Deliberately ignorant, putting ideology before reality.
Ignorant? If you would investigate Wikipedia for yourself you would find that the articles are as accurate as any textbook. If you submitted crap to an article you would find that there are, in fact, a number of "eyes" on your work, and the mistakes would be corrected quickly. That's the reality of the situation.
Yes, there is danger that incorrect information can make it into the encyclopedia. All I am saying is that incorrect information finds its way into all sorts of places, from CBS News, to the History Channel, to your child's textbook. Should we scrap those venues also? Should all of us be responsible for the primary research on any subject in which we have an interest?
All right, so you can't trust the Wikipedia. Who can you trust? Encyclopedia Britannica? A great resource, to be sure... provided you can afford to pay for it, and it actually has information on the topic you're researching. Here's an example: suppose I want to find information on the topic of sporting clays. I go to Encyclopedia Britannica online search on "sporting clays". What I get is 136 articles, some as obscure as "dog" and "War Hawk", and two short paragraphs on trap shooting and skeet shooting, which are similar sports, but not the same thing. After sifting through the choices, I know no more about sporting clays than I did when I began. Even if I paid for the encyclopedia. Now go to Wikipedia. Type in sporting clays and click GO. Now you know about sporting clays, what it is, how it's played, and where you can find more information on the subject (gosh, look who the ignorant bastard was who wrote it!).
Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are. You can probably find articles that have erroneous information in them in Wikipedia. Here's an idea, why don't you ask for your money back. Oh, that's right... it's free. Considering what you pay for it, it's a hell of a bargain.
If I'm wrong, prove it. Does Wikipedia fact check content before it goes live?
No, it does not, therefore you should NOT read it. It is, as you say, edited by a MOB. Nothing but evil can ever come of it. Stay away from Wiki. Get a bumper sticker for your vehicle that proudly proclaims that you do NOT read Wikipedia and encourage others not to do so. Everything on it is pure garbage.
You are right. Be proud of yourself. Be smug even.
I have contributed several new articles, and added to some existing. For example: I found some articles on programming languages which were lacking example code. I created some of my own and posted it. Elsewhere, I noticed that there was a request for an article on the fictional word "ghoti". I created one. Interestingly enough, once I created the article, several other people came along and added to it.
Go to the requests page and see if you can find something you would like to contribute. Even a short "stub" article is better than nothing.
Most of the questions were loaded, and the answers were predictable. Here is how I imagine the article would have been written if one of the topic areas was the color of the sky:
Nature: All scientists agree that the sky is green. What are you doing about it?
Bush: Er, umm. (Green?) Ahem. Yes, well, my administration, um, has made green sky policy a priority.
Kerry: As president I would support more (insert topic here) funding. Senator Edwards and I believe that we can grow the economy, while at the same time giving attention to the (insert topic here) issue.
Which is all very interesting, because the purpose of movies and books are basically to entertain.
The purpose of some movies and books are to entertain. But that is not the reason many writers or directors do what they do. The books and movies which populate the canons of literature, those which are considered to be important contributions to civilization, were written to inform; to educate; to comment on social issues; etc.
If it is "pretentious" to consider books and movies which are thought-provoking to be superior to those which are designed to elicit an orgasmic spasm of emotion, and fill the bank accounts of their creators, then I am pretentious; elitist; and proud of it.
I agree completely with your reply. I should have added that owning an SP is a commitment, especially since they need more excercise than, say, the miniature or toy varieties.
Speaking of which, I'm going to take mine to the dog park.
Most burglars will avoid a house with a dog. You don't even need a large/mean dog. I'm biased, but I think you can't go far wrong with a standard poodle. They're damn smart; easy to train; large enough to be frightening; and make good watchdogs, alerting their owner when anything unusual is going on; they don't shed, don't smell, and are hypoallergenic. If a dog is out of the question, how about rigging up some electronic barking to the motion sensor light?
...the school culture explicitly promoted learning and education...
I agree. My daughter goes to a specialty high school where students pursue either an International Baccalaureate (IB) or Visual/Performing Arts (VPA) study regimen. They are not as strict as the Jesuits, by any means, but like your school, learning and education in this institution are treated paramount. Any student not interested in learning and keeping up his/her grades is expelled.
On the other hand, the local Catholic school turns out mediocre students and has terrible drug and discipline problems. Clearly learning is not paramount there. The joke is that the Catholic school is where you send your student if they're too much of a problem for the "teenage daycare, babysitter" public schools.
I also don't think the U.S. school woes are the result of any conspiracy. There are just too many parents who don't give a damn about education, and their children pick up on that apathy. I actually overheard the father of a middle school boy tell his son that "English grades don' matter. Boys don' gotta know English anyhow. That [expletive] is for girls." Oh yeah, you know that kid's going to go far.
...and I won't be the last to say it. But somebody's got to say it here: Florida is one of the worst places in the world to have set up a space program. Frances is just one in a long string of reasons why.
Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"?
There are two kinds of people who are upset about the Patriot Act and the VISIT program:
1) People who hate George Bush and would think these programs were just fine if Al Gore were in office.
