Isn't time for "us" to start and run our own "internet"?! Yah yah - I know it can't be done - a phrase that I have heard so many times - but of course it turns out to be hardly ever true. Who "owns" the MBone?
No...your are missing the point. Intelligent Design was/is a sleight of hand trick - whereby the word Creationism was removed from a propoganda device "The Panda Book" (because of several court rulings banning Creationism in the classroom) and the phrase "Intelligent Design" inserted into "Panda" instead - in a childish attempt to circumvent the USA Constitution. Duh.... let's change the word Creationism to Intelligent Design... the school boards won't figure it out because we'll call it science... and if we keep calling it science...then it will be science....duhhh. Stupid school boards may fall for the lie - but the courts don't.
The Panda book has one purpose - and only one purpose - to force Creationism into the classroom - to force the belief that there is a god. That's what this is all about - one group trying to force their beliefs/mythology on others - notice force. And that's how it should be studied - in a brainwashing-propaganda class
Since the "scientific method" in taught in all schools (likely, as kids do experiments) - what needs to be added in the classroom - is a more practical look at the difference between a science "notion" and what has shown to be true via the utilization of the "scientific method".
What I mean by the latter - is a lot of stuff is presented as "scientific" (a meaningless word) isn't proven - examples, that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS (not proven by the "scientific method"), that colesterol is a direct causative factor in heart disease (not proven by the "scientific method"), that we little ants on this planet is causing global warming (not proven by the "scientific method") and so on.
Various Christain Churches have caused/promoted/championed more wars, more suffering, more deaths, more torture, more disinformation (which is what we are talking about here), more raping of 8 year old children in Canada and the USA - than any other organization on this planet.
Should "we" go through the historical list - item by item? We could start with the relationship between Hitler and the Pope - where the Pope had 1000 of nuns marched along with the Nazis S.S in countless parades (was that before or after chidren were skinned and the skin made into lamp shades to sit in German homes?). Or should we start with the Spanish Inquisition led by the Pope - where, unless you either said you believed in the right god - you had molten lead poured down your throat? Or start with the documented - recent abuse of 10,000 children in Canada by nuns, priest, ministers, choir masters from every Christian denomination in Canada.
Emotional!? Where do you want to start - and examine documented evidence?
a) Re Nature magazine - i would love to check out the validity on how Nature mag. decided that Wiki has valid info - my guess is that one arm of the Establishment tends to protect other arms of the Establishment - you know "Ye Olde Boys Club".
b) One just has to check out HIV and AIDS in Wikipedia. It is so one sided (alternative viewpoints edited away) - that the only explanation for so-called AIDS is something called HIV - which just like god - no one on this planet has ever seen. Even the so-called discoverer of HIV+ AIDS, the Frenchman Luc Montagier admitted that he faked the picture of HIV!!!!
a) Various viewpoints need to be put up on the Wiki - because there are more often than not more than one viewpoint on any subject. - it doesn't matter why - emotional or other wise.
b) Over time the more credible viewpoint will gather more and more steam (more proof) - but that doesn't mean the less credible viewpoint would be removed - let the reader decide which viewpoint is more credible
Considering so-called Intelligent Design vs Evolution hypothesis and notions. First of all the word scientific is meaningless. However "scientific proof" via the "scientific method" is very clear and concise.
Yes both could be posted on the Wiki ands wouldn't take too long for the judge's (a Republican appointed by Bush) decision on the Dover school board case to be posted on the Wiki. It would show that at least two school board members lied in court despite having sworn an oath on a bible to tell the truth (perjury) - that the tesimony showed the school board had been trying to force Creationism into the classroom for years before the term I.D. existed.
The evidence also shows shows that the so-called science book "Panda" had the word Creationism throughout the book removed (after several court cases reiterated again that the Constitution of the USA prohibits Religion/ Creationism from being taught in class) and instead put the word Intelligent Design imto the Pands text.
This sleight of hand trick - was a laughible attempt by the Christain Religious Mafia to circumvent the Supreme Court Of The USA and the Constitution of the USA (treason?).
So it wouldn't take too long before it would show that so-called Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science - just Creationism in sheeps clothing - and that sofistry was what Intellgent Design is all about ( although some would call it incompetent lying.
I would love to see an a mathematical analysis of the likelihood of the "data" found on the Wikipedia being "valid".
My guess - from my life experience is that the 80%-20% "rule" applies. Which means that 80% of what one reads on the Wikipedia web site is false, half true, and/or sophistry.
Solution:
What Wikipedia needs to do - is to set up a process to show that there are more often than not - more than one viewpoint/theory/notion/history and so - on any topic.
For example, when I was in high school - my physics book showed one explanation of what light is. When I got to university and needed to take physics - there in my university physics text book - were 6 differing hypotheses for light!
Again in my history book in high school there was a singular explanation for the civil war in the U.S.A.. Later, when at university - and studying the history of the U.S.A. - the prof teaching made such outrageous statements about thy civil war - that I had to go to the library to check out his facts. Over the next semester - I browsed and/or read at least 140 history books on the civil war - and found at least three viewpoints expressed on almost every facet of the civil war.
The USA's space program policy, development and implementation was carried out by Hitler's Nazis scientists. The lead Nazis who started and ran the USA space program - was personally responsible for murdering 20,000 citizens who were slaves in his factories producing rockets for the Nazis.
