Your definition of encyclopedia may be 'right' as determined by some consensus of academics, however your dogmatic insistence that Wikipedia must adhere to this arbitrary definition dooms Wikipedia to being mostly useless in the face of high quality encyclopedias that can not be edited at the whim of Stephen Colbert. The people who were able to think in innovative terms are what made Wikipedia once great.
Of course you don't, because you believe your viewpoint is right and is the only correct viewpoint and that everyone else must agree. Your post is ample demonstration that you are completely blinded by how right you think you are. Wikipedia is no place for this attitude.
Re:Why fancruft should be deleted...
on
Has Wikipedia Peaked?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What I fail to understand is this - everyone can agree that the articles should be written from a neutral viewpoint, but when it comes to what constitutes knowledge, suddenly the concept of neutrality disappears and it becomes an argument over beliefs. You've declared that what you believe to be knowledge is the only valid viewpoint, and you seek to impose that viewpoint on other users of Wikipedia. If successful, you turned what was once a tool to explore knowledge, and even the concept of what is knowledge, into just your version of knowledge. You prevent Wikipedia from growing beyond your own beliefs and doom it to being nothing more than an inferior copy of a traditional encyclopedia.
This is about par for the arguments I see being made by the 'deleters'. I'm more than happy to 'go away', especially if you are dead-set on making sure your content is limited to the range of subjects already covered acceptably by an Encarta CD-ROM.
Agreed. The noteriety standards are completely bogus, and I largely quit using wikipedia after running across one too many interesting 'marked for deletion' articles and seeing the kind of bullshit arguments petty tyrants used to try and get them deleted.
T.38 covers fax over IP. It's pretty much a standard feature on any adapter you buy. The device understands the modulation schemes used by fax machines and works by demodulating the fax signal, sending the digital data over the network, then a device on the other end recreates the modulated analog signal based on that data.
Apple's entire schtick, from the first Macintosh onwards, has been that their products don't require any kind of expertise, that they "just work", and that they produce the computer "for the rest of us" -- where "us" should probably not be construed to mean frequent Slashdot readers and users of Sourceforge.
I think you've confused your definition of 'tech saavy' with that of 'masochist'.
I'm not sure what being a boson has to do with the original argument. True, bosons are non-interacting, and you could theoretically use WDM to achieve massive parallelism. That being said, such a beast would be painful to program, and I'm not sure you could make the chip would work fast enough to make it worthwhile. You could at least get a bunch of papers out of it though.:)
Light will have its place in computing, but it will be primarily for busses.
EMP immunity might be one of those niche applications, but even then, the interfacing electronics themselves would still have to be shielded.
The wavelength of an electron is extremely tiny compared to the wavelength of light. This means that feature sizes for light based chips are necessarily much larger than those for electron based chips. Barring some advancement that allows us to pack more functionality per unit area into an optical chip, optical computing will remain a very niche field.
I'm pretty sure you're average home user doesn't give a fuck about where their software comes from, they just want it to work properly, and not get owned within a half hour of connecting to the internet.
Windows Genuine Advantage is just a pain in the ass for legit customers, an annoyance for large-scale pirates, and a non-issue for customers of large-scale pirates. So, who is getting the better end of this deal? The day that Microsoft attempted to force me to download their god damned WGA app was the day I bought my PowerBook.
As an EIT, I can tell you that its actually extremely vague and varies from state to state. You may or may not be able to get away with just 'engineer' depending on which state your in, the phase of the moon, and who happens to be sitting on the regulatory board for your state. At least, that's my understanding of the issue based on a presentation given by someone who sits on the board in Texas and was attempting to clarify the issue.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. I still think anyone with a CS degree who managed to get a job shouldn't get to call themself an engineer.
As an EIT, I can tell you that its actually extremely vague and varies from state to state. You may or may not be able to get away with just 'engineer' depending on which state your in, the phase of the moon, and who happens to be sitting on the regulatory board for your state. At least, that's my understanding of the issue based on a presentation given by someone who sits on the board in Texas and was attempting to clarify the issue.
WTF is up with calling programmers engineers now? The term 'engineer' is regulated in all 50 states, and calling yourself an engineer without being licensed is worthy of a fine. There are some exceptions, but these vary from state to state, making it best to completely drop the title 'engineer' unless you're actually licensed in the state you're advertising in.
* Entrench yourself in the company * Make sure the customers never see you * Push the limits while at the same time making sure that nobody else is capable of doing your job...try using lots of assembly and piercing your face shut.
