Well there are 2 links to respond to them at the bottom of every page; labeled "Feedback" and "Contact Us." Certainly they're not like Slashdot where they're mostly commentary, but then not every site can be nor should be. You could, though, submit a Christian Science Monitor article to Slashdot and probably start a quite good discussion.
As for their articles often being rants, I'll sometimes think someone is ranting when I disagree with them. Often articles are written for people whom are informed, whom bring to the article a background of knowledge about the subject and the world and can thus absorb differing perspectives or interpretation of facts, or even rants. News articles are just that, new articles about familiar and occasionally unfamiliar events; they're not the be-all end-all last statement.
The elite (rich person) does not go "all over town setting soup kitchens and churches on fire" but is largely responsible for the need for soup kitchens. When 5% of the population has over 50% of the wealth, there's a deeply unfair distribution of money, property, and opportunity. This apportionment takes necessities from the poor to provide luxuries for the rich. The rich don't think "community sucks" but rather don't think about the community at all. Your example of how rich people act is a ridiculous straw man. If you're unaware of the effects of class distinctions then you live in the same isolated environment as this guy who talks about his world view as a corporate executive versus the reality of his decisions and actions.
It's not a textbook, and it's not meant to be. So why are you comparing the two?
Read Workaphobia's perceptive comment again because I think you missed the point and we might in fact agree. W's comment, along with Bradbury's opinion of the Internet, is what lead to the comparison of Wikipedia (a tiny subset of the Internet) with books (though not just textbooks).
You're succinctly correct, an encyclopedia is not a textbook (though I'd say Wikipedia, even with its shortcomings and sometimes biased articles and moderators, still beats many dead-tree encyclopedia articles written by biased editors and some textbook chapters in quite a few ways). The minor point was a comparison of reading for a length of time, and choosing between disjointed articles and a sustained-topic book--with which one do you learn more? This question, interesting as it is, is too broad to answer generally; unless you consider "sometimes one, sometimes the other" an answer.
The main point is the world needs curious-minded people whom pursue their interests in a variety of ways, including Internet haters (e.g. Mr. Bradbury, if he really is so) whom exclusively prefer libraries and books even though the Internet includesmany books, and some who prefer the Internet, and some who prefer both. And to add another group, some use neither (I have a friend who refuses to read anything except what's required for work; and not unlike/., she can be interesting, insightful, and trollish).
Your way would win easily, until you consider how many of those wikipedia articles are what, 5-20 paragraphs? And how disjoint are your interesting tabs after an hour of browsing? It's mind-boggling how disparate the topics are after an evening of browsing. Then consider a single book, good luck finding one under 200 pages, and even a moderately focused book will bind your mind to a depth of thinking quite unlike most (though certainly not all) web pages.
There is much to be said for your way of reading, just as there's much to Mr. Bradbury's. There's also room for people whom do both, and I prefer a world where such variety runs rampant.
The phrase "boots on the ground" sounds military, let's see if we can be a little less subjective, eh? If we want to find out "what's happening in the world" how about we read online newspapers, and find a blog or 2 or 5, from that area. Then look for the same from nearby countries. Yeah, this is a lot of work, and only worthwhile for big or important subjects. It would sure be easier to just accept whatever the Boston Globe says.
Being from Boston, you're surely well aware of Noam Chomsky's analysis of major US media (e.g. Manufacturing Consent) and their tendency to report in a pro-business manner. Do some checking yourself though. Take some issue that's covered in the Boston Globe and interests you deeply, and write down your take on the article. Then research it yourself.
How do other countries manage the same issue? If someone has other views from yours, can you find points of agreement, do you occasionally find basis for their bias? Reverse the situation, could you convince them, with their narrow-minded subjectivity, of your worldly view? Try being hypocritical in their position. Analyze it from a neo-conservative angle, a liberal angle, a neo-liberal perspective. Do the deep research for facts, or as close as you can come to those. Separate opinions from facts. Draw your own conclusions and opinions from those facts. This will take time, and you're not pretending to be a reporter but doing this because you're interested and sometimes it's more involving than playing a video game.
Then read the same Boston Globe article and see what you think of its presentation of facts, it's lack of slant, what it ignores, and your original critique. Do you still find newspapers and other sources are all of "identical quality?"