2) Paranoics.
As soon as someone is arrested simply because they checked a book out at the library (and for no other reason), then let me know and I might change my mind.
are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same?
I can't account for the opinions of the mis-informed. I have no idea why NASCAR is so popular either. I think the same people who are against the VISIT program right now, would have been all for it if Bill Clinton were still in office. The whole thing boils down to politics.
The best way to stop people from attacking you is to stop them from hating you.
How are we supposed to stop people from hating us? Why is it that WE must do all the work? Why is it neccessary for US to do all the "understanding". Why is it that the U.S. is ALWAYS wrong (no matter what we do) and everyone else is ALWAYS right?
It does not matter whether we get involved in world affairs or not; it does not matter how much good American agencies do worldwide; we're going to be hated regardless.
No. What is a logical fallacy is trying to argue that we should not take certain actions now simply on the basis that it would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. That's like saying that the U.S. should not have beefed up security at the country's seaports during WWII because it would not have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack.
I answered that stupid argument with another equally stupid argument.
I'd love to be able to visit again, as I really enjoyed seeing Washington DC - but right now, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe doing so.
The reason I am writing off your opinion is because you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime). I don't buy the argument that you (or was it your parents) "felt foreign" while here. I can drive 300 miles in any direction in this country and feel "foreign". Every time I've been overseas in my adult life, I've felt "foreign". One of the reasons I like travelling overseas is because I DO feel foreign; because it's NOT like here.
And don't talk to me about our "bad" laws travelling to Australia. I can still take one of my semi-automatic rifles out for target practice, or one of my semi-automatic shotguns out for a round of sporting clays anytime I want -- something you can no longer do in Australia.
The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state. Your statements are either purely politically motivated, or you are paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
Deliberately ignorant, putting ideology before reality.
Ignorant? If you would investigate Wikipedia for yourself you would find that the articles are as accurate as any textbook. If you submitted crap to an article you would find that there are, in fact, a number of "eyes" on your work, and the mistakes would be corrected quickly. That's the reality of the situation.
Yes, there is danger that incorrect information can make it into the encyclopedia. All I am saying is that incorrect information finds its way into all sorts of places, from CBS News, to the History Channel, to your child's textbook. Should we scrap those venues also? Should all of us be responsible for the primary research on any subject in which we have an interest?
All right, so you can't trust the Wikipedia. Who can you trust? Encyclopedia Britannica? A great resource, to be sure... provided you can afford to pay for it, and it actually has information on the topic you're researching. Here's an example: suppose I want to find information on the topic of sporting clays. I go to Encyclopedia Britannica online search on "sporting clays". What I get is 136 articles, some as obscure as "dog" and "War Hawk", and two short paragraphs on trap shooting and skeet shooting, which are similar sports, but not the same thing. After sifting through the choices, I know no more about sporting clays than I did when I began. Even if I paid for the encyclopedia. Now go to Wikipedia. Type in sporting clays and click GO. Now you know about sporting clays, what it is, how it's played, and where you can find more information on the subject (gosh, look who the ignorant bastard was who wrote it!).
Are there exceptions? I'm sure there are. You can probably find articles that have erroneous information in them in Wikipedia. Here's an idea, why don't you ask for your money back. Oh, that's right... it's free. Considering what you pay for it, it's a hell of a bargain.
If I'm wrong, prove it. Does Wikipedia fact check content before it goes live?
No, it does not, therefore you should NOT read it. It is, as you say, edited by a MOB. Nothing but evil can ever come of it. Stay away from Wiki. Get a bumper sticker for your vehicle that proudly proclaims that you do NOT read Wikipedia and encourage others not to do so. Everything on it is pure garbage.
You are right. Be proud of yourself. Be smug even.
Where's my flying car?!
You know what, I started to write a substantial rebuttal, but decided to scratch that.
You're right. Obviously the only reason anyone would ever submit an article to the Wikipedia is to mislead you. Don't ever, ever, EVER read it.
Umm, you misspelled "misspelled" and "spelling". Maybe those weren't spelling errors after all.
...competent professioals.
Using your logic, I suggest you stay out of airplanes and always watch CBS news. The Wright brothers were not competent professionals; Dan Rather is.
Yes, be sure to always use an authoritative source for information... like CBS.
I have contributed several new articles, and added to some existing. For example: I found some articles on programming languages which were lacking example code. I created some of my own and posted it. Elsewhere, I noticed that there was a request for an article on the fictional word "ghoti". I created one. Interestingly enough, once I created the article, several other people came along and added to it.
Go to the requests page and see if you can find something you would like to contribute. Even a short "stub" article is better than nothing.
...small small device from RSA Security...
Now, is that a really tiny device, or is there some acronym (SMALL?) of which I am unfamiliar.
Most of the questions were loaded, and the answers were predictable. Here is how I imagine the article would have been written if one of the topic areas was the color of the sky:
Nature: All scientists agree that the sky is green. What are you doing about it?
Bush: Er, umm. (Green?) Ahem. Yes, well, my administration, um, has made green sky policy a priority.
