What the fuck, man? You didn't think it through, and you were wrong. That's okay. Smart people are wrong all the time. But it takes a special kind of ass to proclaim the stupidity of others with the self-defensive zeal you've demonstrated here.
No, I'm just repeating what I've heard from numerous Wikipedians, namely: vandalism doesn't compromise the encyclopedia because it tends to be quickly reverted.
But I suppose anyone who questions the sustainability of the Wikipedia model must be a troll, right?
...am I right in my belief that a global dictionary is already available for every text field on the mac?
Yes, but the Firefox team has decided to reimplement the entire UI framework in a way that is neither as useful nor as elegant as OS X's native Cocoa. As a result, Firefox behaves like a poor facsimile of a real Mac application, and does not benefit from systemwide Cocoa services such as spellchecking.
Nothing to add here except another voice of praise for the good work by the KHTML and WebKit teams, whose engines are far leaner, more portable, and usefully standards-compliant than Gecko has ever been. And the resultant browsers don't suck, either—which is more than you can say for Gecko (Firefox) or Trident (IE/Win).
Articles on Wikipedia are neutral only from the perspective of the people who are motivated enough to edit those articles. In the case of the Ayn Rand article, I'm going to venture a guess that these people happen to be raging objectivists. It's difficult for others to glean useful information from this sort of proxy propaganda, especially if the only way to infer authorship is from clues buried in the history and discussion page.
You're kidding yourself if you think Wikipedia articles can ever be written with anything approaching a usefully critical perspective. Think about the process behind their evolution. The occasional highly-visible public figure aside, Wikipedia articles on individuals tend towards hagiography.
Nature attempted to match article lengths by cobbling separate Britannica articles together. This was one of several rather crude tactics which caused people to question the study.
If you're referring to the Nature study, Wikipedia was found to contain a third again as many errors as Britannica. That's a far cry from "about the same." And that's if you accept the study's methodology. To this disinterested observer, at least, some of the objections raised to their methodology seemed to have merit.
I call myself a disinterested observer, by the way, because I no longer edit Wikipedia. Like most onetime contributors I know in real life, I eventually learned it's not worth the trouble.
As far as I can tell, all the statements about Stallman's appalling personal habits are true. Eben Moglen, as quoted in Sam Williams' Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free: "...and of course, Richard is plucking the knots from his hair and dropping them in the soup and behaving in his usual way. Anybody listening in on our conversation would have thought we were crazy."
And that oft-repeted anecdote about Stallman sponge-bathing in MIT bathrooms—not mentioned in the Forbes article, but a common troll here on Slashdot? I've got a couple trustworthy friends, MIT alums, who claim to have witnessed this particular hygienic eccentricity years before Slashdot even existed.
I'm willing to believe it, too. At Columbia, I used to see (and smell) Eben Moglen on campus every now and again, and he's as dirty a hippie as they come. Of course I mean that endearingly.
"I really think everything is fair game. That's not to say that I don't find anything offensive. But I think you can make fun of anything as long as it's funny enough. But it has to be funny enough."
"I don't care if you think I'm racist. I just want you to think I'm thin."
I disagree. Many sociologists and economists (who should know what they're talking about) argue that poor people choose to have more children, consciously or not, because it increases the odds that at least one of them will become successful later in life, thus being able to support the siblings and parents in old age. An evolution-minded anthropologist would say that breeding like bunnies is the best strategy for genetic perpetuation if you're under material stress, while doting on a single child may make more sense for wealthier parents. Also, consider that rural farmers—who tend to be poorer than urbanites—want more children in order to help them take care of the land. Here's one recent article that touches on the subject. There may be some truth to your argument, as well, but the causation is probably stronger in the opposite direction.
This post contains rampant generalizations; please recognize as such and save your flaming for someone else.
Hey shit-for-brains, I rock climb too; go backpacking in the Catskills every summer. Some would call me an eco-freak. That doesn't mean I can't be pissed off at you for working to keep the Bush administration in power, because—don't kid yourself—that's exactly what you're doing with your ill-targeted rants and your promotion of the "lunatic fringe" image. Fuck you for supporting Bush, you fucking neo-conservative tool.
You're a stupid piece of shit. Worse, you've been duped by all the corporations who have interests in promoting an anti-"MSM" image—but I suppose it's no surprise a sheep like you would fall for it. Ba-a-a-a!
Oh, Christ. It's tone-deaf fucktards like you that keep this administration in the White House. Hope you're happy, because the rest of us in the real world would be more than happy to take shovels to your worthless, self-defeating heads.
Your view of how the world functions is just plain fucking wrong, as anyone who lives in New York can tell you. The people you elected to represent us have done more to promote a misinterpreted version of Huntington's original "Clash of Civilizations" than Huntington himself ever did.
If you don't understand by now the ways in which this administration has made New York City more vulnerable to attack from abroad, you probably never will. Fuck you again for supporting those buffoons in our name, you self-righteous birdbrain.
"Seems I was right. Not that I liked either canidate. Kerry back'ed out to soon, showing even he was approving Bush."
I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't vote in the primaries, where literally dozens of candidates were competing to represent a wide range of opinions. It's not a two-person race by any means. If you didn't like either of the two final candidates, why didn't you vote for a candidate you did like in the primaries?
Slashdot Mirror
Stuff that's beige.
What the fuck, man? You didn't think it through, and you were wrong. That's okay. Smart people are wrong all the time. But it takes a special kind of ass to proclaim the stupidity of others with the self-defensive zeal you've demonstrated here.
