So we're still talking about these sites as if all the pictures are from angry exes? The last big one of these sites to go down was found in large part to be made up of photos stolen from hacked email accounts by strangers who enjoyed ruining random women's lives.
the finding may be based on something as simple as poor sample washing to remove phosphate contamination.
This conflates two problems mentioned in the article: possible poor washing of arsenic off the DNA, since it apparently likes to glom onto things, and trace amounts of phosphorus in the salts they fed the bacteria that were trying to starve of phosphorus.
Uh, you do realize that it was published in Science. I can tell that you've really done your due diligence on this subject before proffering your opinion. Might even have skimmed TFA.
Indeed, my translation explicitly excludes the possibility of there being no gods right after considering the idea, but otherwise roughly follows the same idea:
In all you do or say or think, recollect that at any time the power of withdrawal from life is in your own hands. If gods exist, you have nothing to fear in taking leave of mankind, for they will not let you come to harm. But if there are no gods, or if they have no concern with mortal affairs, what is life to me, in a world devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? Gods, however, do exist, and do concern themselves with the worlds of men.
My 1964 translation, however, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the version on wikisource, not just in style but in meaning, so that it's hard to believe it's even based on the same source.
Because if there's one thing Wikipedia hates, it's people actually using it's articles.
But that's beside the point because they're using an archived version hosted on their own servers, which is why the featured article and such don't match.
The "improvements in nutritional properties" is really about marketing. They know that the average consumer easily confuses "slightly healthier than the fatty fat fat original" with "healthy", and proceeds to feel good about eating something they used to have to feel bad about and limit themselves on. Just look at all those sugar cereals that are marketing themselves as containing whole grains - the implication being that Trix is somehow heart healthy and good for you instead of just better than a big bowl of sugar.
There's a big section in Food Politics on the fortified health food game, from the perspective of a nutritionist who's served on government nutrition panels.
Every decent grocery store I know of sells some okay stuff like Ghiradelli - you just have to look hard for it amongst the Hershey wax bars. With a whole damn aisle of candy at your average grocery store, they're bound to accidentally stock something half decent.
To clarify, Shawyer's description of the system indicates that the system is closed, although he claims that relativity magically makes it an open system. I admit that I haven't bothered to delve into it enough to understand exactly why he thinks that. Frankly, the lack of error bars on a small measurement on top of an engineer throwing around strange claims about relativity was enough for me to discount it as unlikely.
Thank you for reminding me that photons have momentum. I knew I had missed something from my years of physics graduate school.
According to Shawyer, the system is closed - all photons are theoretically reabsorbed. It is possible to create a drive in which photons provide the thrust, although it's incredibly inefficient. This is supposed to be something else altogether (He claims that the momentum of the photons at either end of the cavity is different and therefore they transfer different amounts of momentum to the cavity when reflected causing a net acceleration of the cavity). Conservation of momentum means that closed systems do not magically accelerate no matter how many times you wave your hands saying "relativity".
By the way, this engine would violate conservation of momentum, and is thus incredibly dubious. On top of that, the "working" prototype was measured to generate an incredibly tiny force, a measurement which was given without error bars in the only numbers I've seen, so he's probably just measured his noise floor. It has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. Because of this article, John Baez has posted an open letter from Greg Egan to the editors of New Scientist, which includes gems like "I really was gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy in the article".
One thing I like about Wikipedia in comparison to traditional encyclopedias is that we can and should be transparent about the sources we use. Whereas the perception of authority of an encyclopedia is based on their name alone, we have to rely soley on transparency in authorship, writing process, and sources. I prefer that system.
If someone is unable to convince A SINGLE ONE out of ONE THOUSAND PEOPLE that he should be unblocked... then I'd say that might be a reasonable clue that he needs to learn better how to play with others.
I'm always surprised at the number who don't get it. Obviously the admins are in collusion to exclude this one particular person because they're all prejudiced against X (nevermind that 95% of the admins haven't even given X enough thought to form an opinion on it).
I don't know if Wikipedia ever resembled a utopia, I think it used to operate more like any small society: if one asshole started to dick everyone around the whole community would tell him to leave, and an admin would enforce that. Most of the "policing" structures now are basically the same sorts of things that grow up in community no longer small enough for everyone to know everyone else's business.
Wikipedia has actually hung on to some surprising small society-type things. For instance, a significant number of indefinite blocks are still done under the remarkably informal "exhausted the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy. (Usually starts with a handful of people discussing what to do about a problem user in a high visibility spot. If somone proposes that their patience is exhausted, everyone is asked if they object to a block. If not then an admin does it. If the blocked user can't find an admin who thinks he deserves another chance then he's supposed to get the picture.)
