I've always wondered how things that cost millions and millions can be so shaky. I kind of understand, but it just seems odd that their hardware is so sensitive.
1.5.0.6. The analysis resulted in 611 defects and 71
You do realize that 611 + 71 is 682. And that 1506 + 682 = 2188. And that Feburary 1st, 1988 is in the year 1988, and that Kevin Karpenske who gave Firefox his domain has been (scroll down to see the post).
I'm sure Microsoft will have a tool in the Network Setting applet, to upgrade DNS servers to be Vista compatable. If MS has a hand in the DNS servers, it will greatly improve interoperability.
What i don't understand is the plutonic nature of the hot and cold dark matter as it coagulates upon confrontation. The twin-mitosis experiment clearly shows a subjugation of the wrench-affect, and with it the gastronomical constant, when within range of the bibliosonic effect submitted via bionic alpha waves.
This experiemt blatantly ignored the effect and relies on neutrinos instead. IMO, this is just more useless talk, and we really need to support the quantum phatasmajelca machine to project more definite proofs.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
Safe? You do realize that they all have dyed a long time ago, don't you?
And you just reminded me of something i heard during an oral test. It went something like this.
The tester asked a question, the student gave an elaborate answer. After he finished, the tester said "That's an excellent answer, but for the wrong question."
This comment: If it is a document I own, I wouldn't even bother with using anything other than my favourite authoring tool and put the anchors that I need where I want them.
Previous comment: I have always found it a bit weak that you have to explicitly put anchors in your document to be able to jump there.
What i commented on, and what you are replying to seem to be different things.
"Captchas are a nice idea to protect your blog or guestbook from beeing spammed by robots."
Captchas? Do you mean capuccino? And they are a nice idea, for some brick-and-mortar to make money off of selling in tiny amounts.
Seriously, did you know what the author meant before cliking on the link? Ugh, and it uses wikipedia to translate it. My Zod, where in Houston have we come to?
Well, if the author didn't give it an id, and the id was autogenerated, and then the author changed some of the text, what good is the id? Would not the author be required to decide if the change was major or minor, having a minor change keep the same UID, but a major change gettinga new one? (Much like ISBN numbers work.)
Which means that the author cannot truly be divorced from the context of serialization, so it is he that would have to give the ids. Or, if they are truly to be autogenerated, even a minor change would require a new id. Imagine a minor change and a move at the same time, how could anyone decide if it is the same or not, and then there's context.
I admit i like the idea, but i don't see it as being feasable without rules that make it too complicated to be useful.
rather extend OPML so that every node has a UUID, as well as an optional human readable idea. That way you could cite the node as http://foo.bar.opml/#dbcb7190-3d9b-11db-a98b-08002 0 0c9a66, even if the author did not think it worthy of a human generated ID.
Then just add character or paragraph count. Using current regex expressions, it really should be that hard to implement.
The advantage of this system would be that citations would be stable, even if users reorganize the outline. Which is kind of the point of outlining.
For example, every paragraph in a HyperScope document has a location number, an address corresponding to the paragraph's location in a document. For example, the second paragraph in the top-level of a document has the location number 2. To link to this paragraph, you can use the address:
I just hope you don't seriously think that is a definition that explains it well. Even if that is what the word literally means, it's usage is much more specific.
nd real encyclopedia don't change ? That's an advantage of wikipedia actually. It gets updated faster than a real encyclopdia.
Faster != better. I can load the page the show someone what i just saw, and have to wade through the changelog to see what happened. When i open an encyclopedia, the text doesn't change.
That's even better than a real encyclopedia because you have the full changelog.
Encyclopedia companies keep full changelogs.
> and noone will stand behind iot if it changes.
There's a changelog for each entry.
And all the changlog really says is "this changed". It's useless.
No one really stands behind it but the authors, but the change process is much more open than the one made by a real encyclopedia.
It's more open? Yearbooks publish changes to the enclopedia, and everythis is recorded.
