Did John Perry Barlow really write (p 20), "I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind". Ouch!
He really did: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The whole thing reads the same as that one snippet. When he wrote about "the global social space we are building", do you think he meant MySpace?
My wife uses Linux and she has never opened a console.
My wife uses Linux and she always opens a console. She's not a computer geek; she surfs the web, checks email and imports photos from our digital camera. She confessed to me one day that she hated clinking icons and fishing through menus, and wanted me to show her how to use an xterm window like I did. She finds this much faster.
The reason the Web "took over" was because the techies delivered a workable infrastructure that other people found useful. We're still waiting for Xanadu.
The history is a little muddled. Jimmy was discussing switching Nupedia to the GFDL before any public announcement of GNUpedia. Stallman seems to have confused Nupedia and Hector's project. However, when Hector speaks of the 400 participants of GNUpedia, he is refering to the people discussing the project. GNUpedia had not produced any articles, nor any software for managing the encyclopedia. It was, like the old Interpedia project, all talk. So, to say that GNUpedia was "the original GFDL corpus access provider" (as Craig Hubley might say) is inaccurate.
Googlebombing does *not* support Wikipedia. This has happened before, when it was noticed that a hate site was the first hit for a Google search for the word "jew". The Jew article in Wikipedia was Googlebombed and rose to the number one hit. Then what happened? Wikipedia was flooded with white supremists, Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazis and other assorted "guests" changing the Jew article so that it was more to their liking.
So, when the spammers notice that the number one hit for "online poker" is a page that anyone can edit, what do you think will happen? Check the edit history of the article to find out...
Wikipedia was never the Nupedia Chalkboard. That was an entirely separate wiki that was started by Larry Sanger in July, 2001, about six months after Wikipedia, in an attempt to bring some of the advantages of a wiki to Nupedia. It didn't work. Larry's announcement has the historical details.
I need a browser that will run on 486s and low-end Pentiums with less than 64 megs of RAM. Opera is the only graphical choice on Windows for those old beasts.
Can anyone tell me why Opera Software doesn't release incremental upgrade patches? I know it's only a 3 meg download, but that's still considerable over my dial-up connection, and shouldn't be necessary for a.01 upgrade/security fix.
The Intel486 processor was the first to offer a built-in math coprocessor, which speeds up computing because it offloads complex math functions from the central processor.
I'm pretty sure the 386DX (with a built-in math copro) came out before the 486.
If free software documentation is what you think is most important, get to work! Sitting around and griping about other people's projects will certainly not change anything.
Oh please, whoever updated the Wikipedia just plagarized Encarta. Way to innovate you stupid fucks!
Actually, using factual information from one source and rewriting it in your own words is not plagarism. If it were, encyclopedias and all other general references would be severly limited in their usefulness.
Are you a professional fact checker and researcher or an amateur plagarist?
Hmmm. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Actually, I'm an amateur fact checker and researcher. I'd go pro if someone paid me. I never plagarize.
Using information found in an encyclopedia article to improve another reference work is not plagerism, so long as you take only the facts and express them in your own words. And, if you've gone to university, you know that you don't have to cite information that can be found in any general reference, i.e. an encyclopedia.
The majority of articles in copyrighted encyclopedias are written by recognized subject matter experts. [...]
Often they are, particularly Brittanica. Wikipedia has a few experts, too, particulary in mathmatics and computer science. However, an interesting result of our little experiment is that some of our articles collaboratively are as good as those written by individual experts in other encyclopedias.
These encyclopedias have staffs of professional editors - not writers, editors - that modify the manuscript to conform to a style guide that sets an consistent tone and audience for the encyclopedia. The also have fact checkers that make sure that things like the height of Mt. Shasta, the birthdate of Mr. Whitman isn't typoed, etc.
Yes, this is very enlightening. I assure you that I factcheck my contributions to Wikipedia, and I do it very well.;-) As for consistant style, we're not terribly worried about that yet. Give us a couple years.
