Ever since I realized that I survived unscathed, I have been wondering for a long time why this subject gets an automatic "OMG teh molestation!!!11!" response, when it is actually such a commonplacde in human history.
It is a fear response.
On the other hand, if there is a way to find out repeat sexual predators who are looking for new prey then shouldn't we use that method?
I'm going to make a general comment - I find MySpace unbearably creepy and exhibitionistic. I wonder if its purpose was to provide titillation and unhealthy fascination in young people because it appears to be doing an excellent job at that.
Not only can you see all of Wikipedia's mistakes..
on
Wikipedia Goes Mobile
·
· Score: 1
...but you can see all of the plagiarism as well. A perfect gift for the misinformed and the ignorant to keep them that way!
You mean two major distribution channels refusing to show a movie because they didn't like the content isn't censorship? Or that the controversy that two major distribution channels are blatently censoring a movie for political reasons is in fact a glorious opportunity for a small movie to publicize itself because it was censored? How does that work? Does it make the censorship less censorious?
Which planet are you on?
It's censorship and it's all-American excuses for censorship. Just deal with it.
I can't tell the difference between politically inspired censorship in the US (you've already admitted that its not on commercial grounds) and politically inspired censorship in the UK.
Let the excuses begin. "It's a private commercial decision, nothing to do with the government blah blah blah....."
PS. Yes the jail sentence for trolling a message board was censorship as well. The UK does not recognize private conscience nor freedom of speech and has no written constitution, which is why the US backs the UK to the hilt.
Yes. You operate under the erroneous assumption that the British State exists for any other purpose than to deprive its own people of civil liberties. Which is of course why the US is the British State's biggest bosom buddy.
What are you talking about? Wikipedia IS a fictional world where obsessive compulsive disorder and other psychopathologies are the same as expertise (only cheaper)
It has an invaluable collection on Klingon language, some of the most delightful lists of porn stars ever seen, an article on each and every Pokemon character. And that's just for starters.
If you following the links on "The Holy Grail" you find yourself in a room with a window to the East and a door to the North and then....
[This Slashdot post is a stub. You can help Slashdot by completing this post]
Why? Someone, somewhere, cared enough to create that content. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Because the point of an encyclopedia is the distillation of quality scholarship, not the preservation of crap. By the way, do you never throw anything away because its outlived its usefulness because "someone, somewhere, cared enough to create it"?
I'd be more impressed if that person who cared to create it a) signed their real name b) vouched as to its accuracy and c) could actually write an article in English.
After copying Wikipedia, delete all stubs, fancruft, lists of pr0n stars, album descriptions and metal waffle (the articles on obscure metal bands of the 80s in Scandianavia, for example).
That should reduce the database by 90%
Next, put ratings on all articles. Those which are rated crap, get deleted and new submissions requested.
From the article: 'The Global Text Project will work a bit differently from most wikis. Each chapter of each book will be overseen by an academic with knowledge of that field.
The fact that anyone can become a registered user makes this open-source, so the slashdot community should be behind it 100%!!
But open source software is not written like this. Instead the code is watched over by extremely knowledgeable people, and changes are made after full testing has been done to confirm functionality.
Open source software engineering does not involve anybody just registering and altering the live code (even with versioning)
It doesn't matter, Wikipedia is not opensource even in the sense that "DeadboltX" means it, because if you make too many changes, even if they are correct, you'll get banned as a "troll", a "vandal" or a "sockpuppet" of some other banned editor.
Of course, Britannica--while there is no risk of it being altered as you describe--when examined turns out not to be much more accurate than Wikipedia where they both cover the same topics
The Sand Hills were real live dunes during the Little Ice Age. In point of fact, where you are living right now is reclaimed desert. Warming shrinks deserts and cooling expands them. Given the choice, I'd go for warming every time.
Well you're now incoherent and quoting google at random. Not to worry, those nice men in white coats will be arriving shortly to give you a nice warm injection and take your cares away.
Nice. I ask for the resume of McIntyre and McKitrick, and you offer me Wegman. What's that called? Smoke and Mirrors? Try again. I'm still waiting.
