There are about 1,300 featured articles. There are also about 1,700 good articles. However, there are currently 1,637,703 articles on Wikipedia. This means that slightly more than 99.8% of all the articles on Wikipedia are not considered well written, verifiable or broad or comprehensive in their coverage.
This to me seems like the old most-blogs-are-terrible argument. I would wager that those 3,000 good/featured articles make up the bulk of what people who go to wikipedia read about.
I'm a physics teacher currently teaching about the Big Bang and possible ends of the Universe. I'm just wondering if there are any research physicists in the room who could tell me which theory of the end of the Universe has the most physical evidence to support it at the current time.
...please don't take it personally if I take your camera and smash it after you take a picture of me? (I mean no threat, just bringing up a point) if someone cares enough to purposefully not post themselves on the web, perhaps out of fear of a stalker, what right do you have to "publish" without consent?
Photographers have every right to photograph you if you are in a public place. Like the grandfather poster, I also do street photography but unlike him I do make mine available. If you required that photographers got the permission of everyone in their photographs then taking photographs out doors would be impossible. While I generally try to obscure the faces of those I photograph, I don't always because it adds to the shot. If you are outdoors, expect to be seen.
Decades of teaching to standardized tests and ignoring the thought process in favor of fact regurgitation has led to this
No kidding. I work as a science teacher and there is nothing that makes me dislike teaching as much as the constant dread of the END OF YEAR STANDARD EXAMS. As much as I hate to do so, I end up making stuff like this for my students -- just a long list of exactly the information the exam is looking for and nothing else. Science can be such an interesting subject, but not like this.
I take issue with the America-is-so-diverse argument. According to Wikipedia, we are 70% white and 88% Christian. You must not forget that most of this diversity is in the cities, and mostly New York. I spent my summer on a road trip circumnavigating the country and let me tell you, the terrain changes, but the people and the towns are exactly the same, one to the next.
Fair Use Under Siege
"Fair use" is a crucial element in American copyright law-the principle that the public is entitled, without having to ask permission, to use copyrighted works in ways that do not unduly interfere with the copyright owner's market for a work. Fair uses include personal, noncommercial uses, such as using a VCR to record a television program for later viewing. Fair use also includes activities undertaken for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research.
Unfortunately, the DMCA throws out the baby of fair use with the bathwater of digital piracy. By employing technical protection measures to control access to and use of copyrighted works, and using the DMCA against anyone who tampers with those measures, copyright owners can unilaterally eliminate fair use, re-writing the copyright bargain developed by Congress and the courts over more than a century.
What bothers me is that things like this cause people to think that there is no such thing as fair use. I work as a teacher and I make a bunch of presentations for my classes. It's school policy that we can't use copyrighted images for any purposes -- even this clear cut case of non-comercial, educational use. This policy is just one of the many in place to eliminate even the possibility that someone may sue for any reason, no matter how in the right we may be. I'd use creative commons images anyway, but this is very frustrating.
I don't presume to know what criteria God uses to decide whether or not to answer a prayer.
I can only assume it goes something like this:
God: I know everything and am all powerful and have a master plan for everything that happens.
Puny Human: Hey! I have a heart problem and don't want to die just yet.
God:::slaps head:: Whoops! Sorry, I meant to give you a good heart not a broken one. Let me just fix that......there we go. Jeez, thanks for reminding me, guy. Really would have fucked up my master plan if you died too early.
OK, then riddle me this: How can God know everything and people have free will? If God knew the way everything would play out when he chose to set up the universe the way he did, then we can't have free will.
Why do people feel the need to debunk another person's personal beliefs? Especially when it has absolutely no consequence to anyone but that person? If someone's mom or dad is going to have heart surgery where there is a good change they can die, and it comforts them to pray for a good outcome, who gives a shit? I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove. It comforts people to pray for their loved ones, and themselves. Why do you give such a shit whether people pray, or believe in Bigfoot, or give money to Miss Cleo?
Go here and scroll down to "View from the end of the world". The long now foundation has some very interesting lectures and this one is on the dangers of religious thought. The two second version is that it is dangerous to have people around who can opt out of logical thinking.
