Are you functionally retarded, or where you just born hydrocephalic?
What an asshole. I love how, in the course of your flaming rant, you took the time to correctly spell "hydrocephalic" yet totally misspelled "were." Perhaps you suffer from a similar affliction yourself.
My meaning was people use Wikipedia because it's there, not because it's such an oh-so-awesome valuable tool. If it disappeared tomorrow, people would be upset because their routine had been interrupted, not because they would no longer be able to (just as) easily access the same (and quite possibly more accurate) information elsewhere.
You think so, until your legs get blown off by a falsely marked mine and you're laying on the ground screaming in agony. Then you will curse the day you got your minefield map off Wikipedia.
I mean, it's just like these people who get their heads SO wrapped around one philosophy, such as the Scientific Method for instance, and who then discard and refuse to accept any and all knowledge which others acquired by other methods, and which originates from somewhere other than their precious kingdom of dry, repetitive studies and biased facts.
Not that I'm denouncing the scientific method. No, it's a useful tool, like many others. Science clearly plays a huge beneficial (and increasing) role in our society, as it should be. It's just some of the cult-like followers, worshipful and religious even, who refuse to believe or act on anything unless there are 37 peer-reviewed double-blind clinical studies to back it up.
And then once the government pays 37 researchers to fabricate some studies, now suddenly this position (in the zealot's mind) is gospel and unassailable by anything other than another larger army of research to counter it. So basically it ends up being just like our legal system: he with the most money gets to make the facts.
The argument at hand fits right into this larger drama. You got some people on one hand who are so blinded by the need to obey the rules!!, they can't pull their heads out of their asses for half a second to look around and see that there is really no good, logical reason why you can't source from any cite you like, Wikipedia included.
It would just mark you as a fool, of course. Why is that so wrong? Researchers (or journals) could instantly know when to skip a paper, based on its shoddy references, rather than having to read and dig deeper since the college has taught the person to cover up at least the most visible and obvious signs of a badly written paper.
Maybe instead the university could just teach the individual how to write good papers (vs following rules to avoid writing bad ones) and how to think critically (shocking idea, I know), and let him make his own choices such as which sources he finds credible and wishes to cite. Then we can let the readers make their own choices about which papers they find credible and wish to believe.
I think I'll side with the guy who's making the most sense.
The arguments that occur over such things as citations ("you CAN cite $FOO!" "no you CAN'T!") have always struck me as moronic anyhow. The one and only question one should ask oneself before citing a source, is, "Is this source CREDIBLE?" If the answer is no........don't cite it! It's that simple. Brittanica IS a credible source. Wikipedia is NOT. This is why we don't cite Wikipedia.
You typically wouldn't cite things that are common knowledge, no, but just because something is in Brittanica doesn't make it common knowledge, even to other self-described experts. How many of those folks do you know who've read the encyclopedia cover to cover? Take your audience into account when writing anything, including research papers.
Except Iran isn't our "opponent." It's a country on the other side of the world that's minding its own business. They have done nothing to provoke or warrant our aggression. Bombing their oil platforms, thus ensuring chaos in their society while their population quite possibly starves to death unless they capitulate to their demands, is indeed terrorism. Bombing an airstrip or fortified position is one thing. These are civilian facilities run by innocent people.
I mean, what would you call it if were done with Al Qaeda suicide bombers or a truck bomb instead of U.S. bombers? It's terrorism, plain and simple, on an international level.
10% of the entire population does not have a fucking mental disorder, dude......unless you consider having an over-simplified, inaccurate worldview to be one.
In one case, the person who reclaimed a wallet which had no identifying material (no credit cards, driving license, etc.) gave a couple of pounds to me as a reward, which was delivered anonymously via the police.
I re-read this a couple times, eyes wide, thinking "WOW...WHERE does this guy live?!".... before understanding this is the UK and you were referring to money.... (Right?)
Yeah, I totally "discard" my brand new phones by leaving them laying on a park bench. Not that I should be rewarded for being stupid, but please dude, come on.
The US has one of the highest incarcination rates in the country
I think you meant in the world, and you are almost right. The U.S. has THE highest incarceration rate in the world, by far. With 3% of the world's population, the U.S. holds 25% of the world's prisoners.
..." he laughs to himself, smirking as he clicks Submit and takes another swig of Mountain Dew.
Tell me, LITTLE man....you aren't from one of those big cities he's talking about are you? I sure hope not, cause your bitch ass ain't gonna last too long when the all-too-likely nightmare scenario he presented actually starts playing out. You'll find out that stupidity HURTS, either now or eventually, each and every time.
Modern artists were asked to provide works for the 2012 Olympics here in London. I was genuinely of the belief that they were children's drawings for the same until I read the caption properly.
It's not that skilled modern artists don't exist, ones who surpass any of the old masters even. It's that they don't have buddies in the right places to get the Olympics gig, apparently. The best painter of our day could be sitting in her rocking chair surrounded by 50 cats and buckets of paint, while drinking herself to death. Who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
Are you functionally retarded, or where you just born hydrocephalic?
What an asshole. I love how, in the course of your flaming rant, you took the time to correctly spell "hydrocephalic" yet totally misspelled "were." Perhaps you suffer from a similar affliction yourself.
....is like using sign language to compose a novel.
Perhaps possible, but not exactly efficient.
My meaning was people use Wikipedia because it's there, not because it's such an oh-so-awesome valuable tool. If it disappeared tomorrow, people would be upset because their routine had been interrupted, not because they would no longer be able to (just as) easily access the same (and quite possibly more accurate) information elsewhere.
You sound like a Hitler apologist, in 1932.