The language found in current USA government documents sound like it was written by Hilter and his henchmen - and makes it clear that the USA intends to dominate space - in order to dominate this planet - forever.
The fact is that professors at universities in the USA are mandated by the administration bring in research grants to the university in order to have funds to pay T.A.s (teaching assistants) and have varsity football teams. The smoke screen term used for this is - "publish or perish". Whereby a professor is supposed to publish articles in journals in order to make the university - "look good". But it all about "free" money.
A nasty example of USA military funding universities - Canada's McGill University took research money from the USA military to do research on psycho-tropic drugs. To see if they could lace the drinking water of a city to control a city or a country and save on bombs. The McGill professors then used unsuspecting women who had just given birth and were suffering postpartum blues (a normal condition after giving birth) - to experiment on - by giving these women a variety of military drugs that nothing to do with the postpartum blues. Many of these women went on to commit suicide and those who survived were severely crippled emotionally. Years later - when this research got into the public realm - the lead scientist (a medical doctor) at least committed suicide - but others responsible at the university and in the USA of course didn't do anything nor was anything done to them (except made Vice- President?).
"It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."--Abraham Lincoln.
Like Molli Ivans, the Texas syndicated journalist writes: "there is no such thing as left and right - what one needs to go and find out - who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing?
It's obvious - that one of the easiest way to get rich in the USA is to start a church and make sure that everyone learns that this specific church knows the right god - and that if one doesn't give money to this church - one will go to hell. And that those that don't believe in this church and/or this church's god - will go to hell. And of course most churches say this in one way or another.
So these rich folk love screwing both the suckers who give them money - by lying to them (because there is no god) - and screwing the people who don't give them money or believe in their god - by getting the people who donate money to this church - to go and hate/screw the people who don't believe in this particular church and their god - and more often than not, to go and kill those non-believers.
And of course this started way before the crusades - but since the coming of television - this insanity has drastically escalated - especially in the USA.
Usually when someone runs around talking about invisible people - they are thrown into the luny bin! But if someone can run around (on television and other big rooms) and claim to know invisible people who talk to them or talk to someone they know - they are showered with money
So in the end we have rich people - who got rich by screwing people - then begin to attack/screw anyone who shows even a shred of evidence that god may not exist. And of course "science" is on the top of the attack list
In the end - we have people who believe in invisible people - and also believe that one can have a baby without intercourse, and that people can rise from the dead, that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all children are born in sin - so its okay for priests and others to screw children - fornicate that is.
The 50% figure seems low to me - it's more likely in the 98% range. I love going out to a bar and watch NBA and NCAA basketball, especially during the playoffs. In Toronto - it has been nearly impossible to do so - whether it's at a multimillion dollar so-called sports bar (Madisons), a regular bar, or even a high end hotel bar (main bar at the Downtown Marriott ).
When there is an NBA game on - typically the NBA ball players are "5 foot tall and five foot wide" with the basketball looking like a football! Let me explain.
Most bars have wide screen TV's - that are meant to be used for high definition TV programming. High definition programs have the same height/width proportions that one can can see at any movie theatre. It's called "letterbox"; that is, a ratio of 16 units wide by nine units high". In order to receive high definition (letter box proportions) the bar must have a high definition TV tuner and high definition cable or satellite feed.
But most bars don't have the latter: and instead take a regular TV program (with screen proportion of four units wide to three units high) and stretch the program in width to fill the high definition TV screen!
But that is just the beginning. To make matters worse, the SCORE TV network, for example, takes the NBA basketball feed and then installs a banner running along the bottom twenty percent of the screen - by compressing the TV picture in height. Put that compressed TV picture on a wide screen TV that has stretch the NBA game to begin with - the result? - 7 foot tall NBA players that are in fact now 5 foot tall with the basketball the shape of a football. Bush League? You bet!
When I mention the problem to managers at these bars - they look at me as if I just got off the rocket from Mars - and they typically say "but nobody else has complained". I guess these managers never heard of:
"It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."--Abraham Lincoln.
"The first generation machine will be based on a 500MHz processor from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which is one of the project's main backers, and will have 256MB of main memory, 1GB of flash memory in place of a hard-disk drive and a wireless LAN connection,"
And you contacted Advanced for a quote on 6 million units (see above) in order tp prove MIT wrong? If not why not?
Hmm.... this SkepticOptomist gets a score of 1. WOW!;)
I bought my first Mac - an SE for $3000. MacWorld magazine at the time (1843;) ) did a cost study of the parts and assembly costs - and it came to a total $350.
ATI will be coming out with a new Video card soon that will cost around $500 and will encode H.264 video at 5 times the speed of the fastest Mac - cost of the chip that does this - $8.
When you buy a newly built house - a lot of people are convinced by real estates - how little profit is being made. Which of course is not true. When the plumber buys materials - the materials are first of all "marked up" (between 15% to 35% ) to what the consumer would pay for at the building supply store. Then all the money paid to the plumbers workers are also "marked up" by 35%. Then the total for the materials (marked up) and the labour cocts (marked up ) - has a 25% to 30% "profit" (in addition to the (mark up) added.
The electrician, the carpenter, the roofer, the siding compnay, the window company and so.... does the same. The general contractor takes all of the totals from the trades (including mark up for materials and labour plus "profit" and then adds his or her profit of $15% to 35%. The real estate agent loves this and..... of course adds another 6%.
As anyone can see - the majority of cost of buying a home is the sum total of all of the "markups" and "profits".
