Post in social media containing detailed, referenced research? Or video taken at given events? Or recording of Q&A with the 'subject' of the article? Social media is just location, not content. The content itself can be created in such a way that it's a fully reliable and verifiable research - but it's [original research], not acceptable as Wikipedia source. Meanwhile, entirely unverified editorial pieces that were published by a newspaper are considered valid sources, no matter how many direct witnesses provide videos proving the contrary on their Youtube, Twitter and Tumblr accounts.
It's not nearly as contrived. Think of a multi-user phone, one shared between two people. The user is chosen transparently, by PIN and can't access the other user's files unless specifically shared.
If the source is provably wrong, and you provide the proof (e.g. the source that has that author's admission) then that's an entirely bullshit argumentation. Provide proof of wrongness, get two first steps of edit war (revert their revert, each time citing the proof), then dispute their revert if they do this again.
Note, just deleting a section will likely get you nowhere. It's hard to source absence of text. Instead edit it, with the right followup. "It was believed that 2+2=5[source], although later studies[source] disproved that claim."
although... I must supply that there's a problem with Wikipedia's acceptable sources. In particular, press articles are regularly accepted - even as sources in articles about issues of journalist integrity. So if you have 'people vs journalists', all the 'defensive' voice of journalists is being heard, sourced to their own articles, while people's proofs these articles are BS - usually posted in social media - is considered 'invalid' - 'original research' or otherwise unverifiable.
Did you reference the correction to a verifiable source? If so, correct twice, then at next revert dispute the reversal. Is their source disproving yours? If it isn't, then the article at worst should contain both versions, with an entry that shows it is disputed which one is correct. If your source disproves their, they are asking for a ban.
Had one for a teacher during my studies. A really frustrated eccentric individual with enormous ego; would take his frustrations out on students. Supposedly, a very dysfunctional family. His father was a professor, the guy had a master's degree, and failed getting his PhD twice, both times failing his PhD thesis defense - his own father being the one failing him.
Nobody remembers this. Postscript printers? Oh, well, just another driver from the list. Postscript files? Oh, just another format to store text or graphics.
I needed to make a rotary quadrature encoder of a specific number of pulses per rotation. I took the gap encoder (like these found in ball mice) and needed a disk with the right number of gaps. With gap width of order of 0.3mm. How to get that? Oh well, I'll have a transparency printed with the pattern.
Now... how to generate such a pattern? If I try raster graphics, I'll need enormous file to get the resolution I need. It will take a lot of time to generate. Well, maybe write it in Postscript?
Some search, some learning, and soon I had the postscript file, maybe 500 bytes long., with a bunch of code discs of various diameter and various number of cycles. Packed it onto a pendrive, took it to a print shop and asked to have it printed.
"It's half a kilobyte. Are you sure this is the right file?"
"Yeah, just import it into your graphics program."
"uh... okay." The file loads, the guy scrolls through two pages of of extremely detailed patterns. "Is that it?"
"Yeah. Print it on transparency, at as high DPI as you can."
Eh, networking multiple Amigas together at a copy-party...
Nobody had any special hardware. But we had a bunch of serial and parallel cables, and every Amiga had a serial and a parallel port. So we'd daisy chain them serial-parallel-serial-parallel... Then there was no real networking software, but there was the contents of the computer connected over serial or parallel seen as an extra "disk drive" with its volumes seen as directories.
So, you want to copy a file to that guy three computers over to your left? The guy to your left connects to you over serial, so open the 'drive' that stands for serial link, and you're on his computer. Then open the 'parport' directory and you're two computers over. Open another 'serial' and you're with access to the computer you wanted:D
Scientist X is in the process of being cleared for carrying secret data.
Scientist X is handed bogus data package, informed the data is secret and not to be revealed.
Agent Y performs an illegal search; operation one might expect from an enemy agent, because law-abiding agents of USA would never breach the law.
Agent Y pressures scientist X to reveal the secret content.
If scientist X bows to the pressure and reveals the content, he's deemed unfit to handle genuine secret data. Agent Y did his work right; no actual secret data was revealed, but the weak link was identified and will be eliminated from the process.
