It's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.
If we allow anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;
(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;
If we prohibit anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: standing by their assertions;
(b) Use it for evil: track every word you say, stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.
There is no right answer. There are only choices between problems.
I don't know why this reply is labeled redundant except to show a bias against stating a legitimate concerns and problems with Wikipedia. It sounds like there is a broken mod system here on/. as well.
My post (in response to great-grandparent post) might be redundant with other posts. Chances are a *lot* of posts on any given Slashdot thread are redundant, if one views the thread globally.
But who views the thread globally? Who reads all the posts before making their own post? And surely it's a common event when two people post similar ideas simultaneously. If one user posted the same idea multiple times in a given thread, that might grow annoying, if one actually noticed the pattern; but I don't see much of that on Slashdot, nor do I practice it myself.
In any case, my "Be Bold" comment wasn't intended as a global comment. It was intended as a personal statement to a specific user (Teancum) because I was moved to show sympathy and solidarity with that user.
And justifiably so, considering your (Teancum's) reply, which resonates with my own philosophy:
Of course I tend to be an inclusionist at heart and consider the words that somebody has written in good faith to be valuable resources.not to be discarded for light reasons.
I think that reflects the attitude of a tight knit core group of editors who'd rather not have the general public make edits to their pages.
Rather than a single tight-knit core of editors, I see multiple cores of editors, each grouped around their favorite topic(s), whose knits have varying degrees of tightness. Some topics attract fanatical editors; other topics attract little or no interest from anyone.
... innocuous edits, sometimes adding one new line to clarify an already-made statement, get reverted within five minutes and I receive a terse note from the moderator scolding me for not bringing my potential edit up in the discussion page.
You did the right thing: your were Bold, in keeping with Wikipedia's Be Bold guideline. If the moderator disagrees, they should bring up the subject on the discussion page -- but not scold you (see ad hominem) for being bold.
It also had a massive amounts of diesel in it (for the generators)...
20,000 gallons, if I recall correctly. Which is a lot of diesel fuel, sure could kick up a lot of fire.
The collapse was captured on a number of video recordings: example, example. WTC-7 is on fire, but not massively on fire. When it collapses, the roofline visibly crumples inward: I'm no structural engineer, but to my untrained eye, the crumpling does look like controlled demolition, rather than a steel-frame building burning so furiously that it collapses.
I sure as hell don't know the truth, and I don't expect to ever know the truth. But it seems to me that if there any smoking gun to be found, WTC-7 is it.
You're thinking of WTC-7, which collapsed around five-twenty-something in the afternoon. Was not struck by plane. Officially, struck and damaged by debris from the collapse of towers one and two. WTC-7 was a security hardened building with lots of extra steel and concrete -- it housed the control center for New York City's disaster response, among other security-minded entities -- which makes the "flying debris" explanation questionable in some people's minds.
[Fish farming] "requires huge amounts of wild fish to be caught, mulched and processed to be fed back to the "desirable" fish species that is being farmed."
Fish have prions. Using fish as a feedstock for other fish could lead to prion diseases -- "mad fish".
This article -- Farmed Fish May Pose Risk For Mad Cow Disease -- concerns the possible risk of prion transmission from rendered cows to farmed fish. It stands to reason that if prions can jump from rendered cows to farmed fish (which isn't proven -- the above article is speculative), then feeding fish to fish also poses a risk of prion transmission.
The net was being hauled UP out of the water and IN to the boat.
Not necessarily. If the net is any distance from the ship, hauling in means hauling the net through the water. Only when the net is adjacent to the boat (beneath the business end of the boom arm, I suppose) is it hauled into the boat. Hauling up out of the water is the dangerous part, I assume that's when the ship capsized. But the ship could conceivably have capsized while hauling the net through the water, given enough jellyfish mass and enough pull from the ship's winch (not likely, but the syntactic ambiguity bugs me to I have to explore the problem).
As you say, rated maximum weights, center of mass tilt, boat flip. The crew should know such things and acted accordingly.
The article at Telegraph states: "The trawler, the Diasan Shinsho-maru, capsized off Chiba`as its three-man crew was trying to haul in a net containing dozens of huge Nomura's jellyfish."
