wikipedia is useful because it rigidly adheres to the facts. 99.9% of the crap people want to put on it should be pruned out
it's also free. you seem to be complaining because a volunteer won't do copyright research for you. if it isn't obviously and immediately public domain: fuck it. perfectly sensible. the problem is you, for imagining wikipedia is something it isn't
if the editors weren't cutting 99% of the crap that people try to put on a post, they aren't doing their job
your problem seems to be in thinking wikipedia is something that it's not. i don't care what you think wikipedia should have become. nobody does. hell, the internet was also thought at one point to become a distributed mass media art project. what the fuck?
using your guidance, the quality of this page would quickly devolve into partisan nonsense
One entry for each viewpoint; no editor choosing the "correct" point of view.
this is completely ignorant. how old is barack obama? where did he go to college? who are his children? there is only one correct point of view on anything you can find in a wikipedia entry. because it is about fact. there is only one correct point of view. if it isn't a factual representation, it doesn't belong on wikipedia in the first place
thus the need for editors to prune the kind of bullshit you want to put on it that would quickly make wikipedia fucking useless. i go to an encyclopedia to learn a few facts about a topic. i don't go there to read stupid shit some assholes want to babble on about on the topic
whatever you thought wikipedia should have become, it didn't become. and that's a good thing, because what you seem to be imagining is something no one would visit because it would be useless. people want facts. quick. that's the whole idea about an encyclopedia. they don't want to read loopy nonsense some crackpot wants to ramble on about
you seem to have this insane or stupid belief that without an editor pruning the kind of shit people would want to slap on an entry, that the entry would still be useful. no, it would be 4chan
What you describe isn't Wikipedia. Completely different topic. Irrelevant thought.
And of course nothing is perfect in this world. But exacting standards as close to perfection as possible is what is required to be an editor. You do understand what it takes to write a Wikipedia entry on a controversial or dense topic?
you have to be obtuse and didactic for such a role as wiki editor. you're trying to create the perfect reference material for a subject. you WANT the person to be obtuse and didactic
look, i despise grammar nazis here, on slashdot. but the quality of mind where tiny details loom as alarm bells does have a valid place in this world. in the library. in the dictionary. on wikipedia
while i don't get along with such people, that doesn't mean these people don't have a place in the world where they should hold all of the power. not here in a comment board. but yes, in other places on the web
i know that i'll never be a wiki editor, and nor should you by your comment. and like me, you should know enough to not criticize that which you are not cut out for
there are voices against the UN in the USA. there are voices against the UN in your country too. should i condemn your entire country for those malicious voices? so why don't you condemn that ignorant part of the USA that stands against the UN, and not condemn me, who is a proud American who also proudly supports the UN mission
or, if you are going to condemn my entire country for the sake of a few ignorant zealots, you are pretty much no better than the people you complain about
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1] Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The Republicans bellyache about election fraud this election season, but whenever there is a discrepancy, they seem to be the ones perpetrating the election problems, in news items small and large across the country recently.
They also seem concerned about our deficit and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Democrats. But it is always Republican regimes that lower taxes... AND INCREASE SPENDING.
So from now on, when I see a Republican complaint about some sort of bad behavior, my first thought is going to be "so this is what this psychotic group is planning on doing now."
So in other words, the USA wants the benefits of the organization but they don't want to pay the dues.
If I want the 48 count toilet paper roll pack from Costco, I have to pay the membership fee. Likewise, if the USA wants to be part of OSCE, it has to allow monitors to observe its elections.
It doesn't really make sense to go to Costco every week to get my groceries, and then bellyache about legal action when Costco asks me to pay for my membership.
What about the large numbers of coke and heroin users that don't make the evening news?
You are saying they are not addicts?
I cannot fathom, in a million years, someone who puts forth an opinion on drug policy that does not take addiction seriously.
