I typically get take-out the night before (Chinese, Indian). Tastes just like it does one the ground-- usually with anyone around me complaining that they didn't bring their own. The OP is crap.
No one who actually is anyone, and has anything to do with science or policy, gives a damn what you (or 98% of other slashdotters) think about it. Because you don't have a flying fuck of an idea, of what you're talking about, or how to judge it in scientific terms.
Your opinion does not matter, no matter how many times you type on the keyboard, except, perhaps, in the very limited sense of being one of the millions of rat-sheep who support US politics.
In which case, your opinion is carefully manufactured by think tanks and PR firms, and fed to you through the media. You bloody parrot.
>Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then. It's a "controversy" too, right? >And any lessons that touch on recent events should also teach the "controversy" about 9/11 being an inside job. >Chemistry lessons should be augmented by alchemy.
>If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones) are equally valid, you have to.
Been in a Kansas high school lately? Evidenly not!
>Why do politicians think they know more than scientists about reaching biology?
I suggest you take a wee glance at the dear old white gentlemen who dominate the Tennessee legislature.
There's the guy who recently attempted to ban the practice of the Muslim faith (failed), but who did succeed on the pressing issue of banning dogs in the front seats of cars.
Then we have the dear gentleman from Chattanooga who sought to ban transgender individuals from bathrooms (while threatening to murder any transgender folk he came into contact with).
There's nothing quite like the representative who drafted the "guns in bars" legislation-- and who a few months later, was caught driving home drunk from one of those bars, handgun beside him on the seat of this pickup.
Don't even get me started on the Governor and that crowd.
I assure you, however, that these elevated gentlemen are not discriminating against scientists or anyone. They certainly believe that they know better than anyone and everyone else, without prejudice to learning, education, experience or any other form of knowledge.
>through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.
Oh, it's no brainwashed. Brainwashing implies the presence of a brain. People with brains, flee the South. The stare is just blank, like a doe.
-- Written from Nashville, home of the neo-right-wing-white-trash-moron-who-loves-mom-apple-pie-and-his-hound-dog (but-hates-black-folk-and-dem-liberals)
>The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.
Obviously, you don't know what SCIENCE is.
Everything in science is a THEORY. Everything in science is DISPROVABLE. That's the whole point. Science is refined scepticism. There are no ultimate facts; there are only 'facts' which provisional propositions subject to DISPROOF by other provisional 'facts.'
Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'the overall concept of Newtownian mechanics is no longer a theory."
If he had read Slashdot, he'd have known about that checkpoint and avoided it!
Otherwise, the article is (welcome to new media) incredibly snide, especially with the comments about Sony "letting him off with a slap on the wrist" and the Facebook job. There's one site I wouldn't mind seeing DDoSed.
Well, while I personally usually call the universities and their professors "hoarders," and believe that online media would and will help in the spread of knowledge, I think you also dramatically underestimate the amount of training involved in higher education, especially post-undergrad education.
Sharing for sharing's sake is fine, but a person has to eat. Academic jobs are few and far between, and the pressures very great-- while the compensation is mediocre. Today's academy may be full of failings, but Wikipedia is far from a replacement. People need to be paid for work. A grand, collectivist, "knowledge is free, as in beer" regime is not going to emerge.
1) Wikipedia's usability is very poor. Quite dismal, actually, in the sense of mollases. And who wants to learn *YET ANOTHER* quirky, unusual UI which doesn't follow many basic principles? I mean, sheesh, these guys obviously never talked to Jakob Nielsen, now did they:P ?
2) You don't understand the pecking order of academia. No one who's senior, does their own editing or typesetting, and often, basic research. They have paid staff to do those things for them. Good or bad, this is the way it is-- they're experts, because they devote 60-80 hours a week to their subject, not wordprocessing technique.
>If you're so much smarter than everyone on Wikipedia, or if you know experts that are smarter, >go fix it/get them to go fix it. Stop trying to hoard the wisdom, instead share it with the crowds.
1) It's hard work and there's little motive. Why would someone take off time from a career, to do so?
2) The editorial infighting of the Wikipedia process is not acceptable.
Also, your comment about "a piece of paper that shows you took some courses" is just about Wikipedia quality. Gaining a Ph.D., and then a permanent academic posiiton at any US institution of note, requires so, so much more-- qual exams, dissertaion, defense, multiple publicaitons, interviews, vetting, and a 7-9 year review process-- that your glib comment betrays the problem of Wikipedia.
Yeah. I can tell you, there's nothing quite as effective as a 23-year old, jumping down the throat of an 75-year-old emeritus professor because they made a syntax error using WikiPedia's reference system-- which, mind you, is about as ideal as making calls from COBOL to a PIC database.
There's a certain disease of online forums, of the false expert -- the guy who gains the arcane knowledge necessary to run some system and maintain their little hilltop, and knock anyone down who attempts to come near. Wikipedia is the tragedy of the kudzu.
Slashdot Mirror
I typically get take-out the night before (Chinese, Indian). Tastes just like it does one the ground-- usually with anyone around me complaining that they didn't bring their own. The OP is crap.
Kazakh's StAn, very funny,
and their prostitutes, very sweet,
but the penis of their poor leader,
is impossible to b-eat.
Gramma, we been waitin', and doggonit, we finally made up!
Well, here's the thing.
No one who actually is anyone, and has anything to do with science or policy, gives a damn what you (or 98% of other slashdotters) think about it. Because you don't have a flying fuck of an idea, of what you're talking about, or how to judge it in scientific terms.
Your opinion does not matter, no matter how many times you type on the keyboard, except, perhaps, in the very limited sense of being one of the millions of rat-sheep who support US politics.
In which case, your opinion is carefully manufactured by think tanks and PR firms, and fed to you through the media. You bloody parrot.
