For those interested in the topic, linear high-density polyethylene like Medpor can be cut to size and allows tissue growth into the material once implanted. It is mostly for craniofacial reconstruction and generally not used in weight-bearing areas, though. There's also hydroxyapatite (nicknamed HA), derived from coral. Pretty cool stuff.
"Killed in the crash last week was Bernard King, 52, of Lower Township, Cape May County... King, a dealer at the Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort, was traveling south on the parkway when he crashed into the Great Egg Harbor toll plaza in Somers Point around 8:30 a.m. on May 10... King's mother, Edna King, said her son had a seizure about three hours before the accident... King's car was traveling an estimated 65 mph when it hit the toll booth."
Parkway officials investigate leaked video of fiery crash
Wonder what Ahrens' views are on the editorial oversight involving "agitprop" by his former colleagues Ben Domenech or Colman McCarthy. Or fabricated facts by Laura Parker, or Janet Cooke, or... well, I won't list all of the Washington Post professional vandals and ne'er-do-wells. Every day, journalists make retractions and corections like this gem.
Bottom line is that traditional media like Britannica and the Post have the same quality problems as Wikipedia, but in slow motion.
"a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter."
Nice Sesame Street reference! Haven't seen one of those here since someone compared Jack Thompson to Oscar the Grouch...
Bad entertainment jounralism is nothing new. Frank Zappa once said (I'm paraphrasing) that rock journalism is writers who can't write, writing about musicians who can't play, for readers who can't read. I'm sure there's a clever version of this for video game journalism...
This is a great summary of how I see this project as well. As long as there are more people improving Wikipedia than disrupting it or diluting it, Wikipedia will, given enough time, get more and more accurate, in-depth, and reliable. The only question is the rate at which that will happen. Its current iteration is far from perfect, but have you ever seen the first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Talk about biased and full of gaps.
Thus sayeth a Wikipedia True Believer.
1. Report on latest science by press conference without bothering to read up (i.e. cold fusion or Clonaid).
2. Report on debunking of latest discovery later.
Two stories without any effort! The problem is that publicity-hungry hackademics have learned how to manipulate the media for personal and political gain. And the proliferation of half-assed science journals doesn't help either.
In March 2004, Amazon purged 34 negative reviews of a controversial book overnight, which drove the book's overall rating up from two to three stars and eliminated a number of reviews by well-known commentators. One of their Top 500 Reviewers had to try three or four times before they would not subsequently delete his negative reviews of this eugenics-based screed on sight.
This is an abiding flaw of a non-transparent system in which an anonymous editor employed by the company chooses from anonymous reviews. They have tried to remedy this a bit with Real Name, but the fundamental problem remains: one or two dedicated shills or critics can easily manipulate the system.
As another example, some of you may remember the fake Amazon reviews of Bil Keane's Family Circus books during the heyday of spinnwebe's Dysfunctional Family Circus.
My point is that clinical studies are often heralded uncritically in the press (such and such causes/prevents/cures something), and that these clinical studies are often later shown to be inaccurate. I feel that the press does a great disservice to the public and to science with every "a new study" report that comes out as soon as something is published. It erodes the lay public's faith in the scientific method, because they have been led to believe that these sorts of studies are pronouncements rather than part of a dialogue. After a while, they don't know what to believe.
Sadly, this has become a cottage industry for less scrupulous publicity-hungry hacks in academia and elsewhere. Think Clonaid or cold fusion. Come up with some hasty conclusion and make a grand announcement before the data is available or has been tested by others.
Even worse are the lazy journalists who report it. After a New York Times piece last week claimed bisexual males were "lying" based on results from a highly questionable study, I reminded their editors of this excellent piece Blinded by Science in Columbia Journalism Review.
This kind of sloppy reporting is perfect for lazy journalists-- it's a three-for-one deal. They get to break the news, and then later they have a second story when real experts point out the flaws, and a third when the people finally get discredited. More evidence of the shameful state of journalism in this country.
For those giving Stoller the benefit of the doubt, this news article has some highlights from the Illinois Attorney General:
"...at least two of the charities listed on Stoller's Web site contacted the New York attorney general's office. The callers told officials that Stoller had not been authorized to solicit donations for those charities and had not sent any money to them."
The Illinois AG also found that Stoller ran "a phony animal welfare charity site called American Conservation Society, which automatically linked visitors to the Give A Gift Online site."
Also lists Stoller's old River Forest home address...
This guy came after our production company Deep Stealth Productions a couple of years ago. It was a thick sheaf of papers, which I dismissed after reading about another small company who had received his form threat. Might have to blow the dust off the thing.
Actually, he wrote back today to say he was still working on it. Said they'd had several meetings on this recently. I had his name correct in the letter. It had been so long since I'd originally written him, I'd forgotten his name when mentioning him here.