The problem with showing respect for dissenting viewpoints in this case, is that the dissenting viewpoints aren't based in science. In fact, they're based on the very opposite of science - assuming something to be true first and then making the information fit. Actually, even that's stretching what the ID'ers do too far. Often they don't ever get past pointing out flaws in evolution, somehow assuming that evolution's lack of perfection validates their ideas. ID runs entirely contrary to science, and to suggest that it should be held at the same level as evolution is to invalidate science in front of the children you are trying to educate.
Pointing out flaws in a current theory in the class room is great. I think its a wonderful way to explain how the scientific method actually works. Bringing in wild assertions and claiming that they may be just as valid as the theories that came about via the scientific method, on the other hand, is just wrong.
I know all about superhet receivers, and the mixer is a multiplier, not an adder. Mixers are only adders in audio-land. The sum and difference terms are the result of the modulation property. The modulation property states that the fourier transform of f(x)*cos(w0*t) is equal to 1/2[F(w-w0)+F(w+w0)]. Notice the multiplication.
Furthermore, by definition, the output of a *linear* system will consist of the exact same set of frequencies that comprised the input to the system. Addition is a linear operator. If you could shift the frequency of light by shining two beams on the same point, then I could take two red laser pointers and produce a dot of color other than red by shining the two beams on the same point. You can't, and the reason is that you're performing addition, not multiplication.
A rife machine! You've got to be fucking kidding me. Did you read the part where they start talking about heterodyning and claim to achieve it by shining light of two frequencies on the same point? Newsflash - that will only add the two beams of light, heterodyning relies on multiplication of sinusoids. Addition is a linear operator and therefore you will never get frequencies out of an addition that you didn't initially put into it. This is a crock of shit.
Indeed, you are correct. However I see more promise in retaining the current distribution channels and making synthetic gasoline from organic waste (a process that has been demonstrated) using clean energy to power the process than I do rehauling the entire infrastructure built around oil. Synthetic gasoline wont add additional CO2 to the atmosphere and save a bundle of money in retained infrastructure, not to mention that gasoline is much much less likely to explode than hydrogen.
Slashdot Mirror
Your definition of encyclopedia may be 'right' as determined by some consensus of academics, however your dogmatic insistence that Wikipedia must adhere to this arbitrary definition dooms Wikipedia to being mostly useless in the face of high quality encyclopedias that can not be edited at the whim of Stephen Colbert. The people who were able to think in innovative terms are what made Wikipedia once great.
Of course you don't, because you believe your viewpoint is right and is the only correct viewpoint and that everyone else must agree. Your post is ample demonstration that you are completely blinded by how right you think you are. Wikipedia is no place for this attitude.
What I fail to understand is this - everyone can agree that the articles should be written from a neutral viewpoint, but when it comes to what constitutes knowledge, suddenly the concept of neutrality disappears and it becomes an argument over beliefs. You've declared that what you believe to be knowledge is the only valid viewpoint, and you seek to impose that viewpoint on other users of Wikipedia. If successful, you turned what was once a tool to explore knowledge, and even the concept of what is knowledge, into just your version of knowledge. You prevent Wikipedia from growing beyond your own beliefs and doom it to being nothing more than an inferior copy of a traditional encyclopedia.
This is about par for the arguments I see being made by the 'deleters'. I'm more than happy to 'go away', especially if you are dead-set on making sure your content is limited to the range of subjects already covered acceptably by an Encarta CD-ROM.
Agreed. The noteriety standards are completely bogus, and I largely quit using wikipedia after running across one too many interesting 'marked for deletion' articles and seeing the kind of bullshit arguments petty tyrants used to try and get them deleted.
Uh oh. I think comments from 1998 are leaking into new articles.
Ideologies unable to capture and model complexity of real life -- News at 10.
Yawn.
T.38 covers fax over IP. It's pretty much a standard feature on any adapter you buy. The device understands the modulation schemes used by fax machines and works by demodulating the fax signal, sending the digital data over the network, then a device on the other end recreates the modulated analog signal based on that data.
My favorite theory is that life exists in some form anywhere there is water present.
That's not a theory, it's a wild assertion. The definition of theory is far more rigorous, and widely misunderstood.
Apple's entire schtick, from the first Macintosh onwards, has been that their products don't require any kind of expertise, that they "just work", and that they produce the computer "for the rest of us" -- where "us" should probably not be construed to mean frequent Slashdot readers and users of Sourceforge.
I think you've confused your definition of 'tech saavy' with that of 'masochist'.
At least in Texas, tarp laws are in effect. If you can prove there was no tarp, then the sign means jack shit.
For a religion that's supposedly based on Jesus, you guys sure do get hung up over stuff not even remotely related to his teachings.
