When I was at school many many years ago, there was a science club.
The stuff that used to get us interested was Van de graaf generators, lasers, nice explosions and smelly chemical reactions too esoteric for regular chemistry lessons. Anything that sparked, smelled or zapped was great fun. Muxcking about with electric motors, car engines etc,
Are things really that different now? I doubt it? But I also doubt that these are the kinds of things you are really thinking of doing.
Thus the weakness of the original poster's argument is demonstrated. Microsoft buying an application company is certainly vertical, and certainly unlikely to be particularly good for consumers.
Without the details, it strikes me that this nice bit of hype is entirely pointless.
Great - I 1Gig link. And the power requirements are? And the suspectability to multipath problems in built up areas are? And the size of the antenna on the phone is how big? And the patent issues are what?
Sorry to be such a grumpy old thing, but getting RF technology to work in the lab is one thing. Getting to work in messy, interference soaked urban environments without cooking the user's head is quite another.
Scaremongering at its best. I love the attention to detail in the post, the suggestion that a substance is carcinogenic, if not *strongly* carcinogenic - and what measure are you using in this case, eh?
Consider for a moment; they have a tremendous amount of catch-up to do, in terms of software and 3D animation know-how. Would they be able to produce something straight from cold that was a barnstorming success? I doubt it.
So instead they are starting off by attempting to reverse engineer an animated movie that was state of the art 10 years ago (probably 11 years by the time they make it).
They can tool-up, do their homework and create an apprentice-piece that people will pay to watch - it probably won't be great, but it will pay for itself, and the Disney R&D.
This should be moderated insightful. Any treatment of a more obscure disease is going to be a process of trial and error and elimination, initially.
What he is doing is akin to going to a series of tech support people and saying 'my computer is broken' - only taking their first suggestion before going on to the next tech support person.
The Linux comparison is completely bogus, in my opinion. Not only are there gatekeepers - as you point out, but the quality of the finished code is instantly measurable by the end user, with no expert knowledge. Does it boot? does it work? does it crash when I click this?
Unfortunately, an encyclopedia's failure mechanism is much more insidious and hard to detect.
The Hamilton article is used as an illustration of the problems he percives - his core argument is contained in this passage:
To put the Wikipedia method in its simplest terms:
1. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can submit an article and it will be published.
2. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can edit that article, and the modifications will stand until further modified.
Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:
3. Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.
Points 1 and are essentially correct. Point 3 is the interesting one. One the face of it he is right again - sure contentious articles will go into dispute, but hum-drum articles on little-known issues? A typo or date inaccuracy could remain there for a very long time.
Of course similar errors could exist with a conventional encyclopedia - but I would be interested in refutations of his point 3.
FWIW, I love Wikipedia. It is an amazing resource and deserves to thrive, but if it can e made more robust, while retaining its essential open, collaborative nature, so much the better.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was at school many many years ago, there was a science club.
The stuff that used to get us interested was Van de graaf generators, lasers, nice explosions and smelly chemical reactions too esoteric for regular chemistry lessons. Anything that sparked, smelled or zapped was great fun. Muxcking about with electric motors, car engines etc,
Are things really that different now? I doubt it? But I also doubt that these are the kinds of things you are really thinking of doing.
Disclaimer. I am 40. Eek
same here. Made me splutter tea.
No, it is because Wikipedia is a pretty credible source (and no, I'm not claiming it is perfect) that 'crap like this' is newsworthy.
Thus the weakness of the original poster's argument is demonstrated. Microsoft buying an application company is certainly vertical, and certainly unlikely to be particularly good for consumers.
Safari appears to be OK, as long as 'block pop-up Windows' is selected in preferences. ... So it is vulnerable by default, sadly.
Without the details, it strikes me that this nice bit of hype is entirely pointless.
Great - I 1Gig link. And the power requirements are? And the suspectability to multipath problems in built up areas are? And the size of the antenna on the phone is how big? And the patent issues are what?