But thanks for the lame attack on my supposed moralism and supposed socialism. You can't be mature and intelligent, so you start calling people names that don't have a fucking thing to do with the topic.
decriminalization leads to easier access. easier access leads to more addicts, more damaged lives
but agreed: all of the negatives of prohibition are real and potent
now, for a substance like alcohol, the prohibition effects are worse than the abuse of and addiction to the substance
but for something like cocaine, heroin, and meth, addiction is so much more potent, that the prohibition effects are less of damage on society
many problems in life are like this: a choice between two negatives, no upside, and the ugly difficult problem of teasing out which is the less negative approach. for some substances, prohibition, with all of the negatives considered, is still less of a negative than a larger addict population due to easier access
still: we need more novel approaches (healthcare rather than incarceration), and psychedelics and marijuana should be legal
but there are a class of chemical compounds, due to their high level inebriation combined with addictive potential (so this rules out nicotine, because you can still have a job/ relationship while on this substance) where legalization, and therefore easier access, has a greater downside than prohibition
i just don't understand opinions about drug policy that belittle, ignore, excuse, or otherwise write off the meaning of addiction in the equation
the effects of prohibition are worse than the effects of a nonaddictive noninebriating drug. marijuana and lsd should be legal, for example
the effects of an addictive and inebriating (so i'm ruling out nicotine: you can be an addict and still have job/ relationship) drug are worse than the effects of prohibition
what always amazes me are people like you who don't consider the meaning, or downplay the meaning, of addiction. anyone who does so does not have a serious opinion about drug policy
is this one of those headslappers: attempting using electronics to monitor the EMP destruction of electronics?
you can't shield them: assuming it is a garden variety CCD camera, how are you supposed to record electromagnetic radiation when you are shielding against electromagnetic radiation? (optical filters and/or faraday cage?)
benefit of the doubt: they used good old fashioned film cameras. perhaps this is why they are surprised that the EMP killed those too, perhaps because the film cameras were still dependent on something electromechanical that was also serendipitously killed
marijuana and the psychedelics should be legal (not addicting) but you will find those who will claim it should be possible to use drugs like cocaine and meth and heroin freely. these are people who only see the constraints on their personal freedom, and not costs to society: lots of addicts who can't take care of themselves. even if you buy the dubious claim that someone can take a drug like heroin or cocaine or meth only occasionally with no ill effect on their relationships or employment, such an outlier does not have any merit on what a nation's drug policy should be like for the average person
of course, drug addiction should be treated as a healthcare problem and not an issue for incarceration, but there are substances which simply can never be legal in society. even all of the programs in europe drug liberalization champions refer to: those programs still have as their goal the reduction of users, these programs have a central belief that using hardcore drugs is harmful and should not occur and must be fought, but with novel approaches instead
some people can't wrap their minds around the simple and obvious fact that using some drugs: heroin, cocaine, and meth, is all downside. and even if they understand that, and see only the cost to the user, and not society, and therefore it should be legal, the problem here is a blindness: of course there is a cost to society when your life implodes. we see in the USA a gigantic debate about all sorts of policy issues involving people who for some crazy reason believe themselves to be islands and think their choices incur no costs on others, when of course they do
in other minds, the issue is simply oppression from government, but in reality the greatest oppression a person can ever suffer in this life is addiction: bars in the mind, an interrupt switch that replaces higher cognition with an empty craven need to feed. in fact, the most oppressive nation that can be conceived by fascist minds would require people to use heroin. there simply is no better weapon for control and oppression and subjugation that can be designed by mankind than drug addiction. and yet, some fools will embrace this horror, simply because they think the only source of oppression in this world is government. it's a sick form of reverse psychology: if a government entity told them not to jump off a cliff, they would jump off a cliff
of course, you will also find people who are in denial about being an addict or attempting to rationalize their addiction. you can see desperation in their words
in a nutshell, some people just don't understand that there's freedom and responsibility, and freedom from responsibility, and mistaking one for the other is immaturity, not a better understanding of true freedom in this world
in 2000, ralph nader voters meant gw bush won (well, al gore actually won, but he lost the bullshit filter we call the electoral college by a hair's sliver that nader voters greatly outnumbered)
in 2012, you guys may again decide who wins since the election is so close
