just like "evoting", this shouldn't shock.
In theory, interactive learning with the aid of a computer should benefit the students who get to use it. In practice, this turns out to be just another give-away to cronies with schlock product - just google "bush brother educational software texas schools" to see what I'm talking about. One of the Bush bros was charging millions for totally useless software that was just worthless - really lame, mindless crapware aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm all for having programming courses in schools, and giving the rest of the students basic computer literacy (preferably with open source tools), but this "interactive software" learning crap will always come in way over-priced, and add no value to the education of our youth here in the U.S. This is also why I am convinced that the U.S. is slowly (or maybe quickly) deteriorate intellectually and be supplanted by the nations that more rapidly are able to adopt FLOSS into their learning curriculums
Alright, so you would have companies pay pollution taxes. But first you would get rid of all the regulators, right? If you do that, I can assure you that companies would pollute much more than they do now. I have first hand knowledge of a company in my town that already illegally pollutes, even with regulatory oversight - they do it at night. The reason I know this is because a friend of mine used to manage the night shift at said factory. Now tell me how getting rid of regulators is going to help?
Didn't know the policy was voted on by the community. However, I really feel like there should be authorship attribution - and from what I understood from the FAQ when I read it was that this was a policy set by Wales and company and that it was not up for debate. That is my biggest bone of contention with the project, so much so that I've hesistated giving them much money. The community exists because of all the contributors' efforts, and yet Wales is the one who gets to run around like some kind of celebrity. Where are the accolades for the everyday, workaday authors of content? I say, add authorship recognition/attribution. Just my 2 cents.
Just a muse, but how about a peer to peer based version of wikipedia, independent from Wales and company. An app that incorporates a rating system and such.
The article's mention of the creation of the bong caddy Roomba reminded me of Dennis Leary's bit about how the problem with smoking dope is that it leads to carpentry. The bong caddy Roomba, that is too rich.
All the sins of democracy are much more prevalent in dictatorships. Personally, I would like to see Wikipedia introduce some sort of versioning system, that allowed for minority views to be heard. It would solve their problems of restriction to a greater extent than imposing these top down ruling upon the community, which will lead to resentment and a feeling of disempowerment for the workaday contributors. And I don't think there is anything wrong with being able to rate your peers, and being able to peruse the consensus of the community with the help of social software. In fact, I would argue it is absolutely essential in building any sort of virtual community online. I never understand how people such as yourself command such a following with your "tyranny of the majority" rants. Please, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Il Duce, the list goes on and on.
You are the moron, MechaS. Don't think my sympathies lie with Kafka_Canada. God, you have just proven my point, you are too incompetent to understand how the Slashdot posting system works. My parent post is Kafka_Canada, you fscking moron. There are many ways that you can figure this out, but you would have to be halfway, just halfway competent, to pull it off. You are a perfect example of neocon idiocy crashing through life with blinders on and experiencing your own highly subjective reality. idiot.
The Register has some funny stuff, but the flamepost regarding Wikipedia really pissed me off. I'm not hitting that fetid site anymore to ring up their stats. This study shows that while Wikipedia isn't perfect, its quality is much higher than one would ever guess just by going by the mainstream media's assessment of it. Rock on Wikipedia, rock on!
Slashdot Mirror
just like "evoting", this shouldn't shock. In theory, interactive learning with the aid of a computer should benefit the students who get to use it. In practice, this turns out to be just another give-away to cronies with schlock product - just google "bush brother educational software texas schools" to see what I'm talking about. One of the Bush bros was charging millions for totally useless software that was just worthless - really lame, mindless crapware aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm all for having programming courses in schools, and giving the rest of the students basic computer literacy (preferably with open source tools), but this "interactive software" learning crap will always come in way over-priced, and add no value to the education of our youth here in the U.S. This is also why I am convinced that the U.S. is slowly (or maybe quickly) deteriorate intellectually and be supplanted by the nations that more rapidly are able to adopt FLOSS into their learning curriculums
Alright, so you would have companies pay pollution taxes. But first you would get rid of all the regulators, right? If you do that, I can assure you that companies would pollute much more than they do now. I have first hand knowledge of a company in my town that already illegally pollutes, even with regulatory oversight - they do it at night. The reason I know this is because a friend of mine used to manage the night shift at said factory. Now tell me how getting rid of regulators is going to help?
Didn't know the policy was voted on by the community. However, I really feel like there should be authorship attribution - and from what I understood from the FAQ when I read it was that this was a policy set by Wales and company and that it was not up for debate. That is my biggest bone of contention with the project, so much so that I've hesistated giving them much money. The community exists because of all the contributors' efforts, and yet Wales is the one who gets to run around like some kind of celebrity. Where are the accolades for the everyday, workaday authors of content? I say, add authorship recognition/attribution. Just my 2 cents.
Just a muse, but how about a peer to peer based version of wikipedia, independent from Wales and company. An app that incorporates a rating system and such.
The article's mention of the creation of the bong caddy Roomba reminded me of Dennis Leary's bit about how the problem with smoking dope is that it leads to carpentry. The bong caddy Roomba, that is too rich.
All the sins of democracy are much more prevalent in dictatorships. Personally, I would like to see Wikipedia introduce some sort of versioning system, that allowed for minority views to be heard. It would solve their problems of restriction to a greater extent than imposing these top down ruling upon the community, which will lead to resentment and a feeling of disempowerment for the workaday contributors. And I don't think there is anything wrong with being able to rate your peers, and being able to peruse the consensus of the community with the help of social software. In fact, I would argue it is absolutely essential in building any sort of virtual community online. I never understand how people such as yourself command such a following with your "tyranny of the majority" rants. Please, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Il Duce, the list goes on and on.
You are the moron, MechaS. Don't think my sympathies lie with Kafka_Canada. God, you have just proven my point, you are too incompetent to understand how the Slashdot posting system works. My parent post is Kafka_Canada, you fscking moron. There are many ways that you can figure this out, but you would have to be halfway, just halfway competent, to pull it off. You are a perfect example of neocon idiocy crashing through life with blinders on and experiencing your own highly subjective reality. idiot.
I think maybe now he's ignoring you because you're a moron. hehe. moron.
oh, errr.. nevermind. that's 1.5 million. woopty.
The Register has some funny stuff, but the flamepost regarding Wikipedia really pissed me off. I'm not hitting that fetid site anymore to ring up their stats. This study shows that while Wikipedia isn't perfect, its quality is much higher than one would ever guess just by going by the mainstream media's assessment of it. Rock on Wikipedia, rock on!