You chimp, it's not a business, it doesn't HAVE a business model! It's like calling the people who make and improve the linux kernel a corporation! Wikipedia's goal isn't to profit...
Information isn't a living thing, don't try to personify it.
I don't see what you're point even is. It costs money to run wikipedia, if you want a free resource to continue running then donate if you have extra money.
You know, the people who think that donating is so awful is like leeching on a filesharing network-- in wikipedia's case, it's information and bandwidth, and the client does not even contain popups or banner ads.
If you want a fair and free resource for information, then why not donate if you feel like it? If you don't care about wikipedia and don't use it, that's fine. But if you use wikipedia often for information isn't it fair to give back a little if you're able to?
They aren't making you pay for an account there, you know...
Then you can edit out that "unqualified opionion" and make it more professional.
Oh, and with wikipedia, a wide array of subjects can be covered, more so (and more up to date!) than your normal encyclopedia. It all depends on the users using it.
This money is going to a FREE project that anyone can contribute to. It's not going to a site with pop-ups and banner ads. It's a non-profit (as far as I know) resource for everyone.
It's only fair to pass the hat around. This isn't some company's or kid's project to fill their own pockets.
This isn't just "someone"'s website, it's "everyone's" resource. That's part of the whole wiki philosophy, isn't it?
I'm too cheap to donate, and I'm only 16 anyway...
But Wikipedia is a really good resource-- I've contributed to it myself.
SomethingAwful recently raised a lot of money in a short amount of time for some army people going to Iraq. Even Sharereactor.com, a great, um, edonkey search engine thingamjig, was able to raise more than $5,000 for a faster connection.
It's really interesting how much people donate online. If I had the money and the means, I'd donate to Wikipedia myself.
I think Wikipedia may be able to reach their goal. It appears to be popular enough to be able to raise the money....
I like anime, but not all of it. You won't see me watching a lot of the mainstream stuff. I mostly just download fansubs off edonkey. It gives me something to do. Yes, there are parts of many anime I don't like, but at least it's better than Captain Planet.
I'm certainly not an anime fanboy. I know of a stupid "anime fangirl" who likes anime simply because it's anime, that includes crap like pokemon and Yu-gi-oh.
Most of what I watch other kids haven't heard about. That which they have, such as Evangelion, Ghost in the Shell, Love Hina (Love Hina is OKAY, but certainly not the best anime out there), is overrated, with the exception of Princess Mononoke, which was good and original.
You won't ever catch me watching DBZ, Gundam Wing, etc-- My interests in anime are more refined. It's similar to american cartoons, as well. You don't like every genre on TV yourself, do you?
Not every anime is the same. Oh, and I'm not a dork who thinks it's cool to use "baka" and "otaku"-- I like what I watch because of what it is, not where it came from.
Congrats!!! You discovered the concept of solipsism! Would you like a candy bar?
Yes, things cannot be proven absolutely, as we hopefully all know. This does not mean I am merely assuming-- I am looking at evidence, and of course my existence is testable and I am observable.
And again, you think induction is an injustifiable assumption. That's bullshit, because science is based on evidence, no absolute proofs, which even mathematicians are having a hard time deciding if such a thing, even mathematically, can be really "absolute".
Induction is evidence. It is not faith, it is not unjustified. It "fits in nicely" with our observations because they ARE our observations.
You're just following the camp that thinks that anything that isn't an absolute proof is somthing taken on faith.
Also, I linked to that angelfire page because you seem to think an assumption is the same thing as "only guessing".
No, an assumption can be based on evidence, which is what science is used for: studying the world, and trying to isolate cause and effect, etc...
You say it is faith that science works, however, the scientific system HAS produced enough results to, as you would say, inductively infer it works. God, however-- the existence of a deity in which not a shred of evidence exists, much like bigfoot or nessie-- cannot be attributed as a cause because no cause has been isolated and shown that this god did it!
If I hit your head with a normal hammer, you know it would hurt, because of past experience and because of all the data we have collected regarding the brain, pain, and nerves, which shows us how it works.
Is it "only faith" in which you think that the hammer will hurt? Only an unjustifiable assumption? Perhaps I should hit you on the head with a hammer a few times, and tell the judge that the fact that you think it harmed you is only to be taken on faith and cannot be counted as empirical evidence that you were harmed?