As for local news, you're aware of blogs, but have you tried talking with people in diners, at grocery store checkout lines, old timers on park benches, attending city council meetings, doing things where you're in the news? A great way to misunderstand the world is to stay home and read the paper.
The only way your post could have been improved is to flag it as informative + insightful. You could have stopped at your first sentence, but your following statements contributed substantially to further explain the position. A reasonable person, a reasonable community, a reasonable state, a reasonable country would do well to consider the meaning of what you so tersely put. Your nickname is little more than gibberish to me, the site you link to suggests a playfulness less than serious, but what you said exposed the core of a foulness so abhorrent that I am grateful, absolutely grateful, to read and consider what you wrote. With no sarcasm, double-meaning, or innuendo whatsoever, and on behalf of no one except perhaps those who might agree, I personally thank you for what you've said. You nailed it.
Let's see if I understand this correctly. An anonymous nerd has a girlfriend, and he spends the night taking pictures of her. OK, I'm with you so far, JPGs make good girlfriends. And what gets fu*ked is the camera? You sir are a dedicated hacker. Ya know, I think your post is more informative and typical than funny.
Another choice, if you're visiting an office that's regularly behind, is to call the receptionist a bit before your appointment and ask if they're backed up. Anecdotally: I've had a few receptionists get snippy as though I were questioning their ability to schedule, but most will laugh and then give an estimate of the delay. This adds an extra phone call, which annoys everyone involved, but only affects mismanaged offices.
ID can be stolen, and your credit card account will be properly credited fairly quickly, but: your bank account will take far longer to get straightened out, and your credit history with the big 3 credit bureaus may never be the same, even after the 2+ years it takes to argue things out.
In my limited knowledge of friends who have had their ID stolen, there is a very big difference, but it's not what you think.
People changing lanes, drifting into other lanes, without looking or signalling: young drivers, cell phone users (all ages), old drivers, middle-aged drivers
Running stop signs, California stops, stopping and not waiting their turn at 4 and 5-way stops: cell phone users (all ages), young people, old people, drivers chatting with passengers, middle-aged drivers
Oblivious drivers in parking lots: oh the winner here is younger drivers, but plenty of others do this as well
Don't remember ever seeing someone stop to put on their glasses in the middle of a busy street, but I've sure seen people in their teens through 50s wearing sunglasses at night (I blame the Blues Brothers)
Tailgating: pretty much all ages. Hint: even if you're following at a legal distance, if the car ahead of you can slow down faster than you can, including reaction time and braking distance for your respective vehicles, then from a safety perspective you're following too close.
Most of these people know better, know it's dangerous, but they do it anyway. And they'll continue to do so until something happens to make them stop, like an accident or spendy ticket.
Perhaps the big picture notion to take away from all this is that no matter what new categories of bad drivers are fashionable, you can only control your rig.
Part of any marketshare and mindshare battle is PR spin. The phrase Digital Rights Management makes me feel protected and secure, while it obscures the limitations and long-term beneficiaries of such protection.
Lately, the acronym DRM makes me think Data Restriction Machine. And this phrase immediately makes me wonder: Whose data is it? Who's restricted? Is the hardware still a computer, or just an appliance?
There is a switch, it's labeled "Power." Flipping it the other way will turn on powerful notions that defy analysis and quantization. (And in your case, it'll get you a babe whose name doesn't end in.jpg! 8^)
There's a long-standing tradition in science of not publishing failures; thus guaranteeing that others will make the same mistakes. What a waste. I think it was Edison who bragged (bragged!) that he knew 1000's of ways to not make a light bulb.
Thanks for imparting some of your hard-earned knowledge.
There is considerable merit and thought in this suggestion. The appeal of improving the system is a strong temptation. However, sometimes a project shows more progress with more worker bees and fewer rules, structures, and PHBs.
(Hmmm, new tagline: More worker bees, fewer PHBs!)
Since the 80's, thanks to Microsoft's PR dept. the 'next' version has become a permanent staple in MS's cupboard. Many individuals and companies (including myself) put off decisions until it comes out. Thanks to people like those in the Apache group, some currently available open source software is as good or better than MS's current and next version software.
Coincidence, conspiracy, elitist? Not at all, it's just a plan initiated by Mark Twain, finally coming to fruition:
Mark Twain: A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" - bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Slashdot Mirror
Well there are 2 links to respond to them at the bottom of every page; labeled "Feedback" and "Contact Us." Certainly they're not like Slashdot where they're mostly commentary, but then not every site can be nor should be. You could, though, submit a Christian Science Monitor article to Slashdot and probably start a quite good discussion.
