So your argument goes; because "normal" people get stomped on, famous people should get stomped on too. That'll teach them a lesson in what it's like to be normal. Let's not aspire to make things better for anyone, just equally crap.
I'd prefer this approach; famous people make this a big deal, so maybe things will get done that'll help prevent it happening to anyone in future. Including "normal" people. We are not going to put a stop to this ever happening, but that doesn't means we shouldn't try. If it takes a famous people kicking up a fuss to achieve this, then so be it.
No, children are not idiots. They are children. That means they lack experience in all things in life. They can be easily mislead (either by design or accident) to do things that an adult wouldn't without appreciating the consequences. Because they know no better.
Unless you want to spend your time familiarising yourself with every app your children use, down to the detail, then you need to trust (your word) the app to play fair and not exploit (either by design or accident) your children's naivety.
That is what this about. Trust in Google and the app makers to get this right was misplaced, it turns out.
"I went to battle at the telescope to try and get this detection," Faherty says. "I wanted to put war paint under my eyes and wear a bandanna, because I knew this was not going to be an easy thing to do."
Who said astronomy was dull? There has to be a TV series to had here. Action Astronomer wields her mighty War Telescope!
Unless Microsoft have really lost the plot, I'm fairly certain they know the difference between 'Threshold' and 'Windows 9', and which is heading for release.
Fact is that hoaxes have always existed and have always found ways of propagating. Wikipedia, like everything on the internet, has just made it easier and faster. It is not a problem of Wikipedia, it's a problem with people in general.
Even people who work for Wikipedia tell you not to trust it [youtube.com], but to check the underlying citations.
You say this as if it comes as a shock. That's kind of the point of an encyclopaedia and completely the point of citations. If you are going to trust an entry in Wikipedia alone for anything important, you are being very foolish.
Unfortunately, while Wikipedia has to justify itself on one hand to those who demand that everything is verified before it is shown, on the other it has those who complain bitterly that new material they have added without any verification is being removed. Wikipedia cannot do both.
You may laugh, but there's a lot of factors that need careful analysis. Weight, dimensions, material, grip, balance, available space, ceiling height, bounce, damage.. The list goes on. You could fill at least three hour lectures on it.
All of them ride around all day with no spare tire? Seems to me the biggest oversight here was NOT packing an extra set.
And a mechanic to change the wheel is just a phone call away because NAS had the foresight to take out full MAA (Mars Automobile Association) membership. They'll even tow it back home!
"Ignore user" only works if everyone does it. Unfortunately there's always someone who wants to engage with the troll, wanting to put them straight, or show them up for the idiots they are. They don't realise that a troll doesn't care what is said to them. As long as they're given attention they are getting what they came for, and it ensures they keep coming back for more. Usually under multiple accounts.
It has nothing to do with skill. "Being licensed" has some implication (however imperfect it may be) of being insured and being a known citizen, with a history of following the rules of the road and laws in general.
Not being licensed means you could be an uninsured, unidentifiable, homicidal maniac fresh out of prison. Personally I'd prefer some kind of means of avoiding getting in a car alone with these people.
The idea is to stop users who may claim special authority over the content of some articles, on the basis that they represent an organisation mentioned within them. Naturally, it's the internet, so it's difficult to verify this, and those doing it would have a clear conflict of interest when editing an article related to them. So a good way of nipping this behavior in the bud this is to disallow "corporate" names.
Of course this doesn't stop organisations editing their articles under another name. But at least that's done on the same level as any other editor and the same rules apply.
That's the problem with a lot of the criticism of Wikipedia. Too many people think it's a place to publish news or original content. They don't understand what an encyclopaedia is.
I wish that journalists would turn their brain on and not off at every number they cite
To be fair, what you just did there relies on knowing a fair bit of statistic methodology. Not something an average journalist does.
But, yeah, any journalist worth anything should be able to spot bullshit. And an IQ of 197 is obvious bullshit. You don't need to do the sums to see that.
Exactly this. If, when driving an "almost-automated" car, I need to be in a state of constant readiness to take control, then what is the actual advantage to having the car almost-automated? The physical effort involved with driving is pretty light, it's the mental effort that's tiring. So I'm not saving myself any effort. If anything, it could be more effort, because not only am I having to monitor events around the car, I'm also having to react to what my own car does by itself.
The only reasons for using "almost automated" would be;
- You suck at driving and the computer does a better job. - You're physically disabled in a way that makes driving arduous/impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
The article and summary is wrong, and practically every comment in this thread is misinformed.
The system is used by NHS England. It contains patient data for NHS England. Not UK. Not Britain. England.
So the population of the UK has nothing to do with it.
So your argument goes; because "normal" people get stomped on, famous people should get stomped on too. That'll teach them a lesson in what it's like to be normal. Let's not aspire to make things better for anyone, just equally crap.
I'd prefer this approach; famous people make this a big deal, so maybe things will get done that'll help prevent it happening to anyone in future. Including "normal" people. We are not going to put a stop to this ever happening, but that doesn't means we shouldn't try. If it takes a famous people kicking up a fuss to achieve this, then so be it.
No, children are not idiots. They are children. That means they lack experience in all things in life. They can be easily mislead (either by design or accident) to do things that an adult wouldn't without appreciating the consequences. Because they know no better.