third party voters come from a disillusioned left, or a disillusioned right. it seems to me that this election cycle has more disillusioned voters on the right. meaning: obama wins, as the right is fractionated to some extent by voters for someone other than romney
unfortunately, we live in a system where you have to vote strategically, not idealistically
1. for those of you who vote strategically (not the guy i like the best but the guy closest of the main parties), you get someone closer to your ideology in the white house 2. for those of you who vote idealistically (screw the guy who could win, i like THIS guy), you get someone further away from your ideology in the white house (see 1992 and 2000 above)
now, other systems where more than two parties dominate: is that really such a rosy world? ask someone in parliamentary systems where coalition governments form: you have people close to you ideologically, getting into bed with ideologies that are extremely odious to you, to stay in power. coalitions of perverse arrangement
in other words, other countries are not better than the usa if ideological purity is so important to you, they are just compromised in different ways than the american system
such that, an ugly truth for you: you will NEVER, as long as you ever live, have someone you love ideologically in power. you will ALWAYS have someone who is kinda sorta like you, as your best bet. this is true no matter what your ideology, right or left. why? because that's EXACTLY what politics is: compromise, in order to lead. that's what politics always was, what it is, and what it always will be. and only an ideologue is angrily allergic to compromise. and thank god, therefore, your man will never lead in a sane country. because the leader who champions rigid ideology over compromise is dangerous
politics is a game to appeal a lot of people weakly, than a few strongly. get used to it. the candidates who have the best chance to lead, always, FOREVER, will appeal to you ONLY weakly
you should accept this truth, and always vote strategically instead of ideologically
or help elect the guy further away from you ideologically by voting idealistically
Slashdot Mirror
in soviet switzerland, banks rob you!
wikipedia is useful because it rigidly adheres to the facts. 99.9% of the crap people want to put on it should be pruned out
it's also free. you seem to be complaining because a volunteer won't do copyright research for you. if it isn't obviously and immediately public domain: fuck it. perfectly sensible. the problem is you, for imagining wikipedia is something it isn't
What's a "fact"?
i didn't read past that point
you should announce yourself as a crackpot before someone sane gets stuck this far in a comment thread with you
dude, it's not a creative writing contest
if the editors weren't cutting 99% of the crap that people try to put on a post, they aren't doing their job
your problem seems to be in thinking wikipedia is something that it's not. i don't care what you think wikipedia should have become. nobody does. hell, the internet was also thought at one point to become a distributed mass media art project. what the fuck?
take this example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
using your guidance, the quality of this page would quickly devolve into partisan nonsense
One entry for each viewpoint; no editor choosing the "correct" point of view.
this is completely ignorant. how old is barack obama? where did he go to college? who are his children? there is only one correct point of view on anything you can find in a wikipedia entry. because it is about fact. there is only one correct point of view. if it isn't a factual representation, it doesn't belong on wikipedia in the first place
thus the need for editors to prune the kind of bullshit you want to put on it that would quickly make wikipedia fucking useless. i go to an encyclopedia to learn a few facts about a topic. i don't go there to read stupid shit some assholes want to babble on about on the topic
whatever you thought wikipedia should have become, it didn't become. and that's a good thing, because what you seem to be imagining is something no one would visit because it would be useless. people want facts. quick. that's the whole idea about an encyclopedia. they don't want to read loopy nonsense some crackpot wants to ramble on about
you seem to have this insane or stupid belief that without an editor pruning the kind of shit people would want to slap on an entry, that the entry would still be useful. no, it would be 4chan
What you describe isn't Wikipedia. Completely different topic. Irrelevant thought.
And of course nothing is perfect in this world. But exacting standards as close to perfection as possible is what is required to be an editor. You do understand what it takes to write a Wikipedia entry on a controversial or dense topic?
you have to be obtuse and didactic for such a role as wiki editor. you're trying to create the perfect reference material for a subject. you WANT the person to be obtuse and didactic
look, i despise grammar nazis here, on slashdot. but the quality of mind where tiny details loom as alarm bells does have a valid place in this world. in the library. in the dictionary. on wikipedia
while i don't get along with such people, that doesn't mean these people don't have a place in the world where they should hold all of the power. not here in a comment board. but yes, in other places on the web
i know that i'll never be a wiki editor, and nor should you by your comment. and like me, you should know enough to not criticize that which you are not cut out for
are you suggesting some random yahoo posting on an internet forum is not speaking from the highest point of wisdom and the final point of authority?
