Not necessarily. Most of the people who know what RSS is tend to, at the very least, have tried out Firefox. If IE uses the same RSS icon, it would be another reason for semi-technical users to switch back.
Well, you have to remember that this was for Nature, so I can understand the bias toward science-related articles. I think where Wikipedia would probably beat out Britannica would be on technology-related articles...not just for recent developments, but because the format of Wikipedia plays to a tech crowd.
I would be interested to know if any of the inaccuracies in Encyclopedia Britannica are actually things where we have discovered some new fact or phenomenon since the latest revision was printed. Do they count those?
Even if it does, that shows the strength of Wikipedia. When a new discovery is released, it can take a few years for Britannica to take care of it. On Wikipedia, new discoveries are usually on the site within 24 hours- sometimes just minutes afterward.
Well, I imagine Slashdot users would tend to be affluent, seeing as most of them live rent-free in their parents' basement, and don't have to spend money on their girlfriends.
Funnily enough, last night's episode involved some gamers who were competing in a real-life game that involved them killing innocent people. No anti-gaming crusader dead, though.
If you knew Wikipedia at all, you'd know that they're called admins, not mods. Nowhere on Wikipedia are there "moderators".
Personally, I consider myself proud to be one of the many "elitist pinhead fucktards", as you so eloquently called them. And most people who have negative views of the administrators have either been blocked for trolling (which I suspect, given the obvious troll comments you made above), or are still pissed that the vanity articles about themselves were deleted.
If you left $10,000 in unmarked bills in a shopping mall, there are people who might take it. But the people who would add more money to the pile, and the people who would arrest whomever tries to steal that money...those are the people that make Wikipedia work.
It's not necessarily the money. Wikipedia is budgeting about a million dollars for the next year (about $240,000 was raised in the last fundraising drive, with more drives to come), and most of this money will be spent on servers. In the interview, Jimbo said that 150 Wikimedia servers should be up by the end of the year.
But, how many sites have to face what Wikipedia does? Wikipedia has numerous database servers as well as Squid caches across the world, and has literally terabytes of information in databases that can never be fully deleted for GFDL reasons (although it may not be viewable to the public, all information ever created in Wikipedia can be displayed to administrators). Save for a few search engines and e-mail providers, nobody faces these unique problems.
As I understand it, Jimbo was referring to Wikipedia 1.0, a proposal to mark articles as "featured", and possibly take the better articles and make a paper, DVD or other copy of them. It does not refer to actually locking the articles themselves.
Because scripts get written WAY before they air (they have to go through animators, recording dialogue, patching it all together, making sure voices match lips, etc.) It wouldn't surprise me at all if they sent to NASA in 1991 or 1992.
Slashdot Mirror
That's BS. The only time that the article was protected was from July 24 to August 16, 2005 (see here) During that time, the page was never edited.
Possibly legal under fair use doctrine (parody). IANAL, though.
Galaxies doesn't have LeeRoy Jenkins!
Not necessarily. Most of the people who know what RSS is tend to, at the very least, have tried out Firefox. If IE uses the same RSS icon, it would be another reason for semi-technical users to switch back.
I wouldn't call it that. IE's trying to share the icon with Mozilla, so when IE7 comes out, it's easier for Mozilla users to migrate back to IE.
Well, you have to remember that this was for Nature, so I can understand the bias toward science-related articles. I think where Wikipedia would probably beat out Britannica would be on technology-related articles...not just for recent developments, but because the format of Wikipedia plays to a tech crowd.
Even if it does, that shows the strength of Wikipedia. When a new discovery is released, it can take a few years for Britannica to take care of it. On Wikipedia, new discoveries are usually on the site within 24 hours- sometimes just minutes afterward.
from the slashdot-users-not-mentioned dept.
Well, I imagine Slashdot users would tend to be affluent, seeing as most of them live rent-free in their parents' basement, and don't have to spend money on their girlfriends.
Funnily enough, last night's episode involved some gamers who were competing in a real-life game that involved them killing innocent people. No anti-gaming crusader dead, though.
Who you gonna call?
Guest Busters!
"What's with the CFO shuffle at Oracle?" We didn't mean to cause any trouble; We're just doin' the CFO Shuffle.
If you knew Wikipedia at all, you'd know that they're called admins, not mods. Nowhere on Wikipedia are there "moderators".
Personally, I consider myself proud to be one of the many "elitist pinhead fucktards", as you so eloquently called them. And most people who have negative views of the administrators have either been blocked for trolling (which I suspect, given the obvious troll comments you made above), or are still pissed that the vanity articles about themselves were deleted.
If you left $10,000 in unmarked bills in a shopping mall, there are people who might take it. But the people who would add more money to the pile, and the people who would arrest whomever tries to steal that money...those are the people that make Wikipedia work.
It's not necessarily the money. Wikipedia is budgeting about a million dollars for the next year (about $240,000 was raised in the last fundraising drive, with more drives to come), and most of this money will be spent on servers. In the interview, Jimbo said that 150 Wikimedia servers should be up by the end of the year.
But, how many sites have to face what Wikipedia does? Wikipedia has numerous database servers as well as Squid caches across the world, and has literally terabytes of information in databases that can never be fully deleted for GFDL reasons (although it may not be viewable to the public, all information ever created in Wikipedia can be displayed to administrators). Save for a few search engines and e-mail providers, nobody faces these unique problems.
As I understand it, Jimbo was referring to Wikipedia 1.0, a proposal to mark articles as "featured", and possibly take the better articles and make a paper, DVD or other copy of them. It does not refer to actually locking the articles themselves.
And now let's hear that great 1977 Barry White hit:
Developers, Developers, DEVELOPERS!
Because scripts get written WAY before they air (they have to go through animators, recording dialogue, patching it all together, making sure voices match lips, etc.) It wouldn't surprise me at all if they sent to NASA in 1991 or 1992.
Apparently, it was so slow to catch that it was posted a day late!
Or is this a dupe from yesterday?
Jason Kottke blogs for a living, taking voluntary "micropayments" which, so far, have been enough to support him.
Earth is still in beta? After 3 billion years?
Well, let's just say Google likes to keep its products in beta for a while.
Not sure about Opera, but Firefox shows this behavior as well.
No, but posting the link to an .edu mirror is one hell of a lot better than people using the direct link on his personal web server.
Hopefully won't be slashdotted... http://coyote.ycp.edu/~hwhitney/Ep3-TheLinePeople. mov
It's a trap!
I don't know about you, but I voted CowboyNeal!
Oh, wait...