP... suffered the same fate.
I agree with your general point but not your details.
I would bet that more people use Perl 6 than use Perl 4 when it was released. Perl 3 was a very niche language, trying to replace the bash (csh, tcsh) + sed + awk style of scripting. It mostly was poorly known. There was much less Unix in those days, most systems which required admining were still legacy minis. Perl 4 was a huge success and then around the same time the World Wide Web made CGI gateways important which coincided with early Perl 5.... Perl 6, is coming into a world where the name "Perl" is known, scripting is the dominant form of programming. Perl 6 just has a lot of baggage.
In the case of key-value pairs, why not just use PostgreSQL? In the case of document storage, why not just use one of these things called a filesystem?
Well if you want to emulate Mongo you would need a filesystem that is horizontally scalable where copies of the filesystem and directories (indexes) are being coordinated across dozens of machines. You would also want clustering so that read and write loads on the filesystem can be segmented. So either you are talking a SAN or a filesystem database.
Elastic is not remotely similar to SQL solutions. Out of my 2000 table database find me all the denormalized records where column a in table b meets criteria c or columns d in table e (a 1/2 dozen relations away) and e in table f meet criteria f unless g in columns i,j,k in tables l,m,n apply. And then support dozens of similar queries. And remember those criteria are often searches against multi-megabyte clob fields.
NoSQL exists because no database can possibly offer durability of commits, horizontal consistency and low latency. Not because of ignorance.
They aren't close enough. OTOH the.NET compiler is extremely sophisticated for in terms of what it allows statically typed languages to do. I think a cross platform C#, and other languages would be terrific. Heck now that Microsoft doesn't own it, you could build a Java compiler that takes all the code and makes it run 2-3x times faster with enough work.
The compilation system for Perl is/was a bit more sophisticated. Parrot would be designed for dynamic languages and thus support types further abstracted from machine types natively: hash or arbitrary length string for example. Thus the compilation to Parrot wouldn't require static variables..NET incidentally does some of this but doesn't have quite the same levels of support for dynamic languages.
It is BTW intriguing. Perl if it works will be a huge step forward even today. But of course.NET already does 80% of this so it isn't quite as revolutionary as it would have been.
TMTOWTDI was a core idea behind Perl. Perl was designed to allow people migrating from multiple tools to do things their way. Compare 20 lines of Perl to a hodgepodge of C, Bash, TCSH, CSH, Sed, Awk, and a few other command line utilities. That's what it was replacing
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. Unearned income is a huge multiplier for wealth while borrowing does the opposite. And you are right about renting vs. owning though I think it is a bit more nuanced. Often in locations ownership can approach or pass 200 months rent in which case renting is the far better option.
Your game doesn't matter.
X is a citation behind an expensive paywall, P.
Either
a) P is well regarded and mainstream and thus large numbers of people have access
b) P is niche
In case (b) a counter point from a well regarded site would overwhelm the facts from P. If a consensus appeared to emerge contradicting P the fact would be removed even without the citation ever being refuted.
How is that a redefinition?
academic: if someone has a published paper saying X then saying X is not original research
Wikipedia: if someone has a published paper saying X then saying X is not original research
Not really:
step 1: Get "the truth" published in high quality locations
step 2: Get "the truth" published in wikipedia
step 3: Get "the truth" published in low quality mainstream sources.
Wikipedia has never wanted to try and be a replacement for step 1.
I think that you get the policy that an academic consensus is going to be taken over a popular position. As far as your sources being deleted and ... that's Wikipedia's obnoxious culture not the ban on original research. No question after 2006 the culture for Wikipedia became more obnoxious. However what GP was talking about above was something that even if Wikipedia were functioning properly would still be a violation of policy.
I'd say the situation you are describing that:
a) There exists a clear academic consensus X
b) There exists a clear popular consensus Y
c) X and Y disagree
Mostly though Wikipedia wants to reflect the truth in popular sources not the consensus of specialist literature. Both views probably need to be reflected. That approach is also less likely to get reverted or rejected in time. Trying to maintain a position that the academic view is right even while Y is still maintained in the popular literate is not going to fly. Ultimately the question is going to be "why is the academic position being rejected by popular writers?" As far as the changes in time. Wikipedia represents the best opinion of editors at the time of their edits. Articles flow back and forth depending on who shows up. A specialist can help influence an article in a positive direction and those changes might stick, but they might not. Ultimately the best way for the specialist to affect Wikipedia would be t write a piece of popular literature on the topic and thus destroy the popular consensus around Y.
In theory if the authors of those books published elsewhere (like a blog) that they were wrong that would be a better source. Experts are allowed to refine their opinion. But they would have to do the retraction off wikipedia.
A document that claims to be summary of the opinion of authorities is not committing a fallacy when it makes an appeal to said authorities. The appeal to authority fallacy requires a dismissal of evidence. Wikipedia doesn't evaluate the evidence at all.