In the case of computers - other major additional costs are the marketing, and distribution as well as the legal liability insurance. Which costs of course are eliminated by MIT
Great idea - in terms of going "low tech" to mod one device (in this case a DVD player) into a Usable laptop. There must be dozens of examples of existing hardware than can be "retooled" to do the job.
A simple 300 MHZ cpu is all that is needed to do the vast majority of tasks done on computers by kids - anywhere. Add the $8 chip, that is in the new iPod Video player - that enables decoding of H.264 video - and one has a complete educational tool.
Hmm... me thinks you miss the entire point. Millions of kids in this world have no schools, no "teachers" (nobody teaches anyone anything), no libraries (no books), no videos, no Tv, no radio (maybe one radio for entire community, no telephone and so on.
The lowly $100 computer with Wifi and a community satellite hook up - corrects every issue listed above. Which in return enables all these millions of kids to learn.
Imagine having the best "teacher" in the world (nobody teaches anyone anything) facilitating a group of kids in the middle of nowhere! Well that's what this is all about.
How it is possible for kids to learn without being "taught"? It's called "Peer Interdependent Learning" - where the "teacher" - actually the facilitator, sits at the back of the classroom (or in his study remote from the kids in another country). Contact the Johnson brothers at the University of Minnesota http://www.co-operation.org/ to learn how kids actually learn versus how teachers and schools think kids learn.
"Former MTV veejay and podcasting entrepreneur Adam Curry appears to have been caught anonymously editing the podcasting entry on Wikipedia to remove credit from other people and inflate his role in its creation."
The real question raised by this story - is how valid is anything seen on Wikipedia? My guess is that 80% of the content there is invalid. Be interesting to see a study by a third party on the validity of Wikipedia content.
I have several times tried to post contrary material on HIV/AIDS on the Wikipedia site - but it's always censored. What's seen there is a classical spin by the medical/chemical industrial complex propaganda
Naturally every time I suggest altnerative viewpoints on HIV/AIDS in this "forum" - attempts are made to discredit by giving me negative or zero scores - which in my opinion - is suttle approach to censorship.
The tax money grants to study "global warming" must be drying up. Any time there is a fleury of media reports - ignited by a fleury of media releases from the people in white lab coats who hustle tax money grants - means that coffers for the welfare program for people in white lab coats is near empty.
These people in white lab coats must believe that the planet we are living on (earth) is the only planet in the solar system - and that the changes in the sun (for example) - have no realtionship to what happens here on earth. (Intelligent Design?)
Regarding the CO2 "study" - the white coats are hypothesizing that ancient air trapped in ice has less CO2 than air does now. But is that true? Did, these people actually measured the CO2 correctly in their "study" - has that been confirmed -by who? - yes/no?! A "good" scientist always plays devils advocate on their own hypothesis first - before releasing any info. Did these people do it? For example, are there other causes for the CO2 to be lower way back when (sorry Creative Design Foklks) - like diffusing into the ice over millions of years. This planet has been frozen over 98% of the time - so what's the impact on ancient climates... and so on. In other words how many variables have been left out by this group of white lab coats (and other white coat groups)?
Or is it all about tax cash grabs by running around and shouting the "sky is falling"?!
How much published in this journal (and other journals) is actually based on the scientific method versus "notions"? Having all journals online - free of charge would enable millions to scan articles in journal and decide what's bullshit and what's not.
As well, if the journals were free online - then people would see the advertising - for example drug companies advertising in "medical" journals - which may surprise consumers.
If the M.I.T. can put all of its 10,000 courses online free of charge - it's hard to rationalize that "It Can't Be Done" by journals (which are likely subsizided by tax money) ! By the way M.I.T. puts it all up for free use - videos, manuals, projects, lectures and so forth. http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
I'm still waiting for some documented evidence about the failure rate of musicians who start their own record label and go bankrupt. Can you give me the names of ten musicians you know of - who started their own record label and went bankrupt? You seem to be short of evidence to support your viewpoint.
Here's more documentation to support my viewpoint, another musician who started his own label A&M records Herb Alpert. It's at http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Start%20A%20Record%20 Label.htm You didn't make any comments on Ani Difranco - do you know who she is?
Here's a musician explaining how major record labels screw musicians:
" Matt Johnson, from The The, has weighed in the digital music issue. The The will be releasing their stuff on the web for free download - see below.
THE THE VERSUS THE CORPORATE MONSTER
After much deliberation I have decided to offer track by track, week by week free downloads of my latest album 'NakedSelf' from my official website: www.thethe.com
This decision has not been taken lightly and below I explain the reasons why. As the tensions between artist and merchant are rising very fast I also want to stress the positive in this statement as I think this is an exhilarating time to be involved in music.
I'VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WILL BE........
A battle between the powers that be versus the powers that will be.
Through their short sighted arrogance and greed, the major label media conglomerates are sowing the seeds for their own destruction. Artists are now poised to come off the nipple of the major labels and finally stand on their own two feet. With this greater responsibility will come a greater workload but artists can finally become masters of their own destinies.
New technology, both in cheap, high quality recording equipment and the tremendous potential of the Internet, mean that it's possible for musicians to fund their own recordings, own their own copyrights, distribute their own music and control their own careers. The audience will begin to deal with the artist direct and the middle men will be cut down to size.
CANNES, France -- Rock veterans Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno are launching a provocative new musicians' alliance that would cut against the industry grain by letting artists sell their music online instead of only through record labels.
