Well, a few miles up the M62 from me, Ferrybridge power station closed earlier this year. The UK hasn't been building new coal fired power stations, and the latest nuclear power plant at Hinckley Point won't be producing power any time soon.
Also according to Wikipedia the following fossil-fuel power stations have closed since 2010:-
Ferrybridge C, Littlebrook D, Ironbridge, Teesside, Fawley, Didcot A, Tilbury B, Roosecote B, Grain, Kingsnorth A
and one ( a small gas turbine) has opened.
The power stations that closed produced 13.7 Gigawatts. Wind power in the UK now has a total installed capacity of 14 Gigawatts - peak production obviously, but it's pretty windy here.
There's also just under 10 Gigawatt of installed solar power and it's not always foggy here.
Perhaps we should be asking why the Golden Age of Islamic science happened at all. As the article pointed out, the Arabs had no scientific tradition before their conquest of large parts of the (Greek speaking) Roman Empire. It was only when Greek texts were translated into Arabic that it was possible to continue the work that the Greeks had started.
You could argue that the same thing occurred in Christian countries with the re-discovery of Greek philosophers in the Renaissance.
Does it matter how many possible planets could support life? That seems to make the origin of life like the infinite monkeys + typewriters = Hamlet idea.
Just because life has happened once doesn't provide us with any information to calculate the likelihood of it happening somewhere/time else.
But suppose no 'experts' in a particular field want to contribute. Do you just accept huge gaps, or would you rather have people like me, prepared to do some reading, contribute the odd article or two, and then accept the tedious neccessity of reverting vandalism?
What use is an encyclopedia when literacy rates among a language's speakers approach zero?
I'm a fan of Wikipedia (see my sig) but in this case raising the literacy rate using old-fashioned methods (ie books) surely has to have priority over getting some (token) entries into Wikipedia. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, but until there's a certain level of literacy within the native language group, Wikipedia articles (presumably written by non-native speakers) are going to look at bit like encyclopedic colonialism.
"It's funny when people claim that things are evolving into "higher" or "lower" forms, as if people are the obvious pinnacle of the process."
As Mark Twain said...
"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno." - "Was the World Made for Man?"
I don't know if it's possible to be a history nazi, but here goes...
If it was 1361, it would be Edward III
Re:Wikipedia is not open source
on
Unusual Open Source
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In theory I agree...but my limited experience as a Wikipedia editor suggests that this isn't true. There may be no one overall guiding hand - with 1,000,000+ articles in English alone how could there be? - but I suspect a lot of areas have one or more guardians who watch closely over their areas of expertise.
If you have a look at the spelling in the Paston letters (mid fifteenth century) and other documents of the period, it's clear that they were writing down a basically spoken language. It's only when printed books became available in the later fifteenth century that spelling and grammar became more formalised. Chaucer in the original spelling can be hard to understand - Mallory's Mort D'Arthur is much closer to modern English.
Spoken languages evolve quickly - once it's written down, the pace of change slows. If the written language is frequently spoken (in English, think of Shakespeare or the King James bible) the pace of change slows still further.
Texting/instant messaging is really a spoken language - the fact it's in ASCII just confuses the issue.
From my limited experience as a contributor, it depends on how controversial/topical the article is. There are many articles that provide a good introduction to their subject - which is what an encyclopedia should do - which never suffer from this type of editing. However, these never make the headlines.
As for using it as an academic reference - most Wikipedia aricles are tertiary sources at best. However, if they're properly referenced, they should lead you back to something that could be used academically.
I watched the programme on Friday evening. For all you non-Brits (or young Brits), you may like to know that this series has been running on the BBC for many years. The episodes are always good on what you would expect from the title - money, the business world in general.
However, it seems to me that business journalists just don't 'get' the internet, and the later part of the program seemed to reflect this. There was a section that went out of the way to highlight what appeared to br one womans unease about the privacy problems caused by Google's ability to store the results of a users searches - with no mention of the fact that in most cases all Gooogle will have is an IP address, or even that using Google (or even the Internet) isn't compulsory.
And don't forget those readers for whom English is not their first language. What may be an obvious mis-spelling or grammatical error to a native english speaker may render the article (or reply) incomprehensible to someone who's having to look words up in a dictionary.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, a few miles up the M62 from me, Ferrybridge power station closed earlier this year. The UK hasn't been building new coal fired power stations, and the latest nuclear power plant at Hinckley Point won't be producing power any time soon.
