LOL, I wouldn't quite use the word "yuck", but you do have the idea.
I don't think it is strange or unprecedented for people to have a pecking order for crimes/activities... rape does not get a life sentence or the death penalty, but murder does. Speeding doesn't even land you in jail. Obscenity laws are all over the place.
Few suggest that killing another human being is a nice activity, but that doesn't stop us from justifying war, abortion, and even things like our reliance on automobiles, which takes many more souls than any war we've ever fought.
There certainly is a problem with this... and that is a problem with humanity in general. Still, Wikipedia is at least set up with the goal of a neutral POV. Their struggles are part of the grand experiment.
Yes, some topics are revert-happy... too much automated software. You have to keep at it and eventually they cannot keep reverting and they have to talk about it. It's stupid, I agree... but not "hypocritical".
You have some legitimate complaints, but how do you go about getting a story changed at Britannica? How do you adjust the non-neutral POV over at Fox News or the Huffington Post? Are there people abusing Wikipedia? Sure? Is it still a worthy goal to chase a neutral POV? I think so.
And did you notice that most of the struggles you mention are over hyper-controversial subjects? The remaining 99.99% of pages have no such power-play issues. Yeah, some wacko can revert you a couple of times for no good reason, but this is a very hard thing to police - and I think it is very interesting how Wikipedia has tried different things over the years.
As long as they live that delusion, Wikipedia has no chance to survive in the long run.
When human beings cease to even try to understand one anothers' point of view, it generally leads to unpleasantness. Some of our tribal instincts are best fought.
Again, this requires a black-and-white view of the issue: is it murder or is it a woman's body part?
I submit that abortion can be a distasteful thing, though not necessarily on the same level as murder. Forcing a woman to bear a child which is the result of rape could easily be more disgusting than the act of abortion itself, depending on a person's moral compass.
I also find that people find abortions to be more distasteful the later that they are performed - another very fuzzy metric with no clear line.
Talk to an OB sometime. People are all talk - when presented with an abnormal fetus, it's an odd few who will opt not to abort.
And I have absolutely no data, but a strong suspicion that a typical pro-lifer would have a really strong temptation to take that morning after pill offered by rape counselors.
I file it all under the human tendency to tell others what to do, while exempting oneself from said edict. Reality is one cold mo-fo.
Yet they now have bots going around and automatically deleting anything that the nothing-better-to-do, always-there gatekeeper-zealots decide is (currently) too short or isn't (yet) worded in a uniform way.
That isn't "they", the admins of the site - it's anyone who wants to contribute that is running the bots.
When they locked the most controversial topics, they were basically waving a white flag and admitting that their "edited by anyone" system is a mess in certain circumstances. This is an attempt to go back in the other direction a little bit.
more open semantic knowledge base
More open? How will that prevent people with no lives, or paid shills, from entering non-neutral POV information?
In English, a phrase can sometimes have a non-literal meaning. In this case, "perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you," is meant literally as "you probably won't like Wikipedia."
Sometimes I forget that Slashdot has an international audience and I assume a knowledge of English idioms and such.
Yeah, but they aren't "open and clear" they change depending on the editor and which page.
There are certainly problem page editors, just as there are problem individual contributors. This is an inherent problem, and it seems to be one that Wikipedia is constantly experimenting/struggling with. I cut them some slack, since no one has ever done anything like this before. Certainly I think that calling them "hypocritical" is a bit overboard.
It's interesting how it is evolving back towards a trust model.
I think this idea that there are two-sides to everything is actually a significant problem in politics, and especially in media. "Balanced" should not mean getting a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal shouting at a born-again-conservative... it should mean getting some people who can see multiple sides of an issue and trying to be honest about the relative merits of both sides.
Let's use your example of abortion. Setting someone who is "pro-choice" against someone who is "pro-life" does not really capture the issue very well - only the extreme edges. I'd wager that most people would lie somewhere in the middle... most people would probably not object to abortion when the fetus is deformed or the mother's life is at stake, or in the case of rape. On the other hand, most rational people seemed to find partial birth abortions pretty horrifying, and I don't seem to have much trouble finding people who dislike abortion as a form of birth control.
This muddy middle is rarely captured by polarized discussions.
One can only make an honest attempt. For most topics, it should be possible to find an impartial editor. There may be some fringe topics where an impartial POV is impossible, but those topics aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
It's not hypocrisy if the rules or "ideals" are open and clear. Their "ideal" is an honest attempt at a neutral point-of-view. If that offends you, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you.