Do you trust more a single company than a group of people? I don't. They are equal to me.
Then you are a fool.
A single company has a vested interest in being considered accurate. Drifters do not.
Open source works.
In some cases yes, in some not.
I don't see why open content wouldn't work.
There is no correlation between open source and open content. If only because open source is made up by the contributor, and open content (in Wikipedia) must be passed on from elsewhere.
> And, personal discovery being inadmissable, it can never be a first-hand source of information either.
I doubt this to be a problem today. Things that end up in an encyclopedia are usually known things (they have been debated/published somewhere else). So I don't see why it would hinder Wikipedia in some way.
Of course. Nothing new ever gets added. Did you even read what you wrote?
I remember a WoW conversation (general) that went like:
InquisitiveNewbie: Where do i find the lost riddle? Obtuse 60: Go look it up on Thottbot InquisitiveNewbie: I'm trying to play without using Thottbot. Another obtuse 60: Where do you think whoever answers got it from?
Of course, "smart" people like these also believe time is circular. I'm beginning to see a correlation.
In related new, the RIAA has been looking into installing transmitters on people's computers, that would leave a "fingerprint" on the server during a download. Senior technologist Albert Gore said in an interview, that one of the things he's supported about the Internet since he created it, was the ability to track its users. He wants to tax the fingerprints to help pay for free internet service in schools, and is willing to work with the RIAA in implementing the technology.
The Bush administration also seem to be jumping on the bandwagon, and is calling upon Congress to pass a law mandating fingerprint collection to be stored in a secret database, so noone can have access to it. Critics say this will cost too much to implement, and is a breach of privacy, but a presidential order has barred them from publicizing their remarks.
Hizbullah Spokesman Imawiddlekooky Intheheady has shown images of the destruction these fingerprints have done. Three hospitals, twelve ambulances, and twenty-five pillars of smoke have all been destroyed due to them, and together with the Iranian President have called for the evil west to give up.
The House is up in arms over children having fingerprints, but is divided over whether to take them away, or hang any adult that uses them.
The Apple corporation, has released a statement saying that MAC-spoofing is a real problem, and has asked for an injunction against Microsoft Windows.
More news at 11, if we can get it past the constituional filter.
In other news, replies are being made to Slashdot that have nothing to do with the stories themselves.
In even more other news, replies are being made to Slashdot claiming that they have nothing to do with the stories themselves, but in reality send subliminal messages.
Please. An encyclopedia is a form and genre, not a classification of quality.
This reply emphasizes my point. Instead of arguing the actual point, you degrade the general meaning of encyclopedia for a strict defintion, allowing even a cheap substitute that *techincally* fits the bill to be considered on par.
Encyclopedias are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics.
Well, i usually call those books. And, there's this amazing place called a "library" that is full of them. They sometimes have web pages, but even so, being actually in one--other than for the free internet access--is a breathtaking experience. Seriously, you should try it once. And remember "books". Say it a few times. When you get there, ask were are the "books". Do not ask where encyclopedias are, for they are a subclass of books and will lead you elsewhere. Just ask where the "books" are.
(Don't believe me? Take a look at the many definitions Google pulls up for the query "Define:encyclopedia".)
Amazing. You should be refering to a dictionary (site). (Yeah yeah, now tell me that according to google, google definitions are a dictionary.)
Wikipedia is a reference source
All sources are referential. By definition.
which contains information on a variety of topics
Oh, so a dictionary is also an encyclopedia? Or maybe the US Code? Or how about the Mac OS bible?
in an explicitly encyclopedic format.
In an "encyclopedic" format. Let's see, according to you, enclclopedias "are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics". So, to translate this last senctence of "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in an explicitly encyclopedic format." you mean "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in a referential way containing information on a variety of topics." That doesn't say anything. It also makes my bookmarks menu an encylopedia.
Case Closed.
Wow. Does that make you feel better?
Issues of quality and reliability are entirely separate and unrelated.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like your teacher last year. Perhaps you will do well when school starts again this year.