Slashdot Mirror
For those interested in the topic, linear high-density polyethylene like Medpor can be cut to size and allows tissue growth into the material once implanted. It is mostly for craniofacial reconstruction and generally not used in weight-bearing areas, though. There's also hydroxyapatite (nicknamed HA), derived from coral. Pretty cool stuff.
"Killed in the crash last week was Bernard King, 52, of Lower Township, Cape May County... King, a dealer at the Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort, was traveling south on the parkway when he crashed into the Great Egg Harbor toll plaza in Somers Point around 8:30 a.m. on May 10... King's mother, Edna King, said her son had a seizure about three hours before the accident... King's car was traveling an estimated 65 mph when it hit the toll booth." Parkway officials investigate leaked video of fiery crash
FYI, the Susanne Shell website Profane Justice. It's got that crazy Time Cube type font usage, indicating a high kook factor.
Hmm. Larry Sanger chiding Jimbo's judgment concerning employees... Must... avoid... typing... smartass... comment...
And if this were Wikipedia, I'd change the above to say "corrections"... d'oh.
Bottom line is that traditional media like Britannica and the Post have the same quality problems as Wikipedia, but in slow motion.
Wikipedia on Britannica
vs.
Britannica on Wikipedia
Stories about corporate backstabbing would be much cuter with yesterday's pink skin. And ponies.
Sounds like a way to describe his luck in life so far...
"a loaf of bread, a container of milk, and a stick of butter." Nice Sesame Street reference! Haven't seen one of those here since someone compared Jack Thompson to Oscar the Grouch...
Bad entertainment jounralism is nothing new. Frank Zappa once said (I'm paraphrasing) that rock journalism is writers who can't write, writing about musicians who can't play, for readers who can't read. I'm sure there's a clever version of this for video game journalism...
Actually, IBM should be highly responsive on this issue-- they don't have the best track record on eugenics and technology.
This is a great summary of how I see this project as well. As long as there are more people improving Wikipedia than disrupting it or diluting it, Wikipedia will, given enough time, get more and more accurate, in-depth, and reliable. The only question is the rate at which that will happen. Its current iteration is far from perfect, but have you ever seen the first edition of Encyclopedia Britannica? Talk about biased and full of gaps. Thus sayeth a Wikipedia True Believer.
I think there's a typo, too: "Microsoft to Ship New Malware, Protection Futility."
Don't forget Wickerpedia and Wiccapedia! List of Wikipedia parodies
2. Report on debunking of latest discovery later.
Two stories without any effort! The problem is that publicity-hungry hackademics have learned how to manipulate the media for personal and political gain. And the proliferation of half-assed science journals doesn't help either.
This is an abiding flaw of a non-transparent system in which an anonymous editor employed by the company chooses from anonymous reviews. They have tried to remedy this a bit with Real Name, but the fundamental problem remains: one or two dedicated shills or critics can easily manipulate the system.
As another example, some of you may remember the fake Amazon reviews of Bil Keane's Family Circus books during the heyday of spinnwebe's Dysfunctional Family Circus.
I have my phaser set on kill for the first person who makes a "beam me up" comment.
My point is that clinical studies are often heralded uncritically in the press (such and such causes/prevents/cures something), and that these clinical studies are often later shown to be inaccurate. I feel that the press does a great disservice to the public and to science with every "a new study" report that comes out as soon as something is published. It erodes the lay public's faith in the scientific method, because they have been led to believe that these sorts of studies are pronouncements rather than part of a dialogue. After a while, they don't know what to believe.
Even worse are the lazy journalists who report it. After a New York Times piece last week claimed bisexual males were "lying" based on results from a highly questionable study, I reminded their editors of this excellent piece Blinded by Science in Columbia Journalism Review.
This kind of sloppy reporting is perfect for lazy journalists-- it's a three-for-one deal. They get to break the news, and then later they have a second story when real experts point out the flaws, and a third when the people finally get discredited. More evidence of the shameful state of journalism in this country.
"...at least two of the charities listed on Stoller's Web site contacted the New York attorney general's office. The callers told officials that Stoller had not been authorized to solicit donations for those charities and had not sent any money to them."
The Illinois AG also found that Stoller ran "a phony animal welfare charity site called American Conservation Society, which automatically linked visitors to the Give A Gift Online site."
Also lists Stoller's old River Forest home address...
This guy came after our production company Deep Stealth Productions a couple of years ago. It was a thick sheaf of papers, which I dismissed after reading about another small company who had received his form threat. Might have to blow the dust off the thing.
"...in my view the only reason to make the distinction is to persecute somebody." -- Thomas Szasz
Actually, he wrote back today to say he was still working on it. Said they'd had several meetings on this recently. I had his name correct in the letter. It had been so long since I'd originally written him, I'd forgotten his name when mentioning him here.
Let's hope FreshlyShornBalls is the only nick he got in the process!