![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackhttp://www.physorg.com/news9063.html
I've only just been exposed to this for the first time, but it seems a very annoying form of adverising. Words in the article are turned into hyperlinks to products. There is some appropriateness, but it seems enormously misleading. (For instance, in "We directly view this single atom with specially-tuned lasers and a sensitive camera," camera hyperlinks to camera mobile phone company.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
This article claims Wikipedia is of an order with Britannica in accuracy (though somewhat less). I think it was restricted to scientific articles. Of course, they will each have their own strengths. A published encyclopedia will be less prone to controversial articles being defaced, or misleading stubs left in. Print has the problem that it has reasonable experts, but not the best experts. And can't easily issue corrections. For the moment, wikipedia is probably more up-to-date, but we'll have to see how it lasts.
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
This deserves a whole post. Indeed, a whole site. And there's one, right there, in the link :) But I'm never going to get round to that, so here it is. Please do read it.
Do you have opinions you would be reluctant to express in your peer group? If not, you're probably doing the equivalent of thinking the sun goes round the earth. How do you find ideas you find yourself not thinking? Look for ideas people hate hearing (but pick your battles). Look back in time and to other countries. Any idea held everywhere is more universal, most things are likely to evolve.
Why do this? Curiousity. A hate of thinking something mistaken or being hidebound. Science being breaking conventional wisdom.
I've only just been exposed to this for the first time, but it seems a very annoying form of adverising. Words in the article are turned into hyperlinks to products. There is some appropriateness, but it seems enormously misleading. (For instance, in "We directly view this single atom with specially-tuned lasers and a sensitive camera," camera hyperlinks to camera mobile phone company.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
This article claims Wikipedia is of an order with Britannica in accuracy (though somewhat less). I think it was restricted to scientific articles. Of course, they will each have their own strengths. A published encyclopedia will be less prone to controversial articles being defaced, or misleading stubs left in. Print has the problem that it has reasonable experts, but not the best experts. And can't easily issue corrections. For the moment, wikipedia is probably more up-to-date, but we'll have to see how it lasts.
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
This deserves a whole post. Indeed, a whole site. And there's one, right there, in the link :) But I'm never going to get round to that, so here it is. Please do read it.
Do you have opinions you would be reluctant to express in your peer group? If not, you're probably doing the equivalent of thinking the sun goes round the earth. How do you find ideas you find yourself not thinking? Look for ideas people hate hearing (but pick your battles). Look back in time and to other countries. Any idea held everywhere is more universal, most things are likely to evolve.
Why do this? Curiousity. A hate of thinking something mistaken or being hidebound. Science being breaking conventional wisdom.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 02:24 pm (UTC)Yes, but I'm not telling you what they are.
(S)
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 03:54 pm (UTC)heretical opinion that it was mostly rambling nerd-supremacy libertarian drivel
You feel I, and perhaps other people, think you *ought* to like it? Under the circumstances, it would be exceptionally hypocritical of me to criticise you for not doing so.
Is this something which people you know would invariably support?
Why do I feel strongly about it? Imagine I was living n00 years ago. I would no doubt think blacks and women shouldn't vote, etc. Now I find that view repugnant. It seems inevitable that in n00 years *on*, I would find many of my current views repugnant. And I have a small drive to find out what they are and at least consider them, because I feel otherwise I look stupid and am small-minded and bad.
nerd-supremacy
OK, I didn't really look at it this way before, but I see the prejudice there now, linking intellegence with breaking taboos.
libertarian
He does seem to not advocate immediately breaking all taboos, just being aware of them.
(which you've picked out the best of).
*shrug* Thank you. Perhaps I do have too much of a tendancy to *only* see the good points.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-16 11:56 pm (UTC)I spent lots of yesterday reading this though
http://www.spack.org/wiki/InTheBeginningWasTheCommandLine
no subject
Date: 2005-12-18 01:29 pm (UTC)