I agree that those topics are discussed. I disagree that those are significant problems on Wikipedia. Remember, the Internet is full of people what love to whinge and argue. Slashdot in particular is a place where posters love to complain about Wikipedia, patents, copyrights, large companies. Posters have even been complaining about Firefox in the past several years. If it gets popular, it will be complained about on Slashdot.
Two types of incandescent bulbs meet the new US efficiency standards, so incandescents are not being banned at all. That whole idea that incandscents are being banned is a myth perpetrated by the Tea Party who are for some reason against regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, even if those regulations save us money.
I thought solar power was expensive because making the solar panels was expensive. The price per watt has been dropping dramatically (from more than $20 per watt in the 1980s to about $1 per watt today). The price should continue to fall as technology improves and as more panels are produced. As for materials running out, you can recycle the materials in the panels. Unless they're undergoing nuclear reactions (uranium in fission, hydrogen in fusion) or float away into space (helium), elements last essentially forever also.
There's lots of gold in the oceans, too, but it's not economically feasible to extract it. Is it economically feasible to extract deuterium from seawater? Also, we do have working solar power today. A power plant running on fusion power may never be economically feasible or even technologically possible at all.
Well, at the point solar power runs out, we'd have to find a new planet anyway. It would provide energy for billions of years rather than hundreds. For all intents and purposes, solar, wind, and biofuels never run out.
Also, all forms of energy generation require human workers. Who do you think digs up the coal, oil, and uranium? Who do you think runs the oil refineries, nuclear power plants, and coal plants? Do you have any evidence that we'd need more workers per unit of solar power than for other forms of power?
Yes, IE 9 has improved HTML5 support greatly from IE 8. It's still worse than other modern browsers, though. IE 9 didn't even catch up to Firefox 3.6 in HTML5 support! Yes, all browsers need to improve, but IE is still in last place. Furthermore, IE 9 just barely surpasses Firefox 3.6 on the Acid3 test, and IE 9 scores worse than Firefox 4, Chrome 10, Safari 5, and Opera 11 on Acid3. Again, IE is in last place. Let me know when they actually catch up to other browsers.
You're in a race with a snail, and you win easily. The next time you race you are 10% faster but the snail is 10 times faster, You still win, but instead everyone proclaims it's so great that the snail went ten times faster. If you're in last place, it's easy to improve significantly, and still be in last place. IE needs to fix their problems so that they're caught up with other browsers, not improving more than other browsers relative to the last version.
If I were able to make an exact duplicate of an object, I would be able to get an apple from your apple while allowing you to keep your apple. I suppose I could use the same trick on rare coins and make as many copies as I want without taking your rare coin. However, flooding the market with many copies of a rare coin would dilute the value of each individual coin, causing your coin to lose value even though I have not taken it from you. In the same way, information is valuable if not many people know the information. That's why trade secrets exist.
The video also said the moon will appear bigger and brighter than any time since 1983, which was 28 years ago. The phrase "about every 18 years" is different from "exactly every 18 years". Sorry, try again.
Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable
on
See The Supermoon Tonight
·
· Score: 3, Informative
But it is called a supermoon, by definition. Perhaps the name is misleading to those who don't know what it is. There will certainly be a supermoon tonight.
Material in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. Material for which no source can be found should be deleted, because there is no way to verify the information.
I agree that editors could simply add the references to reliable sources in the first place, but what if they won't unless the article or material in it may be deleted? It's not the broken window fallacy at all. It's just repercussions from not following the rules, which leads to the rules being followed.
If you don't pay your water bill on time, the water company shuts off your water. That leads to you paying your water bill and your water gets turned back on. It's not that evil water fascists that are controlling your water are out to get you and get their jollies from shutting off your water. Shutting off your water was what they had to do to get you to pay your bill. It would have been easier for everyone if you'd simply paid your bill in the first place, and then your water wouldn't have been shut off.
That's not a wrinkle. That's an added bonus. The threat of deletion because of too few reliable sources leads to more reliable sources in the article, and everyone wins, because now we have a well-sourced article. Would this have happened if there had been no threat of deletion? It looks to me like Wikipedia's guidelines work.
It looks like the deletion policy makes sense, if it's what's needed to get editors to add reliable third-party sources. I don't really see a controversy, just editors who are learning how Wikipedia works. Either add reliable, third party sources to the article or the article gets deleted.
Even though the wave may be only 3 feet high, it can come inland more than 3 feet above sea level. Also, remember that it's not just the beach that's a few feet above sea level. Large portions of coastal cities can be just a few feet above sea level. "Avoid the beach" may not be adequate to avoid the tsunami.
Earth has had magnitude 9 earthquakes for millions of years. Therefore, obviously, they are nothing to worry about. What's the big deal? Sorry, I can't resist a chance to rib that tired old argument that AGW is not a problem because earth has been warmer in the past.
School children even recite it every day. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."
After a short number of rounds in any game involving chance, a player at a disadvantage can be ahead. The more rounds you play, the lower the chance that the player at a disadvantage is ahead. Understanding this is critical to understanding how Las Vegas makes money, or how scientific experiments are performed.
Yes, scientists use models in their hypotheses. What else would they use? Go look in any physics book, and you'll find it full of equations that model various physical systems. F=ma. E=mc^2. Stuff like that. Models.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that those topics are discussed. I disagree that those are significant problems on Wikipedia. Remember, the Internet is full of people what love to whinge and argue. Slashdot in particular is a place where posters love to complain about Wikipedia, patents, copyrights, large companies. Posters have even been complaining about Firefox in the past several years. If it gets popular, it will be complained about on Slashdot.