===================
As everyone knows, an encyclopedia is a defintive source of information, based on aggregated knowledge, compiled by a specific person or group of persons, being editted over time, and not changing much from year to year, with either sources given, or personal accounts listed (the latter explicity forbidden in wikpedia). Popularity of the information has no bearing on what is presented either, being it must come from trusted sources, or personal discovery.
Further, any published information in an encyclopedia can be reference at any future time without regard to changes, all articles are numbered (by year and entry), and if there is a specific question on the validity of the information presented, the person or group of persons will stand behind it and say exactly why they published it (even if changed due to later discoveries).
Wikipedia, however, cannot be cited. Since articles change, and there is no way to reference a specific version of it, and noone will stand behind iot if it changes. And, personal discovery being inadmissable, it can never be a first-hand source of information either.
Also, people relying on the information are relying on the person or group of persons who published it. Wikipedia relies on noone, and thus does not put anyone's name behind it. While data might be data, without personal research (which would obviate the need for an encyclopedia) the presenter of the data is being relied on. Making the point of someone standing behind it to be very important.
All in all, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a wikipedia, and a good one at that.
Slashdot Mirror
It took 20 years to reach 1 billion connections, three years to reach 2 billion connections
Wow, they hit two billion even before they hit one billion. Now that's fast.
I've always wondered how things that cost millions and millions can be so shaky. I kind of understand, but it just seems odd that their hardware is so sensitive.
Can't they just hire Woz to build it for them?
1.5.0.6. The analysis resulted in 611 defects and 71
You do realize that 611 + 71 is 682. And that 1506 + 682 = 2188. And that Feburary 1st, 1988 is in the year 1988, and that Kevin Karpenske who gave Firefox his domain has been (scroll down to see the post).
An *exposition* on *firefox*, well duh!
I'm sure Microsoft will have a tool in the Network Setting applet, to upgrade DNS servers to be Vista compatable. If MS has a hand in the DNS servers, it will greatly improve interoperability.
and free-as-in-$5/hour..
Almost as good as Comcast's "unlimited" usage.
What i don't understand is the plutonic nature of the hot and cold dark matter as it coagulates upon confrontation. The twin-mitosis experiment clearly shows a subjugation of the wrench-affect, and with it the gastronomical constant, when within range of the bibliosonic effect submitted via bionic alpha waves.
This experiemt blatantly ignored the effect and relies on neutrinos instead. IMO, this is just more useless talk, and we really need to support the quantum phatasmajelca machine to project more definite proofs.
>>This article presents an alternative to dark matter
>Just as dark as your regular matter, but with only 1/3 the calories!
Heh.
Of course, there's alma matter, which is just plain wet, eh. But, being full of DiHydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) which some want to ban but other defend.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
Safe? You do realize that they all have dyed a long time ago, don't you?
So, might as well defenestrate *that* idea.
I hear the point, i just don't see this as a breakthrough or anything, and certainly not something thayt isn't mostly alreayd done.
Ah OK, at least i understand the sentiment now. :)
And you just reminded me of something i heard during an oral test. It went something like this.
The tester asked a question, the student gave an elaborate answer. After he finished, the tester said "That's an excellent answer, but for the wrong question."
This comment: If it is a document I own, I wouldn't even bother with using anything other than my favourite authoring tool and put the anchors that I need where I want them.
Previous comment: I have always found it a bit weak that you have to explicitly put anchors in your document to be able to jump there.
What i commented on, and what you are replying to seem to be different things.
*chuckle*
:)
Very cute.
"Captchas are a nice idea to protect your blog or guestbook from beeing spammed by robots."
Captchas? Do you mean capuccino? And they are a nice idea, for some brick-and-mortar to make money off of selling in tiny amounts.
Seriously, did you know what the author meant before cliking on the link? Ugh, and it uses wikipedia to translate it. My Zod, where in Houston have we come to?
You can move a paragraph from one site to another without it losing its identity.
