It seems there are two diametrically opposed forces at work here: One that feels Wikipedia should be the repository of ALL human knowledge, and the other wanting to make the best ENCYCLOPEDIA.
An encyclopedia needs to be accurate and concise. I can understand wanting to limit it to generally useful and notable information.
However, I would prefer the repository idea. There is a vast amount of information that is community and culturally specific. It may be utterly inane to the majority, but to that niche of humanity it could be interesting and useful. Wikipedia has no physical constraints on size, so it makes no sense to limit the entries for mere notability sake. Accuracy and redundancy are good limiters, but the only affect notability should have is in search result ranking.
If links from "bad" sites can torpedo your google rank, I'm really surprised that we haven't heard about people getting blackmailed to keep them off the "bad" sites.
This announcement needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt IMO. They're picking one item that's popular or scary, and purposefully cutting funding for it in order to get headlines. They did the same crap a year ago with Hubble. Sure there's a lot of fantastic and important science that NASA could do if it had more money, but they already have GOBS of money, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
I've never liked the way Thunderbird handles html links in messages. You should be able to right-click and launch in a new window or tab. (like Trillian)
Sometimes it even launches the links in IE! That's just wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems there are two diametrically opposed forces at work here: One that feels Wikipedia should be the repository of ALL human knowledge, and the other wanting to make the best ENCYCLOPEDIA.
An encyclopedia needs to be accurate and concise. I can understand wanting to limit it to generally useful and notable information.
However, I would prefer the repository idea. There is a vast amount of information that is community and culturally specific. It may be utterly inane to the majority, but to that niche of humanity it could be interesting and useful. Wikipedia has no physical constraints on size, so it makes no sense to limit the entries for mere notability sake. Accuracy and redundancy are good limiters, but the only affect notability should have is in search result ranking.
If links from "bad" sites can torpedo your google rank, I'm really surprised that we haven't heard about people getting blackmailed to keep them off the "bad" sites.
When I saw the historical price graph of Uranium ( http://www.uranium.info/prices/monthly.html ), it struck me that as very similar to a historical price graph of gasoline/oil ( http://zfacts.com/p/35.html ).
[reaches for tinfoil hat]
CONSPIRACY!!!
This announcement needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt IMO. They're picking one item that's popular or scary, and purposefully cutting funding for it in order to get headlines. They did the same crap a year ago with Hubble. Sure there's a lot of fantastic and important science that NASA could do if it had more money, but they already have GOBS of money, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Is it any good?
Seriously, who's seen it? I want to know what to expect. Other than Galactica and some Stargate episodes most SF shows right now are terrible.
I've never liked the way Thunderbird handles html links in messages. You should be able to right-click and launch in a new window or tab. (like Trillian)
Sometimes it even launches the links in IE! That's just wrong.
I used to watch Robotech and Transformers, so I couldn't believe it when Tranformers completely ripped off the Skull One with Jetfire/Skyfire.
"If you're already walking on thin ice, you might as well dance." -Gil Atkinson