With the Internet transforming how people buy and listen to songs, musicians need to act now to claim digital music's future, Gabriel and Eno argued Monday as they handed out a slim red manifesto at a huge deal-making music conference known as Midem.
They call the plan the "Magnificent Union of Digitally Downloading Artists" -- or MUDDA, which has a less lofty ring to it.
"Unless artists quickly grasp the possibilities that are available to them, then the rules will get written, and they'll get written without much input from artists," said Eno, who has a long history of experimenting with technology.
By removing record labels from the equation, artists can set their own prices and set their own agendas, said the two independent musicians, who hope to launch the online alliance within a month.
I'm glad to know that you agree - that major record lables screw musicians. How many musicians signed by major record labels make it? One in a thousand? Why? Because record labels pick and choose which musicians they have signed (which they have signed by the bushe)l - that they will promote. Again signing with any major record label is a crap shoot - like Russian roulet. And in the end how much does a musician make off a disc? And how much does the record label make? And how much money do DJ's and other make through illegal Payola?
You say you have "trade skills" - but for some reason hypothesize that other people don't have those "tradeskills"! How's that? You justify that statement by talking about some vague list of people who you know didn't make it. Again be nice to see a research piece to prove that musicians fail in running their own music business - more than the average failure rate for any kind of business. In case you don't know restauranteurs tops the business failure list - followed by house building contractors. Does that mean that people shouldn't start restaurants or build houses?
Again you say that you have tradeskills - which is suprising when you make a statement about Marley wouldn't have become famous - although poor - if it were not for the studio! What? Marley is likely one of the 12 top musical performers - ever - his concerts sold the records. But it's stunning to hear you talk as if iTunes and other come lately companies - are not making record labels redundant.
"An individual singer/songwriter usually does not have the business skills, capital, resources, networking contacts etc to promote their own material. They are the creative element of the mix. Most of the time they need a business element in order to market, exploit, and further the artistic element."
If you are saying no artists or very few artists has all the skills you list above - I would like to see documented proof from a study you did or someone did to prove you are right here
If you read what I did say - I said that some people have intuitive business skills by age 18 and some don't - and that those who don't have these skills need to get a partner or get invloved in a co-operative setup - with a least one person who does have these intuitive busienss skills (some people call these skills "tradeskills")
There are thousands of examples of people running their own businesses in all kinds of fields including the music businesses. Google - Claude Whitmyer - who is an expert in this field - to become more literate on this issue.
A good example of someone doing what you say can't be done - is the very successful Ani Difranco - who with a business associate (former lover) - is running a highly successful business enterprise. Contact Claude Whitmyer for many more examples
You are right when you say one needs to be careful finding a partner with business skills. That any unscroupulous person can take advantage of an innocent. But that applies in spades in dealing with ANYONE from the commercial music business - talk about slimy. As I mentioned before, Bob Marley did not make one cent in royalities from the company he signed with - the record company made hundreds of millions. After Marley died - his family set up their own record company to sell Marleys music - to finally make money.
Again I would like to see your proof that inventors can't start and run their own business. Ever hear of Thomas Alva Edison? Ever hear about two guys called Jobs and Wozniak?
Frankly I am stunned that all "artists" don't take control of their careers/business by eliminating the "middle man". This process termed "disintermediation" has been going on for over thirty years.
And if an "artist" doen't have "trade skills" - that is, intuitive business skills (that develop by age 18 - you either have them or don't have them by 18 and going to school won't help to get them) - form a co-operative business with other artists (make sure at least one member has "tradeskills").
With appropriate marketing skills, any artist can make a "living" - assuming they have something that is marketable to a specific market niche.
I am sure that with the disintermediation of the music industry - a new approach will be established to protect the arist's creativity from both corporate thugs and others wanting to steal.
Remember Bob Marley never got one red cent in royalities from the millions of his albums sold
Three cheers for SONY actions on this issue - for waking up the sleeping giant - consumers. Consumers seemed to have been lulled to sleep - and tricked into "being cool" versus "being smart"? The spin machines from the status quo media - owned by the ruling classes everywhere- as well as corporate CEO mobsters and their puppets are on a hustle right now since SONY exposed how the corporate thugs love to screw consumers.
Imagine screwing up computers of millions of consumers and not having to do jail time! Any time some teenager "steals" songs or hacks something somewhere and is SLAPPed by corporate thugs - the media falls all over itself to report the "news" on the front pages - but as soon as corporate thugs get caught with their hands in the til - it's buried on page 22 between the A&P adds - if reported at all
It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't time for "us" to start and run our own "internet"?! Yah yah - I know it can't be done - a phrase that I have heard so many times - but of course it turns out to be hardly ever true. Who "owns" the MBone?
No...your are missing the point. Intelligent Design was/is a sleight of hand trick - whereby the word Creationism was removed from a propoganda device "The Panda Book" (because of several court rulings banning Creationism in the classroom) and the phrase "Intelligent Design" inserted into "Panda" instead - in a childish attempt to circumvent the USA Constitution. Duh.... let's change the word Creationism to Intelligent Design... the school boards won't figure it out because we'll call it science... and if we keep calling it science...then it will be science....duhhh. Stupid school boards may fall for the lie - but the courts don't.
