Re:Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed
on
Printing Wikipedia
·
· Score: 2
You say vandalism is not a problem, but the inaccuracy (lie?) I had to correct, could have unnoticed for weeks. How often does a person knowledgeable of european 19th century history, visit an wikipedia entry on a famous physicist?
Re:True, but not a big deal
on
Printing Wikipedia
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Do you realy believe that edits like "LINUX IS TEH GHEY" are what is the problem? Those that have vandalism written all over them arenot a problem at all. The ones that are a problem, are the edits that you have not even noticed. And the inaccuracies which you have not noticed. For example, in that article on homeostasis, "stasis" is erroneously implied to be a prefix, which it is not. I found this in 15 seconds. If I spent more time, I would find dozens of minor inaccuracies like this, and then would have to spend some time correcting them, but I digress.
Vandalism which is hard to spot is the apparently correct information, throwin in together with a bunch of irrelevant but correct edits. Those you won't notice, unless you have been maintaining the article from it's inception.
Re:What's the point again?
on
Printing Wikipedia
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The part about featured articles not suffering from Wikipedia's "disadvantages" is bullshit. They suffer, just as well. The amount of imprecision, wrong formulations and sheer sloppyness in Quantum mechanics, just to cite one example, should disprove your point.
There is absolutely nothing inherent in the featured articles to make them any better at whitstanding anonymous vandalism.
Sometimes I feel wikipedia can't be fixed
on
Printing Wikipedia
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have just finished editing the nationalistic ramblings (disguised as "facts") in a wikipedia entry about a famous scientist and engineer, whose name shall stay secret. I know, however, that this nationalistic vandal will be back, do his edits and then I would have to do mine all over again. Except, at one point I will give up, because I will realize that it's pointless, and I don't have all the time in the world to maintain that entry and protect it from defacement.
As a longtime and way too busy Wikipedia contributor, I say: let it die, or then do some extensive and expensive maintainance. Basically, it will have to resamble more the printed things which Slashdot users so like to deride.
Good point. Plus, the moon dust is very fine and almost "corrosive" in its action. Now, disregarding these features, and just concentrating on how to avoid having the solar panels opaqued: maybe an electric field could keep the dust away. An electric field, even a strong one, in the absence of any gas to speak of, could be very energetically cheap to maintain.
Mechanical wipers are probably out of the question, due to the abrasive nature of the dust.
When you look at a computer as a whole, you put in electrical power, and get out heat (with only a tiny amount of real 'work' from the fans). So from a thermodynamic standpoint, it's just an overpriced, inefficient spaceheater.
I disagree with "inefficient": it is, in fact, 100% efficient, as it transforms 100% of electrical energy into heat.
Of course, all energy will become heat, sooner or later, anyway.
Yes, I feel the same sickness, but I believe humanity will survive. I am not so sure that's a good thing, in the sense that normal behavious of human species is to greedily appropriate and destroy but not in a runaway way. Things will get much worse, but humanity will not be wiped out. We'll learn to live with malaric mosquitoes, lots of flooded areas, rats and cocroaches. Quality of life will take a huge nosedive, but humanity will survive.
And those who are wealthy now will be wealthy tomorrow. They will be able to adapt the best, and pick the best locations to move to.
I am not behind the times, it is you who doesn't bother to read the context of the discussion: the parent poster was wondering about phones without cameras, which the 9300 is, and the 9500 isn't.
And the 9500 has been out for more than a year and a half, not 6 months. clicky Definitely, you are the one behind the times, and you even proved it yourself.
I think the 9500 is excellent. Still the best phone-kind-of-thing on the market, and quite classy, too (only beaten by the Nokia 8800).
Well, there are excellent phones with a miriad of features (PDA combo) that have been made exactly for the kind of market that you represent. Nokia has been extremely responsive, I think, by releasing the 9300. I have seen it, looks great, really sleek. And, no camera - on purpose!
There has been, for a long time, a barrier, a kind of mental wall, even in well-informed people, about the notion that some psychological manifestations are actually neurological, that is, somatic in nature. Many thought that anti-depressants exist, but think they are just used by people that could just as well be treated a la Dr. Phil (I have nothing against Dr. Phil, on the contrary, love him). Tom Cruise is a sad case in point.
Well, if this tests becomes widespread, the notion that anxiety and depression can be, indeed, neurological phenomena, will estabilish itself once and for all even in the average person's mind. And it's about freaking time; people with such conditions have been victims of of prejudice and missunderstanding for way, way too long.
I am sure most Slashdotters will make nothing of this, but I hate ad-hominem attacks. They show unsecurity (can't counter the other person's arguments/not sure about your own arguments, so you resort to personal attacks) and immaturity.
Why do you think your arguments, in this case, are not quite up-to-scratch? I am really curious.
ot only that, but it still doesn't solve the other problems I brought up in the original post. The ability to link to particular versions of an article does not solve the lack of source information that so many Wikipedia articles suffer from. And even if every article were beautifully documented and easily citeable, they're still summaries when I want my students to consult the original sources.