Sorry to be such a grumpy old thing, but getting RF technology to work in the lab is one thing. Getting to work in messy, interference soaked urban environments without cooking the user's head is quite another.
Scaremongering at its best. I love the attention to detail in the post, the suggestion that a substance is carcinogenic, if not *strongly* carcinogenic - and what measure are you using in this case, eh?
Not necessarily - nothing popped up on My Software Update (despite repeated checking) until about 8pm last night. I'm based in the UK.
What about simply using formal English? Well I would argue that many modern laws (at least in the UK) are already written in precisely this way.
Take a look at the Computer Misuse Act. It's clear, unambiguous and uses a minimum of legal mumbo jumbo. So what are we arguing about again?
And no; I'm not a lawyer.
Absolutely. Because we all know that laws written in freewheeling, colloquial English would be entirely watertight and free from ambiguity, don't we?
You're absolutely right. Humph.
Ahem, I don't think it is necessarily the scientists who are airing their pre-conceived notions in this thread.
Perhaps they jettisoned it in favour of the grammatically correct 'give me fewer commercial results'.
The reason you couldn't find the clause is because there isn't one.
The Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill introduced into the House of Lords in May 2002 was an attempt to add denial of service to the Act.
It seems to have sunk without a trace.
The All Party Parliamentary Internet Group still seems to be pushing for it to be added though.
I take it you haven't spotted the Java-based ads on ummm... Slashdot.
Thanks for the sensible and informative reply. In fact, I was attempting to be humorous.
I use 'attempting' advisedly.
Suggestion: Send it back with a note saying "Sorry, no idea what's wrong with this".
You may feel a little pain as you write it, but worry not - it will decrease the number of requests,
What IS Awk anyway?
You insensitive clod
Oh, I don't think the concept of pure information is going to become antiquated any time soon, thank you.
If I want to know the atomic weight of Sodium , that's what I want.
If I want to know the date of birth of Hamilton, I want to know that the experts disagree about the exact year.
I'm afraid that most cases the certainty of accuracy in a Wikipedia article doesn't hold any 'hidden benefits'
Consider for a moment; they have a tremendous amount of catch-up to do, in terms of software and 3D animation know-how. Would they be able to produce something straight from cold that was a barnstorming success? I doubt it.
So instead they are starting off by attempting to reverse engineer an animated movie that was state of the art 10 years ago (probably 11 years by the time they make it).
They can tool-up, do their homework and create an apprentice-piece that people will pay to watch - it probably won't be great, but it will pay for itself, and the Disney R&D.
This should be moderated insightful. Any treatment of a more obscure disease is going to be a process of trial and error and elimination, initially.
What he is doing is akin to going to a series of tech support people and saying 'my computer is broken' - only taking their first suggestion before going on to the next tech support person.
The Linux comparison is completely bogus, in my opinion. Not only are there gatekeepers - as you point out, but the quality of the finished code is instantly measurable by the end user, with no expert knowledge. Does it boot? does it work? does it crash when I click this?
Unfortunately, an encyclopedia's failure mechanism is much more insidious and hard to detect.
Follow that path of logic, and before you know where you are you have 'Creation Science' being taught in biology lessons.
The Hamilton article is used as an illustration of the problems he percives - his core argument is contained in this passage:
To put the Wikipedia method in its simplest terms:
1. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can submit an article and it will be published.
2. Anyone, irrespective of expertise in or even familiarity with the topic, can edit that article, and the modifications will stand until further modified.
Then comes the crucial and entirely faith-based step:
3. Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy.
Points 1 and are essentially correct. Point 3 is the interesting one. One the face of it he is right again - sure contentious articles will go into dispute, but hum-drum articles on little-known issues? A typo or date inaccuracy could remain there for a very long time.
Of course similar errors could exist with a conventional encyclopedia - but I would be interested in refutations of his point 3.
FWIW, I love Wikipedia. It is an amazing resource and deserves to thrive, but if it can e made more robust, while retaining its essential open, collaborative nature, so much the better.
Have you checked out GIMP Print for HP drivers for Mac OS X? It might be the solution to your woes