The Panda book has one purpose - and only one purpose - to force Creationism into the classroom - to force the belief that there is a god. That's what this is all about - one group trying to force their beliefs/mythology on others - notice force. And that's how it should be studied - in a brainwashing-propaganda class
Since the "scientific method" in taught in all schools (likely, as kids do experiments) - what needs to be added in the classroom - is a more practical look at the difference between a science "notion" and what has shown to be true via the utilization of the "scientific method".
What I mean by the latter - is a lot of stuff is presented as "scientific" (a meaningless word) isn't proven - examples, that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS (not proven by the "scientific method"), that colesterol is a direct causative factor in heart disease (not proven by the "scientific method"), that we little ants on this planet is causing global warming (not proven by the "scientific method") and so on.
Not emotional at all. Just historical fact.
Various Christain Churches have caused/promoted/championed more wars, more suffering, more deaths, more torture, more disinformation (which is what we are talking about here), more raping of 8 year old children in Canada and the USA - than any other organization on this planet.
Should "we" go through the historical list - item by item? We could start with the relationship between Hitler and the Pope - where the Pope had 1000 of nuns marched along with the Nazis S.S in countless parades (was that before or after chidren were skinned and the skin made into lamp shades to sit in German homes?). Or should we start with the Spanish Inquisition led by the Pope - where, unless you either said you believed in the right god - you had molten lead poured down your throat? Or start with the documented - recent abuse of 10,000 children in Canada by nuns, priest, ministers, choir masters from every Christian denomination in Canada.
Emotional!? Where do you want to start - and examine documented evidence?
a) Re Nature magazine - i would love to check out the validity on how Nature mag. decided that Wiki has valid info - my guess is that one arm of the Establishment tends to protect other arms of the Establishment - you know "Ye Olde Boys Club".
b) One just has to check out HIV and AIDS in Wikipedia. It is so one sided (alternative viewpoints edited away) - that the only explanation for so-called AIDS is something called HIV - which just like god - no one on this planet has ever seen. Even the so-called discoverer of HIV+ AIDS, the Frenchman Luc Montagier admitted that he faked the picture of HIV!!!!
a) Various viewpoints need to be put up on the Wiki - because there are more often than not more than one viewpoint on any subject. - it doesn't matter why - emotional or other wise.
b) Over time the more credible viewpoint will gather more and more steam (more proof) - but that doesn't mean the less credible viewpoint would be removed - let the reader decide which viewpoint is more credible
Considering so-called Intelligent Design vs Evolution hypothesis and notions. First of all the word scientific is meaningless. However "scientific proof" via the "scientific method" is very clear and concise.
Yes both could be posted on the Wiki ands wouldn't take too long for the judge's (a Republican appointed by Bush) decision on the Dover school board case to be posted on the Wiki. It would show that at least two school board members lied in court despite having sworn an oath on a bible to tell the truth (perjury) - that the tesimony showed the school board had been trying to force Creationism into the classroom for years before the term I.D. existed.
The evidence also shows shows that the so-called science book "Panda" had the word Creationism throughout the book removed (after several court cases reiterated again that the Constitution of the USA prohibits Religion/ Creationism from being taught in class) and instead put the word Intelligent Design imto the Pands text.
This sleight of hand trick - was a laughible attempt by the Christain Religious Mafia to circumvent the Supreme Court Of The USA and the Constitution of the USA (treason?).
So it wouldn't take too long before it would show that so-called Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science - just Creationism in sheeps clothing - and that sofistry was what Intellgent Design is all about ( although some would call it incompetent lying.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Because I challenge the established viewpoints here - I am labelled a Troll.
So much for meta-moderation working in any meaningful way
Anyone interested in doing an evaluation of Wikipedia? How? Simple!
A) Pick three topics - that you "know a lot about".
Go to the Wikipedia web site and check out what the site states about the topics that you know alot about.
Score each of the three Wikipedia portrayals on a score of -5 to +5.
Add up the three and post the total number (from -15 to +15) here, on the Slashdot site
I'll do a running average for the numbers posted
After averaging 1500 replies - we'll have a good idea of how trustworthy Wikipedia is or isn't.
Wikipedia continues to crack me up!
Semi-protection!!??
I would love to see an a mathematical analysis of the likelihood of the "data" found on the Wikipedia being "valid".
My guess - from my life experience is that the 80%-20% "rule" applies. Which means that 80% of what one reads on the Wikipedia web site is false, half true, and/or sophistry.
Solution:
What Wikipedia needs to do - is to set up a process to show that there are more often than not - more than one viewpoint/theory/notion/history and so - on any topic.
For example, when I was in high school - my physics book showed one explanation of what light is. When I got to university and needed to take physics - there in my university physics text book - were 6 differing hypotheses for light!
Again in my history book in high school there was a singular explanation for the civil war in the U.S.A.. Later, when at university - and studying the history of the U.S.A. - the prof teaching made such outrageous statements about thy civil war - that I had to go to the library to check out his facts. Over the next semester - I browsed and/or read at least 140 history books on the civil war - and found at least three viewpoints expressed on almost every facet of the civil war.
...... and (you forgot) Abe Lincoln.
The USA's space program policy, development and implementation was carried out by Hitler's Nazis scientists. The lead Nazis who started and ran the USA space program - was personally responsible for murdering 20,000 citizens who were slaves in his factories producing rockets for the Nazis.
The language found in current USA government documents sound like it was written by Hilter and his henchmen - and makes it clear that the USA intends to dominate space - in order to dominate this planet - forever.
