While it's near-impossible for an encyclopedia to be completely objective, i really do believe that the people editing Encarta are still far more objective than many of those "editing" Wikipedia -- ie less likely to use it to express their own political views, etc. For more information on Wikipedia bias, see here, here, or here. The list goes on, but i'm not going to list any more links -- that's what Google (or MSN search, for that matter) is for.
Microsoft still hopes that people will buy the Encarta software for additional tools not included in the search engine, such as a guide that helps children finish their homework.
The Encarta features will make a huge difference in setting MSN Search apart from rivals, said Charlene Li, an analyst tracking the search industry for Forrester.
"Here is this objective, fact-based information that you need," she said. "It's really hard to find that objective point of view" online.
For one, the use of the online Encarta isn't completely free. If you make an Encarta search, you'll notice a clock ticking in the left side of the screen: you only have two hours of "free" Encarta (remember, kids, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, especially coming from Microsoft). It seems that it won't stay free for long.
So, here's the dilemma: should one use non-free but objective Encarta or free but biased Wikipedia?
He could be referring to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who, in his works, refers to (and gives a short account of the life of) a Jesus "called the Christ". Whether this really is a proof of Christ's existence is, of course, arguable.
Why i love his anti-MS rhetorics
on
Why I Love The GPL
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Exhibit A: Microsoft, for example, took the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack from the public and swallowed it up in its proprietary product line. Then sold back to the public what it had taken from them. Legally, of course.
Exhibit B: Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on.
Breakfast at Tiffany's. Both the book and the movie were great. Trainspotting. A Clockwork Orange. 2001: A Space Odyssey -- the movie was (IMO) better than the book. Blade Runner. And so on.
from the marvin-i-love-you-marvin-i-love-you dept. Really, this must be the sickest dept line troll i've ever read.
Aside from that, i must say that the review was horrible. Too long, too many different font sizes used, too many "jokes" that weren't funny. Oh, and if you're referring to something "reported on before" (eg the problem with Zaphod's heads), then could you please give at least some hints as to what the "problem" might be?
I, too, read the article. It took me about thirty seconds* or however long it took for the three first posters to post their comments (typing "fp!" doesn't take much time, does it?). It's probably the first time a Slashdot blurb is actually more informative than the article linked to:7
Remember, though, that according to the legend (or at least some variations of it), don Juan did not to repent his sins, even though had he done it, he wouldn't have gone to Hell (which he did). Thus, by being unethical to the end, by choosing to suffer forever for his principles -- for at that very moment he said 'No', it became a matter of principles -- he paradoxically turned it from a question of ethics (from an ethical standpoint, he should have chosen to repent, for that's what god tells you to do) into a question of aesthetics (the fact that don Juan chose to suffer makes it a tragedy and himself a tragical hero).
Of course writing a book that is still well read a thousand years later might be a less painful way to be famous:-)
Soren Kierkegaard once wrote (paraphrasing) that the only books truly worth reading are the ones written by those that have truly suffered in their lives. I tend to agree with him.
If you're referring to Jesus Christ, then i think what really mattered (according to the book) was not the fact that he was nailed to a cross, that he died, but what he died for. And even he had doubts about it. And so would i. I don't know if i would be willing to die for something.
Point one: 'artist' and 'art' are just words. They aren't something sacred, something that should never be changed. They don't have a single, stable meaning: the meaning has changed and will change in time. The kids on DeviantArt.com might consider themselves artists, but that doesn't mean anyone will know or remember them a hundred years from now. Just like all those have been forgotten that lived before us. Not every poet was a Byron or a Petrarca. Not every composer was a Mozart. And so on.
Point two: most of the art produced in the past was a) not all that original, b) not well motivated (save for keeping the artist fed), and c) forgotten as it got real boring after a while. Anything can, if used a lot, turn into something similar to your description of "an average movie".