Perhaps I should make it a sledgehammer... and tell the police they only have faith that the man died, that they are merely inductively inferring that you are dead simply because you are not breathing.
Tautology? Because we "assume" things are true because it is supported by observations (observations are evidence)?
If that's the case, then there is no such thing as evidence, and EVERYTHING we believe in is based entirely on faith, because it appears that nothing can have absolute proof, which is what you seem to want to be convinced of anything.
No, there's no absolute proof the earth circles the sun. Does that mean I have "faith" that the earth circles of the sun? Certainly not, but by your apparent standards it sure seems that way.
Science is the same way: it is simply a system of data organization and experimentation. You may apparently say we only "assume" that that works, but it obviously produces working results-- computers, for instance, work. Or is thinking a computer works faith too? Haha!
I haven't made a single ad hominem. Do you even know what an ad hom is? No, it's not simply an insult.
Here is a web page that explains it better than I can:
http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html
You think faith in god and not believing in bigfoot are the same damn thing. No, I don't disbelieve in god because I have faith there is no god, I disbelieve because there is simply no convincing evidence.
I bet you're one of the chumps who think that there can and needs to be evidence that god doesn't exist to believe... no, wait, you only accept absolute proofs, right? That's what it appears you are saying...
For one thing, your induction based proof would be more accurate had it been:
This is a raven. This is black. Therefore, ravens are most likely to be black, or, all ravens I have seen are black.
I use faith to mean "belief without evidence or where evidence is irrelevent." Observations are evidence. Also, that ad hominem you accuse me of certainly isn't, I advise you look up terms before spouting them off while pretending to be intelligent.
We "assume" our observations are true because, quite simply, they are evidence.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/maths.html
Look at the part about assumptions, it basically mocks the same attitude you present.
The difference between the scientific method and "God" is that one can clearly show results, while the other can't. Can you guess which one that is?
Science doesn't "mandate" atheism, it implies atheism due to the nature of the claim and the lacking evidence of it.
It doesn't mater what the majority of people believe. It's what's intellectually honest. Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial? That was very much the common ignorant society versus the enlightened scientific types, in some sort of sense. Or maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't matter, it makes a good point.
He's mistaken in the fact that assumptions that fit our observations means it is faith.
He thinks he can teach me philosophy... that's a laugh, considering he screwed up on faith.
Science does have its base in philosophy, that's for sure. But, certainly not faith. We assume that our observations are true because we have no better thing to go on, and I think that's good and fair.
Obviously, YOU aren't a scientist, or at least a good one.
Science does not rely on faith IN THE SLIGHTEST.
The "faith" in reproducible results is simply an assumption (assumption does not mean faith, as in this case it coincides well with observation) that is based on observation. Obviously, when you follow the certain recipe the results are better than throwing everything in randomly, yes?
Also, your little number game is irrelevent, as, for one, decimal is usually implied when one uses number systems. Numbers are different, as is most of math in general. You are trying to ride on a technicality.
There is not "more than one" scientific method. Well, if you mean scientific attitude, that is. Science is misunderstood as needing to follow the whole hypothesis, experimentation, blah blah blah order, which really isn't true. What's important is not method but scientific ATTITUDE.
You say science has given things to us that were wrong... I think that's pretty interesting, considering that we now KNOW they are wrong. Science functions with error-correction, and thanks to that we now know they are wrong, and we can demonstrate why. Faith doesn't allow for that. With faith, you don't look for how you can be wrong. Science does, though.
It doesn't matter if a theory isn't perfect. That's the beauty of science, its flexibily and the fact that scientists can say they just don't know instead of feeling obligated to jump to a conclusion.
I doubt you'd find very many credible scientists that disagree with me.
Ridiculous! You think science isn't the reason for people living much happier, healthier lives? The application of technology has nothing to do with science!
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is asking you to donate an entire $20k. Don't be ridiculous.
"If not enough people care"? Let's see if wikipedia meets its $20k goal, then we'll see how many care.
"Failed business model"?
You chimp, it's not a business, it doesn't HAVE a business model! It's like calling the people who make and improve the linux kernel a corporation! Wikipedia's goal isn't to profit...
Information isn't a living thing, don't try to personify it.
I don't see what you're point even is. It costs money to run wikipedia, if you want a free resource to continue running then donate if you have extra money.
You know, the people who think that donating is so awful is like leeching on a filesharing network-- in wikipedia's case, it's information and bandwidth, and the client does not even contain popups or banner ads.
