The relationships between humans become more superficial, as technology-induced connectivity goes up.
You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person. I mean, you communicate at least as much on the phone and on IM/e-mails as you do in person; and while they maybe fruitful communications, they just aren't the same.
Heck, I communicate with my room-mates over IM far more than actually walking down to their room and talking to them about something. While it certain has benefits, it also has downsides.
I have often wondered the same thing. IE is quite usable, and quite nice.
Firefox and Opera are great, and I use them both a lot of the time, but I also use IE often. On a Windows machine, IE seriously has some benefits that FF does not. For instance, doing an ftp://foobar gets me a nice interface in IE. In FF, Fireftp crashes so often that I stopped using it. As for adblocking, Google toolbar gives me the same thing. If you are careful about your security settings, IE can also be a safe browser.
Not to mention running Java applets. Firefox seems to hang/crash everytime a Java applet is run, and has serious trouble handling Java. You'd think that IE would be having this problem, not FF. And on a system with low memory, FF simply crashes way more often, it's easier and faster to use IE. Worse yet, FF's memory management on slower and older systems sucks.
Now, obviously both the browsers have advantages and disadvantages, but seriously, IE isn't so bad as most folks here make it out to be. But for the security vulnerabilities, IE is a nice browser that is quite nice and usable.
While I'd put Firefox above IE, that definitely does not make it a bad browser.
I used to work at LANL, and if UC had not won the bid, it would have been a big deal. For the most part, LANL used go get singularly blamed for incidents that were trivial while other labs (e.g. Sandia) would never even get a mention for far worse thing. LANL almost became a bugaboo and it seemed that people sought to make an "example" out of it, for whatever reason.
Despite everything, it's one of the greatest of places to work at and UC is a fantastic employer.
The whole problem at LANL was more because of politics than anything else. I, for one, am glad that UC won the bid - they deserved this, and did not deserve what was going on there.
I can almost see the folks at LANL partying over this.:)
Well, that would depend on how you look at Wikipedia. Is it a definitive source? Nope, it is a starting point. Is it the only source? Nope, it's one of many other sources.
So, you can take the occasional mistake for a wider coverage, and a better chance of finding the information you need. If you are entirely dependent on Wikipedia, you must be nuts.
Nice strawman argument there - I made no such claim. Merely that all things being equal, the ability to contribute and correct by more people would result in more information. The quality of information, like everything else, is dependent on the "experts" who write, correct and edit the content.
However, the growth and evolution of a more flexible entity like wikipedia is faster than one that is not as flexible, owing to the fact that people can contribute quite easily.
You're right. The "editable by some" is a big thing against Digital Universe. Wikipedia has grown enormously in a very short period of time. I doubt if this new fangled Digital Universe will be able to demonstrate such growth.
Joe User can search for an article, see that it's missing and write one. Or if an article has mistakes or errors or missing information, s/he can contribute. Of course, it does take some time for the article to mature, but the basic idea remains that anyone can contribute. Now, as a Joe User, if I see that an article on something is missing or has mistakes in Digital Universe, what do I do? Umm, let's see, just about nothing.
This is a BIG thing in favour of Wikipedia - the ability for anyone to contribute. I think Wikipedia's success lies in this. I mean, I've contributed a very small number of articles and images in a few languages. And a lot more of users like me can just contribute an immense quantity of information.
Experts are often not willing to spend time on this. Combine it with the fact that a Joe User cannot contribute, you have a disjoint. This is not like the OSS model for code (i.e. a handful few maintaining code), where a specific module needs to be written. This is information, and you do not know what you know/what you do not know/what you are looking for unless you get right down to it. And often, you need not actually know about it, if you have good references.
Finally, if you are being an encyclopedia, you are trying to write up the sum-total of human knowledge, which IMHO is a lot more overarching than code. You cannot assign a few "experts" to do the task. It gets done faster by more.