Odd, I didn't realize that Joe Average was a `low A' student. What are the really bright students getting these days? Do we need to go round the loop and give them Z's?
Well actually I do make my photos available under a CC lisence, which makes my above argument a bit theoretical. Anyway, you can use my photos as long as you link to my website: ColinGregoryPalmer.net
Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While I do love sites like flickr, I had a bit of a change of heart when they made it possible for others to buy prints of my photos. While I always knew that flickr made money off of my work through their advertising, selling physical copies of my photos made it a bit too real and a bit too obvious. I think that in the future of Web 2.0 the companies should recognize that their users generate their profits and share some of the wealth.
Reminds me of a job opening that stated -- literally -- "requires 10 or more years experience administering a Windows 2000 Active Directory domain.". This was back in late 2002, mind you. I actually called and asked about the position just to ask if it was a mistake, but they said the position had been filled. I still wonder who they found....
A lesson hard-learned: Never compete for a job with a swashbuckling time-traveler.
Sounds like someone has been reading too much Paul Graham. Don't get me wrong, I really like the guy and his ideas, but I think the get-bought-out-by-a-big-company plan is just a lottery ticket for smart people.
Now, Buy It Now is overtaking the auction feature and dealers are holding sway.
Speaking as an eBay seller, it seems that eBay wants it to be this way -- at least for small items -- and I'm not happy. I, for one, would prefer to use the classic bid option to sell my photographs but with the way eBay nickel and dimes you to death, it's just too costly by the time I'm done with gallerly fees, category fees, initial price fees, final price fees and paypal fees. I'm hoping the ebay killer comes along soon so I can switch ships.
Slashdot Mirror
Queue the teachers union to strike/protest.
Which is why there should be a separate union for science and maths teachers.
-CGP
There are about 1,300 featured articles. There are also about 1,700 good articles. However, there are currently 1,637,703 articles on Wikipedia. This means that slightly more than 99.8% of all the articles on Wikipedia are not considered well written, verifiable or broad or comprehensive in their coverage.
This to me seems like the old most-blogs-are-terrible argument. I would wager that those 3,000 good/featured articles make up the bulk of what people who go to wikipedia read about.
-CGP
Well, since I have to create an account with Citizendium just to look at the articles, I'm not too worried about it overtaking the Wikipedia just yet.
-CGP
I'm a physics teacher currently teaching about the Big Bang and possible ends of the Universe. I'm just wondering if there are any research physicists in the room who could tell me which theory of the end of the Universe has the most physical evidence to support it at the current time.
Thank you,
-CGP
Photographers have every right to photograph you if you are in a public place. Like the grandfather poster, I also do street photography but unlike him I do make mine available. If you required that photographers got the permission of everyone in their photographs then taking photographs out doors would be impossible. While I generally try to obscure the faces of those I photograph, I don't always because it adds to the shot. If you are outdoors, expect to be seen.
No kidding. I work as a science teacher and there is nothing that makes me dislike teaching as much as the constant dread of the END OF YEAR STANDARD EXAMS. As much as I hate to do so, I end up making stuff like this for my students -- just a long list of exactly the information the exam is looking for and nothing else. Science can be such an interesting subject, but not like this.
I take issue with the America-is-so-diverse argument. According to Wikipedia, we are 70% white and 88% Christian. You must not forget that most of this diversity is in the cities, and mostly New York. I spent my summer on a road trip circumnavigating the country and let me tell you, the terrain changes, but the people and the towns are exactly the same, one to the next.
Fair Use Under Siege "Fair use" is a crucial element in American copyright law-the principle that the public is entitled, without having to ask permission, to use copyrighted works in ways that do not unduly interfere with the copyright owner's market for a work. Fair uses include personal, noncommercial uses, such as using a VCR to record a television program for later viewing. Fair use also includes activities undertaken for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research. Unfortunately, the DMCA throws out the baby of fair use with the bathwater of digital piracy. By employing technical protection measures to control access to and use of copyrighted works, and using the DMCA against anyone who tampers with those measures, copyright owners can unilaterally eliminate fair use, re-writing the copyright bargain developed by Congress and the courts over more than a century.