If you want a fair and free resource for information, then why not donate if you feel like it? If you don't care about wikipedia and don't use it, that's fine. But if you use wikipedia often for information isn't it fair to give back a little if you're able to?
They aren't making you pay for an account there, you know...
"Need"? No, you don't have to, it's donation only. But if you want a free resource everyone has rights to, in a sense, then why not donate?
Then you can edit out that "unqualified opionion" and make it more professional.
Oh, and with wikipedia, a wide array of subjects can be covered, more so (and more up to date!) than your normal encyclopedia. It all depends on the users using it.
Oh, please, don't be such an asshole.
This money is going to a FREE project that anyone can contribute to. It's not going to a site with pop-ups and banner ads. It's a non-profit (as far as I know) resource for everyone.
It's only fair to pass the hat around. This isn't some company's or kid's project to fill their own pockets.
This isn't just "someone"'s website, it's "everyone's" resource. That's part of the whole wiki philosophy, isn't it?
I'm too cheap to donate, and I'm only 16 anyway...
But Wikipedia is a really good resource-- I've contributed to it myself.
SomethingAwful recently raised a lot of money in a short amount of time for some army people going to Iraq. Even Sharereactor.com, a great, um, edonkey search engine thingamjig, was able to raise more than $5,000 for a faster connection.
It's really interesting how much people donate online. If I had the money and the means, I'd donate to Wikipedia myself.
I think Wikipedia may be able to reach their goal. It appears to be popular enough to be able to raise the money....
I like anime, but not all of it. You won't see me watching a lot of the mainstream stuff. I mostly just download fansubs off edonkey. It gives me something to do. Yes, there are parts of many anime I don't like, but at least it's better than Captain Planet.
I'm certainly not an anime fanboy. I know of a stupid "anime fangirl" who likes anime simply because it's anime, that includes crap like pokemon and Yu-gi-oh.
Most of what I watch other kids haven't heard about. That which they have, such as Evangelion, Ghost in the Shell, Love Hina (Love Hina is OKAY, but certainly not the best anime out there), is overrated, with the exception of Princess Mononoke, which was good and original.
You won't ever catch me watching DBZ, Gundam Wing, etc-- My interests in anime are more refined. It's similar to american cartoons, as well. You don't like every genre on TV yourself, do you?
Not every anime is the same. Oh, and I'm not a dork who thinks it's cool to use "baka" and "otaku"-- I like what I watch because of what it is, not where it came from.
Also due to the orientation of the PSX controller ports, Playstation 2 Multitap units are not compatible therefore ruling out any 4-player action.
Oh, no no no no no, I'm sure Sony will come out with a nice little overpriced device that will let this all happen.
How am I able to assume I exist in the first place, if I don't exist?
NEXT.
Congrats!!! You discovered the concept of solipsism! Would you like a candy bar?
Yes, things cannot be proven absolutely, as we hopefully all know. This does not mean I am merely assuming-- I am looking at evidence, and of course my existence is testable and I am observable.
And again, you think induction is an injustifiable assumption. That's bullshit, because science is based on evidence, no absolute proofs, which even mathematicians are having a hard time deciding if such a thing, even mathematically, can be really "absolute".
Induction is evidence. It is not faith, it is not unjustified. It "fits in nicely" with our observations because they ARE our observations.
You're just following the camp that thinks that anything that isn't an absolute proof is somthing taken on faith.
It appears that your argument is that science should keep its trap shut on certain issues in order to receive funding. That's not science, bucko.
Also, I linked to that angelfire page because you seem to think an assumption is the same thing as "only guessing".
No, an assumption can be based on evidence, which is what science is used for: studying the world, and trying to isolate cause and effect, etc...
You say it is faith that science works, however, the scientific system HAS produced enough results to, as you would say, inductively infer it works. God, however-- the existence of a deity in which not a shred of evidence exists, much like bigfoot or nessie-- cannot be attributed as a cause because no cause has been isolated and shown that this god did it!
If I hit your head with a normal hammer, you know it would hurt, because of past experience and because of all the data we have collected regarding the brain, pain, and nerves, which shows us how it works.
Is it "only faith" in which you think that the hammer will hurt? Only an unjustifiable assumption? Perhaps I should hit you on the head with a hammer a few times, and tell the judge that the fact that you think it harmed you is only to be taken on faith and cannot be counted as empirical evidence that you were harmed?
