Typically, when I'm looking for info on wikipedia, I'm not really interested in digging through the history of an article in an effort to understand what the generally accepted consensus is. I understand it's a free service and all, so really as far as I'm concerned the fact that it exists at all is a net gain, but that shouldn't mean that we can't point out where it's weak.
I'm not particularly concerned with what motivates him. The fact remains that for controversial topics, depending on the time of day I hit the page, I'm presented with different information. That's not a good thing.
Reponses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment.
Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise.
The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.
> I really don't understand the point, for most Mac users.
It's not for most Mac users. It's for people who want to use their mac, but absolutely must have some part of windows. For me, that part is IE. For others, it's Outlook. I'm sure there are plenty of other applications, but those are the two big ones.
this is exactly what the tagging system is here for, folks. Two weeks from now when you wonder "what was that thing? About wrestling? I think it was with the devil? Or maybe devils?" slashdot tagging beta will be there to bail you out.
the OSes out of microsoft have only been getting better. Well, 95 may not have been better than DOS, depending on who you're talking to, and ME was awful (but let's face it, it was just a service pack for '98), but 95->98->XP and NT->2k->XP was a steady progression of stabler, more compatible, friendlier OSes.
Will Vista be awful? I dunno, maybe, I guess we'll see. But saying that everything is ready to fall apart because of a rotten codebase when the products have only been getting better seems sort of weird.
that's a huge pain in the ass, as I'm sure you realize, and almost certainly overkill. Neither I or any of my friends has gotten a virus or malware for the last several years by following these 4 E-Z Steps:
(1) Do not use IE or outlook (2) Do not click on shit indiscriminatly. Only run programs from places you trust. (3) Do not trust places like crazyivansdiscountsoftware.com.ru or hotthrobbingboobies.com.za (4) If you need penis enlargement or prescriptions, go to a doctor. If you need porn, go to the usenet.
English is a lot of things, but 'easy to grasp' isn't one of them. From what I understand, it's one of the more difficult languages to learn, due to it's zany "every rule is an exception" philosophy.
I'm having a hard time imagining buying a phone with no hardware keypad. I can be ok with handwriting recognition for the computer part of it, but I'm really gonna need an actual 12-key keypad for the phone part.
yes, thank you for stating the obvious. We agreed not to kill POWs because it's barbaric, just like pretty much everyone else in the civilized world agreed not to use landmines. And somehow the world hasn't been overrun by dictators, as your original post would seem to imply.
Because the natural question that pops up when an organization proclaims something as necessary is "is it really necessary or does it just make your job easier?" Sorry, but I don't think anyone needs to simply blindly accept their statements as fact.
"My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon"
You mean like the US Army? It's a reasonable assumption that at least half of the minefields in Cambodia were American.
And every single injury is a tragedy. That still doesn't change the fact that in times of war, land mines allow the use of smaller infantry forces and result in lower casualties for the side deploying them.
Is this supposed to be the argument that convinces me that it's ok for anyone to deploy landmines? Because they're useful tools in the time of war? If it's not, please point me at it, because I don't see it. You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs. I mean, hell, more troops are freed up to fight, so we should have fewer casualties, right? But we don't, because it's fucking BARBARIC. Just like landmines.
I'm not in the military. The people who are say that they're necessary
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
I'm not going to be on the front lines anywhere and a minefield means that fewer of us have to be there.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
Actually, we DO have stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
Sure, they're "defensive" but let's be honest. Anthrax is anthrax.
The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still amazed there's not a Pirates v Ninjas v Zombies v Robots MMOG.
that's why it's called the Ideal Gas Law.
Not all calculations are inherently chaotic. The lorentz attractor is a great example of a calculation that is, but there's plenty that aren't.
Typically, when I'm looking for info on wikipedia, I'm not really interested in digging through the history of an article in an effort to understand what the generally accepted consensus is. I understand it's a free service and all, so really as far as I'm concerned the fact that it exists at all is a net gain, but that shouldn't mean that we can't point out where it's weak.
I'm not particularly concerned with what motivates him. The fact remains that for controversial topics, depending on the time of day I hit the page, I'm presented with different information. That's not a good thing.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16
I think it's valid criticism for non-technical articles. As noted by others, wikipedia kicks ass for noncontroversial, primarily technical topics.