Two types of incandescent bulbs meet the new US efficiency standards, so incandescents are not being banned at all. That whole idea that incandscents are being banned is a myth perpetrated by the Tea Party who are for some reason against regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, even if those regulations save us money.
I thought solar power was expensive because making the solar panels was expensive. The price per watt has been dropping dramatically (from more than $20 per watt in the 1980s to about $1 per watt today). The price should continue to fall as technology improves and as more panels are produced. As for materials running out, you can recycle the materials in the panels. Unless they're undergoing nuclear reactions (uranium in fission, hydrogen in fusion) or float away into space (helium), elements last essentially forever also.
There's lots of gold in the oceans, too, but it's not economically feasible to extract it. Is it economically feasible to extract deuterium from seawater? Also, we do have working solar power today. A power plant running on fusion power may never be economically feasible or even technologically possible at all.
Well, at the point solar power runs out, we'd have to find a new planet anyway. It would provide energy for billions of years rather than hundreds. For all intents and purposes, solar, wind, and biofuels never run out.
Also, all forms of energy generation require human workers. Who do you think digs up the coal, oil, and uranium? Who do you think runs the oil refineries, nuclear power plants, and coal plants? Do you have any evidence that we'd need more workers per unit of solar power than for other forms of power?
Quite true. A 100 mile by 100 mile solar power plant would provide all the electricity that the United States needs. It would have the added benefit of never running out, as fossil fuels and fissile nuclear fuels do. Even fusion power wouldn't last long if it required deuterium, tritium, or helium instead of regular one-proton hydrogen.
Yes, IE 9 has improved HTML5 support greatly from IE 8. It's still worse than other modern browsers, though. IE 9 didn't even catch up to Firefox 3.6 in HTML5 support! Yes, all browsers need to improve, but IE is still in last place. Furthermore, IE 9 just barely surpasses Firefox 3.6 on the Acid3 test, and IE 9 scores worse than Firefox 4, Chrome 10, Safari 5, and Opera 11 on Acid3. Again, IE is in last place. Let me know when they actually catch up to other browsers.
All the other browsers run on Windows XP, the world's most popular operating system. Not IE 9. IE 9 scores worst on the HTML 5 tests compared to other browsers. IE 9 comes dead last compared to speed and memory use against other browsers. You'll have to point me out to where they're catching up with the other browsers.
You're in a race with a snail, and you win easily. The next time you race you are 10% faster but the snail is 10 times faster, You still win, but instead everyone proclaims it's so great that the snail went ten times faster. If you're in last place, it's easy to improve significantly, and still be in last place. IE needs to fix their problems so that they're caught up with other browsers, not improving more than other browsers relative to the last version.
If I were able to make an exact duplicate of an object, I would be able to get an apple from your apple while allowing you to keep your apple. I suppose I could use the same trick on rare coins and make as many copies as I want without taking your rare coin. However, flooding the market with many copies of a rare coin would dilute the value of each individual coin, causing your coin to lose value even though I have not taken it from you. In the same way, information is valuable if not many people know the information. That's why trade secrets exist.
The video also said the moon will appear bigger and brighter than any time since 1983, which was 28 years ago. The phrase "about every 18 years" is different from "exactly every 18 years". Sorry, try again.
But it is called a supermoon, by definition. Perhaps the name is misleading to those who don't know what it is. There will certainly be a supermoon tonight.
What about the summary was incorrect?
No problem. We all believe in Chuck Norris.
It's his leet skillz that have him set for life. That's why he's probably okay even if his parents squander the measly $100K.
Material in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. Material for which no source can be found should be deleted, because there is no way to verify the information.
There isn't. Sources have to have editorial control, so personal webpages and blogs are not allowed as reliable sources.
I agree that editors could simply add the references to reliable sources in the first place, but what if they won't unless the article or material in it may be deleted? It's not the broken window fallacy at all. It's just repercussions from not following the rules, which leads to the rules being followed.
If you don't pay your water bill on time, the water company shuts off your water. That leads to you paying your water bill and your water gets turned back on. It's not that evil water fascists that are controlling your water are out to get you and get their jollies from shutting off your water. Shutting off your water was what they had to do to get you to pay your bill. It would have been easier for everyone if you'd simply paid your bill in the first place, and then your water wouldn't have been shut off.
That's not a wrinkle. That's an added bonus. The threat of deletion because of too few reliable sources leads to more reliable sources in the article, and everyone wins, because now we have a well-sourced article. Would this have happened if there had been no threat of deletion? It looks to me like Wikipedia's guidelines work.
It looks like the deletion policy makes sense, if it's what's needed to get editors to add reliable third-party sources. I don't really see a controversy, just editors who are learning how Wikipedia works. Either add reliable, third party sources to the article or the article gets deleted.
Even though the wave may be only 3 feet high, it can come inland more than 3 feet above sea level. Also, remember that it's not just the beach that's a few feet above sea level. Large portions of coastal cities can be just a few feet above sea level. "Avoid the beach" may not be adequate to avoid the tsunami.
Earth has had magnitude 9 earthquakes for millions of years. Therefore, obviously, they are nothing to worry about. What's the big deal? Sorry, I can't resist a chance to rib that tired old argument that AGW is not a problem because earth has been warmer in the past.
School children even recite it every day. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands..."
After a short number of rounds in any game involving chance, a player at a disadvantage can be ahead. The more rounds you play, the lower the chance that the player at a disadvantage is ahead. Understanding this is critical to understanding how Las Vegas makes money, or how scientific experiments are performed.
Yes, scientists use models in their hypotheses. What else would they use? Go look in any physics book, and you'll find it full of equations that model various physical systems. F=ma. E=mc^2. Stuff like that. Models.