I switched from Windows ME a few months ago after having saved enough money to get Windows XP. Really, Windows ME isn't as terrible as people make it seems. I only go to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN with cookies disabled, so really there isn't much to worry about from getting spyware, adware, and computer virii. I never ran any advanced computer programs, so I never had to upgrade computers. I didn't want to switch to Linux because I had the notion that it was too technical and oriented for computer programmers, and the Linux community was too arrogant to help out any new people with basic problems.
Really, Windows ME is okay, as long as you don't go exploring anywhere it's obvious you aren't supposed to. I upgraded computers and operating systems in order to run Celestia, an open-source computer program that lets you view the positions of stars and planets. With it, I can navigate the universe in the same way I navigate the planet with Google Earth. Even with 1.1 GHz and about 386MB RAM, it somehow still has great difficulty loading galaxies and planets.
Ironically, if you actually read the Reuters story, you will see that Reuters released a correction to its story on inaccuracies in Wikipedia! While at first, they said that the family spokesperson reported the cause of Ken Lay's death, later they changed it to having been the family pastor. Why is the mainstream media, "wary of Wikipedia," according to CBS, paying no attention to errors in Reuters, which, when I last checked, had churned out 30 corrections in the past 12 hours?
CNN and the Washington Post use Reuters as a source, do they not? While the mainstream media is "wary of Wikipedia," now I'm "wary of the mainstream media" for having seen their blatant hypocracy. A former professional journalist commented in a blog owned by the Chicago Tribune that while people expect, when an Associated Press story comes out, that there will be many updates correcting and expanding information, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be static. That suggests Wikipedia is to be held to higher standards than the mainstream media, by admission.
The Wikipedia error was fixed after 6 minutes. The Reuters story was fixed after about 24 hours.
Really? I know of professors that penalize the usage of both. The founder of Wikipedia once said, "For god's sake, don't cite the encyclopedia," and he was misquoted by Wikipedia haters to mean Wikipedia, when in actuality this referred to his belief that an encyclopedia, whether Britannia, Encarta, or Wikipedia, should not be quoted in academia because an encyclopedia has compiled information from other sources, which would be better to cite in a research paper.
The difference is that Wikipedia articles usually link to all the places the information has compiled. The article on the North Korean missile launch has been compiled from over 80 separate news articles on the event. Contrastingly, the articles on dwarf azaleas, the city of Itapoá, and Emperor Zhao of Han have no references at all. The North Korean missile launch article is much more trustworthy, as for whether or not I would consider it worthy of reading.
Rather than cite the Wikipedia article, maybe you could go to the sources Wikipedia provides for more information---in that regard, it can be like a human built Google. For example, if you looked up "Under Secretary for Intellectual Property," the top advisor to the Secretary of Commerce and the President on copyright and patent issues, on Google, you would most likely get quotes from a newspaper on his opinion for some patent related court case or other issue, but on Wikipedia, it gives you a detailed description of the position itself.
I should also add that Wikipedias have considerably autonomy with regard to policy between languages. The Japanese Wikipedia has chosen to follow both Japanese and American law with regard to its content. Because of greater copyright restrictions, you will find much fewer photographs and movie posters on the Japanese Wikipedia---there is no "fair use" in Japanese law, to my knowledge. Additionally, there are greater privacy protections. An article on Shosei Koda, who went from Japan to Iraq wanting to "know what was happening there" and got beheaded, is at his real name in English. In Japanese, it appears to be at "Iraq-Japanese beheading," due to restrictions on the reporting of people that are in the public eye for nothing but dying.
The German Wikipedia has no Arbitration Committee, a group of 12 elected Wikipedia users which presides over editorial disputes that may result in banned users. The German Wikipedia requires a public vote with a 2/3 majority to ban users in such disputes. Features on the English Wikipedia have been borrowed from those originating on the German Wikipedia, such as geographic coodinates being placed in the top-right corner of articles like the Washington Monument.
There have been disputes on the English Wikipedia on whether to use British English or American English in articles. It was eventually agreed that articles on American subjects should possess American grammar and spelling, while articles on Commonwealth subjects should use the British spelling and grammar. Where not applicable, it is decided on the basis of which spelling was used in the original revisions of the article. On the Portuguese Wikipedia, this is how Brazilian/European Portuguese spelling disputes are also resolved. Amazing, isn't it?
Speaking of which, the term "mouse potato" was apparently important enough to warrant an entry in Wiktionary......way back in 2002.
The citations they gave are from 1994 and 2001. The word seems to have fallen into disusage since the '90s, signifying to me that it was slang belonging to the same class as the '80s era "boss," "tight," and "the bomb." Ah, well, the Dictionary Overlords that we have for so long welcomed have changed the rules yet again.
Never have I ever heard of that. I guess some people in the M-W offices got bored playing paddleball and decided to throw in whatever the office dullard had been spattering out.
I guess they're saving "wiki" for 2007.
Slashdot Mirror
Now pull this one.
May I also add that Windows XP may be a smaller, smellier turd, but at least it won't cause fatal intestinal blockage?
My computer doesn't meet the system requirements to excrete the interface of that bloated piece of crap all over my screen.