You have a point, but Perian isn't exactly hard to install, and it lets Quicktime (and thus Front Row) play almost everything.
Failing that, VLC is an excellent (and free) player that also plays just about everything.
I wouldn't consider downloading and installing these software packages "fiddling". Windows 7 now has some decent codec support, but you still have to install VLC or codec packs to play everything you find online. MKV, for instance.
Why in the world are you playing a disk through the computer? The dedicated boxes work pretty well, without all the hassle of a computer. I have my computer hooked up to my TV, but I don't think I've ever watched a DVD by putting it into the computer rather than the dedicated DVD player.
Or are you trying to reduce the number of boxes hooked to your TV?
Put it on Craigslist. I bought one for $100 last year - saved me at least 5x my money, and honestly a regular definition WEGA is just fine compared to a cheap LCD, especially from way across the room. Eventually I'll spring for a flat-screen, but I have other spending priorities and the nice old tube TVs are practically free.
I'll agree with you if the numbers work out, but my recollection of that thing is that it ran like a lawn mower. My friend was constantly pouring oil into his. Even if it used half the gas of another car, it should still put out just as little smog pollution.
Last time I read it was in the 2-3 bucks / gallon range to produce, but the technology was improving to the point where they thought it would cost about a buck a gallon by the middle of the decade.
And of course, there is Brazilian ethanol, which is currently taxed to death...
I agree. Our energy policy is not very cohesive, and even this expansion of infrastructure has to be sold as a corn subsidy.
That said, making cars run on E85 IS an improvement... it would cut gasoline usage by 85%, which is pretty damned impressive.
We could probably build a biogas infrastructure by encouraging CNG use, but that would drive home heating prices up and require more elaborate changes to cars.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, I wouldn't quite use the word "yuck", but you do have the idea.
I don't think it is strange or unprecedented for people to have a pecking order for crimes/activities... rape does not get a life sentence or the death penalty, but murder does. Speeding doesn't even land you in jail. Obscenity laws are all over the place.
Few suggest that killing another human being is a nice activity, but that doesn't stop us from justifying war, abortion, and even things like our reliance on automobiles, which takes many more souls than any war we've ever fought.
There certainly is a problem with this... and that is a problem with humanity in general. Still, Wikipedia is at least set up with the goal of a neutral POV. Their struggles are part of the grand experiment.
This hasn't exactly been done before.
Yes, some topics are revert-happy... too much automated software. You have to keep at it and eventually they cannot keep reverting and they have to talk about it. It's stupid, I agree... but not "hypocritical".
You have some legitimate complaints, but how do you go about getting a story changed at Britannica? How do you adjust the non-neutral POV over at Fox News or the Huffington Post? Are there people abusing Wikipedia? Sure? Is it still a worthy goal to chase a neutral POV? I think so.
And did you notice that most of the struggles you mention are over hyper-controversial subjects? The remaining 99.99% of pages have no such power-play issues. Yeah, some wacko can revert you a couple of times for no good reason, but this is a very hard thing to police - and I think it is very interesting how Wikipedia has tried different things over the years.
So you don't have to have two boxes?
Well, a mini also doesn't have a cable card and it doesn't make a great gaming system. You'll also need a DVR. So that's three more potential boxes...
One device is never going to suit everyone, and I've yet to see an all-in-one box that works as well as a bunch of separate boxes.
I just kind of found it funny that, of all things, lack of Blu-Ray was the complaint. Standalone Blu-Ray is the way to go.
As long as they live that delusion, Wikipedia has no chance to survive in the long run.
When human beings cease to even try to understand one anothers' point of view, it generally leads to unpleasantness. Some of our tribal instincts are best fought.
Again, this requires a black-and-white view of the issue: is it murder or is it a woman's body part?
I submit that abortion can be a distasteful thing, though not necessarily on the same level as murder. Forcing a woman to bear a child which is the result of rape could easily be more disgusting than the act of abortion itself, depending on a person's moral compass.
I also find that people find abortions to be more distasteful the later that they are performed - another very fuzzy metric with no clear line.
Talk to an OB sometime. People are all talk - when presented with an abnormal fetus, it's an odd few who will opt not to abort.
And I have absolutely no data, but a strong suspicion that a typical pro-lifer would have a really strong temptation to take that morning after pill offered by rape counselors.
I file it all under the human tendency to tell others what to do, while exempting oneself from said edict. Reality is one cold mo-fo.