Kerry: As president I would support more (insert topic here) funding. Senator Edwards and I believe that we can grow the economy, while at the same time giving attention to the (insert topic here) issue.
Which is all very interesting, because the purpose of movies and books are basically to entertain.
The purpose of some movies and books are to entertain. But that is not the reason many writers or directors do what they do. The books and movies which populate the canons of literature, those which are considered to be important contributions to civilization, were written to inform; to educate; to comment on social issues; etc.
If it is "pretentious" to consider books and movies which are thought-provoking to be superior to those which are designed to elicit an orgasmic spasm of emotion, and fill the bank accounts of their creators, then I am pretentious; elitist; and proud of it.
Is is any wonder that the American education system is the laughingstock of the world when mere literacy is treated as elitism?
(why must EVERYTHING be set in the US with US actors?)
Worse, are the movies set in England, with US actors (The Importance of Being Earnest, Vanity Fair, etc.)
That's great. One movie for literate fans, and one for the NASCAR crowd (Hint: if you don't know which is which, you're in the NASCAR crowd).
Audiophiles will buy anything.
I agree completely with your reply. I should have added that owning an SP is a commitment, especially since they need more excercise than, say, the miniature or toy varieties.
.
Speaking of which, I'm going to take mine to the dog park
Reminds me of those WWII era Civil Defense movies I saw once in a history class...You
know, the one with the turtle...
NOT WWII! Cold War!
Damn kids! I wish you little shits would pay attention in history class!
Most burglars will avoid a house with a dog. You don't even need a large/mean dog. I'm biased, but I think you can't go far wrong with a standard poodle. They're damn smart; easy to train; large enough to be frightening; and make good watchdogs, alerting their owner when anything unusual is going on; they don't shed, don't smell, and are hypoallergenic.
If a dog is out of the question, how about rigging up some electronic barking to the motion sensor light?
I agree. My daughter goes to a specialty high school where students pursue either an International Baccalaureate (IB) or Visual/Performing Arts (VPA) study regimen. They are not as strict as the Jesuits, by any means, but like your school, learning and education in this institution are treated paramount. Any student not interested in learning and keeping up his/her grades is expelled.
On the other hand, the local Catholic school turns out mediocre students and has terrible drug and discipline problems. Clearly learning is not paramount there. The joke is that the Catholic school is where you send your student if they're too much of a problem for the "teenage daycare, babysitter" public schools.
I also don't think the U.S. school woes are the result of any conspiracy. There are just too many parents who don't give a damn about education, and their children pick up on that apathy. I actually overheard the father of a middle school boy tell his son that "English grades don' matter. Boys don' gotta know English anyhow. That [expletive] is for girls." Oh yeah, you know that kid's going to go far.
...and I won't be the last to say it. But somebody's got to say it here: Florida is one of the worst places in the world to have set up a space program. Frances is just one in a long string of reasons why.
Just how far would it have to go before you felt differently about "not becoming a police state"?
There are two kinds of people who are upset about the Patriot Act and the VISIT program:
1) People who hate George Bush and would think these programs were just fine if Al Gore were in office.
2) Paranoics.
As soon as someone is arrested simply because they checked a book out at the library (and for no other reason), then let me know and I might change my mind.
are you serious? Even if you're really that xenophobic, how then do you account for the US-ers who feel the same?
I can't account for the opinions of the mis-informed. I have no idea why NASCAR is so popular either. I think the same people who are against the VISIT program right now, would have been all for it if Bill Clinton were still in office. The whole thing boils down to politics.
The best way to stop people from attacking you is to stop them from hating you.
How are we supposed to stop people from hating us? Why is it that WE must do all the work? Why is it neccessary for US to do all the "understanding". Why is it that the U.S. is ALWAYS wrong (no matter what we do) and everyone else is ALWAYS right?
It does not matter whether we get involved in world affairs or not; it does not matter how much good American agencies do worldwide; we're going to be hated regardless.
No. What is a logical fallacy is trying to argue that we should not take certain actions now simply on the basis that it would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. That's like saying that the U.S. should not have beefed up security at the country's seaports during WWII because it would not have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack.
I answered that stupid argument with another equally stupid argument.
I'd love to be able to visit again, as I really enjoyed seeing Washington DC - but right now, I wouldn't feel comfortable or safe doing so.
The reason I am writing off your opinion is because you sound paranoid. There is no reason why you should not visit the U.S. right now. You're probably much safer here today than you would have been 30 years ago (c.f. crime). I don't buy the argument that you (or was it your parents) "felt foreign" while here. I can drive 300 miles in any direction in this country and feel "foreign". Every time I've been overseas in my adult life, I've felt "foreign". One of the reasons I like travelling overseas is because I DO feel foreign; because it's NOT like here.
And don't talk to me about our "bad" laws travelling to Australia. I can still take one of my semi-automatic rifles out for target practice, or one of my semi-automatic shotguns out for a round of sporting clays anytime I want -- something you can no longer do in Australia.
The U.S. is not a police state, and is not becoming a police state. Your statements are either purely politically motivated, or you are paranoid.