Biographical or other factual articles are one thing. The mark of a good encyclopedia or any general reference work is balanced, "encyclopedic" level coverage of subjects such as, say, the Vietnam War, Malcolm X, Judaism, Christianity, or any host of similar subjects. [...]
Have you read any of these articles in Wikipedia? Obviously not. Check out the abortion article and then get back to me.
And there are disputed territories such as a certain island in the Sea of Japan claimed by both Korea and Japan.
Interestingly, South Korea disputes the very name "Sea of Japan", and actively lobbies the International Hydrological Society, along with well-known map-makers, to rename that body of water the East Sea. Of course, since I'm not a professional researcher, I have no business knowing this or putting it into an encyclopedia article.
Encarta bought the rights to F&W - a core set of 25K articles. They went through a 3 year article expansion push in the late 90s where much of that was updated and expanded to compete better against World Book, including purchasing the old Yearbooks from Compton's.
No, Encarta didn't do these things, as it is the name of an encyclopedia. Microsoft was the culprit. I didn't know about the Compton's yearbook purchase, though. When I get around to expanding the Encarta article on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to add that information... as soon as I confirm it using other sources.
I'd rather trust my 12 year old to the professional encyclopedias than any nutcase with a website (Google) or plagarists.
Yeah, given the choice between nutcases, plagarists and professional encyclopedias, I go with the last one, too. Fortunately, there are more options.
Well, my troll-disecting scalpel is getting a little dull. Ciao!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, white, "normal looking", and with signs of reasonable affluence.
He was also travelling with a reporter in tow.
Did John Perry Barlow really write (p 20), "I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind". Ouch!
He really did: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The whole thing reads the same as that one snippet. When he wrote about "the global social space we are building", do you think he meant MySpace?
Emusic has the entire Naxos catalogue available, for example.
My wife uses Linux and she has never opened a console.
My wife uses Linux and she always opens a console. She's not a computer geek; she surfs the web, checks email and imports photos from our digital camera. She confessed to me one day that she hated clinking icons and fishing through menus, and wanted me to show her how to use an xterm window like I did. She finds this much faster.
I *love* vi.
I *hate* vim.
So why not use nvi?
It's easy to manage any number of these kinds of projects at the same time.
And if they do, do other groups at Apple line up to use it?
Everyone who wants a Philips TV raise your hand!
True, but there are always exceptions to the rule. In this case, the sentence is fine if the word "no" precedes "future". Grammar is tricky like that.
Stephenson is an ex-hacker[...]
There's no such thing as an ex-hacker. They just move on to hacking other things.
The reason the Web "took over" was because the techies delivered a workable infrastructure that other people found useful. We're still waiting for Xanadu.
Love,
The World
Chin up, guy! You'll get that kiss someday!
The history is a little muddled. Jimmy was discussing switching Nupedia to the GFDL before any public announcement of GNUpedia. Stallman seems to have confused Nupedia and Hector's project. However, when Hector speaks of the 400 participants of GNUpedia, he is refering to the people discussing the project. GNUpedia had not produced any articles, nor any software for managing the encyclopedia. It was, like the old Interpedia project, all talk. So, to say that GNUpedia was "the original GFDL corpus access provider" (as Craig Hubley might say) is inaccurate.
Googlebombing does *not* support Wikipedia. This has happened before, when it was noticed that a hate site was the first hit for a Google search for the word "jew". The Jew article in Wikipedia was Googlebombed and rose to the number one hit. Then what happened? Wikipedia was flooded with white supremists, Ku Klux Klan members, neo-Nazis and other assorted "guests" changing the Jew article so that it was more to their liking.
So, when the spammers notice that the number one hit for "online poker" is a page that anyone can edit, what do you think will happen? Check the edit history of the article to find out...
Now I ask you, why do Slashdotters feel the need to dump on Clusty?
Clusty, you don't want to sit with this scum.
*General murmers and complaints from Slashdot*
But I only consider you scum next to Clusty! That's right, you see how you're scum.