Posted like a truly arrogant person who clearly has ZERO understanding (just like the rest of those responsible for Wikipedia) about usability.
You think so, until your legs get blown off by a falsely marked mine and you're laying on the ground screaming in agony. Then you will curse the day you got your minefield map off Wikipedia.
I would never have looked up the "Smothers Brothers" today if it weren't for Wikipedia
Yeah, and I would have never taken Highway 11 today if there wasn't a wreck on 59.
To a starving African, it's a Swedish buffet.
It's just one of 233,921 search results
I mean, it's just like these people who get their heads SO wrapped around one philosophy, such as the Scientific Method for instance, and who then discard and refuse to accept any and all knowledge which others acquired by other methods, and which originates from somewhere other than their precious kingdom of dry, repetitive studies and biased facts.
Not that I'm denouncing the scientific method. No, it's a useful tool, like many others. Science clearly plays a huge beneficial (and increasing) role in our society, as it should be. It's just some of the cult-like followers, worshipful and religious even, who refuse to believe or act on anything unless there are 37 peer-reviewed double-blind clinical studies to back it up.
And then once the government pays 37 researchers to fabricate some studies, now suddenly this position (in the zealot's mind) is gospel and unassailable by anything other than another larger army of research to counter it. So basically it ends up being just like our legal system: he with the most money gets to make the facts.
The argument at hand fits right into this larger drama. You got some people on one hand who are so blinded by the need to obey the rules!!, they can't pull their heads out of their asses for half a second to look around and see that there is really no good, logical reason why you can't source from any cite you like, Wikipedia included.
It would just mark you as a fool, of course. Why is that so wrong? Researchers (or journals) could instantly know when to skip a paper, based on its shoddy references, rather than having to read and dig deeper since the college has taught the person to cover up at least the most visible and obvious signs of a badly written paper.
Maybe instead the university could just teach the individual how to write good papers (vs following rules to avoid writing bad ones) and how to think critically (shocking idea, I know), and let him make his own choices such as which sources he finds credible and wishes to cite. Then we can let the readers make their own choices about which papers they find credible and wish to believe.
I think I'll side with the guy who's making the most sense.
The arguments that occur over such things as citations ("you CAN cite $FOO!" "no you CAN'T!") have always struck me as moronic anyhow. The one and only question one should ask oneself before citing a source, is, "Is this source CREDIBLE?" If the answer is no........don't cite it! It's that simple. Brittanica IS a credible source. Wikipedia is NOT. This is why we don't cite Wikipedia.
You typically wouldn't cite things that are common knowledge, no, but just because something is in Brittanica doesn't make it common knowledge, even to other self-described experts. How many of those folks do you know who've read the encyclopedia cover to cover? Take your audience into account when writing anything, including research papers.
Doesn't get what, exactly? You are saying that a teacher who doesn't allow Wikipedia citations "doesn't get it"?
I think you meant Wikipedia, and yes, it's garbage.
now granted, , its a very tiny subset that is censored, and it typically revolves around crap like decryption codes.
Or political views, or religion, or anything touching it
At least until somebody figures out how to build a wind generator to power their laptop, printer, and 1TB hard drive full of ebooks.
Except Iran isn't our "opponent." It's a country on the other side of the world that's minding its own business. They have done nothing to provoke or warrant our aggression. Bombing their oil platforms, thus ensuring chaos in their society while their population quite possibly starves to death unless they capitulate to their demands, is indeed terrorism. Bombing an airstrip or fortified position is one thing. These are civilian facilities run by innocent people.
I mean, what would you call it if were done with Al Qaeda suicide bombers or a truck bomb instead of U.S. bombers? It's terrorism, plain and simple, on an international level.
10% of the entire population does not have a fucking mental disorder, dude......unless you consider having an over-simplified, inaccurate worldview to be one.
Thankfully the majority of this society (slashdot) does not, therefore rendering your comment (and point) moot
In one case, the person who reclaimed a wallet which had no identifying material (no credit cards, driving license, etc.) gave a couple of pounds to me as a reward, which was delivered anonymously via the police.
I re-read this a couple times, eyes wide, thinking "WOW...WHERE does this guy live?!" .... before understanding this is the UK and you were referring to money. ... (Right?)
Claiming discarded items is not "stealing."
Yeah, I totally "discard" my brand new phones by leaving them laying on a park bench. Not that I should be rewarded for being stupid, but please dude, come on.
That seems to completely overlook the fact that it was a choice they made to act criminally
The crime is complete fucking unjust. Hello?
The US has one of the highest incarcination rates in the country
I think you meant in the world, and you are almost right. The U.S. has THE highest incarceration rate in the world, by far. With 3% of the world's population, the U.S. holds 25% of the world's prisoners.
No, bombing another country's civilian oil platforms is most certainly terrorism, no matter who commits the act.
..." he laughs to himself, smirking as he clicks Submit and takes another swig of Mountain Dew.
Tell me, LITTLE man....you aren't from one of those big cities he's talking about are you? I sure hope not, cause your bitch ass ain't gonna last too long when the all-too-likely nightmare scenario he presented actually starts playing out. You'll find out that stupidity HURTS, either now or eventually, each and every time.
Modern artists were asked to provide works for the 2012 Olympics here in London. I was genuinely of the belief that they were children's drawings for the same until I read the caption properly.
It's not that skilled modern artists don't exist, ones who surpass any of the old masters even. It's that they don't have buddies in the right places to get the Olympics gig, apparently. The best painter of our day could be sitting in her rocking chair surrounded by 50 cats and buckets of paint, while drinking herself to death. Who knows?
Now I recommend for you to go forth and spread this new knowledge far and wide, to the rest of civilization which has not been exposed to it.