Yeah, during college I started to cursive some of my mathematical symbols like l, while hooking my 1's to make sure it's all distinctive. Throw tons of upper and lower-case Greek letters into the mix and you've really learned a whole new mathematical handwriting. It's like third grade all over again.
A big problem is that an anonymous user is more likely to create an article that isn't categorized or linked to anywhere. So if it's not marked a stub when it's on [[Special:Newpages]], another editor won't find it for months and months.
For every editor who's ever read an article, some fraction put it on their watchlists. Pre-existing articles that are linked to from at least one place will have had more total readers and therefore more eyes on it than an orphaned one.
Personally, I think this is a great way to both cut back on the number of these along with speedy deletion candidates.
And I forgot the most obvious advantage: You can wait to display the students' responses until they're done voting so that you don't get people waiting to see what the majority of the class answers.
Part of the advantage of the clicker aside from teacher feedback is that you can give students extra points for getting the answer correct or more often for answering at all. The students pay more attention and feel more engaged, and they tend to enjoy the idea of easy points, even if it's a small fraction of the grade. As a bonus the physics education research people love performing statistical analysis on the data.
FEMA is only there to help agencies follow contingency plans that state and local governments put into place. No one knows an area better than those who live there, so local officials are supposed to identify possible disasters and spend the money to develop plans for them. You might be interested in commentary by someone who works with the earthquake side of these plans. It includes such gems as:
The federal government is not our Superman. This country has gone fifteen rounds to establish the fact that states have rights, and with great power comes great responsibility, thank you, Uncle Ben. With those rights that the state governments gained came the responsibility to PLAN before disasters occur.
Clearly there was no plan for this scale disaster. Whatever FEMA's mistakes, producing a plan for a response is not one of them so the blame cannot fall squarely on their shoulders.
The stable and draft idea is not new to Wikipedia, but is frequently used when negotiating solutions to edit-wars. The article itself is protected and a copy created that can be edited until everyone agrees on a single version.
So far as deciding which articles to lock, there's actually been a lot of talk related to the push towards a paper Wikipedia about incorporating a rating system on the quality and accuracy of articles. Only the most important and best-written versions would be included in a paper Wikipedia. I assume that once this is implemented in the wiki code it will be used for any stable article locking, too.
Perhaps the best way to handle something so democratic as wikipedia is to have changed content be reviewed by several people who can reject or approve the changes before they go through.
Oh, you mean like, say, Nupedia? Cause that scaled so much better than Wikipedia.
I agree that languages evolve, but language is all about communication. When someone says "should of", it sounds just like "should've" so I immediately understand them. But when I read "should of" I have to pause, sound it out, and realize that they meant "should've". I've read a c.1914 Skunk and White, which lists neologisms, but "all right" -> "alright" is not the same as "have" -> "of". It's a hinderance to written communication because of IS NOT A VERB! Perhaps my problem is that I'm a voracious reader and so printed mistakes leap right out at me, but I can tolerate most everything EXCEPT "should of" which immediately makes me think that the author is semi-illiterate.
Much more effective to do like Newport and just invite grad students to a talk with free pizza and giveaways. I got to hear all about their new line of optics that are now going into our new amplifier system, but more importantly, I got a mug.
Slashdot Mirror
So we're still talking about these sites as if all the pictures are from angry exes? The last big one of these sites to go down was found in large part to be made up of photos stolen from hacked email accounts by strangers who enjoyed ruining random women's lives.
This conflates two problems mentioned in the article: possible poor washing of arsenic off the DNA, since it apparently likes to glom onto things, and trace amounts of phosphorus in the salts they fed the bacteria that were trying to starve of phosphorus.
Uh, you do realize that it was published in Science. I can tell that you've really done your due diligence on this subject before proffering your opinion. Might even have skimmed TFA.
My 1964 translation, however, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to the version on wikisource, not just in style but in meaning, so that it's hard to believe it's even based on the same source.
Because if there's one thing Wikipedia hates, it's people actually using it's articles. But that's beside the point because they're using an archived version hosted on their own servers, which is why the featured article and such don't match.
The "improvements in nutritional properties" is really about marketing. They know that the average consumer easily confuses "slightly healthier than the fatty fat fat original" with "healthy", and proceeds to feel good about eating something they used to have to feel bad about and limit themselves on. Just look at all those sugar cereals that are marketing themselves as containing whole grains - the implication being that Trix is somehow heart healthy and good for you instead of just better than a big bowl of sugar.
There's a big section in Food Politics on the fortified health food game, from the perspective of a nutritionist who's served on government nutrition panels.
Every decent grocery store I know of sells some okay stuff like Ghiradelli - you just have to look hard for it amongst the Hershey wax bars. With a whole damn aisle of candy at your average grocery store, they're bound to accidentally stock something half decent.