It isn't the coffee table book. It is best sources. But mostly they went the other way on that. They want non-mainstream out not in. I agree it can be frustrating and I think they often go too far but their position is they don't want to get involved in arguments. Have the arguments elsewhere with other experts not on wikipedia.
I don't think I could have made corrections but I can see problems.
For example your first article:
San Diego Men's Chorus the history of how and why it was founded as well as by whom is short. It is missing detail. There is still obvious work to be done in filling this in. There are language problems and missing detail example: " SDMC performed some of the finest choral literature from a variety of genres. ". Obvious thing is to fine what they performed and what genres.
On your second article you have Jeffrey Scholten who had the world record as a redlink. The notes are unclear as to their meaning (what does "ADV" mean)...
Not really. Reliable in wikipedia is defined in terms of mainstream acceptance. Things like: strong academic credentials, strong sales... objective criteria that don't require topical knowledge.
The amount of free information in 2015 is much higher than it was in 2003. The number of people with access to paywalled internet sites is higher than 2003. I don't see what you are claiming changed after 2006 regarding paywalls.
Wikipedia can reflect information behind paywalls as long as it isn't violating copyright. Paywalls aren't the issue.
I think you would find the vast majority of articles lack crucial information. There is plenty beyond maintenance.
What you are describing is original research and has been against policy since even before 2006. Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources. It makes no claims to represent a "truth" beyond that. If something is wrong in the mainstream press, fix it there.
FWIW Ian was anti-systemd so it would have been pro-systemd assassins if it wasn't the police.
You aren't. From the console you can bypass passwords to boot into a runlevel 1.
Finder is replaceable, mac ships with a system scripting language and has for decades, the setting for icons on the taskbar is a set by you to shrink mine and most everyone else's expand when you mouse over....
You really shouldn't be doing reviews.
I think that's a completely inaccurate apologetic. And I say that as a guy who wrote a lot of Perl 5 code during the 1990s. Perl 6 was born from the Perl 5 community's desire to make major changes to Perl. If it had come out in 2002 it would certainly have been "the next major release of Perl". It's just that the community bit off way more than it could handle, failed repeatedly...
No question the Perl work market was harmed by the Perl 6 fiasco. Failure to build a new version in a timely fashion creates an opening for competitors. Quark, Visual Basic, Flash, Common LISP ... suffered the same fate.
I agree with your general point but not your details.
I would bet that more people use Perl 6 than use Perl 4 when it was released. Perl 3 was a very niche language, trying to replace the bash (csh, tcsh) + sed + awk style of scripting. It mostly was poorly known. There was much less Unix in those days, most systems which required admining were still legacy minis. Perl 4 was a huge success and then around the same time the World Wide Web made CGI gateways important which coincided with early Perl 5. ... Perl 6, is coming into a world where the name "Perl" is known, scripting is the dominant form of programming. Perl 6 just has a lot of baggage.
Well if you want to emulate Mongo you would need a filesystem that is horizontally scalable where copies of the filesystem and directories (indexes) are being coordinated across dozens of machines. You would also want clustering so that read and write loads on the filesystem can be segmented. So either you are talking a SAN or a filesystem database.
Elastic is not remotely similar to SQL solutions. Out of my 2000 table database find me all the denormalized records where column a in table b meets criteria c or columns d in table e (a 1/2 dozen relations away) and e in table f meet criteria f unless g in columns i,j,k in tables l,m,n apply. And then support dozens of similar queries. And remember those criteria are often searches against multi-megabyte clob fields.
NoSQL exists because no database can possibly offer durability of commits, horizontal consistency and low latency. Not because of ignorance.
They aren't close enough. OTOH the .NET compiler is extremely sophisticated for in terms of what it allows statically typed languages to do. I think a cross platform C#, and other languages would be terrific. Heck now that Microsoft doesn't own it, you could build a Java compiler that takes all the code and makes it run 2-3x times faster with enough work.
You could do a websearch on these 4 files. They were key to the discussion:
http://anfo.slavino.sk/libpam-...
> http://anfo.slavino.sk/libsyst...
> http://anfo.slavino.sk/libsyst...
> http://anfo.slavino.sk/libsyst...
The compilation system for Perl is/was a bit more sophisticated. Parrot would be designed for dynamic languages and thus support types further abstracted from machine types natively: hash or arbitrary length string for example. Thus the compilation to Parrot wouldn't require static variables. .NET incidentally does some of this but doesn't have quite the same levels of support for dynamic languages.
It is BTW intriguing. Perl if it works will be a huge step forward even today. But of course .NET already does 80% of this so it isn't quite as revolutionary as it would have been.
TMTOWTDI was a core idea behind Perl. Perl was designed to allow people migrating from multiple tools to do things their way. Compare 20 lines of Perl to a hodgepodge of C, Bash, TCSH, CSH, Sed, Awk, and a few other command line utilities. That's what it was replacing