Nah, I'm using Firefox. CNN leaves me with "adclick.com" cookies, so I disabled those in order to view the website without getting them.
I switched from Windows ME a few months ago after having saved enough money to get Windows XP. Really, Windows ME isn't as terrible as people make it seems. I only go to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and CNN with cookies disabled, so really there isn't much to worry about from getting spyware, adware, and computer virii. I never ran any advanced computer programs, so I never had to upgrade computers. I didn't want to switch to Linux because I had the notion that it was too technical and oriented for computer programmers, and the Linux community was too arrogant to help out any new people with basic problems. Really, Windows ME is okay, as long as you don't go exploring anywhere it's obvious you aren't supposed to. I upgraded computers and operating systems in order to run Celestia, an open-source computer program that lets you view the positions of stars and planets. With it, I can navigate the universe in the same way I navigate the planet with Google Earth. Even with 1.1 GHz and about 386MB RAM, it somehow still has great difficulty loading galaxies and planets.
Ironically, if you actually read the Reuters story, you will see that Reuters released a correction to its story on inaccuracies in Wikipedia! While at first, they said that the family spokesperson reported the cause of Ken Lay's death, later they changed it to having been the family pastor. Why is the mainstream media, "wary of Wikipedia," according to CBS, paying no attention to errors in Reuters, which, when I last checked, had churned out 30 corrections in the past 12 hours?
CNN and the Washington Post use Reuters as a source, do they not? While the mainstream media is "wary of Wikipedia," now I'm "wary of the mainstream media" for having seen their blatant hypocracy. A former professional journalist commented in a blog owned by the Chicago Tribune that while people expect, when an Associated Press story comes out, that there will be many updates correcting and expanding information, but an encyclopedia is supposed to be static. That suggests Wikipedia is to be held to higher standards than the mainstream media, by admission.
The Wikipedia error was fixed after 6 minutes. The Reuters story was fixed after about 24 hours.
Really? I know of professors that penalize the usage of both. The founder of Wikipedia once said, "For god's sake, don't cite the encyclopedia," and he was misquoted by Wikipedia haters to mean Wikipedia, when in actuality this referred to his belief that an encyclopedia, whether Britannia, Encarta, or Wikipedia, should not be quoted in academia because an encyclopedia has compiled information from other sources, which would be better to cite in a research paper. The difference is that Wikipedia articles usually link to all the places the information has compiled. The article on the North Korean missile launch has been compiled from over 80 separate news articles on the event. Contrastingly, the articles on dwarf azaleas, the city of Itapoá, and Emperor Zhao of Han have no references at all. The North Korean missile launch article is much more trustworthy, as for whether or not I would consider it worthy of reading. Rather than cite the Wikipedia article, maybe you could go to the sources Wikipedia provides for more information---in that regard, it can be like a human built Google. For example, if you looked up "Under Secretary for Intellectual Property," the top advisor to the Secretary of Commerce and the President on copyright and patent issues, on Google, you would most likely get quotes from a newspaper on his opinion for some patent related court case or other issue, but on Wikipedia, it gives you a detailed description of the position itself. I should also add that Wikipedias have considerably autonomy with regard to policy between languages. The Japanese Wikipedia has chosen to follow both Japanese and American law with regard to its content. Because of greater copyright restrictions, you will find much fewer photographs and movie posters on the Japanese Wikipedia---there is no "fair use" in Japanese law, to my knowledge. Additionally, there are greater privacy protections. An article on Shosei Koda, who went from Japan to Iraq wanting to "know what was happening there" and got beheaded, is at his real name in English. In Japanese, it appears to be at "Iraq-Japanese beheading," due to restrictions on the reporting of people that are in the public eye for nothing but dying. The German Wikipedia has no Arbitration Committee, a group of 12 elected Wikipedia users which presides over editorial disputes that may result in banned users. The German Wikipedia requires a public vote with a 2/3 majority to ban users in such disputes. Features on the English Wikipedia have been borrowed from those originating on the German Wikipedia, such as geographic coodinates being placed in the top-right corner of articles like the Washington Monument. There have been disputes on the English Wikipedia on whether to use British English or American English in articles. It was eventually agreed that articles on American subjects should possess American grammar and spelling, while articles on Commonwealth subjects should use the British spelling and grammar. Where not applicable, it is decided on the basis of which spelling was used in the original revisions of the article. On the Portuguese Wikipedia, this is how Brazilian/European Portuguese spelling disputes are also resolved. Amazing, isn't it?
I saw the title and thought they meant this ad!
Speaking of which, the term "mouse potato" was apparently important enough to warrant an entry in Wiktionary... ...way back in 2002.
The citations they gave are from 1994 and 2001. The word seems to have fallen into disusage since the '90s, signifying to me that it was slang belonging to the same class as the '80s era "boss," "tight," and "the bomb." Ah, well, the Dictionary Overlords that we have for so long welcomed have changed the rules yet again.
Never have I ever heard of that. I guess some people in the M-W offices got bored playing paddleball and decided to throw in whatever the office dullard had been spattering out. I guess they're saving "wiki" for 2007.