The Slashdot submitter states: "... three-man crew dragged their net through a swarm of giant jellyfish... and tried to haul up a net that was too heavy."
There's some difference between "haul in" and "haul up", but in both cases the ship's crew is hauling. Sounds to me like the crew capsized their boat by hauling too hard.
Finally, the technology to sterilize an entire continent full of people: space-based terahertz beam satellites. Without destroying buildings and other valuable stuff!
Bad Splash Panel Art was a commonplace in the DOS era.
As games grew in power, scope, ambition, and budget, I was surprised at how badly the art continued to suck -- especially the figure drawing. (Epic, I'm thinking of you -- Unreal Tournament at least as late UT2004 still looked like it was drawn by earnest geeks rather than trained or gifted artists.)
"Inflammatory" has an extra poetic ring to me -- Merriam-Webster's definition includes that lovely word "seditious", which isn't really applicable here, but what the hell? -- but "inflammable" is fine.
All of this is metaphorical -- the important thing is not accuracy but insult.
Inject liquid-form robot next to broken or diseased bone. Robot flows into position alongside bone, then solidifies itself to splint the bone.
Inject liquid-form robot next to tumor. Robot flows into position, surrounding tumor. Robot then solidifies into hundreds of tiny scalpel blades, which chop up the tumor. Robot then flows a syringe out of the patients body, and discharges the cancerous slurry.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of course, everyone takes anonymous garbage seriously.
Damage to a man's reputation doesn't require that everyone believe libelous garbage.
The damage is done when a single person in a position of authority -- your spouse, your boss, your commanding officer -- believes the libel.
It's a dilemma inherent in our choices of technologies.
If we allow anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: whistleblowing on evildoers;
(b) Use it for evil: anonymously libelling the innocent;
If we prohibit anonymity, people will
(a) Use it for good: standing by their assertions;
(b) Use it for evil: track every word you say, stifling whistleblowers and witnesses.
There is no right answer. There are only choices between problems.
I don't know why this reply is labeled redundant except to show a bias against stating a legitimate concerns and problems with Wikipedia. It sounds like there is a broken mod system here on /. as well.
My post (in response to great-grandparent post) might be redundant with other posts. Chances are a *lot* of posts on any given Slashdot thread are redundant, if one views the thread globally.
But who views the thread globally? Who reads all the posts before making their own post? And surely it's a common event when two people post similar ideas simultaneously. If one user posted the same idea multiple times in a given thread, that might grow annoying, if one actually noticed the pattern; but I don't see much of that on Slashdot, nor do I practice it myself.
In any case, my "Be Bold" comment wasn't intended as a global comment. It was intended as a personal statement to a specific user (Teancum) because I was moved to show sympathy and solidarity with that user.
And justifiably so, considering your (Teancum's) reply, which resonates with my own philosophy:
Of course I tend to be an inclusionist at heart and consider the words that somebody has written in good faith to be valuable resources.not to be discarded for light reasons.
Thank you; I couldn't have said it better myself.
I think that reflects the attitude of a tight knit core group of editors who'd rather not have the general public make edits to their pages.
Rather than a single tight-knit core of editors, I see multiple cores of editors, each grouped around their favorite topic(s), whose knits have varying degrees of tightness. Some topics attract fanatical editors; other topics attract little or no interest from anyone.
You did the right thing: your were Bold, in keeping with Wikipedia's Be Bold guideline. If the moderator disagrees, they should bring up the subject on the discussion page -- but not scold you (see ad hominem) for being bold.
It also had a massive amounts of diesel in it (for the generators) ...
20,000 gallons, if I recall correctly. Which is a lot of diesel fuel, sure could kick up a lot of fire.
The collapse was captured on a number of video recordings: example, example. WTC-7 is on fire, but not massively on fire. When it collapses, the roofline visibly crumples inward: I'm no structural engineer, but to my untrained eye, the crumpling does look like controlled demolition, rather than a steel-frame building burning so furiously that it collapses.
I sure as hell don't know the truth, and I don't expect to ever know the truth. But it seems to me that if there any smoking gun to be found, WTC-7 is it.