There's nothing wrong with the situation we're in today. In the sense that it's no different from the past, it hasn't really gotten any worse. The golden ages of the past weren't really any more golden than the present.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy, simply not watch them. It's not as if most of this '95% left' is worth watching anyway.
Newsflash: it's still illegal.
While it's near-impossible for an encyclopedia to be completely objective, i really do believe that the people editing Encarta are still far more objective than many of those "editing" Wikipedia -- ie less likely to use it to express their own political views, etc. For more information on Wikipedia bias, see here, here, or here. The list goes on, but i'm not going to list any more links -- that's what Google (or MSN search, for that matter) is for.
Microsoft still hopes that people will buy the Encarta software for additional tools not included in the search engine, such as a guide that helps children finish their homework. The Encarta features will make a huge difference in setting MSN Search apart from rivals, said Charlene Li, an analyst tracking the search industry for Forrester. "Here is this objective, fact-based information that you need," she said. "It's really hard to find that objective point of view" online.
For one, the use of the online Encarta isn't completely free. If you make an Encarta search, you'll notice a clock ticking in the left side of the screen: you only have two hours of "free" Encarta (remember, kids, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, especially coming from Microsoft). It seems that it won't stay free for long.
So, here's the dilemma: should one use non-free but objective Encarta or free but biased Wikipedia?
If this is their understanding of an open format, then what would a closed format be in Microsoft's book? A write-only one?
At least five. Sadly, i ended up being completely unoriginal, as the first-posting AC posted exactly the same thing. Damn :(
Gentoo, obviously :H
He could be referring to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who, in his works, refers to (and gives a short account of the life of) a Jesus "called the Christ". Whether this really is a proof of Christ's existence is, of course, arguable.
Exhibit B: Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on.
Besides, i still maintain that my interpretation of it was way funnier and closer to the truth :p
Breakfast at Tiffany's. Both the book and the movie were great. Trainspotting. A Clockwork Orange. 2001: A Space Odyssey -- the movie was (IMO) better than the book. Blade Runner. And so on.
Aside from that, i must say that the review was horrible. Too long, too many different font sizes used, too many "jokes" that weren't funny. Oh, and if you're referring to something "reported on before" (eg the problem with Zaphod's heads), then could you please give at least some hints as to what the "problem" might be?
Bah. Over and out.
* Not counting the slide show.
You don't want to know. If i told you, they'd have to kill you :p
What kind of problems? Did you sell military secrets to the Chinese?
Making Linux superior...exactly how?
A minor correction: the Kollontai you're referring to was actually a woman, so it's not entirely correct to call her 'he'.
Remember, though, that according to the legend (or at least some variations of it), don Juan did not to repent his sins, even though had he done it, he wouldn't have gone to Hell (which he did). Thus, by being unethical to the end, by choosing to suffer forever for his principles -- for at that very moment he said 'No', it became a matter of principles -- he paradoxically turned it from a question of ethics (from an ethical standpoint, he should have chosen to repent, for that's what god tells you to do) into a question of aesthetics (the fact that don Juan chose to suffer makes it a tragedy and himself a tragical hero).
Soren Kierkegaard once wrote (paraphrasing) that the only books truly worth reading are the ones written by those that have truly suffered in their lives. I tend to agree with him.
If you're referring to Jesus Christ, then i think what really mattered (according to the book) was not the fact that he was nailed to a cross, that he died, but what he died for. And even he had doubts about it. And so would i. I don't know if i would be willing to die for something.
But it'd be nice if someone remembered me a thousand years from now...
Sorry :)
No. I'm just saying that people haven't changed (much).
Point two: most of the art produced in the past was a) not all that original, b) not well motivated (save for keeping the artist fed), and c) forgotten as it got real boring after a while. Anything can, if used a lot, turn into something similar to your description of "an average movie".
There's nothing wrong with the situation we're in today. In the sense that it's no different from the past, it hasn't really gotten any worse. The golden ages of the past weren't really any more golden than the present.
Yeah, as if we haven't heard this one a hundred times before. But in time, these predictions have always proved wrong.