The fact is that professors at universities in the USA are mandated by the administration bring in research grants to the university in order to have funds to pay T.A.s (teaching assistants) and have varsity football teams. The smoke screen term used for this is - "publish or perish". Whereby a professor is supposed to publish articles in journals in order to make the university - "look good". But it all about "free" money.
A nasty example of USA military funding universities - Canada's McGill University took research money from the USA military to do research on psycho-tropic drugs. To see if they could lace the drinking water of a city to control a city or a country and save on bombs. The McGill professors then used unsuspecting women who had just given birth and were suffering postpartum blues (a normal condition after giving birth) - to experiment on - by giving these women a variety of military drugs that nothing to do with the postpartum blues. Many of these women went on to commit suicide and those who survived were severely crippled emotionally. Years later - when this research got into the public realm - the lead scientist (a medical doctor) at least committed suicide - but others responsible at the university and in the USA of course didn't do anything nor was anything done to them (except made Vice- President?).
"It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."--Abraham Lincoln.
Like Molli Ivans, the Texas syndicated journalist writes: "there is no such thing as left and right - what one needs to go and find out - who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing?
It's obvious - that one of the easiest way to get rich in the USA is to start a church and make sure that everyone learns that this specific church knows the right god - and that if one doesn't give money to this church - one will go to hell. And that those that don't believe in this church and/or this church's god - will go to hell. And of course most churches say this in one way or another.
So these rich folk love screwing both the suckers who give them money - by lying to them (because there is no god) - and screwing the people who don't give them money or believe in their god - by getting the people who donate money to this church - to go and hate/screw the people who don't believe in this particular church and their god - and more often than not, to go and kill those non-believers .
And of course this started way before the crusades - but since the coming of television - this insanity has drastically escalated - especially in the USA.
Usually when someone runs around talking about invisible people - they are thrown into the luny bin! But if someone can run around (on television and other big rooms) and claim to know invisible people who talk to them or talk to someone they know - they are showered with money
So in the end we have rich people - who got rich by screwing people - then begin to attack/screw anyone who shows even a shred of evidence that god may not exist. And of course "science" is on the top of the attack list
In the end - we have people who believe in invisible people - and also believe that one can have a baby without intercourse, and that people can rise from the dead, that the earth is the center of the universe, and that all children are born in sin - so its okay for priests and others to screw children - fornicate that is.
The 50% figure seems low to me - it's more likely in the 98% range. I love going out to a bar and watch NBA and NCAA basketball, especially during the playoffs. In Toronto - it has been nearly impossible to do so - whether it's at a multimillion dollar so-called sports bar (Madisons), a regular bar, or even a high end hotel bar (main bar at the Downtown Marriott ).
When there is an NBA game on - typically the NBA ball players are "5 foot tall and five foot wide" with the basketball looking like a football! Let me explain.
Most bars have wide screen TV's - that are meant to be used for high definition TV programming. High definition programs have the same height/width proportions that one can can see at any movie theatre. It's called "letterbox"; that is, a ratio of 16 units wide by nine units high". In order to receive high definition (letter box proportions) the bar must have a high definition TV tuner and high definition cable or satellite feed.
But most bars don't have the latter: and instead take a regular TV program (with screen proportion of four units wide to three units high) and stretch the program in width to fill the high definition TV screen!
But that is just the beginning. To make matters worse, the SCORE TV network, for example, takes the NBA basketball feed and then installs a banner running along the bottom twenty percent of the screen - by compressing the TV picture in height. Put that compressed TV picture on a wide screen TV that has stretch the NBA game to begin with - the result? - 7 foot tall NBA players that are in fact now 5 foot tall with the basketball the shape of a football. Bush League? You bet!
When I mention the problem to managers at these bars - they look at me as if I just got off the rocket from Mars - and they typically say "but nobody else has complained". I guess these managers never heard of:
"It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."--Abraham Lincoln.
Ha ha ha
"The first generation machine will be based on a 500MHz processor from Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which is one of the project's main backers, and will have 256MB of main memory, 1GB of flash memory in place of a hard-disk drive and a wireless LAN connection,"
And you contacted Advanced for a quote on 6 million units (see above) in order tp prove MIT wrong? If not why not?
Hmm.... this SkepticOptomist gets a score of 1. WOW! ;)
I bought my first Mac - an SE for $3000. MacWorld magazine at the time (1843 ;) ) did a cost study of the parts and assembly costs - and it came to a total $350.
ATI will be coming out with a new Video card soon that will cost around $500 and will encode H.264 video at 5 times the speed of the fastest Mac - cost of the chip that does this - $8.
When you buy a newly built house - a lot of people are convinced by real estates - how little profit is being made. Which of course is not true. When the plumber buys materials - the materials are first of all "marked up" (between 15% to 35% ) to what the consumer would pay for at the building supply store. Then all the money paid to the plumbers workers are also "marked up" by 35%. Then the total for the materials (marked up) and the labour cocts (marked up ) - has a 25% to 30% "profit" (in addition to the (mark up) added.
The electrician, the carpenter, the roofer, the siding compnay, the window company and so.... does the same. The general contractor takes all of the totals from the trades (including mark up for materials and labour plus "profit" and then adds his or her profit of $15% to 35%. The real estate agent loves this and..... of course adds another 6%.
As anyone can see - the majority of cost of buying a home is the sum total of all of the "markups" and "profits".