If scientist X successfully resists the search, he is deemed fit to handle genuine secret data.
-----------------
Of course we all know it's total bullshit. But one can still dream.
Not "after X number of PIN attempts" but after entering the "Wipe me" special PIN.
The officer has no means of discerning if the number they received is the one that unlocks the phone or one that wipes it.
There's even a milder option: Plausible Deniability sandbox. A special PIN that gives access to the phone in "guest mode", unlocks it to something that looks just like a generic phone content of a random citizen, while the real content remains hidden.
You know, that analogy with "bowl of M&Ms, some of them poisoned" - that one is fully applicable here. The employer may make the safe choice: white straight male - or take a risk with "minorities", maybe a valuable employee or maybe a liability disruptive to the team and hard to remove due to "protection" laws.
The woman, whose job was to unite the IT, and instead got two guys fired over some silly remarks (and don't tell me she was hurt or threatened; she played Cards Against Humanity a couple hours earlier) - still doesn't see any wrong in what she did.
IT is her employer, or at least subcontracts her, and IT pays her salary. To me, that's pretty much working for IT.
Sure she's not going to be a programmer or network admin, because she lacks the essential education in these domains. But it isn't like removing her current workplace will change that.
Nor will that make the actual IT jobs (as opposed to jobs profiting from IT) more accessible to women. These, who claim "they can't work in IT due to the male-oriented environment, lack of respect to women, and general misogyny" usually lack the education needed, and absolutely lack the mental fortitude for the stressful job. Never mind, if still hired, make the workplace miserable to the current male staff by constant nitpicking at imaginary offenses, and misandrous attitude.
And if she isn't knowledgeable? What jobs are there for her in the IT? The man will still get a job in (physical) security, due to good physical fitness. One woman will maybe occupy the one front desk vacancy in a 1000+ people unit, and the rest may get the job as cleaning staff. Certainly a step up from booth babes, right?
> If I showed up and set up a stand to sell popcorn and they said no, does that mean that they're denying people the right to earn a living?
Yes. They are in their absolute right to do so, but that doesn't change the fact you were denied the right to earn your living at their conference. Their conference, their rules, doesn't have to mean the rules don't suck for someone.
There's exactly 100K between water boiling and melting point; Kelvin increments the same as Celsius.
So, 100 Joules will bring 1cm^3 of water from freezing to boiling temperature...
Joule is kg*m^2/s^2 - 1000cm^3 of water is 1kg. That's the origin of meter unit (redefined later).
Second is 1/86400 of Earth's synodic day.
But kilogram definition is arbitrary, "this here cylinder of iridium alloy".
How the hell do we arrive at 100 times [mass of a certain iridium cylinder] times [side of cube of water the mass of 1000 such cylinders] divided by [1/86400 of Earth's synodic day] squared being the energy to bring water of mass a thousandth of the mass of that cylinder from freezing to boiling?
Articles are usually a combination of facts and narrative, some opinion or agenda.
As long as facts check out, that's okay for Wikipedia source. The narrative does get in the way, reducing value of the source, but doesn't invalidate the facts. The source confirms article author didn't make it up, but it's the wikipedia article that must present the facts impartially, stripping the narrative and opinions. If it manages to do it, all is well.
The problem begins when facts are fabricated. This is where Wikipedia must draw a line.
The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.
Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.
Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.
You also have enormous air and water reserves, which are the primary ingredients in production of IRFNA and UDMH, pretty stable oxidizer and fuel for hypergolic bipropellant rockets. So why are you still importing crude oil from Middle East for the airplanes? Excellent performance, very modest price, not very complex engines... well, the exhaust gases are kinda poisonous, but aren't car exhaust fumes so, as well?
Slashdot Mirror
Post in social media containing detailed, referenced research? Or video taken at given events? Or recording of Q&A with the 'subject' of the article? Social media is just location, not content. The content itself can be created in such a way that it's a fully reliable and verifiable research - but it's [original research], not acceptable as Wikipedia source. Meanwhile, entirely unverified editorial pieces that were published by a newspaper are considered valid sources, no matter how many direct witnesses provide videos proving the contrary on their Youtube, Twitter and Tumblr accounts.