As for their articles often being rants, I'll sometimes think someone is ranting when I disagree with them. Often articles are written for people whom are informed, whom bring to the article a background of knowledge about the subject and the world and can thus absorb differing perspectives or interpretation of facts, or even rants. News articles are just that, new articles about familiar and occasionally unfamiliar events; they're not the be-all end-all last statement.
The elite (rich person) does not go "all over town setting soup kitchens and churches on fire" but is largely responsible for the need for soup kitchens. When 5% of the population has over 50% of the wealth, there's a deeply unfair distribution of money, property, and opportunity. This apportionment takes necessities from the poor to provide luxuries for the rich. The rich don't think "community sucks" but rather don't think about the community at all. Your example of how rich people act is a ridiculous straw man. If you're unaware of the effects of class distinctions then you live in the same isolated environment as this guy who talks about his world view as a corporate executive versus the reality of his decisions and actions.
Crap, should have doublechecked my own work! Margins in the above are wrong (unless you like 12.5mm margins).
Parent's paper size is for US letter (8.5 x 11 inches). For A4 (210 x 297 mm) with 25mm margins use:
\geometry{papersize={210mm,297mm},total={160mm,247mm}}
\pdfpagewidth 210mm
\pdfpageheight 297mm
Parent's paper size is for US letter (8.5 x 11 inches). For A4 (210 x 297 mm) with 25mm margins use:
\geometry{papersize={210mm,297mm},total={185mm,272mm}}
\pdfpagewidth 210mm
\pdfpageheight 297mm
It's not a textbook, and it's not meant to be. So why are you comparing the two?
Read Workaphobia's perceptive comment again because I think you missed the point and we might in fact agree. W's comment, along with Bradbury's opinion of the Internet, is what lead to the comparison of Wikipedia (a tiny subset of the Internet) with books (though not just textbooks).
You're succinctly correct, an encyclopedia is not a textbook (though I'd say Wikipedia, even with its shortcomings and sometimes biased articles and moderators, still beats many dead-tree encyclopedia articles written by biased editors and some textbook chapters in quite a few ways). The minor point was a comparison of reading for a length of time, and choosing between disjointed articles and a sustained-topic book--with which one do you learn more? This question, interesting as it is, is too broad to answer generally; unless you consider "sometimes one, sometimes the other" an answer.
The main point is the world needs curious-minded people whom pursue their interests in a variety of ways, including Internet haters (e.g. Mr. Bradbury, if he really is so) whom exclusively prefer libraries and books even though the Internet includes many books, and some who prefer the Internet, and some who prefer both. And to add another group, some use neither (I have a friend who refuses to read anything except what's required for work; and not unlike /., she can be interesting, insightful, and trollish).
Your way would win easily, until you consider how many of those wikipedia articles are what, 5-20 paragraphs? And how disjoint are your interesting tabs after an hour of browsing? It's mind-boggling how disparate the topics are after an evening of browsing. Then consider a single book, good luck finding one under 200 pages, and even a moderately focused book will bind your mind to a depth of thinking quite unlike most (though certainly not all) web pages.
There is much to be said for your way of reading, just as there's much to Mr. Bradbury's. There's also room for people whom do both, and I prefer a world where such variety runs rampant.
The phrase "boots on the ground" sounds military, let's see if we can be a little less subjective, eh? If we want to find out "what's happening in the world" how about we read online newspapers, and find a blog or 2 or 5, from that area. Then look for the same from nearby countries. Yeah, this is a lot of work, and only worthwhile for big or important subjects. It would sure be easier to just accept whatever the Boston Globe says.
Being from Boston, you're surely well aware of Noam Chomsky's analysis of major US media (e.g. Manufacturing Consent) and their tendency to report in a pro-business manner. Do some checking yourself though. Take some issue that's covered in the Boston Globe and interests you deeply, and write down your take on the article. Then research it yourself.