I'm not sure what being a boson has to do with the original argument. True, bosons are non-interacting, and you could theoretically use WDM to achieve massive parallelism. That being said, such a beast would be painful to program, and I'm not sure you could make the chip would work fast enough to make it worthwhile. You could at least get a bunch of papers out of it though. :)
Light will have its place in computing, but it will be primarily for busses.
EMP immunity might be one of those niche applications, but even then, the interfacing electronics themselves would still have to be shielded.
The wavelength of an electron is extremely tiny compared to the wavelength of light. This means that feature sizes for light based chips are necessarily much larger than those for electron based chips. Barring some advancement that allows us to pack more functionality per unit area into an optical chip, optical computing will remain a very niche field.
I'm pretty sure you're average home user doesn't give a fuck about where their software comes from, they just want it to work properly, and not get owned within a half hour of connecting to the internet.
Windows Genuine Advantage is just a pain in the ass for legit customers, an annoyance for large-scale pirates, and a non-issue for customers of large-scale pirates. So, who is getting the better end of this deal? The day that Microsoft attempted to force me to download their god damned WGA app was the day I bought my PowerBook.
As an EIT, I can tell you that its actually extremely vague and varies from state to state. You may or may not be able to get away with just 'engineer' depending on which state your in, the phase of the moon, and who happens to be sitting on the regulatory board for your state. At least, that's my understanding of the issue based on a presentation given by someone who sits on the board in Texas and was attempting to clarify the issue.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. I still think anyone with a CS degree who managed to get a job shouldn't get to call themself an engineer.
As an EIT, I can tell you that its actually extremely vague and varies from state to state. You may or may not be able to get away with just 'engineer' depending on which state your in, the phase of the moon, and who happens to be sitting on the regulatory board for your state. At least, that's my understanding of the issue based on a presentation given by someone who sits on the board in Texas and was attempting to clarify the issue.
WTF is up with calling programmers engineers now? The term 'engineer' is regulated in all 50 states, and calling yourself an engineer without being licensed is worthy of a fine. There are some exceptions, but these vary from state to state, making it best to completely drop the title 'engineer' unless you're actually licensed in the state you're advertising in.
Here is a simple guide:
* Entrench yourself in the company
* Make sure the customers never see you
* Push the limits while at the same time making sure that nobody else is capable of doing your job...try using lots of assembly and piercing your face shut.
Effectively, you only support one lifestyle, the lifestyle that costs the least taxpayer money to maintain, and have no respect for freedom of choice.
The problem with showing respect for dissenting viewpoints in this case, is that the dissenting viewpoints aren't based in science. In fact, they're based on the very opposite of science - assuming something to be true first and then making the information fit. Actually, even that's stretching what the ID'ers do too far. Often they don't ever get past pointing out flaws in evolution, somehow assuming that evolution's lack of perfection validates their ideas. ID runs entirely contrary to science, and to suggest that it should be held at the same level as evolution is to invalidate science in front of the children you are trying to educate.
Pointing out flaws in a current theory in the class room is great. I think its a wonderful way to explain how the scientific method actually works. Bringing in wild assertions and claiming that they may be just as valid as the theories that came about via the scientific method, on the other hand, is just wrong.
I know all about superhet receivers, and the mixer is a multiplier, not an adder. Mixers are only adders in audio-land. The sum and difference terms are the result of the modulation property. The modulation property states that the fourier transform of f(x)*cos(w0*t) is equal to 1/2[F(w-w0)+F(w+w0)]. Notice the multiplication.
Furthermore, by definition, the output of a *linear* system will consist of the exact same set of frequencies that comprised the input to the system. Addition is a linear operator. If you could shift the frequency of light by shining two beams on the same point, then I could take two red laser pointers and produce a dot of color other than red by shining the two beams on the same point. You can't, and the reason is that you're performing addition, not multiplication.
A rife machine! You've got to be fucking kidding me. Did you read the part where they start talking about heterodyning and claim to achieve it by shining light of two frequencies on the same point? Newsflash - that will only add the two beams of light, heterodyning relies on multiplication of sinusoids. Addition is a linear operator and therefore you will never get frequencies out of an addition that you didn't initially put into it. This is a crock of shit.
If Smirnoff wants to sell more vodka, they could either make it not taste like the cheap shit, or sell it at cheap shit prices. Just a suggestion...
Indeed, you are correct. However I see more promise in retaining the current distribution channels and making synthetic gasoline from organic waste (a process that has been demonstrated) using clean energy to power the process than I do rehauling the entire infrastructure built around oil. Synthetic gasoline wont add additional CO2 to the atmosphere and save a bundle of money in retained infrastructure, not to mention that gasoline is much much less likely to explode than hydrogen.