It's not nearly as contrived. Think of a multi-user phone, one shared between two people. The user is chosen transparently, by PIN and can't access the other user's files unless specifically shared.
If the source is provably wrong, and you provide the proof (e.g. the source that has that author's admission) then that's an entirely bullshit argumentation. Provide proof of wrongness, get two first steps of edit war (revert their revert, each time citing the proof), then dispute their revert if they do this again.
Note, just deleting a section will likely get you nowhere. It's hard to source absence of text. Instead edit it, with the right followup. "It was believed that 2+2=5[source], although later studies[source] disproved that claim."
although... I must supply that there's a problem with Wikipedia's acceptable sources. In particular, press articles are regularly accepted - even as sources in articles about issues of journalist integrity. So if you have 'people vs journalists', all the 'defensive' voice of journalists is being heard, sourced to their own articles, while people's proofs these articles are BS - usually posted in social media - is considered 'invalid' - 'original research' or otherwise unverifiable.
Did you reference the correction to a verifiable source?
If so, correct twice, then at next revert dispute the reversal. Is their source disproving yours? If it isn't, then the article at worst should contain both versions, with an entry that shows it is disputed which one is correct. If your source disproves their, they are asking for a ban.
Had one for a teacher during my studies. A really frustrated eccentric individual with enormous ego; would take his frustrations out on students. Supposedly, a very dysfunctional family. His father was a professor, the guy had a master's degree, and failed getting his PhD twice, both times failing his PhD thesis defense - his own father being the one failing him.
Nobody remembers this. Postscript printers? Oh, well, just another driver from the list. Postscript files? Oh, just another format to store text or graphics.
I needed to make a rotary quadrature encoder of a specific number of pulses per rotation. I took the gap encoder (like these found in ball mice) and needed a disk with the right number of gaps. With gap width of order of 0.3mm. How to get that? Oh well, I'll have a transparency printed with the pattern.
Now... how to generate such a pattern? If I try raster graphics, I'll need enormous file to get the resolution I need. It will take a lot of time to generate. Well, maybe write it in Postscript?
Some search, some learning, and soon I had the postscript file, maybe 500 bytes long., with a bunch of code discs of various diameter and various number of cycles. Packed it onto a pendrive, took it to a print shop and asked to have it printed.
"It's half a kilobyte. Are you sure this is the right file?"
"Yeah, just import it into your graphics program."
"uh... okay." The file loads, the guy scrolls through two pages of of extremely detailed patterns. "Is that it?"
"Yeah. Print it on transparency, at as high DPI as you can."
Considering there's one digit per 'entity' they might just as well be hexadecimal with top bits of each digit unused.
Eh, networking multiple Amigas together at a copy-party...
Nobody had any special hardware. But we had a bunch of serial and parallel cables, and every Amiga had a serial and a parallel port. So we'd daisy chain them serial-parallel-serial-parallel...
Then there was no real networking software, but there was the contents of the computer connected over serial or parallel seen as an extra "disk drive" with its volumes seen as directories.
So, you want to copy a file to that guy three computers over to your left? The guy to your left connects to you over serial, so open the 'drive' that stands for serial link, and you're on his computer. Then open the 'parport' directory and you're two computers over. Open another 'serial' and you're with access to the computer you wanted :D
Nope, you're not getting it.
Scientist X is in the process of being cleared for carrying secret data.
Scientist X is handed bogus data package, informed the data is secret and not to be revealed.
Agent Y performs an illegal search; operation one might expect from an enemy agent, because law-abiding agents of USA would never breach the law.
Agent Y pressures scientist X to reveal the secret content.
If scientist X bows to the pressure and reveals the content, he's deemed unfit to handle genuine secret data. Agent Y did his work right; no actual secret data was revealed, but the weak link was identified and will be eliminated from the process.
If scientist X successfully resists the search, he is deemed fit to handle genuine secret data.
-----------------
Of course we all know it's total bullshit. But one can still dream.