2 0 0c9a66, even if the author did not think it worthy of a human generated ID."
But you said earlier "That way you could cite the node as http://foo.bar.opml/#dbcb7190-3d9b-11db-a98b-0800
Well, if the author didn't give it an id, and the id was autogenerated, and then the author changed some of the text, what good is the id? Would not the author be required to decide if the change was major or minor, having a minor change keep the same UID, but a major change gettinga new one? (Much like ISBN numbers work.)
Which means that the author cannot truly be divorced from the context of serialization, so it is he that would have to give the ids. Or, if they are truly to be autogenerated, even a minor change would require a new id. Imagine a minor change and a move at the same time, how could anyone decide if it is the same or not, and then there's context.
I admit i like the idea, but i don't see it as being feasable without rules that make it too complicated to be useful.
Class, wait a momnet, as i revert your textbooks to the previous edit...
OPML was not designed as a web standard
2 0 0c9a66, even if the author did not think it worthy of a human generated ID.
Neither was HTML.
rather extend OPML so that every node has a UUID, as well as an optional human readable idea. That way you could cite the node as http://foo.bar.opml/#dbcb7190-3d9b-11db-a98b-0800
Then just add character or paragraph count. Using current regex expressions, it really should be that hard to implement.
The advantage of this system would be that citations would be stable, even if users reorganize the outline. Which is kind of the point of outlining.
A simple hash could do that.
--
I see an idea here, but a poor implementation.
BTW, thanx for your comments.
I have always found it a bit weak that you have to explicitly put anchors in your document to be able to jump there.
Then get a tool to put the tags in for you. Don't mess with the standard that allows the granularity of actually defining it.
Isn't this just an anchor tag on drugs? Just make it part of HTML 5.
I just hope you don't seriously think that is a definition that explains it well. Even if that is what the word literally means, it's usage is much more specific.
I don't see how sticking with something exceedingly obsolete can be functional when viewed alongside semi-modern systems.
Why must modern context be a factor in usability? If it works, it works.
nd real encyclopedia don't change ? That's an advantage of wikipedia actually. It gets updated faster than a real encyclopdia.
Faster != better. I can load the page the show someone what i just saw, and have to wade through the changelog to see what happened. When i open an encyclopedia, the text doesn't change.
That's even better than a real encyclopedia because you have the full changelog.
Encyclopedia companies keep full changelogs.
> and noone will stand behind iot if it changes.
There's a changelog for each entry.
And all the changlog really says is "this changed". It's useless.
No one really stands behind it but the authors, but the change process is much more open than the one made by a real encyclopedia.
It's more open? Yearbooks publish changes to the enclopedia, and everythis is recorded.
Do you trust more a single company than a group of people? I don't. They are equal to me.
Then you are a fool.
A single company has a vested interest in being considered accurate. Drifters do not.
Open source works.
In some cases yes, in some not.
I don't see why open content wouldn't work.
There is no correlation between open source and open content. If only because open source is made up by the contributor, and open content (in Wikipedia) must be passed on from elsewhere.
> And, personal discovery being inadmissable, it can never be a first-hand source of information either.
I doubt this to be a problem today. Things that end up in an encyclopedia are usually known things (they have been debated/published somewhere else). So I don't see why it would hinder Wikipedia in some way.
Of course. Nothing new ever gets added. Did you even read what you wrote?
I remember a WoW conversation (general) that went like:
InquisitiveNewbie: Where do i find the lost riddle?
Obtuse 60: Go look it up on Thottbot
InquisitiveNewbie: I'm trying to play without using Thottbot.
Another obtuse 60: Where do you think whoever answers got it from?
Of course, "smart" people like these also believe time is circular. I'm beginning to see a correlation.
What rubbish.
In related new, the RIAA has been looking into installing transmitters on people's computers, that would leave a "fingerprint" on the server during a download. Senior technologist Albert Gore said in an interview, that one of the things he's supported about the Internet since he created it, was the ability to track its users. He wants to tax the fingerprints to help pay for free internet service in schools, and is willing to work with the RIAA in implementing the technology.