Spot on. But notice that Slashdot readership is biased towards Wikipedia. There is such a thing as Wikipedia zealotry, which is extremely dangerous, and it might sink Wikipedia totally, because it antagonizes the other extreme, which has an easy job at wrecking the whole castle of cards.
However, the problem is, in my view, that the entries may be incorrect. In fact, may be blatalnly wrong, in some cases. I have found incredible errors in the biographies of some famous scientists in the field of magnetism and electricity. That's what made me hate Wikipedia. The sheer thought that someone will read those biiographies, and learn the falsehoods. Of course, I went on to correct some of the more blatand misinformations, but I will now, for good, consider any information found in Wikipedia, as being potentially (or even probably) incorrect.
That's because Linus is talking about hardware specs. His view is that it's better to trust reality (how the device actually behaves) than a spec (how it's documented to behave). And he's right about that.
I don't know if that's what Torvalds is talking about, but it is nonsense. You can't develop embedded software or a driver if you don't know the specifications of the device your code will have to work with (or on, in case of embedded). I think this is obvious.
Of course, after designing there is testing on live hardware, but without the specs, you couldn't even start any design and development.
I was wondering the same thing, but this is Slashdot, you know. StarOffice exists for 3 different operating systems, and is probably more widespread on Windows than Linux (or Solaris, for that matter), and is Sun's product. And in spite of this, the editor puts it under "Linux". I can't help but think that this is a cheap plug for Linux.
Sure, be angry at the vandal, but there are always going to be vandals. This just proves that Wikipedia is never going to be authoritative. That's the difference between idealism and realism. If we were all ideal persons, all of us, then Wikipedia would be the authoritative source we all wish it was, nobody would lie or steal, we would have world peace etc.
Exactly - the point is not that PCs will not be produced, sold or bought - they will - the point is that, ideally, you don't want to develop an application that runs on a certain OS, you want to have it run as a web service. And as such, you don't care what kind of computer and OS is the most prevalent in the market, as long as it can run a browser. This creates a level playing field, so that diverse plaforms can be equally viable: today's cheap PCs and Apple's Macs, or perhaPS A Genesi-based computer, or a RiscOS computer, or, why not, a web-enabled game console. Or a Sunray network station.
By the way, it is surprising that only you get it.
Slashdot Mirror
I did edit the page, because bullshit bothers me.
You say vandalism is not a problem, but the inaccuracy (lie?) I had to correct, could have unnoticed for weeks. How often does a person knowledgeable of european 19th century history, visit an wikipedia entry on a famous physicist?
Do you realy believe that edits like "LINUX IS TEH GHEY" are what is the problem? Those that have vandalism written all over them arenot a problem at all. The ones that are a problem, are the edits that you have not even noticed. And the inaccuracies which you have not noticed. For example, in that article on homeostasis, "stasis" is erroneously implied to be a prefix, which it is not. I found this in 15 seconds. If I spent more time, I would find dozens of minor inaccuracies like this, and then would have to spend some time correcting them, but I digress.
Vandalism which is hard to spot is the apparently correct information, throwin in together with a bunch of irrelevant but correct edits. Those you won't notice, unless you have been maintaining the article from it's inception.
The part about featured articles not suffering from Wikipedia's "disadvantages" is bullshit. They suffer, just as well. The amount of imprecision, wrong formulations and sheer sloppyness in Quantum mechanics, just to cite one example, should disprove your point.
There is absolutely nothing inherent in the featured articles to make them any better at whitstanding anonymous vandalism.
I have just finished editing the nationalistic ramblings (disguised as "facts") in a wikipedia entry about a famous scientist and engineer, whose name shall stay secret. I know, however, that this nationalistic vandal will be back, do his edits and then I would have to do mine all over again. Except, at one point I will give up, because I will realize that it's pointless, and I don't have all the time in the world to maintain that entry and protect it from defacement.
As a longtime and way too busy Wikipedia contributor, I say: let it die, or then do some extensive and expensive maintainance. Basically, it will have to resamble more the printed things which Slashdot users so like to deride.
Good point. Plus, the moon dust is very fine and almost "corrosive" in its action.
Now, disregarding these features, and just concentrating on how to avoid having the solar panels opaqued: maybe an electric field could keep the dust away. An electric field, even a strong one, in the absence of any gas to speak of, could be very energetically cheap to maintain.
Mechanical wipers are probably out of the question, due to the abrasive nature of the dust.
When you look at a computer as a whole, you put in electrical power, and get out heat (with only a tiny amount of real 'work' from the fans). So from a thermodynamic standpoint, it's just an overpriced, inefficient spaceheater.
I disagree with "inefficient": it is, in fact, 100% efficient, as it transforms 100% of electrical energy into heat.
Of course, all energy will become heat, sooner or later, anyway.
Parent post should be modded "funny", as it refers to the fact that the story has been already posted on Slahsdot a few days ago, i.e. it's a dupe.
so on a bad hair day you don't need to talk on the phone, either!