One solution might be for certain sections of Wikipedia to evolve into this - that way, you would have a QA of sorts. But between the two, the "editable by some" is a big thing against Digital Universe. The "editable by all" is what made Wikipedia what it is. IMHO, of course.
You see that * symbol next to your id? I had that, once.
I stopped subscribing to Slashdot for the simple reason that the editors did not care. Several times over, I would point out mistakes and dupes, and they wouldn't do a damn thing.
A couple of them, especially Timothy and Jamie, happened to. But most of the rest of them simply didn't care, no matter what.
The reason I subscribed was to support a website I enjoyed. And the reason I now don't is because the very people running it do not care. And of course I use ad blockers, because heck, the people running it don't care two hoots about doing thier bloody job right. So, why should I even bother?
And I'm not the only one who stopped subscribing for this reason. So, in the end, I think it evens out.
(yes, I know - it was a joke, but I couldn't stop ranting anyway)
Actually, I must add one more thing - one of the goals of science is finding out the truth. Whether or not these cohere with that of the folks practicing it is a different issue.
The deterioration of the Ozone layer was very well proven, and Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland won the Nobel for conclusively proving that CFCs caused the depletion of the layer.
Now, global warming is a fact. Yes, Earth is warming up.
However, whether that warming directly correlates completely to an increase in greenhouse gases is not yet known, nor fully established.
Now, are you saying we should clean the planet? I'm right there with you. Cut down on our pollution? Right on, let's do it. Stop being so dependent on petroleum? Excellent idea.
But do it because it needs to be done - do not cite Global Warming as the reason. You assume that just because someone does not believe in global warming as a theory means that they do not approve of keeping the planet clean.
That's not true. I believe in keeping the planet clean. I do not believe in global warming (the theory, that is - I do believe the planet is getting warmer). Now, I don't need the two to be related.
If you do, I'm happy for you. Just don't argue with me because I demand more evidence.
I stand corrected. However, finding answers and understanding the world around us is usually the fundamental purpose of the methods that science employs, which was my point.
And yet, rather than take an objective viewpoint and concede to the fact that it might be possible that they might be have a point or two, you are quick to establish that your claim is appropriate and theirs isn't.
Do I believe the earth is warming up? Yes. Do I believe that the humans are entirely responsible for it? No.
Look at your own statement:
We know this and we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a strong influence on our climate.
We know that they have an influence, and we know that we are at the end of an ice age. We do not have sufficient data to prove conclusively that this is purely a function of greenhouse gases.
But anyway, the point is not which one of us is right - the point is losing the objectivity of science. If you are willing to risk that for whatever reason, you are not a scientist. Go become an activist or participate in propaganda.
But of course, that does not make Newton (or Einstein) any less valuable!
And as far as the OP is considered, parenting is not like physics. The former is something humans have been doing for generations.
You can teach Paris Hilton for years, and she might even be able to understand the very basics of relativity. On the other hand, you might not even need to teach someone like Pauli or Schwinger a thing, before they come up with ground-breaking ideas and theories.
The point is, anyone can be a good parent if they applied a little common sense and prudence, however, not everyone can be a good physicist. The former is something that's within us, just that most people don't bother making the effort. You may be the hardest working person on earth, you still would not be worth a damn in physics.
Slashdot Mirror
The relationships between humans become more superficial, as technology-induced connectivity goes up.
You miss body gestures, nuances and postures and become completely dependent on technology to get to know a person. I mean, you communicate at least as much on the phone and on IM/e-mails as you do in person; and while they maybe fruitful communications, they just aren't the same.
Heck, I communicate with my room-mates over IM far more than actually walking down to their room and talking to them about something. While it certain has benefits, it also has downsides.
Well said.
I have often wondered the same thing. IE is quite usable, and quite nice.
Firefox and Opera are great, and I use them both a lot of the time, but I also use IE often. On a Windows machine, IE seriously has some benefits that FF does not. For instance, doing an ftp://foobar gets me a nice interface in IE. In FF, Fireftp crashes so often that I stopped using it. As for adblocking, Google toolbar gives me the same thing. If you are careful about your security settings, IE can also be a safe browser.