What bothers me is that things like this cause people to think that there is no such thing as fair use. I work as a teacher and I make a bunch of presentations for my classes. It's school policy that we can't use copyrighted images for any purposes -- even this clear cut case of non-comercial, educational use. This policy is just one of the many in place to eliminate even the possibility that someone may sue for any reason, no matter how in the right we may be. I'd use creative commons images anyway, but this is very frustrating.
-CGP
We shouldn't let people be stupid just so they don't feel bad about themselves.
:(
You, Sir, have clearly never worked in a school. Self Esteem above all seems to be the current rally cry
-CGP
I don't presume to know what criteria God uses to decide whether or not to answer a prayer.
::slaps head:: Whoops! Sorry, I meant to give you a good heart not a broken one. Let me just fix that... ...there we go. Jeez, thanks for reminding me, guy. Really would have fucked up my master plan if you died too early.
I can only assume it goes something like this:
God: I know everything and am all powerful and have a master plan for everything that happens.
Puny Human: Hey! I have a heart problem and don't want to die just yet.
God:
-CGP
OK, then riddle me this: How can God know everything and people have free will? If God knew the way everything would play out when he chose to set up the universe the way he did, then we can't have free will.
-CGP
Why do people feel the need to debunk another person's personal beliefs? Especially when it has absolutely no consequence to anyone but that person? If someone's mom or dad is going to have heart surgery where there is a good change they can die, and it comforts them to pray for a good outcome, who gives a shit? I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove. It comforts people to pray for their loved ones, and themselves. Why do you give such a shit whether people pray, or believe in Bigfoot, or give money to Miss Cleo?
Go here and scroll down to "View from the end of the world". The long now foundation has some very interesting lectures and this one is on the dangers of religious thought. The two second version is that it is dangerous to have people around who can opt out of logical thinking.
-CGP
OMG NSFW! You are firox0rd! LOL!
-CGP
Odd, I didn't realize that Joe Average was a `low A' student. What are the really bright students getting these days? Do we need to go round the loop and give them Z's?
-CGP
Well actually I do make my photos available under a CC lisence, which makes my above argument a bit theoretical. Anyway, you can use my photos as long as you link to my website: ColinGregoryPalmer.net
Honor Kim Stanley Robinson and don't call it dust, call it the fines.
-CGP
some feel the challenges presented on the moon will be less than Mars.
They feel do they? I'm glad we have people willing to know with their hearts rather than think with their heads.
-CGP
While I do love sites like flickr, I had a bit of a change of heart when they made it possible for others to buy prints of my photos. While I always knew that flickr made money off of my work through their advertising, selling physical copies of my photos made it a bit too real and a bit too obvious. I think that in the future of Web 2.0 the companies should recognize that their users generate their profits and share some of the wealth.
-CGP
not that Verizon, SONY, Apple, et. al., will ever allow that to happen on their watch (literally)
I was unaware that all of life took place on the face of a large watch owned by Sony and Apple. Thank you for enlightening me.
-CGP
Reminds me of a job opening that stated -- literally -- "requires 10 or more years experience administering a Windows 2000 Active Directory domain.". This was back in late 2002, mind you. I actually called and asked about the position just to ask if it was a mistake, but they said the position had been filled. I still wonder who they found....
A lesson hard-learned: Never compete for a job with a swashbuckling time-traveler.
-CGP
Sounds like someone has been reading too much Paul Graham. Don't get me wrong, I really like the guy and his ideas, but I think the get-bought-out-by-a-big-company plan is just a lottery ticket for smart people.
-CGP
Today I saw a license plate with the number 1WX 456! How unlikely is that!
-CGP
You have obviously not met most of those 6 billion people.
-CGP
That's true, but Amazon isn't going to send me to gitmo if they don't like the books I'm reading.
-CGP
Now, Buy It Now is overtaking the auction feature and dealers are holding sway.
Speaking as an eBay seller, it seems that eBay wants it to be this way -- at least for small items -- and I'm not happy. I, for one, would prefer to use the classic bid option to sell my photographs but with the way eBay nickel and dimes you to death, it's just too costly by the time I'm done with gallerly fees, category fees, initial price fees, final price fees and paypal fees. I'm hoping the ebay killer comes along soon so I can switch ships.
-CGP