i have to rethink my life...
there are voices against the UN in the USA. there are voices against the UN in your country too. should i condemn your entire country for those malicious voices? so why don't you condemn that ignorant part of the USA that stands against the UN, and not condemn me, who is a proud American who also proudly supports the UN mission
or, if you are going to condemn my entire country for the sake of a few ignorant zealots, you are pretty much no better than the people you complain about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The Republicans bellyache about election fraud this election season, but whenever there is a discrepancy, they seem to be the ones perpetrating the election problems, in news items small and large across the country recently.
They also seem concerned about our deficit and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Democrats. But it is always Republican regimes that lower taxes... AND INCREASE SPENDING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
More psychological projection.
So from now on, when I see a Republican complaint about some sort of bad behavior, my first thought is going to be "so this is what this psychotic group is planning on doing now."
So in other words, the USA wants the benefits of the organization but they don't want to pay the dues.
If I want the 48 count toilet paper roll pack from Costco, I have to pay the membership fee. Likewise, if the USA wants to be part of OSCE, it has to allow monitors to observe its elections.
It doesn't really make sense to go to Costco every week to get my groceries, and then bellyache about legal action when Costco asks me to pay for my membership.
Microsoft was just a vendor of some software utilities. "Everyone knew" all the real money was for IBM, manufacturing the hardware.
What about the large numbers of coke and heroin users that don't make the evening news?
You are saying they are not addicts?
I cannot fathom, in a million years, someone who puts forth an opinion on drug policy that does not take addiction seriously.
But thanks for the lame attack on my supposed moralism and supposed socialism. You can't be mature and intelligent, so you start calling people names that don't have a fucking thing to do with the topic.
decriminalization leads to easier access. easier access leads to more addicts, more damaged lives
but agreed: all of the negatives of prohibition are real and potent
now, for a substance like alcohol, the prohibition effects are worse than the abuse of and addiction to the substance
but for something like cocaine, heroin, and meth, addiction is so much more potent, that the prohibition effects are less of damage on society
many problems in life are like this: a choice between two negatives, no upside, and the ugly difficult problem of teasing out which is the less negative approach. for some substances, prohibition, with all of the negatives considered, is still less of a negative than a larger addict population due to easier access
still: we need more novel approaches (healthcare rather than incarceration), and psychedelics and marijuana should be legal
but there are a class of chemical compounds, due to their high level inebriation combined with addictive potential (so this rules out nicotine, because you can still have a job/ relationship while on this substance) where legalization, and therefore easier access, has a greater downside than prohibition
i just don't understand opinions about drug policy that belittle, ignore, excuse, or otherwise write off the meaning of addiction in the equation
the effects of prohibition are worse than the effects of a nonaddictive noninebriating drug. marijuana and lsd should be legal, for example
the effects of an addictive and inebriating (so i'm ruling out nicotine: you can be an addict and still have job/ relationship) drug are worse than the effects of prohibition
what always amazes me are people like you who don't consider the meaning, or downplay the meaning, of addiction. anyone who does so does not have a serious opinion about drug policy
it makes me sad HTML5 does not support bluetooth communication
it would make life so much easier
is this one of those headslappers: attempting using electronics to monitor the EMP destruction of electronics?
you can't shield them: assuming it is a garden variety CCD camera, how are you supposed to record electromagnetic radiation when you are shielding against electromagnetic radiation? (optical filters and/or faraday cage?)