To clarify, Shawyer's description of the system indicates that the system is closed, although he claims that relativity magically makes it an open system. I admit that I haven't bothered to delve into it enough to understand exactly why he thinks that. Frankly, the lack of error bars on a small measurement on top of an engineer throwing around strange claims about relativity was enough for me to discount it as unlikely.
Thank you for reminding me that photons have momentum. I knew I had missed something from my years of physics graduate school.
According to Shawyer, the system is closed - all photons are theoretically reabsorbed. It is possible to create a drive in which photons provide the thrust, although it's incredibly inefficient. This is supposed to be something else altogether (He claims that the momentum of the photons at either end of the cavity is different and therefore they transfer different amounts of momentum to the cavity when reflected causing a net acceleration of the cavity). Conservation of momentum means that closed systems do not magically accelerate no matter how many times you wave your hands saying "relativity".
By the way, this engine would violate conservation of momentum, and is thus incredibly dubious. On top of that, the "working" prototype was measured to generate an incredibly tiny force, a measurement which was given without error bars in the only numbers I've seen, so he's probably just measured his noise floor. It has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. Because of this article, John Baez has posted an open letter from Greg Egan to the editors of New Scientist, which includes gems like "I really was gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy in the article".
In other words, reader beware. Crackpots abound.
One thing I like about Wikipedia in comparison to traditional encyclopedias is that we can and should be transparent about the sources we use. Whereas the perception of authority of an encyclopedia is based on their name alone, we have to rely soley on transparency in authorship, writing process, and sources. I prefer that system.
I don't know if Wikipedia ever resembled a utopia, I think it used to operate more like any small society: if one asshole started to dick everyone around the whole community would tell him to leave, and an admin would enforce that. Most of the "policing" structures now are basically the same sorts of things that grow up in community no longer small enough for everyone to know everyone else's business.
Wikipedia has actually hung on to some surprising small society-type things. For instance, a significant number of indefinite blocks are still done under the remarkably informal "exhausted the community's patience" clause of the blocking policy. (Usually starts with a handful of people discussing what to do about a problem user in a high visibility spot. If somone proposes that their patience is exhausted, everyone is asked if they object to a block. If not then an admin does it. If the blocked user can't find an admin who thinks he deserves another chance then he's supposed to get the picture.)
Yeah, during college I started to cursive some of my mathematical symbols like l, while hooking my 1's to make sure it's all distinctive. Throw tons of upper and lower-case Greek letters into the mix and you've really learned a whole new mathematical handwriting. It's like third grade all over again.
That's probably because Times New Roman blows pretty hard so far as readability. Both the regular and italics can't hold a candle to a nice Helvetica.
A big problem is that an anonymous user is more likely to create an article that isn't categorized or linked to anywhere. So if it's not marked a stub when it's on [[Special:Newpages]], another editor won't find it for months and months.
For every editor who's ever read an article, some fraction put it on their watchlists. Pre-existing articles that are linked to from at least one place will have had more total readers and therefore more eyes on it than an orphaned one.
Personally, I think this is a great way to both cut back on the number of these along with speedy deletion candidates.
And I forgot the most obvious advantage: You can wait to display the students' responses until they're done voting so that you don't get people waiting to see what the majority of the class answers.
Part of the advantage of the clicker aside from teacher feedback is that you can give students extra points for getting the answer correct or more often for answering at all. The students pay more attention and feel more engaged, and they tend to enjoy the idea of easy points, even if it's a small fraction of the grade. As a bonus the physics education research people love performing statistical analysis on the data.
Check it out here. LGF got a higher res picture though.
The stable and draft idea is not new to Wikipedia, but is frequently used when negotiating solutions to edit-wars. The article itself is protected and a copy created that can be edited until everyone agrees on a single version.
So far as deciding which articles to lock, there's actually been a lot of talk related to the push towards a paper Wikipedia about incorporating a rating system on the quality and accuracy of articles. Only the most important and best-written versions would be included in a paper Wikipedia. I assume that once this is implemented in the wiki code it will be used for any stable article locking, too.
I agree that languages evolve, but language is all about communication. When someone says "should of", it sounds just like "should've" so I immediately understand them. But when I read "should of" I have to pause, sound it out, and realize that they meant "should've". I've read a c.1914 Skunk and White, which lists neologisms, but "all right" -> "alright" is not the same as "have" -> "of". It's a hinderance to written communication because of IS NOT A VERB! Perhaps my problem is that I'm a voracious reader and so printed mistakes leap right out at me, but I can tolerate most everything EXCEPT "should of" which immediately makes me think that the author is semi-illiterate.
I don't think I ever implied PhysRev was, was simply addressing IEEE maybe going author pays.
Much more effective to do like Newport and just invite grad students to a talk with free pizza and giveaways. I got to hear all about their new line of optics that are now going into our new amplifier system, but more importantly, I got a mug.