In the case of computers - other major additional costs are the marketing, and distribution as well as the legal liability insurance. Which costs of course are eliminated by MIT
WalMart is now selling a portable DVD players for $99 (as someone already pointed out) - as well have another DVD portable for $86 http://www.walmart.com/electronics?path=0%3A3944&d ept=3944
In addition WalMart has laptop for $588 with specs way beyond MIT's specs. The Walmart laptop : 15 XGA, 1.5 Ghz, DVD burner and on and on http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_ id=3626438
Great idea - in terms of going "low tech" to mod one device (in this case a DVD player) into a Usable laptop. There must be dozens of examples of existing hardware than can be "retooled" to do the job.
A simple 300 MHZ cpu is all that is needed to do the vast majority of tasks done on computers by kids - anywhere. Add the $8 chip, that is in the new iPod Video player - that enables decoding of H.264 video - and one has a complete educational tool.
Hmm... me thinks you miss the entire point. Millions of kids in this world have no schools, no "teachers" (nobody teaches anyone anything), no libraries (no books), no videos, no Tv, no radio (maybe one radio for entire community, no telephone and so on.
The lowly $100 computer with Wifi and a community satellite hook up - corrects every issue listed above. Which in return enables all these millions of kids to learn.
Imagine having the best "teacher" in the world (nobody teaches anyone anything) facilitating a group of kids in the middle of nowhere! Well that's what this is all about.
How it is possible for kids to learn without being "taught"? It's called "Peer Interdependent Learning" - where the "teacher" - actually the facilitator, sits at the back of the classroom (or in his study remote from the kids in another country). Contact the Johnson brothers at the University of Minnesota http://www.co-operation.org/ to learn how kids actually learn versus how teachers and schools think kids learn.
This takes the cake - need I sy more?
"Former MTV veejay and podcasting entrepreneur Adam Curry appears to have been caught anonymously editing the podcasting entry on Wikipedia to remove credit from other people and inflate his role in its creation."
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2818
The real question raised by this story - is how valid is anything seen on Wikipedia? My guess is that 80% of the content there is invalid. Be interesting to see a study by a third party on the validity of Wikipedia content.
I have several times tried to post contrary material on HIV/AIDS on the Wikipedia site - but it's always censored. What's seen there is a classical spin by the medical/chemical industrial complex propaganda
Naturally every time I suggest altnerative viewpoints on HIV/AIDS in this "forum" - attempts are made to discredit by giving me negative or zero scores - which in my opinion - is suttle approach to censorship.
The tax money grants to study "global warming" must be drying up. Any time there is a fleury of media reports - ignited by a fleury of media releases from the people in white lab coats who hustle tax money grants - means that coffers for the welfare program for people in white lab coats is near empty.
These people in white lab coats must believe that the planet we are living on (earth) is the only planet in the solar system - and that the changes in the sun (for example) - have no realtionship to what happens here on earth. (Intelligent Design?)
Regarding the CO2 "study" - the white coats are hypothesizing that ancient air trapped in ice has less CO2 than air does now. But is that true? Did, these people actually measured the CO2 correctly in their "study" - has that been confirmed -by who? - yes/no?! A "good" scientist always plays devils advocate on their own hypothesis first - before releasing any info. Did these people do it? For example, are there other causes for the CO2 to be lower way back when (sorry Creative Design Foklks) - like diffusing into the ice over millions of years. This planet has been frozen over 98% of the time - so what's the impact on ancient climates ... and so on. In other words how many variables have been left out by this group of white lab coats (and other white coat groups)?
Or is it all about tax cash grabs by running around and shouting the "sky is falling"?!
How much published in this journal (and other journals) is actually based on the scientific method versus "notions"? Having all journals online - free of charge would enable millions to scan articles in journal and decide what's bullshit and what's not.
As well, if the journals were free online - then people would see the advertising - for example drug companies advertising in "medical" journals - which may surprise consumers.
If the M.I.T. can put all of its 10,000 courses online free of charge - it's hard to rationalize that "It Can't Be Done" by journals (which are likely subsizided by tax money) ! By the way M.I.T. puts it all up for free use - videos, manuals, projects, lectures and so forth. http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
I'm still waiting for some documented evidence about the failure rate of musicians who start their own record label and go bankrupt. Can you give me the names of ten musicians you know of - who started their own record label and went bankrupt? You seem to be short of evidence to support your viewpoint.
Here's more documentation to support my viewpoint, another musician who started his own label A&M records Herb Alpert. It's at http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Start%20A%20Record%20 Label.htm You didn't make any comments on Ani Difranco - do you know who she is?
Here's a musician explaining how major record labels screw musicians:
" Matt Johnson, from The The, has weighed in the digital music issue. The The will be releasing their stuff on the web for free download - see below.
THE THE VERSUS THE CORPORATE MONSTER After much deliberation I have decided to offer track by track, week by week free downloads of my latest album 'NakedSelf' from my official website: www.thethe.com This decision has not been taken lightly and below I explain the reasons why. As the tensions between artist and merchant are rising very fast I also want to stress the positive in this statement as I think this is an exhilarating time to be involved in music.
I'VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WILL BE ........
A battle between the powers that be versus the powers that will be.
Through their short sighted arrogance and greed, the major label media conglomerates are sowing the seeds for their own destruction. Artists are now poised to come off the nipple of the major labels and finally stand on their own two feet. With this greater responsibility will come a greater workload but artists can finally become masters of their own destinies.
