It feels like we are covering the same ground again, so the conversation is probably not worth pursuing much longer.
You are right when you say that Wikipedia is a secondary source and it shouldn't be cited. But not because it is a secondary source. And I agree that you shouldn't cite Britannica, though at least that is under a higher level of scrutiny than Wikipedia.
When you write research papers you quote secondary sources all the time. Seriously. You quote other academics research in a field, and either argue for them, or against them. These are secondary sources, and you need to cite them. But they need to be peer reviewed, or at the very least published by a reputable academic in the field who already has a good reputation.
But anyway - we both agree it shouldn't be cited - but disagree on the reason why.
Wikipedia articles are peer reviewed, but using a different definition - it is not the academic journal version of peer review. Which is my point. And the point of every academic who says you can't cite Wikipedia in your academic discussions.
You can't just redefine what "peer reviewed" means, and then tell people "hey - it's peer reviewed - so accept it".
For what it does - Wikipedia is great. But even Jimmy Wales says (non-junior) students who cite Wikipedia should be failed! Check the article!
I'm not studying humanities to complement my degree in Computer Science - it's a completely unrelated field.
But on the other hand - I wasn't using "opposed" in terms of opposition - but in terms of "it's a different field". Check a dictionary - you'll often find words have more than one use. Sometimes even several!
The article seems to be a little bit confused. Sometimes it mentions banning it (which it should not be banned), and sometimes it mentions citing it (which it should not be cited)
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Check Wikipedia for info on what peer reviewed means.
The other things you say is right, except you do reference secondary sources all the time "Academic A argued that Primary Source X Suggests Y in 1979, but this runs against the popular view Z first held by Academic B in 1988" or something like that at least (you get the idea).
But yeah - I agree. Wikipedia is a great source of information. Students should be using it. But they should *not* be citing it, nor should their teachers be spanked because they tell them not to cite it. I note the article almost equates not allowing students to cite it, with refusing access to it. They are very different things.
I'm sorry.. what? Wikipedia isn't peer reviewed? Before having a go at me - learn what peer review is. Perhaps check Wikipedia
And to others who have had a go at what I said - perhaps I was hasty in saying Wikipedia was "often" wrong, but it often struggles with nuances. Though it does give you a good general overview - and suggestions on where to go.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia. But you shouldn't cite it. A teacher who tells students (at whatever level) to not reference it is not a "bad teacher". They're a good teacher!
I'm a student doing my second degree in a fairly rigorous academic institution. This time it is a humanity degree (As opposed to my first degree - Computer Science).
There is no way referencing Wikipedia is OK. It's not peer reviewed. Not only is the information often wrong, but the information it does has is very biased (which is OK - all information is biased, but you need to see the whole range). Referencing Wikipedia is like saying "Some random guy on the internet once said...". Not exactly a lot of weight.
But using Wikipedia for a starting point - that's a good thing to do. When researching a new subject, I will often read Wikipedia for initial information, and use the sources it cites as a starting point.
That agreement can't be binding on a third party. Apple can say "hey, we tried." Whether AT&T think they tried hard enough is a different matter - and if they don't, well, it'll be lawyers at 100 paces. There may also be something in the contract between Apple and AT&T that says something along the lines of "if people can unlock the phone during this time, Apple agrees to pay us $$$" - or other such penalty clauses.
Perhaps they could - but I'm not convinced the "average Joe" would go for it.
I mean seriously - pay double the cost of a "normal" car, and then being able to use it for all your special needs?
I agree the current costs of "normal" cars don't include "real" costs (i.e. pollution).
I'm certainly not arguing that we shouldn't be moving to battery technology - just that there are some significant things currently stopping people from going there. Hopefully in the future we will see these obsticles removed, and the problems solved.
the context of the conversation was what could be done on batteries...You've taken my point out of context, and created a straw man.
The original point was that while battery vehicles are good things, they currently don't quite cover all the bases.
So in the context of battery vehicles - they won't cover a days driving, and not powerful enough to tow a big load (say a boat). So great for commuter stuff, and great for day trips, not so good for the long drive. Remember it will take hours to charge the batteries, not minutes like filling a fuel tank
There was never any point about not wanting to pause for petrol, food, or toilet breaks. Generally - we do a driver swap every 2-3 hours, which most likely includes one of the above. Of course, I'm coming form a culture where long driving is part of our lives (Australia).