Yet they now have bots going around and automatically deleting anything that the nothing-better-to-do, always-there gatekeeper-zealots decide is (currently) too short or isn't (yet) worded in a uniform way.
That isn't "they", the admins of the site - it's anyone who wants to contribute that is running the bots.
When they locked the most controversial topics, they were basically waving a white flag and admitting that their "edited by anyone" system is a mess in certain circumstances. This is an attempt to go back in the other direction a little bit.
more open semantic knowledge base
More open? How will that prevent people with no lives, or paid shills, from entering non-neutral POV information?
In English, a phrase can sometimes have a non-literal meaning. In this case, "perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you," is meant literally as "you probably won't like Wikipedia."
Sometimes I forget that Slashdot has an international audience and I assume a knowledge of English idioms and such.
Yeah, but they aren't "open and clear" they change depending on the editor and which page.
There are certainly problem page editors, just as there are problem individual contributors. This is an inherent problem, and it seems to be one that Wikipedia is constantly experimenting/struggling with. I cut them some slack, since no one has ever done anything like this before. Certainly I think that calling them "hypocritical" is a bit overboard.
It's interesting how it is evolving back towards a trust model.
I think this idea that there are two-sides to everything is actually a significant problem in politics, and especially in media. "Balanced" should not mean getting a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal shouting at a born-again-conservative... it should mean getting some people who can see multiple sides of an issue and trying to be honest about the relative merits of both sides.
Let's use your example of abortion. Setting someone who is "pro-choice" against someone who is "pro-life" does not really capture the issue very well - only the extreme edges. I'd wager that most people would lie somewhere in the middle... most people would probably not object to abortion when the fetus is deformed or the mother's life is at stake, or in the case of rape. On the other hand, most rational people seemed to find partial birth abortions pretty horrifying, and I don't seem to have much trouble finding people who dislike abortion as a form of birth control.
This muddy middle is rarely captured by polarized discussions.
One can only make an honest attempt. For most topics, it should be possible to find an impartial editor. There may be some fringe topics where an impartial POV is impossible, but those topics aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
It's not hypocrisy if the rules or "ideals" are open and clear. Their "ideal" is an honest attempt at a neutral point-of-view. If that offends you, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the site for you.
You misread my comment.
I was claiming that your steps 1-5 are more hassle on a computer than they are on a standalone box.
I hardly ever use actual DVDs anymore, for the very reasons that you state.
I think you are right. This will make a nice replacement for my old dual-G5 when it bites the dust... and at about 1/3 the original cost of the G5.
You have a point, but Perian isn't exactly hard to install, and it lets Quicktime (and thus Front Row) play almost everything.
Failing that, VLC is an excellent (and free) player that also plays just about everything.
I wouldn't consider downloading and installing these software packages "fiddling". Windows 7 now has some decent codec support, but you still have to install VLC or codec packs to play everything you find online. MKV, for instance.
Does Apple include Blu-Ray player software
Why in the world are you playing a disk through the computer? The dedicated boxes work pretty well, without all the hassle of a computer. I have my computer hooked up to my TV, but I don't think I've ever watched a DVD by putting it into the computer rather than the dedicated DVD player.
Or are you trying to reduce the number of boxes hooked to your TV?
Put it on Craigslist. I bought one for $100 last year - saved me at least 5x my money, and honestly a regular definition WEGA is just fine compared to a cheap LCD, especially from way across the room. Eventually I'll spring for a flat-screen, but I have other spending priorities and the nice old tube TVs are practically free.
The downside is, of course, that it is grown and so will compete on some level with food production.
I'll agree with you if the numbers work out, but my recollection of that thing is that it ran like a lawn mower. My friend was constantly pouring oil into his. Even if it used half the gas of another car, it should still put out just as little smog pollution.
Last time I read it was in the 2-3 bucks / gallon range to produce, but the technology was improving to the point where they thought it would cost about a buck a gallon by the middle of the decade.
And of course, there is Brazilian ethanol, which is currently taxed to death...
Yeah, that's indeed a risk.
The car in question (Metro) was sold in the 80's and 90's, when smog was still a problem.
Wanna bet that laying off the smog controls would bring the old air quality problems back?
I agree. Our energy policy is not very cohesive, and even this expansion of infrastructure has to be sold as a corn subsidy.
That said, making cars run on E85 IS an improvement... it would cut gasoline usage by 85%, which is pretty damned impressive.
We could probably build a biogas infrastructure by encouraging CNG use, but that would drive home heating prices up and require more elaborate changes to cars.