Has it really been ten years? It feels like just yesterday my brother introduced me to it. I've spent countless hours figuring out its little foibles and trying to get better at it. It looks really simple but it's just not the kind of thing that you can just pick up.
There's certainly still room for improvement, and from what I read we can expect big things for it in 2007.
Nah, I don't. I used to edit Wikipedia, with the lofty ideals of "giving something back". Rarely major substantive edits, mind: mostly corrections to sentence structure and punctuation.
I slowly got sick of having to argue with obstinate editors who simply didn't want to change the article they'd originally written. Eventually, I realised the power that could be held by a small but determined group: the clincher for me was two other editors who kept altering the same article to suit their non-NPOV, uncited perspective. When I filed for protection, the admin protected the page with the vandalism in place (he had done this with several other pages) and then decided to quit Wikipedia!
I deleted my account. Now when I see vandalism and erroneous text, I just sigh and move on.
> to help make up for sleep lost during marathon night flights, migratory birds take hundreds of powernaps during the day, each lasting only a few seconds
Yep, just like my crazy uncle. But instead of gliding, he uses the cruise control.
Updates complete. Restart now? What about now? Now? Now? Now? Just wanted to know if I should restart now? What about now? Are you ready to restart? Shall I restart now? Should I not restart later? I think I should restart now. Wouldn't it be good if I restarted now? Who's up for a restart??
GRRR...you are basing the value of the college paper on how many millions of people do (or do not, as the case may be) actually read it.
The fact is, at least one person should be reading it: the person who *wrote it*. It is *their* task to improve their lot. That's why they are given the assignment in the first place. The point is that damage is done in these papers through authors not learning how to be critical of their own sources and crafting a thoughtful argument. They pick one source, Wikipedia, and assume that it's OK.
It's in the moulding of one person's thoughts that they are led astray. Who cares if millions of people don't read the average term paper - the point is just one person, at least, read it, and that's where the damage is done.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I'm taking this far too seriously at Christmas time, and I apologise if I offended.
not funny = not a joke.
> Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
Can you recognise a basic spelling mistake?
People like you are annoying - either watch the film and shut up, or go do something else. You need attention, but this is not how to get it.
Has it really been ten years? It feels like just yesterday my brother introduced me to it. I've spent countless hours figuring out its little foibles and trying to get better at it. It looks really simple but it's just not the kind of thing that you can just pick up.
There's certainly still room for improvement, and from what I read we can expect big things for it in 2007.
I still think de_dust is the best though.
> Apparently people prefer a free answer of questionable accuracy to having to pay for an answer.
Hello Wikipedia!
> So why did Steve Boggan and a friendly computer expert find it so easy to break the security codes?
He helped issue them in the first place? No, just joking.
But seriously, he didn't, did he?
> politely issue a warning before taking the target out
I could have given them some to use:
"Dead or alive, you're coming with me!"
"Your move, creep!"
"Stay out of trouble!"
And the list goes on.
But knowing them, I bet they'll just go with "You have 20 seconds to comply".
> If you find a problem with it, you fix it.
Nah, I don't. I used to edit Wikipedia, with the lofty ideals of "giving something back". Rarely major substantive edits, mind: mostly corrections to sentence structure and punctuation.
I slowly got sick of having to argue with obstinate editors who simply didn't want to change the article they'd originally written. Eventually, I realised the power that could be held by a small but determined group: the clincher for me was two other editors who kept altering the same article to suit their non-NPOV, uncited perspective. When I filed for protection, the admin protected the page with the vandalism in place (he had done this with several other pages) and then decided to quit Wikipedia!
I deleted my account. Now when I see vandalism and erroneous text, I just sigh and move on.
This will look great on my MySpace page!!!!!!!!!1
> They charge the coders an exuberant amount
Did you mean "exorbitant"?
exuberant [ig-zoo-ber-uhnt]
-adjective
extremely good; overflowing; plentiful:
profuse in growth or production; luxuriant; superabundant:
> to help make up for sleep lost during marathon night flights, migratory birds take hundreds of powernaps during the day, each lasting only a few seconds
Yep, just like my crazy uncle. But instead of gliding, he uses the cruise control.
Yep, I'd vote for this.
Did anybody else immediately think of that Zero G porn film from a few years ago?
Like I did?
I'll get my coat.
> I'm betting that recovering a rooted system because you couldn't be bothered to restart it would be even more of a pain.
That's great, but you don't get to make that bet, and neither does Microsoft. I do, because it's my system.
> examples of what not to do
Updates complete. Restart now?
What about now?
Now?
Now?
Now?
Just wanted to know if I should restart now?
What about now?
Are you ready to restart?
Shall I restart now?
Should I not restart later?
I think I should restart now.
Wouldn't it be good if I restarted now?
Who's up for a restart??
> So now it's "* me twice, shame on you; * me three times, shame on me"?
I have it on good authority that if you're fooled once, you can't get fooled again.
> note that I only cared enough about what you have to say to write this post, and not a damn cent more.
what if he put it on wikipedia, hmm?
I would mod you up if I had mod points!! Good on you, sir. :)
very funny. now you owe me a new milkshake and keyboard.
> CTs should be allowed to pick up the bomb. Ts should be allowed to move the hostages.
Hear hear. Being able to split up the hosties would also be good.
> What if one of the stewardists is a terrorist!!!???!!! Oh the paranoia :-(
And the spelling! "Stewardists"?
but "some ways off" != "some way off".
I for one welcome my virtual gigs!
GRRR...you are basing the value of the college paper on how many millions of people do (or do not, as the case may be) actually read it.
The fact is, at least one person should be reading it: the person who *wrote it*. It is *their* task to improve their lot. That's why they are given the assignment in the first place. The point is that damage is done in these papers through authors not learning how to be critical of their own sources and crafting a thoughtful argument. They pick one source, Wikipedia, and assume that it's OK.
It's in the moulding of one person's thoughts that they are led astray. Who cares if millions of people don't read the average term paper - the point is just one person, at least, read it, and that's where the damage is done.
They get read by the same students who wrote them, you idiot - that's the point.