"I suspect that if the planet was currently in a "cooling" phase, there would be the same hubris over Global Cooling."
Ahh, yes... so, clearly, because you can imagine that we would be worried about the Earth cooling too rapidly if there were centuries of evidence that this was occuring, therefore we shouldn't be worried about our current reality, based on our best evidence.
Certainly, if I imagine a world where none of our problems exist, all of our problems will actually disappear!
"There is nothing negetive in this movie except if you are a Gore fan and don't like the fact someeon mad fun of him."
Well, except for the list at the end of ways to stop global warming, purposely making it seem like the only real ways to counteract the problem are all too crazy or extreme to be done, and in the process making it look like Gore and other environmentalists are crazy extremists... Yeah, nothing negative there....
"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing." -- Enron trader, on the California fires
"Can you smell money?!?!?!" -- Jack Abramoff
"People of YouTube, I am one of you, believe my message: Facts are boring, therefore Al Gore is lying, QED. Watch more cool videos, and ignore reality... Just keep filling those tanks!" --toutsmith
I'm not saying Al Gore is completely correct, but at least I'm not hiding an agenda.
"I think Colbert's point was that Wikipedia and other vote based knowledge bases"
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Evidence-based, rational discussion leading to consensus, not voting, is the primary method by which article content is determined.
Yeah, but then how does he get the jet pack back down on the ground for the next trip to the top? He couldn't bring it down with his parachute, too heavy.
Err... You do realize that you'll only find Simpsons and South Park articles if you go looking for them, right? So, what's the problem? Wikipedia's most prolific Featured Article writer (featured articles being the most detailed and complete of all articles) writes strictly about British royalty. What does that have to do with the Simpsons, South Park, pop culture, or anything in your rants?
"On a side note, living in a affected country(Romania, lots of avian cases) this whole thing seems a little over-blown."
It only seems that way because it has yet to mutate into a human-to-human form. There is nothing over-blown about the threat. If you were expecting the threat to happen now, well, sorry? It is still a threat, whether you're bored with it or not.
So why the obsession over simple buzz words? You sound ridiculous correcting someone who says "Bob's space and time", when it is clear they meant "Bob's frame of reference".
I'd rather not lecture on it; I hated the classes, and have lost most of my interest in physics (despite majoring in it).
Ahh, and now we have hearsay. Would you care to back that up with evidence, without resorting to vandalizing Wikipedia articles yourself? Click Random Article in the Wikipedia sidebar as many times as is necessary until you find offensive words that are vandalism. Now select as many random Britannica articles as is necessary to come across an offensive word (you can do that by using a random number generator to generate 7-digit numbers and plug the numbers into the Britannica URL, for example, http://search.eb.com/ebc/article-9368545 . Then, repeat the experiment a dozen or so times, and average your results.
Until you've done that, your argument is baseless.
"They've managed to list some 60 errors in Britannica. Jeebus knows how many factual errors are in Wikipedia - and no it isn't my responsibility to fix them."
So, because you don't know and are unwilling to find evidence to compare Britannica to Wikipedia, and disregard evidence that was provided by a peer-reviewed journal, clearly Wikipedia is full of errors? Nonsense.
Of course I knew about that. Did you know about Nature's reply to Britannica's reply? Britannica has vested interest in maintaining credibility, so I wouldn't take their initial reply as gospel, as you seem to.
"So I'm just as much at risk of seeing an offensive word instead of an accurate translation in Britannica as in Wikipedia? Somehow, I still don't think so."
WTF?? So, the only way you can win an argument is by turning it into another argument? We were talking about factual accuracy and neutrality. But, I showed your argument was bullshit. So, you decided to switch over to "offensive words". I don't have any data on that, as nobody has looked into it, so I can't help you. If you want to assume one way or the other, that is your choice to make, but it is an ignorant choice nonetheless, not based in reality. My guess is that you would have to take a random sample larger than the size of Britannica before coming across an "offensive word" that is vandalism in Wikipedia, simply because Britannica is so much smaller than Wikipedia, but that guess isn't based on anything either.
Are you new to slashdot? Have you seen any of the past stories comparing Britannica and Wikipedia? The comparison done by the journal Nature, for one example. I'm not saying trust Wikipedia. I'm saying don't trust either source by themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as presidential politics was concerned, it was pre/post-television.
"I suspect that if the planet was currently in a "cooling" phase, there would be the same hubris over Global Cooling."
Ahh, yes... so, clearly, because you can imagine that we would be worried about the Earth cooling too rapidly if there were centuries of evidence that this was occuring, therefore we shouldn't be worried about our current reality, based on our best evidence.
Certainly, if I imagine a world where none of our problems exist, all of our problems will actually disappear!
"There is nothing negetive in this movie except if you are a Gore fan and don't like the fact someeon mad fun of him."
Well, except for the list at the end of ways to stop global warming, purposely making it seem like the only real ways to counteract the problem are all too crazy or extreme to be done, and in the process making it look like Gore and other environmentalists are crazy extremists... Yeah, nothing negative there....