So - I'll repeat my closing line. I look forward to having all these problems solved, so that the battery car will be the "every day" car for the common man (ok - I expanded my closing line - live with it)
This is wrong. Sort of. Lithium-ion batteries can power a car for 200 to 250 miles
This still isn't long enough. On holidays, I often drive 1000km (say 700 miles) in a day. My petrol tank will take me about 6-700km at highway cruising, so I will to fill up once. About 10 minutes turnaround.
An electric car with 300km range? It will take 3 charges of many hours each. And it won't tow what I need to tow.
In other words, I won't do what I need it to do (and what many other people need it to do.
Whilst most driving is well within range - most people can't buy a car for holidays, and a car for the city. They buy a car that will do everything they need.
Of course - it's early days with this technology - so I'm looking forward to having all our problems solved.
are you seriously suggesting this method is better then filing alphabetically?
As someone who use to do filing in a small doctors office, trust me, it takes next to no time to find anyone's file in a filing cabinet alphabetically ordered - nor any time to re-file it.
And considering that 80% patients come about once or twice a year, I find it very hard to imagine her filing system working well.
I mean - internet addiction can have pretty bad consequences.
I'm sure I heard last night on the news about how a internetting driver killed a pedestrian. And the one who beat his wife whilst internetting. And the women who slept with an fat ugly pig of a man because she was internetting.
Most annoying part about the Greedo change: the original version was a justifiable shooting in any state in the Union! Somebody's holding a gun on you and threatens your life - that's clear-cut case of self-defense, and you're entirely within your rights to shoot the bastard.
How could George have forgotton to apply USA legal and ethical considerations when editing this scene. stupid man. Should have been the first thing he had thought off.
I think he meant that using an old laptop drive suspected of damage is the source of potential corruption.
I agree with you regarding what the original poster meant, but he did point out that because it is an old laptop drive that has already had problems, there would seem to be a greater possibility of corruptions. Which is what I was picking up on. It is highly unusual that people won't mind their data becoming corrupt at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
It feels like we are covering the same ground again, so the conversation is probably not worth pursuing much longer.
You are right when you say that Wikipedia is a secondary source and it shouldn't be cited. But not because it is a secondary source. And I agree that you shouldn't cite Britannica, though at least that is under a higher level of scrutiny than Wikipedia.
When you write research papers you quote secondary sources all the time. Seriously. You quote other academics research in a field, and either argue for them, or against them. These are secondary sources, and you need to cite them. But they need to be peer reviewed, or at the very least published by a reputable academic in the field who already has a good reputation.
But anyway - we both agree it shouldn't be cited - but disagree on the reason why.
You can't just redefine what "peer reviewed" means, and then tell people "hey - it's peer reviewed - so accept it".
For what it does - Wikipedia is great. But even Jimmy Wales says (non-junior) students who cite Wikipedia should be failed! Check the article!
seriously - it's just a figure of speech.
I'm not studying humanities to complement my degree in Computer Science - it's a completely unrelated field.
But on the other hand - I wasn't using "opposed" in terms of opposition - but in terms of "it's a different field". Check a dictionary - you'll often find words have more than one use. Sometimes even several!
The article seems to be a little bit confused. Sometimes it mentions banning it (which it should not be banned), and sometimes it mentions citing it (which it should not be cited)
yep - lots of fun :-)
I'm hoping to create a paradox and watch the world explode.
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Check Wikipedia for info on what peer reviewed means.
The other things you say is right, except you do reference secondary sources all the time "Academic A argued that Primary Source X Suggests Y in 1979, but this runs against the popular view Z first held by Academic B in 1988" or something like that at least (you get the idea).
But yeah - I agree. Wikipedia is a great source of information. Students should be using it. But they should *not* be citing it, nor should their teachers be spanked because they tell them not to cite it. I note the article almost equates not allowing students to cite it, with refusing access to it. They are very different things.
And to others who have had a go at what I said - perhaps I was hasty in saying Wikipedia was "often" wrong, but it often struggles with nuances. Though it does give you a good general overview - and suggestions on where to go.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia. But you shouldn't cite it. A teacher who tells students (at whatever level) to not reference it is not a "bad teacher". They're a good teacher!
I'm a student doing my second degree in a fairly rigorous academic institution. This time it is a humanity degree (As opposed to my first degree - Computer Science).
There is no way referencing Wikipedia is OK. It's not peer reviewed. Not only is the information often wrong, but the information it does has is very biased (which is OK - all information is biased, but you need to see the whole range). Referencing Wikipedia is like saying "Some random guy on the internet once said...". Not exactly a lot of weight.
