Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to boost the capacity of your online operations is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
schrodinger -- find yourself a decent exposition of the analysis of the hydrogen atom using schrodinger wave mechanics. learn where all that junk they taught you in high school chemistry actually comes from!
The problem isn't how "complex" your theory is to understand. The problem is that no adequate account of even a single, much smaller fact about human cultures or history bears any resemblance to the story you are telling.
But that's not the biggest problem. Even so-called "just so" stories are better than this drivel, since they at least are false (because overly simplistic) explanations of actual facts.
Duh. You become mentats and serve at the pleasure of the Great Houses, unless the Ixians get a hold of you and start experimenting on you. Then you become a warrior-poet-accountant.
Instead of trying ignoring it or steering the subject back to what's actually being discussed
Ach! I know, I know, they put the pedal to the metal and just keep rolling and won't put the brakes on and finally literally drive the thread into the ground!
Very well put. You see a lot of such bitter people on Slashdot who constantly feel the need to pull down the achievements of others, simply because they've accomplished little with their lives.
Maybe. You also see a number of people who, while having accomplished little, in a way credit themselves with the great discoveries of others. They do this by maintaining a sort of pious reverence for the greatness of human technological development. (And sometimes by adopting a tone of righteous superiority toward strangers who are not as excited as they are about each new shiny bauble.) Such people naturally get excited about talks and demos at TED. (Others, including some real innovators, and some otherwise perfectly fine folks favor such talks, too.)
The former can get carried away in their enthusiasm and thus provide a juicy target for the bitter, at the same time that they mildly irk those of us who are somewhere in the middle: who enjoy well-made things and hope such things will continue to be made, but who are more concerned about happiness, inner peace, eudaimonia, or whatever you want to call living well. We think that material goods, however good they may be, can only play a small part in that more important project.
The good and bad in human affairs don't depend crucially on whether siftables are great, insanely great, merely nifty, or indifferent. At least, that's what I think.
No - what I's saying is this is a non-story. It's mildly amusing, but it tells us nothing about WikiPedia that WikiPedia hasn't already extremely explicity told us about itself.
I agree with you so far, and your point about quick self-correction is right, at least about well publicized and verifiable errors, but I still don't see how the "reference loop" is an example of "how [Wikipedia] is supposed to work."
Also, pointing out that encyclopedias and newspapers don't always do any better does not prove this is not a problem for Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
Looping constructs: "Sit on it and rotate!"
Or the syntactic sugar shorthand: "Sit and spin!"
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to boost the capacity of your online operations is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Or so they tell you.
On Vent....
What's a scientest?
A scientest is someone who works in a scients departmint, duh.
15 minutes later, Alpha reports:
"Warning. There is another system."
schrodinger -- find yourself a decent exposition of the analysis of the hydrogen atom using schrodinger wave mechanics. learn where all that junk they taught you in high school chemistry actually comes from!
OK, but where?
What, no Ptolemy? ;-)
I'm interested to know what you think freedom is.
-1, Improbably Simplistic Historizing
The problem isn't how "complex" your theory is to understand. The problem is that no adequate account of even a single, much smaller fact about human cultures or history bears any resemblance to the story you are telling.
But that's not the biggest problem. Even so-called "just so" stories are better than this drivel, since they at least are false (because overly simplistic) explanations of actual facts.
There's a pretty funny film with an exaggerated version of this sort of thing as a backstory: The Adjuster.
Maybe Col. Matt Decker could help.
Duh. You become mentats and serve at the pleasure of the Great Houses, unless the Ixians get a hold of you and start experimenting on you. Then you become a warrior-poet-accountant.
Instead of trying ignoring it or steering the subject back to what's actually being discussed
Ach! I know, I know, they put the pedal to the metal and just keep rolling and won't put the brakes on and finally literally drive the thread into the ground!
It's "rel," not "rev."
Once the search succeeds, the next questions driving research will be: Is that planet habitable? Does it have an Earth-like atmosphere?
Also, will they mean the same thing by "water," even if their oceans are filled with XYZ?
</putnam>
Because if you shouted "So say we all," it would sound silly.
When EJO shouts it, people want--no, need--to obey.
People^WLonely scientists don't realize how sensitive we are to touch
FTFY.
That's ADMIRAL Adamo to you, nugget.
...I can't help thinking of the headline like this: "Creatures that Can Breathe Underwater Discovered Underwater."
It's just you.
The question to ask yourself is why your imagination is plaguing you with thoughts of gay boys (or, to be fair, their voices).
Some people care about bags; obsession is a better word.
So, it should be "some people obsession about bags"?
John Cage wasn't just talking about it, he was doing it (including radios and other aleatory elements in his performances) back in the 1940s.
Very well put. You see a lot of such bitter people on Slashdot who constantly feel the need to pull down the achievements of others, simply because they've accomplished little with their lives.
Maybe. You also see a number of people who, while having accomplished little, in a way credit themselves with the great discoveries of others. They do this by maintaining a sort of pious reverence for the greatness of human technological development. (And sometimes by adopting a tone of righteous superiority toward strangers who are not as excited as they are about each new shiny bauble.) Such people naturally get excited about talks and demos at TED. (Others, including some real innovators, and some otherwise perfectly fine folks favor such talks, too.)
The former can get carried away in their enthusiasm and thus provide a juicy target for the bitter, at the same time that they mildly irk those of us who are somewhere in the middle: who enjoy well-made things and hope such things will continue to be made, but who are more concerned about happiness, inner peace, eudaimonia, or whatever you want to call living well. We think that material goods, however good they may be, can only play a small part in that more important project.
The good and bad in human affairs don't depend crucially on whether siftables are great, insanely great, merely nifty, or indifferent. At least, that's what I think.
Satellite smoke. Don't breathe this.
No - what I's saying is this is a non-story. It's mildly amusing, but it tells us nothing about WikiPedia that WikiPedia hasn't already extremely explicity told us about itself.
I agree with you so far, and your point about quick self-correction is right, at least about well publicized and verifiable errors, but I still don't see how the "reference loop" is an example of "how [Wikipedia] is supposed to work."
Also, pointing out that encyclopedias and newspapers don't always do any better does not prove this is not a problem for Wikipedia.