Wikipedia was never the Nupedia Chalkboard. That was an entirely separate wiki that was started by Larry Sanger in July, 2001, about six months after Wikipedia, in an attempt to bring some of the advantages of a wiki to Nupedia. It didn't work. Larry's announcement has the historical details.
Man, that's going to be a nasty upgrade to USB 2...
Don't you Limey bastards have any balls? Where's your bloody pride, damnit?
... says the Anonymous Coward.
I need a browser that will run on 486s and low-end Pentiums with less than 64 megs of RAM. Opera is the only graphical choice on Windows for those old beasts.
Can anyone tell me why Opera Software doesn't release incremental upgrade patches? I know it's only a 3 meg download, but that's still considerable over my dial-up connection, and shouldn't be necessary for a .01 upgrade/security fix.
The Intel486 processor was the first to offer a built-in math coprocessor, which speeds up computing because it offloads complex math functions from the central processor.
I'm pretty sure the 386DX (with a built-in math copro) came out before the 486.
If free software documentation is what you think is most important, get to work! Sitting around and griping about other people's projects will certainly not change anything.
Oh please, whoever updated the Wikipedia just plagarized Encarta. Way to innovate you stupid fucks!
Actually, using factual information from one source and rewriting it in your own words is not plagarism. If it were, encyclopedias and all other general references would be severly limited in their usefulness.
Are you a professional fact checker and researcher or an amateur plagarist?
Hmmm. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Actually, I'm an amateur fact checker and researcher. I'd go pro if someone paid me. I never plagarize.
Using information found in an encyclopedia article to improve another reference work is not plagerism, so long as you take only the facts and express them in your own words. And, if you've gone to university, you know that you don't have to cite information that can be found in any general reference, i.e. an encyclopedia.
The majority of articles in copyrighted encyclopedias are written by recognized subject matter experts. [...]
Often they are, particularly Brittanica. Wikipedia has a few experts, too, particulary in mathmatics and computer science. However, an interesting result of our little experiment is that some of our articles collaboratively are as good as those written by individual experts in other encyclopedias.
These encyclopedias have staffs of professional editors - not writers, editors - that modify the manuscript to conform to a style guide that sets an consistent tone and audience for the encyclopedia. The also have fact checkers that make sure that things like the height of Mt. Shasta, the birthdate of Mr. Whitman isn't typoed, etc.
Yes, this is very enlightening. I assure you that I factcheck my contributions to Wikipedia, and I do it very well. ;-) As for consistant style, we're not terribly worried about that yet. Give us a couple years.
Biographical or other factual articles are one thing. The mark of a good encyclopedia or any general reference work is balanced, "encyclopedic" level coverage of subjects such as, say, the Vietnam War, Malcolm X, Judaism, Christianity, or any host of similar subjects. [...]
Have you read any of these articles in Wikipedia? Obviously not. Check out the abortion article and then get back to me.
And there are disputed territories such as a certain island in the Sea of Japan claimed by both Korea and Japan.
Interestingly, South Korea disputes the very name "Sea of Japan", and actively lobbies the International Hydrological Society, along with well-known map-makers, to rename that body of water the East Sea. Of course, since I'm not a professional researcher, I have no business knowing this or putting it into an encyclopedia article.
Encarta bought the rights to F&W - a core set of 25K articles. They went through a 3 year article expansion push in the late 90s where much of that was updated and expanded to compete better against World Book, including purchasing the old Yearbooks from Compton's.
No, Encarta didn't do these things, as it is the name of an encyclopedia. Microsoft was the culprit. I didn't know about the Compton's yearbook purchase, though. When I get around to expanding the Encarta article on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to add that information... as soon as I confirm it using other sources.
I'd rather trust my 12 year old to the professional encyclopedias than any nutcase with a website (Google) or plagarists.
Yeah, given the choice between nutcases, plagarists and professional encyclopedias, I go with the last one, too. Fortunately, there are more options.
Well, my troll-disecting scalpel is getting a little dull. Ciao!