But using Wikipedia for a starting point - that's a good thing to do. When researching a new subject, I will often read Wikipedia for initial information, and use the sources it cites as a starting point.
Makes "is the caps lock key down" seem down right ordinary.
Mike
or at least let the difference between gravitic force and magnetic force
damn - stand back while the penny drops.
;-)
I read your comment - and it clicked - stupid.
and you know what? I even reminded myself what TMA stood for before posting....
Magnetic force - gravitic force....same thing right?
I wonder how long it will take them to find TMA1
I worked a helpdesk at CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) at UNSW (Uni of NSW - that's in Oz folks) in the days of Rasterman.
Had several students ask me the URL for slashdot.org. My theory was - if they had to ask, they don't need it.
ahhh - those were the days.
I suspect that you left something out of this sentence
:-)
yep - a "not". I'll let you figure out where
Perhaps they could - but I'm not convinced the "average Joe" would go for it.
I mean seriously - pay double the cost of a "normal" car, and then being able to use it for all your special needs?
I agree the current costs of "normal" cars don't include "real" costs (i.e. pollution).
I'm certainly not arguing that we shouldn't be moving to battery technology - just that there are some significant things currently stopping people from going there. Hopefully in the future we will see these obsticles removed, and the problems solved.
That sorta stuff in production would be awesome.
Battery Technology has come a long way - and I'm looking forward to seeing all the current issues resolved.
the context of the conversation was what could be done on batteries...You've taken my point out of context, and created a straw man.
The original point was that while battery vehicles are good things, they currently don't quite cover all the bases.
So in the context of battery vehicles - they won't cover a days driving, and not powerful enough to tow a big load (say a boat). So great for commuter stuff, and great for day trips, not so good for the long drive. Remember it will take hours to charge the batteries, not minutes like filling a fuel tank
There was never any point about not wanting to pause for petrol, food, or toilet breaks. Generally - we do a driver swap every 2-3 hours, which most likely includes one of the above. Of course, I'm coming form a culture where long driving is part of our lives (Australia).
So - I'll repeat my closing line. I look forward to having all these problems solved, so that the battery car will be the "every day" car for the common man (ok - I expanded my closing line - live with it)
This is wrong. Sort of. Lithium-ion batteries can power a car for 200 to 250 miles
This still isn't long enough. On holidays, I often drive 1000km (say 700 miles) in a day. My petrol tank will take me about 6-700km at highway cruising, so I will to fill up once. About 10 minutes turnaround.
An electric car with 300km range? It will take 3 charges of many hours each. And it won't tow what I need to tow.
In other words, I won't do what I need it to do (and what many other people need it to do.
Whilst most driving is well within range - most people can't buy a car for holidays, and a car for the city. They buy a car that will do everything they need.
Of course - it's early days with this technology - so I'm looking forward to having all our problems solved.
dude
are you seriously suggesting this method is better then filing alphabetically?
As someone who use to do filing in a small doctors office, trust me, it takes next to no time to find anyone's file in a filing cabinet alphabetically ordered - nor any time to re-file it.
And considering that 80% patients come about once or twice a year, I find it very hard to imagine her filing system working well.
Time to start IA meetings.
I mean - internet addiction can have pretty bad consequences.
I'm sure I heard last night on the news about how a internetting driver killed a pedestrian. And the one who beat his wife whilst internetting. And the women who slept with an fat ugly pig of a man because she was internetting.
Actually - the last one may be true.
$430 in one day? So what?
That's not exactly a lot of money - and I doubt he's earning that *every* day.
I don't see what the big deal is.
> The way I see it, you're about 9 hours ahead of us (?) so why don't YOU tell US the outcome???
From down here it looks like you're stuffed either way - or should I say we're stuffed.
Most annoying part about the Greedo change: the original version was a justifiable shooting in any state in the Union! Somebody's holding a gun on you and threatens your life - that's clear-cut case of self-defense, and you're entirely within your rights to shoot the bastard.
How could George have forgotton to apply USA legal and ethical considerations when editing this scene. stupid man. Should have been the first thing he had thought off.
I think he meant that using an old laptop drive suspected of damage is the source of potential corruption.
I agree with you regarding what the original poster meant, but he did point out that because it is an old laptop drive that has already had problems, there would seem to be a greater possibility of corruptions. Which is what I was picking up on. It is highly unusual that people won't mind their data becoming corrupt at any time.