Not to mention running Java applets. Firefox seems to hang/crash everytime a Java applet is run, and has serious trouble handling Java. You'd think that IE would be having this problem, not FF. And on a system with low memory, FF simply crashes way more often, it's easier and faster to use IE. Worse yet, FF's memory management on slower and older systems sucks.
Now, obviously both the browsers have advantages and disadvantages, but seriously, IE isn't so bad as most folks here make it out to be. But for the security vulnerabilities, IE is a nice browser that is quite nice and usable.
While I'd put Firefox above IE, that definitely does not make it a bad browser.
I am French...
I'm sorry!
I used to work at LANL, and if UC had not won the bid, it would have been a big deal. For the most part, LANL used go get singularly blamed for incidents that were trivial while other labs (e.g. Sandia) would never even get a mention for far worse thing. LANL almost became a bugaboo and it seemed that people sought to make an "example" out of it, for whatever reason.
:)
Despite everything, it's one of the greatest of places to work at and UC is a fantastic employer.
The whole problem at LANL was more because of politics than anything else. I, for one, am glad that UC won the bid - they deserved this, and did not deserve what was going on there.
I can almost see the folks at LANL partying over this.
Well, that would depend on how you look at Wikipedia. Is it a definitive source? Nope, it is a starting point. Is it the only source? Nope, it's one of many other sources.
So, you can take the occasional mistake for a wider coverage, and a better chance of finding the information you need. If you are entirely dependent on Wikipedia, you must be nuts.
Nice strawman argument there - I made no such claim. Merely that all things being equal, the ability to contribute and correct by more people would result in more information. The quality of information, like everything else, is dependent on the "experts" who write, correct and edit the content.
However, the growth and evolution of a more flexible entity like wikipedia is faster than one that is not as flexible, owing to the fact that people can contribute quite easily.
Obviously, that is a double edged sword.
You're right. The "editable by some" is a big thing against Digital Universe. Wikipedia has grown enormously in a very short period of time. I doubt if this new fangled Digital Universe will be able to demonstrate such growth.
Joe User can search for an article, see that it's missing and write one. Or if an article has mistakes or errors or missing information, s/he can contribute. Of course, it does take some time for the article to mature, but the basic idea remains that anyone can contribute. Now, as a Joe User, if I see that an article on something is missing or has mistakes in Digital Universe, what do I do? Umm, let's see, just about nothing.
This is a BIG thing in favour of Wikipedia - the ability for anyone to contribute. I think Wikipedia's success lies in this. I mean, I've contributed a very small number of articles and images in a few languages. And a lot more of users like me can just contribute an immense quantity of information.
Experts are often not willing to spend time on this. Combine it with the fact that a Joe User cannot contribute, you have a disjoint. This is not like the OSS model for code (i.e. a handful few maintaining code), where a specific module needs to be written. This is information, and you do not know what you know/what you do not know/what you are looking for unless you get right down to it. And often, you need not actually know about it, if you have good references.
Finally, if you are being an encyclopedia, you are trying to write up the sum-total of human knowledge, which IMHO is a lot more overarching than code. You cannot assign a few "experts" to do the task. It gets done faster by more.
One solution might be for certain sections of Wikipedia to evolve into this - that way, you would have a QA of sorts. But between the two, the "editable by some" is a big thing against Digital Universe. The "editable by all" is what made Wikipedia what it is. IMHO, of course.
But how long before someone writes a virus that does this?
Of course, that would definitely be ugly for the OSS community...
Life or dupe situation, eh?
I'm not even sure if its Windows counterpart knows how to behave.
Heh.
At a point of time Suprnova probably had the highest traffic among Bittorrent tracker sites.
That hardly makes it a "small site".
You see that * symbol next to your id? I had that, once.