benefit of the doubt: they used good old fashioned film cameras. perhaps this is why they are surprised that the EMP killed those too, perhaps because the film cameras were still dependent on something electromechanical that was also serendipitously killed
the app has to still work, even when there's no network connection. "always online" is not an option yet
marijuana and the psychedelics should be legal (not addicting) but you will find those who will claim it should be possible to use drugs like cocaine and meth and heroin freely. these are people who only see the constraints on their personal freedom, and not costs to society: lots of addicts who can't take care of themselves. even if you buy the dubious claim that someone can take a drug like heroin or cocaine or meth only occasionally with no ill effect on their relationships or employment, such an outlier does not have any merit on what a nation's drug policy should be like for the average person
of course, drug addiction should be treated as a healthcare problem and not an issue for incarceration, but there are substances which simply can never be legal in society. even all of the programs in europe drug liberalization champions refer to: those programs still have as their goal the reduction of users, these programs have a central belief that using hardcore drugs is harmful and should not occur and must be fought, but with novel approaches instead
some people can't wrap their minds around the simple and obvious fact that using some drugs: heroin, cocaine, and meth, is all downside. and even if they understand that, and see only the cost to the user, and not society, and therefore it should be legal, the problem here is a blindness: of course there is a cost to society when your life implodes. we see in the USA a gigantic debate about all sorts of policy issues involving people who for some crazy reason believe themselves to be islands and think their choices incur no costs on others, when of course they do
in other minds, the issue is simply oppression from government, but in reality the greatest oppression a person can ever suffer in this life is addiction: bars in the mind, an interrupt switch that replaces higher cognition with an empty craven need to feed. in fact, the most oppressive nation that can be conceived by fascist minds would require people to use heroin. there simply is no better weapon for control and oppression and subjugation that can be designed by mankind than drug addiction. and yet, some fools will embrace this horror, simply because they think the only source of oppression in this world is government. it's a sick form of reverse psychology: if a government entity told them not to jump off a cliff, they would jump off a cliff
of course, you will also find people who are in denial about being an addict or attempting to rationalize their addiction. you can see desperation in their words
in a nutshell, some people just don't understand that there's freedom and responsibility, and freedom from responsibility, and mistaking one for the other is immaturity, not a better understanding of true freedom in this world
the wisest man respects his own limits
thank you for being an object lesson on how a bad attitude is the greatest enemy of effective communication
do me and yourself a favor: don't ever read a post of mine ever again
because i am interested in being taken seriously. but i also know some people aren't worth the effort
in the short term, it gives you superpowers. in the long term, it turns you into a soulless ghoul
that's right, i just said the lord of the rings is a parable about drug addiction
you have a lot more power than you think
but your power is counterintuitive
in 1992, ross perot voters meant bill clinton won
in 2000, ralph nader voters meant gw bush won (well, al gore actually won, but he lost the bullshit filter we call the electoral college by a hair's sliver that nader voters greatly outnumbered)
in 2012, you guys may again decide who wins since the election is so close
third party voters come from a disillusioned left, or a disillusioned right. it seems to me that this election cycle has more disillusioned voters on the right. meaning: obama wins, as the right is fractionated to some extent by voters for someone other than romney
unfortunately, we live in a system where you have to vote strategically, not idealistically
1. for those of you who vote strategically (not the guy i like the best but the guy closest of the main parties), you get someone closer to your ideology in the white house
2. for those of you who vote idealistically (screw the guy who could win, i like THIS guy), you get someone further away from your ideology in the white house (see 1992 and 2000 above)
now, other systems where more than two parties dominate: is that really such a rosy world? ask someone in parliamentary systems where coalition governments form: you have people close to you ideologically, getting into bed with ideologies that are extremely odious to you, to stay in power. coalitions of perverse arrangement
in other words, other countries are not better than the usa if ideological purity is so important to you, they are just compromised in different ways than the american system
such that, an ugly truth for you: you will NEVER, as long as you ever live, have someone you love ideologically in power. you will ALWAYS have someone who is kinda sorta like you, as your best bet. this is true no matter what your ideology, right or left. why? because that's EXACTLY what politics is: compromise, in order to lead. that's what politics always was, what it is, and what it always will be. and only an ideologue is angrily allergic to compromise. and thank god, therefore, your man will never lead in a sane country. because the leader who champions rigid ideology over compromise is dangerous
politics is a game to appeal a lot of people weakly, than a few strongly. get used to it. the candidates who have the best chance to lead, always, FOREVER, will appeal to you ONLY weakly
you should accept this truth, and always vote strategically instead of ideologically
or help elect the guy further away from you ideologically by voting idealistically
your choice
the average beluga has a vocabulary size of 6.3 picoLoCs
mariachi beluga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_6-IwMPjM