Yep and it was Wegman who wrote that McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick was "valid and compelling". Reality just sucks doesn't it?
Let's see - McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, and has a book out on Global Warming. Plenty of money to be made there by being one of the critics of it.
McKitrick is an UNPAID fellow of the Frasier Institute and has co-authored a book attacking a popular consensus that is based on false premises. Hardly something to make money on. Reality just sucks doesn't it?
What? No attack on McIntyre's "vested interests"?
There's plenty of money to be made in the future from people who didn't plan for the various climate changes that are about to hit. It just sucks that the world will look a bit more like a desert than it does now.
Except that deserts decline during warming periods and expand during cooling ones. The Sahara is currently shrinking. Some deserts have disappeared (like the Sand Hills in Nebraska). So where did you get the idea that future warming would lead to the world "looking more like a desert"? Not from a science book that's for sure.
Producing encyclopedias in every language is futile and a waste of resources. They should produce an online encyclopedia in English that is worth spit, but unfortunately we're stuck with Wikipedia, the million monkey solution to scholarship.
You know what Wikipedia really is about? It's an encyclopedia of popular consensus, not scholarship. I'm only grateful that it wasn't around in the 1930s, because we'd have had huge popular consensuses on eugenics as the way forward for humanity and the utility (or not) of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other untermenschen, articles on how much of a crackpot Alfred Wegener was for claiming that the continents moved, and the health giving benefits of smoking.
Slashdot Mirror
You can uninstall the game. It's not going to send around a large mob of orcs to force you to play it again.
...but will it run Linux? Quake? WoW? HalfLife2?
Now that we've got that out of the way, I'd say this was an excellent way of delivering computing power. It's like a Webhost-in-a-box.
I wonder how much these things cost and how much power they consume? I'd read the article but I'm an engineer and never read instructions.
Ever since I realized that I survived unscathed, I have been wondering for a long time why this subject gets an automatic "OMG teh molestation!!!11!" response, when it is actually such a commonplacde in human history.
It is a fear response.
On the other hand, if there is a way to find out repeat sexual predators who are looking for new prey then shouldn't we use that method?
I'm going to make a general comment - I find MySpace unbearably creepy and exhibitionistic. I wonder if its purpose was to provide titillation and unhealthy fascination in young people because it appears to be doing an excellent job at that.
...but you can see all of the plagiarism as well. A perfect gift for the misinformed and the ignorant to keep them that way!
You mean two major distribution channels refusing to show a movie because they didn't like the content isn't censorship? Or that the controversy that two major distribution channels are blatently censoring a movie for political reasons is in fact a glorious opportunity for a small movie to publicize itself because it was censored? How does that work? Does it make the censorship less censorious?
Which planet are you on?
It's censorship and it's all-American excuses for censorship. Just deal with it.
That's right.
I can't tell the difference between politically inspired censorship in the US (you've already admitted that its not on commercial grounds) and politically inspired censorship in the UK.
And neither can you.
Check this out
Let the excuses begin. "It's a private commercial decision, nothing to do with the government blah blah blah....."
PS. Yes the jail sentence for trolling a message board was censorship as well. The UK does not recognize private conscience nor freedom of speech and has no written constitution, which is why the US backs the UK to the hilt.
Yes. You operate under the erroneous assumption that the British State exists for any other purpose than to deprive its own people of civil liberties. Which is of course why the US is the British State's biggest bosom buddy.
PS. Welcome to the green and peasant land.
All of the perpetrators involved are much, much richer than you. Not brighter. Not more ethical. Not more deserving.
What are you talking about? Wikipedia IS a fictional world where obsessive compulsive disorder and other psychopathologies are the same as expertise (only cheaper)
Quite right. Wikipedia will not disappear.
It has an invaluable collection on Klingon language, some of the most delightful lists of porn stars ever seen, an article on each and every Pokemon character. And that's just for starters.
If you following the links on "The Holy Grail" you find yourself in a room with a window to the East and a door to the North and then....
[This Slashdot post is a stub. You can help Slashdot by completing this post]
Why? Someone, somewhere, cared enough to create that content. Don't like it? Don't read it.