Unless you want to spend your time familiarising yourself with every app your children use, down to the detail, then you need to trust (your word) the app to play fair and not exploit (either by design or accident) your children's naivety.
That is what this about. Trust in Google and the app makers to get this right was misplaced, it turns out.
Someone would die from it because it has escalated to a game of one-upmanship where people add extra bits.
Like using nitrogen. Or gasoline. Or massive ice cubes. Or while at driving a speeding car. Or in a swimming pool shackled to a sack of concrete.
You get the idea. People think that somehow it's not dangerous or idiotic because it's for charity.
It's an encyclopedia.
If you're going to compare it with Facebook and Pinterest, then all you are doing is demonstrating how how ignorant you are about what it is.
If you'd read on, it gets worse.
A personal submarine is like a sports car, apparently.
From the article;
"I went to battle at the telescope to try and get this detection," Faherty says. "I wanted to put war paint under my eyes and wear a bandanna, because I knew this was not going to be an easy thing to do."
Who said astronomy was dull? There has to be a TV series to had here. Action Astronomer wields her mighty War Telescope!
Nobody seems to know for sure
For "Nobody" read "No Journalist".
Unless Microsoft have really lost the plot, I'm fairly certain they know the difference between 'Threshold' and 'Windows 9', and which is heading for release.
Maybe he should stop taking his work to his bedroom?
Why are they running a server in their bedroom where they sleep?
Sounds like something a 7 year old living with his momma might do.
The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote.
Cite?
Fact is that hoaxes have always existed and have always found ways of propagating. Wikipedia, like everything on the internet, has just made it easier and faster. It is not a problem of Wikipedia, it's a problem with people in general.
Even people who work for Wikipedia tell you not to trust it [youtube.com], but to check the underlying citations.
You say this as if it comes as a shock. That's kind of the point of an encyclopaedia and completely the point of citations. If you are going to trust an entry in Wikipedia alone for anything important, you are being very foolish.
Unfortunately, while Wikipedia has to justify itself on one hand to those who demand that everything is verified before it is shown, on the other it has those who complain bitterly that new material they have added without any verification is being removed. Wikipedia cannot do both.
Why is your computer on and browsing, with the speakers on, in the middle of the night when you're not using it?
If you're going to do this, you deserve all you get. Along with what it does to your bandwidth and electricity bill.
And those who don't, comment on those who do.
You may laugh, but there's a lot of factors that need careful analysis. Weight, dimensions, material, grip, balance, available space, ceiling height, bounce, damage.. The list goes on. You could fill at least three hour lectures on it.
That was my first thought. Wait 5-10 years and everyone else will be saying to Linux; "You can have the desktop. We're not interested in it any more."
All of them ride around all day with no spare tire? Seems to me the biggest oversight here was NOT packing an extra set.
And a mechanic to change the wheel is just a phone call away because NAS had the foresight to take out full MAA (Mars Automobile Association) membership. They'll even tow it back home!
"Ignore user" only works if everyone does it. Unfortunately there's always someone who wants to engage with the troll, wanting to put them straight, or show them up for the idiots they are. They don't realise that a troll doesn't care what is said to them. As long as they're given attention they are getting what they came for, and it ensures they keep coming back for more. Usually under multiple accounts.
It has nothing to do with skill. "Being licensed" has some implication (however imperfect it may be) of being insured and being a known citizen, with a history of following the rules of the road and laws in general.
Not being licensed means you could be an uninsured, unidentifiable, homicidal maniac fresh out of prison. Personally I'd prefer some kind of means of avoiding getting in a car alone with these people.
The idea is to stop users who may claim special authority over the content of some articles, on the basis that they represent an organisation mentioned within them. Naturally, it's the internet, so it's difficult to verify this, and those doing it would have a clear conflict of interest when editing an article related to them. So a good way of nipping this behavior in the bud this is to disallow "corporate" names.
Of course this doesn't stop organisations editing their articles under another name. But at least that's done on the same level as any other editor and the same rules apply.
Wiki needs to be purchased.
By who? Who is going to pay for it that can be trusted to not push their own agenda?
Where is the money going to come from? Adverts? Do you think advertisers won't have an agenda, and interest in what appears on Wikipedia?
Why would unpaid volunteers submit articles to a commercial organisation that profits off their work?
That's the problem with a lot of the criticism of Wikipedia. Too many people think it's a place to publish news or original content. They don't understand what an encyclopaedia is.
I wish that journalists would turn their brain on and not off at every number they cite
To be fair, what you just did there relies on knowing a fair bit of statistic methodology. Not something an average journalist does.
But, yeah, any journalist worth anything should be able to spot bullshit. And an IQ of 197 is obvious bullshit. You don't need to do the sums to see that.
Exactly this. If, when driving an "almost-automated" car, I need to be in a state of constant readiness to take control, then what is the actual advantage to having the car almost-automated? The physical effort involved with driving is pretty light, it's the mental effort that's tiring. So I'm not saving myself any effort. If anything, it could be more effort, because not only am I having to monitor events around the car, I'm also having to react to what my own car does by itself.
The only reasons for using "almost automated" would be;
- You suck at driving and the computer does a better job.
- You're physically disabled in a way that makes driving arduous/impossible.
No. It means the 60% of the list are suspected of having terrorist ties.