The Bush administration also seem to be jumping on the bandwagon, and is calling upon Congress to pass a law mandating fingerprint collection to be stored in a secret database, so noone can have access to it. Critics say this will cost too much to implement, and is a breach of privacy, but a presidential order has barred them from publicizing their remarks.
Hizbullah Spokesman Imawiddlekooky Intheheady has shown images of the destruction these fingerprints have done. Three hospitals, twelve ambulances, and twenty-five pillars of smoke have all been destroyed due to them, and together with the Iranian President have called for the evil west to give up.
The House is up in arms over children having fingerprints, but is divided over whether to take them away, or hang any adult that uses them.
The Apple corporation, has released a statement saying that MAC-spoofing is a real problem, and has asked for an injunction against Microsoft Windows.
More news at 11, if we can get it past the constituional filter.
In other news, replies are being made to Slashdot that have nothing to do with the stories themselves.
In even more other news, replies are being made to Slashdot claiming that they have nothing to do with the stories themselves, but in reality send subliminal messages.
20 GOTO 10
Please. An encyclopedia is a form and genre, not a classification of quality.
This reply emphasizes my point. Instead of arguing the actual point, you degrade the general meaning of encyclopedia for a strict defintion, allowing even a cheap substitute that *techincally* fits the bill to be considered on par.
Encyclopedias are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics.
Well, i usually call those books. And, there's this amazing place called a "library" that is full of them. They sometimes have web pages, but even so, being actually in one--other than for the free internet access--is a breathtaking experience. Seriously, you should try it once. And remember "books". Say it a few times. When you get there, ask were are the "books". Do not ask where encyclopedias are, for they are a subclass of books and will lead you elsewhere. Just ask where the "books" are.
(Don't believe me? Take a look at the many definitions Google pulls up for the query "Define:encyclopedia".)
Amazing. You should be refering to a dictionary (site). (Yeah yeah, now tell me that according to google, google definitions are a dictionary.)
Wikipedia is a reference source
All sources are referential. By definition.
which contains information on a variety of topics
Oh, so a dictionary is also an encyclopedia? Or maybe the US Code? Or how about the Mac OS bible?
in an explicitly encyclopedic format.
In an "encyclopedic" format. Let's see, according to you, enclclopedias "are reference sources containing information on a variety of topics". So, to translate this last senctence of "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in an explicitly encyclopedic format." you mean "Wikipedia is a reference source which contains information on a variety of topics in a referential way containing information on a variety of topics." That doesn't say anything. It also makes my bookmarks menu an encylopedia.
Case Closed.
Wow. Does that make you feel better?
Issues of quality and reliability are entirely separate and unrelated.
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like your teacher last year. Perhaps you will do well when school starts again this year.
===================
As everyone knows, an encyclopedia is a defintive source of information, based on aggregated knowledge, compiled by a specific person or group of persons, being editted over time, and not changing much from year to year, with either sources given, or personal accounts listed (the latter explicity forbidden in wikpedia). Popularity of the information has no bearing on what is presented either, being it must come from trusted sources, or personal discovery.
Further, any published information in an encyclopedia can be reference at any future time without regard to changes, all articles are numbered (by year and entry), and if there is a specific question on the validity of the information presented, the person or group of persons will stand behind it and say exactly why they published it (even if changed due to later discoveries).
Wikipedia, however, cannot be cited. Since articles change, and there is no way to reference a specific version of it, and noone will stand behind iot if it changes. And, personal discovery being inadmissable, it can never be a first-hand source of information either.
Also, people relying on the information are relying on the person or group of persons who published it. Wikipedia relies on noone, and thus does not put anyone's name behind it. While data might be data, without personal research (which would obviate the need for an encyclopedia) the presenter of the data is being relied on. Making the point of someone standing behind it to be very important.
All in all, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is a wikipedia, and a good one at that.