>It's effing cold in Seattle...
Yeah? And what else is new?
>I want it to be warm and dry...
I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia.
Are you suggesting I burn a copy of the New York Times? :)
Hey! It was on the front page of the NYT last week :P ;)
Hey man, I was just making fun of the Ayn Rand meme ;)
As far as NYT is concerned, it's that their system is so heavy-handed and backwards-looking...
Evidently one of the Suhthernours picked up his shotgun and fired off "-1, Disagree. // White fascism shall rise again!"
Heh. Just making a point!
>Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then. It's a "controversy" too, right?
>And any lessons that touch on recent events should also teach the "controversy" about 9/11 being an inside job.
>Chemistry lessons should be augmented by alchemy.
>If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones) are equally valid, you have to.
Been in a Kansas high school lately? Evidenly not!
>Why do politicians think they know more than scientists about reaching biology?
I suggest you take a wee glance at the dear old white gentlemen who dominate the Tennessee legislature.
There's the guy who recently attempted to ban the practice of the Muslim faith (failed), but who did succeed on the pressing issue of banning dogs in the front seats of cars.
Then we have the dear gentleman from Chattanooga who sought to ban transgender individuals from bathrooms (while threatening to murder any transgender folk he came into contact with).
There's nothing quite like the representative who drafted the "guns in bars" legislation-- and who a few months later, was caught driving home drunk from one of those bars, handgun beside him on the seat of this pickup.
Don't even get me started on the Governor and that crowd.
I assure you, however, that these elevated gentlemen are not discriminating against scientists or anyone. They certainly believe that they know better than anyone and everyone else, without prejudice to learning, education, experience or any other form of knowledge.
>"sun is center of our galaxy"
Mr. Galileo, a word or two, please...
>through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.
Oh, it's no brainwashed. Brainwashing implies the presence of a brain. People with brains, flee the South. The stare is just blank, like a doe.
-- Written from Nashville, home of the neo-right-wing-white-trash-moron-who-loves-mom-apple-pie-and-his-hound-dog (but-hates-black-folk-and-dem-liberals)
>The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.
Obviously, you don't know what SCIENCE is.
Everything in science is a THEORY. Everything in science is DISPROVABLE. That's the whole point. Science is refined scepticism. There are no ultimate facts; there are only 'facts' which provisional propositions subject to DISPROOF by other provisional 'facts.'
Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'the overall concept of Newtownian mechanics is no longer a theory."
^ Moocher.
>If you paid a journalist $40,000/year (which isn't unreasonable in the grand scheme of things but is not high at all),
$40K a year? In New York? Including expenses? Let me go take a shit I'm laughing so hard.
The fully loaded (ie, including benefits, expenses etc) F-T-E cost for a NYT journalist is closer to $125K average.
Regardless, their paywall model is BS.
>In any case, the pay wall has NOT been up for a year. The pay wall has only gone into effect starting January 2012.
WRONG. It was implemented in March 2011. Thank you for playing the game of "shoot off your mouth when you don't know jack shit."
>believe that despite his ravaging where we live with tornados on a yearly basis, we've got a direct line to God.
If most of the people in the South called me on a daily basis, and I had tornado powers, I'd smite them too.
ISP control YOU.
If he had read Slashdot, he'd have known about that checkpoint and avoided it!
Otherwise, the article is (welcome to new media) incredibly snide, especially with the comments about Sony "letting him off with a slap on the wrist" and the Facebook job. There's one site I wouldn't mind seeing DDoSed.
Well, while I personally usually call the universities and their professors "hoarders," and believe that online media would and will help in the spread of knowledge, I think you also dramatically underestimate the amount of training involved in higher education, especially post-undergrad education.
Sharing for sharing's sake is fine, but a person has to eat. Academic jobs are few and far between, and the pressures very great-- while the compensation is mediocre. Today's academy may be full of failings, but Wikipedia is far from a replacement. People need to be paid for work. A grand, collectivist, "knowledge is free, as in beer" regime is not going to emerge.
Uh, no.
1) Wikipedia's usability is very poor. Quite dismal, actually, in the sense of mollases. And who wants to learn *YET ANOTHER* quirky, unusual UI which doesn't follow many basic principles? I mean, sheesh, these guys obviously never talked to Jakob Nielsen, now did they :P ?
2) You don't understand the pecking order of academia. No one who's senior, does their own editing or typesetting, and often, basic research. They have paid staff to do those things for them. Good or bad, this is the way it is-- they're experts, because they devote 60-80 hours a week to their subject, not wordprocessing technique.
>If you're so much smarter than everyone on Wikipedia, or if you know experts that are smarter,
>go fix it/get them to go fix it. Stop trying to hoard the wisdom, instead share it with the crowds.
1) It's hard work and there's little motive. Why would someone take off time from a career, to do so?
2) The editorial infighting of the Wikipedia process is not acceptable.
Also, your comment about "a piece of paper that shows you took some courses" is just about Wikipedia quality. Gaining a Ph.D., and then a permanent academic posiiton at any US institution of note, requires so, so much more-- qual exams, dissertaion, defense, multiple publicaitons, interviews, vetting, and a 7-9 year review process-- that your glib comment betrays the problem of Wikipedia.
Yeah. I can tell you, there's nothing quite as effective as a 23-year old, jumping down the throat of an 75-year-old emeritus professor because they made a syntax error using WikiPedia's reference system-- which, mind you, is about as ideal as making calls from COBOL to a PIC database.
There's a certain disease of online forums, of the false expert -- the guy who gains the arcane knowledge necessary to run some system and maintain their little hilltop, and knock anyone down who attempts to come near. Wikipedia is the tragedy of the kudzu.