An important part of Wikipedia is that it is available under the General Free Documentation License. The practical upshot of that is that anyone can host a copy of Wikipedia if they link back to the original articles, with the appropriate copyright notices.
So, most of they sites are probably legal, although some websites have been known to use Wikipedia content while not following the rules.
Having copies of Wikipedia articles can cause problems in some cases though. If you are checking a more obscure article you come across in Wikipedia, it doesn't help when many of the websites you come across in a search are copies of the article you are trying to verify. It's generally avoidable though by inserting -wikipedia (for Google) to remove the copies.
Actually someone has removed him now, but on the basis that he isn't a scout, and that Swirsky who added Charles, was an account 'Account created to troll Wikipedia with this slashdot comment [refering to the original comment]', as admitted on his/her user page.
It looks like the article was edited by a pesistant vandal, (Sistertina), from a brief look at the edit history. These edits were also reverted (restored to the original version), fairly quickly, as they removed everyone from the list. If there are other edits removing Charles Manson, that don't seem to be by the same person, please post links to the edit history. If not, this looks to be more a case of one isolated idiot, rather than sytematic bias.
In any case, Charles Manson is on the list now. I also notice no comment about keeping the list " nice for the kids" on the discussion page, was this in e-mail?
I gather there have been attempts to add adverts to wikipedia, but the higher the exposure of the advert, the more likely other wikipeadians are to notice, either through randomly trawling, looking at subjects of interest, or by watching particular articles. Every user has a watchlist, a list articles they can see the latest edits of.
Once adverts get noticed, it seems likely that they will get deleted fairly quickly, if they are clear-cut ads. Sure, the advertiser can put the advert back, but that can get revert back as well.
Also, there are pages for persistent vandals, so advertisers would have to be fairly cunning and subtle to avoid getting spotted. The more persistent ones get blocked, or banned eventually.
Edits can get missed, and do in some cases, but they are likely to be on more obscure articles, that fewer people see, which aren't really likely to be worth much to advertisers. Also, advertisers would presumedly need to guarantee a certain level of exposure, which they can't do very well when there is a community of people trying to stop them.
Folding at home has both linux and Mac (Mac OS X in particular) clients. You might want to try that if you want something more medical. It isn't research into a particular disease, but they claim it could help with Alheimer's and other diseases resulting from proteins misfolding.
I find Mame to be rather stable. You can get Windows versions as well as dos, so it might be worth trying a windows version of mame. I use that without it being too fast, but then I've only got a 1GHz Athlon, with Windows ME. The only variation in speed seems to be that modern games are choppy. (low FPS).
Anyway, you can get the latest version(.81) at www.mame.net, although I haven't found aany rom sites with the updated roms yet, so it might be worth sticking with.80.
I've not used many other emulation programs much recently, so I'm not sure what else has been going on emulation-wise.
Slashdot Mirror
An important part of Wikipedia is that it is available under the General Free Documentation License. The practical upshot of that is that anyone can host a copy of Wikipedia if they link back to the original articles, with the appropriate copyright notices.
So, most of they sites are probably legal, although some websites have been known to use Wikipedia content while not following the rules.
Having copies of Wikipedia articles can cause problems in some cases though. If you are checking a more obscure article you come across in Wikipedia, it doesn't help when many of the websites you come across in a search are copies of the article you are trying to verify. It's generally avoidable though by inserting -wikipedia (for Google) to remove the copies.
Actually someone has removed him now, but on the basis that he isn't a scout, and that Swirsky who added Charles, was an account 'Account created to troll Wikipedia with this slashdot comment [refering to the original comment]', as admitted on his/her user page.
It looks like the article was edited by a pesistant vandal, (Sistertina), from a brief look at the edit history. These edits were also reverted (restored to the original version), fairly quickly, as they removed everyone from the list. If there are other edits removing Charles Manson, that don't seem to be by the same person, please post links to the edit history. If not, this looks to be more a case of one isolated idiot, rather than sytematic bias.
In any case, Charles Manson is on the list now. I also notice no comment about keeping the list " nice for the kids" on the discussion page, was this in e-mail?
I gather there have been attempts to add adverts to wikipedia, but the higher the exposure of the advert, the more likely other wikipeadians are to notice, either through randomly trawling, looking at subjects of interest, or by watching particular articles. Every user has a watchlist, a list articles they can see the latest edits of. Once adverts get noticed, it seems likely that they will get deleted fairly quickly, if they are clear-cut ads. Sure, the advertiser can put the advert back, but that can get revert back as well. Also, there are pages for persistent vandals, so advertisers would have to be fairly cunning and subtle to avoid getting spotted. The more persistent ones get blocked, or banned eventually. Edits can get missed, and do in some cases, but they are likely to be on more obscure articles, that fewer people see, which aren't really likely to be worth much to advertisers. Also, advertisers would presumedly need to guarantee a certain level of exposure, which they can't do very well when there is a community of people trying to stop them.
Folding at home has both linux and Mac (Mac OS X in particular) clients. You might want to try that if you want something more medical. It isn't research into a particular disease, but they claim it could help with Alheimer's and other diseases resulting from proteins misfolding.
I find Mame to be rather stable. You can get Windows versions as well as dos, so it might be worth trying a windows version of mame. I use that without it being too fast, but then I've only got a 1GHz Athlon, with Windows ME. The only variation in speed seems to be that modern games are choppy. (low FPS).
.80.
Anyway, you can get the latest version(.81) at www.mame.net, although I haven't found aany rom sites with the updated roms yet, so it might be worth sticking with
I've not used many other emulation programs much recently, so I'm not sure what else has been going on emulation-wise.