Because the point of an encyclopedia is the distillation of quality scholarship, not the preservation of crap. By the way, do you never throw anything away because its outlived its usefulness because "someone, somewhere, cared enough to create it"?
I'd be more impressed if that person who cared to create it a) signed their real name b) vouched as to its accuracy and c) could actually write an article in English.
After copying Wikipedia, delete all stubs, fancruft, lists of pr0n stars, album descriptions and metal waffle (the articles on obscure metal bands of the 80s in Scandianavia, for example).
That should reduce the database by 90%
Next, put ratings on all articles. Those which are rated crap, get deleted and new submissions requested.
That should halve the database again.
Now add.
(2^6)-1 = 64 -1 = 63 = (9 * 7) (not prime)
We know what you meant. Pervert.
From the article: 'The Global Text Project will work a bit differently from most wikis. Each chapter of each book will be overseen by an academic with knowledge of that field.
This is excellent.
Free knowledge written by experts. Sweet.
Dear Microsoft,
With regard to your patent, would you like to
a) fuck off
b) go fuck yourself or
c) get fucked
The fact that anyone can become a registered user makes this open-source, so the slashdot community should be behind it 100%!!
But open source software is not written like this. Instead the code is watched over by extremely knowledgeable people, and changes are made after full testing has been done to confirm functionality.
Open source software engineering does not involve anybody just registering and altering the live code (even with versioning)
It doesn't matter, Wikipedia is not opensource even in the sense that "DeadboltX" means it, because if you make too many changes, even if they are correct, you'll get banned as a "troll", a "vandal" or a "sockpuppet" of some other banned editor.
Of course, Britannica--while there is no risk of it being altered as you describe--when examined turns out not to be much more accurate than Wikipedia where they both cover the same topics
/.
Not true
Maybe I should start a count of how many times this falsehood gets repeated on
Not true. Nature cooked the books. Wikipedia is much, much worse quality than any professional encyclopedia.
I've lost count of the number of times this canard has been repeated on Slashdot.
Um, no. The Sahara is growing, expanding into the Sahel region (which is shrinking)
Um, yes it is shrinking
The Sand Hills were real live dunes during the Little Ice Age. In point of fact, where you are living right now is reclaimed desert. Warming shrinks deserts and cooling expands them. Given the choice, I'd go for warming every time.
Well you're now incoherent and quoting google at random. Not to worry, those nice men in white coats will be arriving shortly to give you a nice warm injection and take your cares away.
Dear Hockey Stick Denialist
Nice. I ask for the resume of McIntyre and McKitrick, and you offer me Wegman. What's that called? Smoke and Mirrors? Try again. I'm still waiting.
Yep and it was Wegman who wrote that McIntyre's critique of the Hockey Stick was "valid and compelling". Reality just sucks doesn't it?
Let's see - McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, and has a book out on Global Warming. Plenty of money to be made there by being one of the critics of it.
McKitrick is an UNPAID fellow of the Frasier Institute and has co-authored a book attacking a popular consensus that is based on false premises. Hardly something to make money on. Reality just sucks doesn't it?
What? No attack on McIntyre's "vested interests"?
There's plenty of money to be made in the future from people who didn't plan for the various climate changes that are about to hit. It just sucks that the world will look a bit more like a desert than it does now.
Except that deserts decline during warming periods and expand during cooling ones. The Sahara is currently shrinking. Some deserts have disappeared (like the Sand Hills in Nebraska). So where did you get the idea that future warming would lead to the world "looking more like a desert"? Not from a science book that's for sure.
That's the thing about popular consensus - it can be bought for real money.
Producing encyclopedias in every language is futile and a waste of resources. They should produce an online encyclopedia in English that is worth spit, but unfortunately we're stuck with Wikipedia, the million monkey solution to scholarship.
You know what Wikipedia really is about? It's an encyclopedia of popular consensus, not scholarship. I'm only grateful that it wasn't around in the 1930s, because we'd have had huge popular consensuses on eugenics as the way forward for humanity and the utility (or not) of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other untermenschen, articles on how much of a crackpot Alfred Wegener was for claiming that the continents moved, and the health giving benefits of smoking.