Yes, the history books will clearly draw two dividing lines regarding US politics in the 20th century: pre/post-WWII, and pre/post-Lewinsky...
"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing." -- Enron trader, on the California fires
"Can you smell money?!?!?!" -- Jack Abramoff
"People of YouTube, I am one of you, believe my message: Facts are boring, therefore Al Gore is lying, QED. Watch more cool videos, and ignore reality... Just keep filling those tanks!" --toutsmith
I'm not saying Al Gore is completely correct, but at least I'm not hiding an agenda.
"The article is parting of a just-beginning series on our changing world called Altered Oceans."
Leaving so soon? Could you please show the icebergs the way out, while you're at it?
"I think Colbert's point was that Wikipedia and other vote based knowledge bases"
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Evidence-based, rational discussion leading to consensus, not voting, is the primary method by which article content is determined.
"i know this isn't a new thing, but aren't there real questions to be answered?"
I'd prefer another news story to the usual questions posted on Ask Slashdot, such as "Where can I get a really cool box?!"
Even if they get top-of-the-line architects to perfect the exterior, the software is still designed by Frank Gehry.
Yeah, but then how does he get the jet pack back down on the ground for the next trip to the top? He couldn't bring it down with his parachute, too heavy.
"Hawkins"
Is that what you'd get if Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins mated? A skeptic with a heart of gold...
Agreed. They've done that with my submissions in the past too, rewriting them to sound more dramatic/wrong. Then I get the blame for the inaccuracy.
Wow! All 2 of the parties?! What are we serving tonight... chicken, or chicken?
".. they lived almost exclusively on a diet of roast duck with mango salsa."
For those of you unAmerican types, or anyone who doesn't watch much TV, this is from a Geico auto insurance commercial.
Err... You do realize that you'll only find Simpsons and South Park articles if you go looking for them, right? So, what's the problem? Wikipedia's most prolific Featured Article writer (featured articles being the most detailed and complete of all articles) writes strictly about British royalty. What does that have to do with the Simpsons, South Park, pop culture, or anything in your rants?
"On a side note, living in a affected country(Romania, lots of avian cases) this whole thing seems a little over-blown."
It only seems that way because it has yet to mutate into a human-to-human form. There is nothing over-blown about the threat. If you were expecting the threat to happen now, well, sorry? It is still a threat, whether you're bored with it or not.
You haven't been to Wikipedia much, have you? Do you just read the mischaracterizations on Slashdot?
Yes, you already pointed to me to that, and I pointed you to the Nature's reply to Britannica's reply. I've read all of them, as should you.
So why the obsession over simple buzz words? You sound ridiculous correcting someone who says "Bob's space and time", when it is clear they meant "Bob's frame of reference".
I'd rather not lecture on it; I hated the classes, and have lost most of my interest in physics (despite majoring in it).
Ahh, and now we have hearsay. Would you care to back that up with evidence, without resorting to vandalizing Wikipedia articles yourself? Click Random Article in the Wikipedia sidebar as many times as is necessary until you find offensive words that are vandalism. Now select as many random Britannica articles as is necessary to come across an offensive word (you can do that by using a random number generator to generate 7-digit numbers and plug the numbers into the Britannica URL, for example, http://search.eb.com/ebc/article-9368545 . Then, repeat the experiment a dozen or so times, and average your results. Until you've done that, your argument is baseless.
"They've managed to list some 60 errors in Britannica. Jeebus knows how many factual errors are in Wikipedia - and no it isn't my responsibility to fix them."
So, because you don't know and are unwilling to find evidence to compare Britannica to Wikipedia, and disregard evidence that was provided by a peer-reviewed journal, clearly Wikipedia is full of errors? Nonsense.
Of course I knew about that. Did you know about Nature's reply to Britannica's reply? Britannica has vested interest in maintaining credibility, so I wouldn't take their initial reply as gospel, as you seem to.
"Care to prove any of those statements or is it just another Wikideadhead justifying the unjustifiable?"
As for the neutrality of your comment, let's just hope you don't work for Britannica.
"So I'm just as much at risk of seeing an offensive word instead of an accurate translation in Britannica as in Wikipedia? Somehow, I still don't think so."
WTF?? So, the only way you can win an argument is by turning it into another argument? We were talking about factual accuracy and neutrality. But, I showed your argument was bullshit. So, you decided to switch over to "offensive words". I don't have any data on that, as nobody has looked into it, so I can't help you. If you want to assume one way or the other, that is your choice to make, but it is an ignorant choice nonetheless, not based in reality. My guess is that you would have to take a random sample larger than the size of Britannica before coming across an "offensive word" that is vandalism in Wikipedia, simply because Britannica is so much smaller than Wikipedia, but that guess isn't based on anything either.
Are you new to slashdot? Have you seen any of the past stories comparing Britannica and Wikipedia? The comparison done by the journal Nature, for one example. I'm not saying trust Wikipedia. I'm saying don't trust either source by themselves.