How do other countries manage the same issue? If someone has other views from yours, can you find points of agreement, do you occasionally find basis for their bias? Reverse the situation, could you convince them, with their narrow-minded subjectivity, of your worldly view? Try being hypocritical in their position. Analyze it from a neo-conservative angle, a liberal angle, a neo-liberal perspective. Do the deep research for facts, or as close as you can come to those. Separate opinions from facts. Draw your own conclusions and opinions from those facts. This will take time, and you're not pretending to be a reporter but doing this because you're interested and sometimes it's more involving than playing a video game.
Then read the same Boston Globe article and see what you think of its presentation of facts, it's lack of slant, what it ignores, and your original critique. Do you still find newspapers and other sources are all of "identical quality?"
As for local news, you're aware of blogs, but have you tried talking with people in diners, at grocery store checkout lines, old timers on park benches, attending city council meetings, doing things where you're in the news? A great way to misunderstand the world is to stay home and read the paper.
The only way your post could have been improved is to flag it as informative + insightful. You could have stopped at your first sentence, but your following statements contributed substantially to further explain the position. A reasonable person, a reasonable community, a reasonable state, a reasonable country would do well to consider the meaning of what you so tersely put. Your nickname is little more than gibberish to me, the site you link to suggests a playfulness less than serious, but what you said exposed the core of a foulness so abhorrent that I am grateful, absolutely grateful, to read and consider what you wrote. With no sarcasm, double-meaning, or innuendo whatsoever, and on behalf of no one except perhaps those who might agree, I personally thank you for what you've said. You nailed it.
Let's see if I understand this correctly. An anonymous nerd has a girlfriend, and he spends the night taking pictures of her. OK, I'm with you so far, JPGs make good girlfriends. And what gets fu*ked is the camera? You sir are a dedicated hacker. Ya know, I think your post is more informative and typical than funny.
Another choice, if you're visiting an office that's regularly behind, is to call the receptionist a bit before your appointment and ask if they're backed up. Anecdotally: I've had a few receptionists get snippy as though I were questioning their ability to schedule, but most will laugh and then give an estimate of the delay. This adds an extra phone call, which annoys everyone involved, but only affects mismanaged offices.
Cash can be stolen, but only once.
ID can be stolen, and your credit card account will be properly credited fairly quickly, but: your bank account will take far longer to get straightened out, and your credit history with the big 3 credit bureaus may never be the same, even after the 2+ years it takes to argue things out.
In my limited knowledge of friends who have had their ID stolen, there is a very big difference, but it's not what you think.
Most of these people know better, know it's dangerous, but they do it anyway. And they'll continue to do so until something happens to make them stop, like an accident or spendy ticket.
Perhaps the big picture notion to take away from all this is that no matter what new categories of bad drivers are fashionable, you can only control your rig.
Part of any marketshare and mindshare battle is PR spin. The phrase Digital Rights Management makes me feel protected and secure, while it obscures the limitations and long-term beneficiaries of such protection.
Lately, the acronym DRM makes me think Data Restriction Machine. And this phrase immediately makes me wonder: Whose data is it? Who's restricted? Is the hardware still a computer, or just an appliance?
There is a switch, it's labeled "Power." Flipping it the other way will turn on powerful notions that defy analysis and quantization. (And in your case, it'll get you a babe whose name doesn't end in .jpg! 8^)
There's a long-standing tradition in science of not publishing failures; thus guaranteeing that others will make the same mistakes. What a waste. I think it was Edison who bragged (bragged!) that he knew 1000's of ways to not make a light bulb.
Thanks for imparting some of your hard-earned knowledge.
This would sure be great, except you can't boot from this drive. In other news, pigs still can't fly, film at 5.
(Hmmm, new tagline: More worker bees, fewer PHBs!)
Since the 80's, thanks to Microsoft's PR dept. the 'next' version has become a permanent staple in MS's cupboard. Many individuals and companies (including myself) put off decisions until it comes out. Thanks to people like those in the Apache group, some currently available open source software is as good or better than MS's current and next version software.
DOS is, quite possibly, the worst text-adventure game ever. (stolen from a usenet sig)
font face="trebuchet ms, arial, helvetica" size=2
Surely an oversight, or perhaps just foreshadowing; or it could be my over-active imagination.
Mark Twain: A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" - bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez - tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Here's a few, mostly virus-related links (some are a little outdated):
www.quackwatch.com
hoaxbusters.ciac.org
urbanlegends.miningco.com/library/blhoax.htm
korova.com/virus/hoax_index.htm
www.vmyths.com