Yes, I feel the same sickness, but I believe humanity will survive. I am not so sure that's a good thing, in the sense that normal behavious of human species is to greedily appropriate and destroy but not in a runaway way. Things will get much worse, but humanity will not be wiped out. We'll learn to live with malaric mosquitoes, lots of flooded areas, rats and cocroaches. Quality of life will take a huge nosedive, but humanity will survive.
And those who are wealthy now will be wealthy tomorrow. They will be able to adapt the best, and pick the best locations to move to.
Unfortunately for Canada perhaps, but very much hopefully for all other nation.
I am not behind the times, it is you who doesn't bother to read the context of the discussion: the parent poster was wondering about phones without cameras, which the 9300 is, and the 9500 isn't.
And the 9500 has been out for more than a year and a half, not 6 months. clicky
Definitely, you are the one behind the times, and you even proved it yourself.
I think the 9500 is excellent. Still the best phone-kind-of-thing on the market, and quite classy, too (only beaten by the Nokia 8800).
OT: Is this where I say "I for one welcome our new finger-pricking overlords"? :)
Yeah, it pretty much is, except that the "finger-pricking overlords" have about as much overlord-powers as the underpant gnomes.
Well, there are excellent phones with a miriad of features (PDA combo) that have been made exactly for the kind of market that you represent. Nokia has been extremely responsive, I think, by releasing the 9300. I have seen it, looks great, really sleek. And, no camera - on purpose!
There has been, for a long time, a barrier, a kind of mental wall, even in well-informed people, about the notion that some psychological manifestations are actually neurological, that is, somatic in nature. Many thought that anti-depressants exist, but think they are just used by people that could just as well be treated a la Dr. Phil (I have nothing against Dr. Phil, on the contrary, love him). Tom Cruise is a sad case in point.
Well, if this tests becomes widespread, the notion that anxiety and depression can be, indeed, neurological phenomena, will estabilish itself once and for all even in the average person's mind. And it's about freaking time; people with such conditions have been victims of of prejudice and missunderstanding for way, way too long.
Ditto! (Come on, iterate.)
Wow, you seem to have some issues.
I am sure most Slashdotters will make nothing of this, but I hate ad-hominem attacks. They show unsecurity (can't counter the other person's arguments/not sure about your own arguments, so you resort to personal attacks) and immaturity.
Why do you think your arguments, in this case, are not quite up-to-scratch? I am really curious.
ot only that, but it still doesn't solve the other problems I brought up in the original post. The ability to link to particular versions of an article does not solve the lack of source information that so many Wikipedia articles suffer from. And even if every article were beautifully documented and easily citeable, they're still summaries when I want my students to consult the original sources.
Spot on. But notice that Slashdot readership is biased towards Wikipedia. There is such a thing as Wikipedia zealotry, which is extremely dangerous, and it might sink Wikipedia totally, because it antagonizes the other extreme, which has an easy job at wrecking the whole castle of cards.
However, the problem is, in my view, that the entries may be incorrect. In fact, may be blatalnly wrong, in some cases. I have found incredible errors in the biographies of some famous scientists in the field of magnetism and electricity. That's what made me hate Wikipedia. The sheer thought that someone will read those biiographies, and learn the falsehoods. Of course, I went on to correct some of the more blatand misinformations, but I will now, for good, consider any information found in Wikipedia, as being potentially (or even probably) incorrect.
Wow, didn't think I'd ever read such a great post on slashdot. I am pleasantly surprised.
I think your comment is pretty much spot-on, except for the sentence about stock performance, which is, sorry, just stupid. Check out for yourself.
That's because Linus is talking about hardware specs. His view is that it's better to trust reality (how the device actually behaves) than a spec (how it's documented to behave). And he's right about that.
I don't know if that's what Torvalds is talking about, but it is nonsense. You can't develop embedded software or a driver if you don't know the specifications of the device your code will have to work with (or on, in case of embedded). I think this is obvious.
Of course, after designing there is testing on live hardware, but without the specs, you couldn't even start any design and development.
I was wondering the same thing, but this is Slashdot, you know.
StarOffice exists for 3 different operating systems, and is probably more widespread on Windows than Linux (or Solaris, for that matter), and is Sun's product. And in spite of this, the editor puts it under "Linux". I can't help but think that this is a cheap plug for Linux.
Sure, be angry at the vandal, but there are always going to be vandals. This just proves that Wikipedia is never going to be authoritative. That's the difference between idealism and realism. If we were all ideal persons, all of us, then Wikipedia would be the authoritative source we all wish it was, nobody would lie or steal, we would have world peace etc.
Exactly - the point is not that PCs will not be produced, sold or bought - they will - the point is that, ideally, you don't want to develop an application that runs on a certain OS, you want to have it run as a web service. And as such, you don't care what kind of computer and OS is the most prevalent in the market, as long as it can run a browser. This creates a level playing field, so that diverse plaforms can be equally viable: today's cheap PCs and Apple's Macs, or perhaPS A Genesi-based computer, or a RiscOS computer, or, why not, a web-enabled game console. Or a Sunray network station.
By the way, it is surprising that only you get it.