You're thinking of WTC-7, which collapsed around five-twenty-something in the afternoon. Was not struck by plane. Officially, struck and damaged by debris from the collapse of towers one and two. WTC-7 was a security hardened building with lots of extra steel and concrete -- it housed the control center for New York City's disaster response, among other security-minded entities -- which makes the "flying debris" explanation questionable in some people's minds.
"... the 'price had jumped to $2,000 a liter from $100 in the last few years.
Profit! Further evidence that the free market works: the sound of one Invisible Hand clapping.
[Fish farming] "requires huge amounts of wild fish to be caught, mulched and processed to be fed back to the "desirable" fish species that is being farmed."
Fish have prions. Using fish as a feedstock for other fish could lead to prion diseases -- "mad fish".
This article --
Farmed Fish May Pose Risk For Mad Cow Disease
-- concerns the possible risk of prion transmission from rendered cows to farmed fish. It stands to reason that if prions can jump from rendered cows to farmed fish (which isn't proven -- the above article is speculative), then feeding fish to fish also poses a risk of prion transmission.
Interesting, thx. Further evidence that bamboo is a miracle plant.
Interesting, thx.
I'm picturing pretensioned concrete with embedded kevlar mesh, for extra kevlar-meshy goodness.
How about embedding kevlar-web in concrete? As a building technique generally. Earthquake resistance?
Not necessarily. If the net is any distance from the ship, hauling in means hauling the net through the water. Only when the net is adjacent to the boat (beneath the business end of the boom arm, I suppose) is it hauled into the boat. Hauling up out of the water is the dangerous part, I assume that's when the ship capsized. But the ship could conceivably have capsized while hauling the net through the water, given enough jellyfish mass and enough pull from the ship's winch (not likely, but the syntactic ambiguity bugs me to I have to explore the problem).
As you say, rated maximum weights, center of mass tilt, boat flip. The crew should know such things and acted accordingly.
Seems likely.
The article at Telegraph states: "The trawler, the Diasan Shinsho-maru, capsized off Chiba`as its three-man crew was trying to haul in a net containing dozens of huge Nomura's jellyfish."
The Slashdot submitter states: "... three-man crew dragged their net through a swarm of giant jellyfish ... and tried to haul up a net that was too heavy."
There's some difference between "haul in" and "haul up", but in both cases the ship's crew is hauling. Sounds to me like the crew capsized their boat by hauling too hard.
Finally, the technology to sterilize an entire continent full of people: space-based terahertz beam satellites. Without destroying buildings and other valuable stuff!
A visiting student from Uganda once told me (I'm an American) that few people back home in Uganda had pets: too expensive.
"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
- Paul Simon, The Boxer
Bad Splash Panel Art was a commonplace in the DOS era.
As games grew in power, scope, ambition, and budget, I was surprised at how badly the art continued to suck -- especially the figure drawing. (Epic, I'm thinking of you -- Unreal Tournament at least as late UT2004 still looked like it was drawn by earnest geeks rather than trained or gifted artists.)
Personally, I liked "set off by the slightest excuse" from inflammable. It seems to define his excessively litigious nature nicely.
Heh, that's good too -- "slightest excuse," indeed!
"Most Disgusting String of Words Seen on Slashdot" award for 2009.
W00t! Thanks!
"Inflammatory" has an extra poetic ring to me -- Merriam-Webster's definition includes that lovely word "seditious", which isn't really applicable here, but what the hell? -- but "inflammable" is fine.
All of this is metaphorical -- the important thing is not accuracy but insult.
inflammatory
Pronunciation: \in-fla-m-tor-\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1711
1 : tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : seditious
2 : tending to inflame or excite the senses
3 : accompanied by or tending to cause inflammation
— inflammatorily \-fla-m-tor--l\ adverb
Source
A variety of medical applications come to mind.
Inject liquid-form robot next to broken or diseased bone. Robot flows into position alongside bone, then solidifies itself to splint the bone.
Inject liquid-form robot next to tumor. Robot flows into position, surrounding tumor. Robot then solidifies into hundreds of tiny scalpel blades, which chop up the tumor. Robot then flows a syringe out of the patients body, and discharges the cancerous slurry.
Well, sure. I was shooting for droll irony -- must've aimed low.