New technology, both in cheap, high quality recording equipment and the tremendous potential of the Internet, mean that it's possible for musicians to fund their own recordings, own their own copyrights, distribute their own music and control their own careers. The audience will begin to deal with the artist direct and the middle men will be cut down to size.
http://www.eff.org/IP/Audio/20000607_thethe_statem ent.html
And here is more documentation from MSNBC:
Making Their Own Breaks
Technology is helping aspiring writers, musicians, artists and filmmakers go from amateur to pro. Who needs an agent when you've got the net?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9378645/site/newswee k/
And from France .... more documentation:
CANNES, France -- Rock veterans Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno are launching a provocative new musicians' alliance that would cut against the industry grain by letting artists sell their music online instead of only through record labels. With the Internet transforming how people buy and listen to songs, musicians need to act now to claim digital music's future, Gabriel and Eno argued Monday as they handed out a slim red manifesto at a huge deal-making music conference known as Midem. They call the plan the "Magnificent Union of Digitally Downloading Artists" -- or MUDDA, which has a less lofty ring to it. "Unless artists quickly grasp the possibilities that are available to them, then the rules will get written, and they'll get written without much input from artists," said Eno, who has a long history of experimenting with technology. By removing record labels from the equation, artists can set their own prices and set their own agendas, said the two independent musicians, who hope to launch the online alliance within a month.
And some more documentation:
http://www.cut-up.com/news/detail.php?sid=362
"Every musician should have his own record label"
?
And more documentation:
http://www.afm.org/public/musicians/recordla
I'm glad to know that you agree - that major record lables screw musicians. How many musicians signed by major record labels make it? One in a thousand? Why? Because record labels pick and choose which musicians they have signed (which they have signed by the bushe)l - that they will promote. Again signing with any major record label is a crap shoot - like Russian roulet. And in the end how much does a musician make off a disc? And how much does the record label make? And how much money do DJ's and other make through illegal Payola?
You say you have "trade skills" - but for some reason hypothesize that other people don't have those "tradeskills"! How's that? You justify that statement by talking about some vague list of people who you know didn't make it. Again be nice to see a research piece to prove that musicians fail in running their own music business - more than the average failure rate for any kind of business. In case you don't know restauranteurs tops the business failure list - followed by house building contractors. Does that mean that people shouldn't start restaurants or build houses?
Again you say that you have tradeskills - which is suprising when you make a statement about Marley wouldn't have become famous - although poor - if it were not for the studio! What? Marley is likely one of the 12 top musical performers - ever - his concerts sold the records. But it's stunning to hear you talk as if iTunes and other come lately companies - are not making record labels redundant.
You said
:
"An individual singer/songwriter usually does not have the business skills, capital, resources, networking contacts etc to promote their own material. They are the creative element of the mix. Most of the time they need a business element in order to market, exploit, and further the artistic element."
If you are saying no artists or very few artists has all the skills you list above - I would like to see documented proof from a study you did or someone did to prove you are right here
If you read what I did say - I said that some people have intuitive business skills by age 18 and some don't - and that those who don't have these skills need to get a partner or get invloved in a co-operative setup - with a least one person who does have these intuitive busienss skills (some people call these skills "tradeskills")
There are thousands of examples of people running their own businesses in all kinds of fields including the music businesses. Google - Claude Whitmyer - who is an expert in this field - to become more literate on this issue.
A good example of someone doing what you say can't be done - is the very successful Ani Difranco - who with a business associate (former lover) - is running a highly successful business enterprise. Contact Claude Whitmyer for many more examples
You are right when you say one needs to be careful finding a partner with business skills. That any unscroupulous person can take advantage of an innocent. But that applies in spades in dealing with ANYONE from the commercial music business - talk about slimy. As I mentioned before, Bob Marley did not make one cent in royalities from the company he signed with - the record company made hundreds of millions. After Marley died - his family set up their own record company to sell Marleys music - to finally make money.
Again I would like to see your proof that inventors can't start and run their own business. Ever hear of Thomas Alva Edison? Ever hear about two guys called Jobs and Wozniak?
Frankly I am stunned that all "artists" don't take control of their careers/business by eliminating the "middle man". This process termed "disintermediation" has been going on for over thirty years.
And if an "artist" doen't have "trade skills" - that is, intuitive business skills (that develop by age 18 - you either have them or don't have them by 18 and going to school won't help to get them) - form a co-operative business with other artists (make sure at least one member has "tradeskills").
With appropriate marketing skills, any artist can make a "living" - assuming they have something that is marketable to a specific market niche.
I am sure that with the disintermediation of the music industry - a new approach will be established to protect the arist's creativity from both corporate thugs and others wanting to steal.
Remember Bob Marley never got one red cent in royalities from the millions of his albums sold
Three cheers for SONY actions on this issue - for waking up the sleeping giant - consumers. Consumers seemed to have been lulled to sleep - and tricked into "being cool" versus "being smart"? The spin machines from the status quo media - owned by the ruling classes everywhere- as well as corporate CEO mobsters and their puppets are on a hustle right now since SONY exposed how the corporate thugs love to screw consumers.
Imagine screwing up computers of millions of consumers and not having to do jail time! Any time some teenager "steals" songs or hacks something somewhere and is SLAPPed by corporate thugs - the media falls all over itself to report the "news" on the front pages - but as soon as corporate thugs get caught with their hands in the til - it's buried on page 22 between the A&P adds - if reported at all
It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out