Not "after X number of PIN attempts" but after entering the "Wipe me" special PIN.
The officer has no means of discerning if the number they received is the one that unlocks the phone or one that wipes it.
There's even a milder option: Plausible Deniability sandbox. A special PIN that gives access to the phone in "guest mode", unlocks it to something that looks just like a generic phone content of a random citizen, while the real content remains hidden.
You know, that analogy with "bowl of M&Ms, some of them poisoned" - that one is fully applicable here. The employer may make the safe choice: white straight male - or take a risk with "minorities", maybe a valuable employee or maybe a liability disruptive to the team and hard to remove due to "protection" laws.
Situations like Donglegate really don't help.
The woman, whose job was to unite the IT, and instead got two guys fired over some silly remarks (and don't tell me she was hurt or threatened; she played Cards Against Humanity a couple hours earlier) - still doesn't see any wrong in what she did.
I think what happens is the number of customers for the agency's services drops, and the agency reduces employment accordingly.
IT is her employer, or at least subcontracts her, and IT pays her salary. To me, that's pretty much working for IT.
Sure she's not going to be a programmer or network admin, because she lacks the essential education in these domains. But it isn't like removing her current workplace will change that.
Nor will that make the actual IT jobs (as opposed to jobs profiting from IT) more accessible to women. These, who claim "they can't work in IT due to the male-oriented environment, lack of respect to women, and general misogyny" usually lack the education needed, and absolutely lack the mental fortitude for the stressful job. Never mind, if still hired, make the workplace miserable to the current male staff by constant nitpicking at imaginary offenses, and misandrous attitude.
And if she isn't knowledgeable? What jobs are there for her in the IT? The man will still get a job in (physical) security, due to good physical fitness. One woman will maybe occupy the one front desk vacancy in a 1000+ people unit, and the rest may get the job as cleaning staff. Certainly a step up from booth babes, right?
> If I showed up and set up a stand to sell popcorn and they said no, does that mean that they're denying people the right to earn a living?
Yes. They are in their absolute right to do so, but that doesn't change the fact you were denied the right to earn your living at their conference. Their conference, their rules, doesn't have to mean the rules don't suck for someone.
Of course segregated booths. The blacks don't feel comfortable under barrage of technical questions by whites.
They are doing this with dorms already. Black-only dorm, on request of black students.
And the only thing achieved was removing some jobs for women in the IT.
replying to self. We don't. You confused Joules with calories.
waaait.
There's exactly 100K between water boiling and melting point; Kelvin increments the same as Celsius.
So, 100 Joules will bring 1cm^3 of water from freezing to boiling temperature...
Joule is kg*m^2/s^2 - 1000cm^3 of water is 1kg. That's the origin of meter unit (redefined later).
Second is 1/86400 of Earth's synodic day.
But kilogram definition is arbitrary, "this here cylinder of iridium alloy".
How the hell do we arrive at 100 times [mass of a certain iridium cylinder] times [side of cube of water the mass of 1000 such cylinders] divided by [1/86400 of Earth's synodic day] squared being the energy to bring water of mass a thousandth of the mass of that cylinder from freezing to boiling?
Articles are usually a combination of facts and narrative, some opinion or agenda.
As long as facts check out, that's okay for Wikipedia source. The narrative does get in the way, reducing value of the source, but doesn't invalidate the facts. The source confirms article author didn't make it up, but it's the wikipedia article that must present the facts impartially, stripping the narrative and opinions. If it manages to do it, all is well.
The problem begins when facts are fabricated. This is where Wikipedia must draw a line.
The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.
Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.
Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.
" and will still be here even if we (foolishly) burn every ounce of coal from the ground"
Nope, it won't, not from behind the thick veil of smog from all that coal :)
You also have enormous air and water reserves, which are the primary ingredients in production of IRFNA and UDMH, pretty stable oxidizer and fuel for hypergolic bipropellant rockets. So why are you still importing crude oil from Middle East for the airplanes? Excellent performance, very modest price, not very complex engines... well, the exhaust gases are kinda poisonous, but aren't car exhaust fumes so, as well?