I third that motion. The smallest MBP is still too big, and the regular MB's keyboard sucks. While we're at it, please bring back the PowerBook name.
No, I'm just repeating what I've heard from numerous Wikipedians, namely: vandalism doesn't compromise the encyclopedia because it tends to be quickly reverted.
But I suppose anyone who questions the sustainability of the Wikipedia model must be a troll, right?
But I thought vandalism is usually caught and reverted right away, hence not a problem.
Why not? If Wikipedia articles improve over time (fixing mistakes and such) then surely the current revision is better than the old?
To argue against this point would be to admit the flaw in Wikipedia's underlying philosophy.
Nothing to add here except another voice of praise for the good work by the KHTML and WebKit teams, whose engines are far leaner, more portable, and usefully standards-compliant than Gecko has ever been. And the resultant browsers don't suck, either—which is more than you can say for Gecko (Firefox) or Trident (IE/Win).
Articles on Wikipedia are neutral only from the perspective of the people who are motivated enough to edit those articles. In the case of the Ayn Rand article, I'm going to venture a guess that these people happen to be raging objectivists. It's difficult for others to glean useful information from this sort of proxy propaganda, especially if the only way to infer authorship is from clues buried in the history and discussion page.
You're kidding yourself if you think Wikipedia articles can ever be written with anything approaching a usefully critical perspective. Think about the process behind their evolution. The occasional highly-visible public figure aside, Wikipedia articles on individuals tend towards hagiography.
Nature attempted to match article lengths by cobbling separate Britannica articles together. This was one of several rather crude tactics which caused people to question the study.
If you're referring to the Nature study, Wikipedia was found to contain a third again as many errors as Britannica. That's a far cry from "about the same." And that's if you accept the study's methodology. To this disinterested observer, at least, some of the objections raised to their methodology seemed to have merit.
I call myself a disinterested observer, by the way, because I no longer edit Wikipedia. Like most onetime contributors I know in real life, I eventually learned it's not worth the trouble.
To the standards required by a civil case? Yes, almost certainly. And probably also beyond a judge or jury's reasonable doubt.
There is no place for you to hide, Prisoner 163409.
As far as I can tell, all the statements about Stallman's appalling personal habits are true. Eben Moglen, as quoted in Sam Williams' Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman and the Free: "...and of course, Richard is plucking the knots from his hair and dropping them in the soup and behaving in his usual way. Anybody listening in on our conversation would have thought we were crazy."
And that oft-repeted anecdote about Stallman sponge-bathing in MIT bathrooms—not mentioned in the Forbes article, but a common troll here on Slashdot? I've got a couple trustworthy friends, MIT alums, who claim to have witnessed this particular hygienic eccentricity years before Slashdot even existed.
I'm willing to believe it, too. At Columbia, I used to see (and smell) Eben Moglen on campus every now and again, and he's as dirty a hippie as they come. Of course I mean that endearingly.
"I really think everything is fair game. That's not to say that I don't find anything offensive. But I think you can make fun of anything as long as it's funny enough. But it has to be funny enough."
"I don't care if you think I'm racist. I just want you to think I'm thin."
I disagree. Many sociologists and economists (who should know what they're talking about) argue that poor people choose to have more children, consciously or not, because it increases the odds that at least one of them will become successful later in life, thus being able to support the siblings and parents in old age. An evolution-minded anthropologist would say that breeding like bunnies is the best strategy for genetic perpetuation if you're under material stress, while doting on a single child may make more sense for wealthier parents. Also, consider that rural farmers—who tend to be poorer than urbanites—want more children in order to help them take care of the land. Here's one recent article that touches on the subject. There may be some truth to your argument, as well, but the causation is probably stronger in the opposite direction.
This post contains rampant generalizations; please recognize as such and save your flaming for someone else.
Hey shit-for-brains, I rock climb too; go backpacking in the Catskills every summer. Some would call me an eco-freak. That doesn't mean I can't be pissed off at you for working to keep the Bush administration in power, because—don't kid yourself—that's exactly what you're doing with your ill-targeted rants and your promotion of the "lunatic fringe" image. Fuck you for supporting Bush, you fucking neo-conservative tool.
You're a stupid piece of shit. Worse, you've been duped by all the corporations who have interests in promoting an anti-"MSM" image—but I suppose it's no surprise a sheep like you would fall for it. Ba-a-a-a!
I bet you voted for Nader, didn't you? And you probably thought you were doing everyone a favor, too, didn't you? You asshole.
Oh, Christ. It's tone-deaf fucktards like you that keep this administration in the White House. Hope you're happy, because the rest of us in the real world would be more than happy to take shovels to your worthless, self-defeating heads.
Keep digging, jackass. Why don't you go vote for Nader while you're at it?
Feel free to vote in the primaries, too. I don't know where this idea comes from that there's only two candidates to choose from.
Your view of how the world functions is just plain fucking wrong, as anyone who lives in New York can tell you. The people you elected to represent us have done more to promote a misinterpreted version of Huntington's original "Clash of Civilizations" than Huntington himself ever did.
If you don't understand by now the ways in which this administration has made New York City more vulnerable to attack from abroad, you probably never will. Fuck you again for supporting those buffoons in our name, you self-righteous birdbrain.
"Seems I was right. Not that I liked either canidate. Kerry back'ed out to soon, showing even he was approving Bush."
I'm going to go ahead and assume you didn't vote in the primaries, where literally dozens of candidates were competing to represent a wide range of opinions. It's not a two-person race by any means. If you didn't like either of the two final candidates, why didn't you vote for a candidate you did like in the primaries?