Perhaps I should make it a sledgehammer... and tell the police they only have faith that the man died, that they are merely inductively inferring that you are dead simply because you are not breathing.
Tautology? Because we "assume" things are true because it is supported by observations (observations are evidence)?
If that's the case, then there is no such thing as evidence, and EVERYTHING we believe in is based entirely on faith, because it appears that nothing can have absolute proof, which is what you seem to want to be convinced of anything.
No, there's no absolute proof the earth circles the sun. Does that mean I have "faith" that the earth circles of the sun? Certainly not, but by your apparent standards it sure seems that way.
Science is the same way: it is simply a system of data organization and experimentation. You may apparently say we only "assume" that that works, but it obviously produces working results-- computers, for instance, work. Or is thinking a computer works faith too? Haha!
I haven't made a single ad hominem. Do you even know what an ad hom is? No, it's not simply an insult.
Here is a web page that explains it better than I can:
http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html
You think faith in god and not believing in bigfoot are the same damn thing. No, I don't disbelieve in god because I have faith there is no god, I disbelieve because there is simply no convincing evidence.
I bet you're one of the chumps who think that there can and needs to be evidence that god doesn't exist to believe... no, wait, you only accept absolute proofs, right? That's what it appears you are saying...
Don't be full of bullshit.
l
For one thing, your induction based proof would be more accurate had it been:
This is a raven.
This is black.
Therefore, ravens are most likely to be black, or, all ravens I have seen are black.
I use faith to mean "belief without evidence or where evidence is irrelevent." Observations are evidence. Also, that ad hominem you accuse me of certainly isn't, I advise you look up terms before spouting them off while pretending to be intelligent.
We "assume" our observations are true because, quite simply, they are evidence.
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/maths.htm
Look at the part about assumptions, it basically mocks the same attitude you present.
The difference between the scientific method and "God" is that one can clearly show results, while the other can't. Can you guess which one that is?
Um, why do you view science as a secret society?
Those who want the performance of an Athlon XP 3000+ or 3200+ without the extra hundred or two it would cost for that stock-speed chip?
It seems many athlon XPs, mostly 2500+'s, I think, are being shipped factory multiplier-locked, anything above week 39, really.
;)
So, of course Intel chips will overclock better if the multiplier is locked...
Science doesn't "mandate" atheism, it implies atheism due to the nature of the claim and the lacking evidence of it.
It doesn't mater what the majority of people believe. It's what's intellectually honest. Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial? That was very much the common ignorant society versus the enlightened scientific types, in some sort of sense. Or maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't matter, it makes a good point.
He's mistaken in the fact that assumptions that fit our observations means it is faith.
He thinks he can teach me philosophy... that's a laugh, considering he screwed up on faith.
Science does have its base in philosophy, that's for sure. But, certainly not faith. We assume that our observations are true because we have no better thing to go on, and I think that's good and fair.
Obviously, YOU aren't a scientist, or at least a good one.
Science does not rely on faith IN THE SLIGHTEST.
The "faith" in reproducible results is simply an assumption (assumption does not mean faith, as in this case it coincides well with observation) that is based on observation. Obviously, when you follow the certain recipe the results are better than throwing everything in randomly, yes?
Also, your little number game is irrelevent, as, for one, decimal is usually implied when one uses number systems. Numbers are different, as is most of math in general. You are trying to ride on a technicality.
There is not "more than one" scientific method. Well, if you mean scientific attitude, that is. Science is misunderstood as needing to follow the whole hypothesis, experimentation, blah blah blah order, which really isn't true. What's important is not method but scientific ATTITUDE.
You say science has given things to us that were wrong... I think that's pretty interesting, considering that we now KNOW they are wrong. Science functions with error-correction, and thanks to that we now know they are wrong, and we can demonstrate why. Faith doesn't allow for that. With faith, you don't look for how you can be wrong. Science does, though.
It doesn't matter if a theory isn't perfect. That's the beauty of science, its flexibily and the fact that scientists can say they just don't know instead of feeling obligated to jump to a conclusion.
I doubt you'd find very many credible scientists that disagree with me.
Ridiculous! You think science isn't the reason for people living much happier, healthier lives? The application of technology has nothing to do with science!
No, you need evidence to fucking have a reason to believe in something. Otherwise it's no different than making it up.