I stopped subscribing to Slashdot for the simple reason that the editors did not care. Several times over, I would point out mistakes and dupes, and they wouldn't do a damn thing.
A couple of them, especially Timothy and Jamie, happened to. But most of the rest of them simply didn't care, no matter what.
The reason I subscribed was to support a website I enjoyed. And the reason I now don't is because the very people running it do not care. And of course I use ad blockers, because heck, the people running it don't care two hoots about doing thier bloody job right. So, why should I even bother?
And I'm not the only one who stopped subscribing for this reason. So, in the end, I think it evens out.
(yes, I know - it was a joke, but I couldn't stop ranting anyway)
The editors can't do it, and you think a robot would? :p
(I'm sure you're making them feel warm and fuzzy all over)
Same story, different news source.
Not that it seems to make any difference, but do the editors ever read the stories? *EVER*?
Sheesh.
But it's clear the editors think men with big penises running around in tights is "stuff that matters."
Not unless it's my "stuff" that matters.
Actually, I must add one more thing - one of the goals of science is finding out the truth. Whether or not these cohere with that of the folks practicing it is a different issue.
The deterioration of the Ozone layer was very well proven, and Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland won the Nobel for conclusively proving that CFCs caused the depletion of the layer.
Now, global warming is a fact. Yes, Earth is warming up.
However, whether that warming directly correlates completely to an increase in greenhouse gases is not yet known, nor fully established.
Now, are you saying we should clean the planet? I'm right there with you. Cut down on our pollution? Right on, let's do it. Stop being so dependent on petroleum? Excellent idea.
But do it because it needs to be done - do not cite Global Warming as the reason. You assume that just because someone does not believe in global warming as a theory means that they do not approve of keeping the planet clean.
That's not true. I believe in keeping the planet clean. I do not believe in global warming (the theory, that is - I do believe the planet is getting warmer). Now, I don't need the two to be related.
If you do, I'm happy for you. Just don't argue with me because I demand more evidence.
I stand corrected. However, finding answers and understanding the world around us is usually the fundamental purpose of the methods that science employs, which was my point.
That is not the goal of science. That becomes a social/political/moral/ethical decision.
The goal of science is to provide answers, not to make decisions for people.
And yet, rather than take an objective viewpoint and concede to the fact that it might be possible that they might be have a point or two, you are quick to establish that your claim is appropriate and theirs isn't.
Do I believe the earth is warming up? Yes. Do I believe that the humans are entirely responsible for it? No.
Look at your own statement:
We know this and we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a strong influence on our climate.
We know that they have an influence, and we know that we are at the end of an ice age. We do not have sufficient data to prove conclusively that this is purely a function of greenhouse gases.
But anyway, the point is not which one of us is right - the point is losing the objectivity of science. If you are willing to risk that for whatever reason, you are not a scientist. Go become an activist or participate in propaganda.
You don't need a good script to make a good movie, either.
Not that success and good anything but correlate, but some of the better movies I've seen have had lousy/inexistant scripts.
In a visual medium like movies, a lot of other things come into play, that may appeal to you. Script is just part of it.
Linda Bork? Thought they were divorced after he has arrested trying to put out with an undercover cop or something?
But of course, that does not make Newton (or Einstein) any less valuable!
And as far as the OP is considered, parenting is not like physics. The former is something humans have been doing for generations.
You can teach Paris Hilton for years, and she might even be able to understand the very basics of relativity. On the other hand, you might not even need to teach someone like Pauli or Schwinger a thing, before they come up with ground-breaking ideas and theories.
The point is, anyone can be a good parent if they applied a little common sense and prudence, however, not everyone can be a good physicist. The former is something that's within us, just that most people don't bother making the effort. You may be the hardest working person on earth, you still would not be worth a damn in physics.
It's spelt separation!
Nah, that's not until they have me on board to tell them the cool ideas.
Now *that* would be the bargain of the century.
*smirk*