Also according to Wikipedia the following fossil-fuel power stations have closed since 2010:-
Ferrybridge C, Littlebrook D, Ironbridge, Teesside, Fawley, Didcot A, Tilbury B, Roosecote B, Grain, Kingsnorth A and one ( a small gas turbine) has opened.
The power stations that closed produced 13.7 Gigawatts. Wind power in the UK now has a total installed capacity of 14 Gigawatts - peak production obviously, but it's pretty windy here.
There's also just under 10 Gigawatt of installed solar power and it's not always foggy here.
I took (and passed) 9 'O' levels in 1971. This was normal - some of my classmates took 10 or 11. Not bragging - just saying.
Actually, 2nd world or new world
I thought the origin of Third World was much earlier. Old World = Europe/Middle East. New World = Americas/Australasia. Third World = The Rest.
Perhaps we should be asking why the Golden Age of Islamic science happened at all. As the article pointed out, the Arabs had no scientific tradition before their conquest of large parts of the (Greek speaking) Roman Empire. It was only when Greek texts were translated into Arabic that it was possible to continue the work that the Greeks had started. You could argue that the same thing occurred in Christian countries with the re-discovery of Greek philosophers in the Renaissance.
Does it matter how many possible planets could support life? That seems to make the origin of life like the infinite monkeys + typewriters = Hamlet idea. Just because life has happened once doesn't provide us with any information to calculate the likelihood of it happening somewhere/time else.
So in what type of game is there an infinite number of solutions?
But suppose no 'experts' in a particular field want to contribute. Do you just accept huge gaps, or would you rather have people like me, prepared to do some reading, contribute the odd article or two, and then accept the tedious neccessity of reverting vandalism?
To not be or not to be - that is the question
Infinitives requested to not be split
What use is an encyclopedia when literacy rates among a language's speakers approach zero?
I'm a fan of Wikipedia (see my sig) but in this case raising the literacy rate using old-fashioned methods (ie books) surely has to have priority over getting some (token) entries into Wikipedia. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, but until there's a certain level of literacy within the native language group, Wikipedia articles (presumably written by non-native speakers) are going to look at bit like encyclopedic colonialism.
I realise I risk being modded down -1 Obvious, but perhaps the solution is not to put private documents there?
"It's funny when people claim that things are evolving into "higher" or "lower" forms, as if people are the obvious pinnacle of the process."
As Mark Twain said...
"Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; & anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno."
- "Was the World Made for Man?"
This is why the pages that fall within my areas of interest are on my watchlist - which I check several times a day. Read my sig...
I don't know if it's possible to be a history nazi, but here goes... If it was 1361, it would be Edward III
In theory I agree...but my limited experience as a Wikipedia editor suggests that this isn't true. There may be no one overall guiding hand - with 1,000,000+ articles in English alone how could there be? - but I suspect a lot of areas have one or more guardians who watch closely over their areas of expertise.
I'm old enough to have used edlin, which means I also get the joke.
Spoken languages evolve quickly - once it's written down, the pace of change slows. If the written language is frequently spoken (in English, think of Shakespeare or the King James bible) the pace of change slows still further.
Texting/instant messaging is really a spoken language - the fact it's in ASCII just confuses the issue.
From my limited experience as a contributor, it depends on how controversial/topical the article is. There are many articles that provide a good introduction to their subject - which is what an encyclopedia should do - which never suffer from this type of editing. However, these never make the headlines. As for using it as an academic reference - most Wikipedia aricles are tertiary sources at best. However, if they're properly referenced, they should lead you back to something that could be used academically.
..and it's not just me. Look at forums on the Paradox website - even now, experienced players are discovering things they never knew about it.
I watched the programme on Friday evening. For all you non-Brits (or young Brits), you may like to know that this series has been running on the BBC for many years. The episodes are always good on what you would expect from the title - money, the business world in general. However, it seems to me that business journalists just don't 'get' the internet, and the later part of the program seemed to reflect this. There was a section that went out of the way to highlight what appeared to br one womans unease about the privacy problems caused by Google's ability to store the results of a users searches - with no mention of the fact that in most cases all Gooogle will have is an IP address, or even that using Google (or even the Internet) isn't compulsory.
PS - split infinitives don't count
And don't forget those readers for whom English is not their first language. What may be an obvious mis-spelling or grammatical error to a native english speaker may render the article (or reply) incomprehensible to someone who's having to look words up in a dictionary.