> I really don't understand the point, for most Mac users.
It's not for most Mac users. It's for people who want to use their mac, but absolutely must have some part of windows. For me, that part is IE. For others, it's Outlook. I'm sure there are plenty of other applications, but those are the two big ones.
this is exactly what the tagging system is here for, folks. Two weeks from now when you wonder "what was that thing? About wrestling? I think it was with the devil? Or maybe devils?" slashdot tagging beta will be there to bail you out.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/07/155 1237
It's the same article in a different place.
Additionally, it's in a different place, but it's the same article.
the OSes out of microsoft have only been getting better. Well, 95 may not have been better than DOS, depending on who you're talking to, and ME was awful (but let's face it, it was just a service pack for '98), but 95->98->XP and NT->2k->XP was a steady progression of stabler, more compatible, friendlier OSes.
Will Vista be awful? I dunno, maybe, I guess we'll see. But saying that everything is ready to fall apart because of a rotten codebase when the products have only been getting better seems sort of weird.
that's a huge pain in the ass, as I'm sure you realize, and almost certainly overkill. Neither I or any of my friends has gotten a virus or malware for the last several years by following these 4 E-Z Steps:
(1) Do not use IE or outlook
(2) Do not click on shit indiscriminatly. Only run programs from places you trust.
(3) Do not trust places like crazyivansdiscountsoftware.com.ru or hotthrobbingboobies.com.za
(4) If you need penis enlargement or prescriptions, go to a doctor. If you need porn, go to the usenet.
As with all other things, the answer to your quandry has already been answered in a Simpsons episode.
Critic: "How do they sleep at night?"
McBain: "On top of a huge pile of money, with many beautiful women."
Hey, who do you trust more - the Canadian government or Canadian Tire? :D
it's not so much that I'm surprised they banned google checkout, it's that I'm shocked they specifically allow Canadian Tire Money.
You know what? Don't answer that, I don't think I want to know. ;)
since when are informal spellings permissible in schools?
what really bugs me is when people use quotation marks "for emphasis."
:mad:
As in 'At Joes Diner, we've got "great" pies!'
seriously, people, stop it.
English is a lot of things, but 'easy to grasp' isn't one of them. From what I understand, it's one of the more difficult languages to learn, due to it's zany "every rule is an exception" philosophy.
yeah. You'll never see people abbreviating things like 'you' and 'your' to 'u' and 'ur' or spelling 'through' or 'night' to 'thru' and 'nite'.
:(
Sadly, I've seen 5th grade papers where the kid spelled through 'thru' and the teacher didn't let out a peep.
I'm having a hard time imagining buying a phone with no hardware keypad. I can be ok with handwriting recognition for the computer part of it, but I'm really gonna need an actual 12-key keypad for the phone part.
yeah, I guess I'm not sure what part of the original post is supposed to be funny.
yes, thank you for stating the obvious. We agreed not to kill POWs because it's barbaric, just like pretty much everyone else in the civilized world agreed not to use landmines. And somehow the world hasn't been overrun by dictators, as your original post would seem to imply.
"And you're an expert able to tell this how?"
Because the natural question that pops up when an organization proclaims something as necessary is "is it really necessary or does it just make your job easier?" Sorry, but I don't think anyone needs to simply blindly accept their statements as fact.
"My point is that the people that laid down land mines in those areas tend to be irresponsable with anything that can be a weapon"
You mean like the US Army? It's a reasonable assumption that at least half of the minefields in Cambodia were American.
Is this supposed to be the argument that convinces me that it's ok for anyone to deploy landmines? Because they're useful tools in the time of war? If it's not, please point me at it, because I don't see it. You know what else is a useful tool in the time of war? Killing POWs. I mean, hell, more troops are freed up to fight, so we should have fewer casualties, right? But we don't, because it's fucking BARBARIC. Just like landmines.
The NSA contends that nationwide wiretaps are necessary. That doesn't make it so.
That's an immensely selfish position, given the long-term civillian damage landmines have caused. I've been to towns in Cambodia where close to half of the inhabitants were missing limbs from old landmines. I'm given to understand that similar conditions exist in parts of Africa.
The anthrax research is for a vaccine. In order to make a vaccine, you have to make some anthrax. To say the US 'stockpiles bioweapons' in an abuse of both words.