Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"...were not confronted..." ? (Score 1) 125

by gsslay (#46463769) Attached to: Major Wikipedia Donors Caught Editing Their Own Articles

Except we did read it, and most likely reached the same conclusion. He's got next to nothing, but hopes that darkly hinting at future revelations of much worse will fool us into taking him more seriously than he deserves.

If you're going to have a series of revelations about anything, best start with one that doesn't have people saying "meh".

Comment: Re:IAU? (Score 2) 124

by gsslay (#46463695) Attached to: IAU To Uwingu: You Can't Name That Martian Crater Either

Well just like the star naming scam, no-one "gets to decide" and anyone can name anything they like.

I could rename the craters of Mars after my relatives if I wanted to. Yes, even the ones that already have names. No-one, however, is likely to pay my naming the slightest bit of attention, because I have neither authority nor importance. Just like UWingo.

The International Astronomical Union, on the otherhand, have a fair degree of recognition. Feel free to ignore them, but you'll find that most people concerned with Mars are happy for them to take the lead on naming.


by gsslay (#46454435) Attached to: Major Wikipedia Donors Caught Editing Their Own Articles

Because there was nothing to confront them about. NPOV was not violated and the OP is talking bunk.

I've read the article that is mentioned in particular. A minor page about a card game. A few things might be better worded, but I see no flagrant violations of NPOV. Yes, one or two contributing editors may have had a conflict of interests, and probably shouldn't have been editing it. But the article as it stands is broadly neutral and reasonably cited.

If this is the best example that Wikipediocracy can produce of this outrageous practice, then I doubt Wikipedia has anything to worry about.

Comment: Re:Conflict (Score 1) 125

by gsslay (#46454389) Attached to: Major Wikipedia Donors Caught Editing Their Own Articles

The OP talks of violation of the NPOV policy, but that is not what is happening. They are violating to COI (conflict of interest) policy. Violation of NPOV is easy to determine by reading the article, because a NPOV violation applies no matter who wrote it.

COI violations are less easy to determine if you do not know who the editor is.

Comment: random and blind (Score 1) 56

by gsslay (#46428497) Attached to: First Study of the Evolution of Memes On Facebook

Another disproving of intelligent design. Cos intelligence is not something that could ever be said of any Facebook post that starts "Like/Share if you agree..."

It has to be random and blind at a minimum. But ignorant, unfunny and stupid equally appears to help. Maybe that's where the comparison with evolving genes breaks down?

Comment: Re:We give chalk talks. (Score 1) 181

by gsslay (#46428313) Attached to: Physics Forum At Fermilab Bans Powerpoint

Have to agree.

I can fully appreciate the danger of "death by powerpoint". Some people really do sucky presentations that positively encourage viewers to switch off. If your presentation could be as well printed out, and taken home and read, then you're not doing it right.

But sometimes when you are presenting a complex idea, that would take ages to draw, and you'd probably mess up or forget bits, you need something pre-prepared. And a bit of animation, etc, used sparingly in the right places, can really help your explanation. You can't do that with chalk or marker pen.

Comment: Re:Even if it's accurate (Score 1) 276

by gsslay (#46427785) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

What's changed is that when he admits that it is him, he is suddenly a very rich guy who has access to a whole heap of money, and possibly, maybe, with the know-how to make a whole lot more. Not necessarily ethically.

Being that guy tends to attract the wrong kind of attention from the wrong kind of people.

So he has every reason to deny everything. Particularly if you're the type of person who values privacy and peace.

Comment: Re:XP Works (Score 1) 857

by gsslay (#46409949) Attached to: Microsoft's Attempt To Convert Users From Windows XP Backfires

Well that's why Microsoft's marketing should be focussing where Windows 8.1 is exactly the same as XP. Users of XP are not impressed by whizzy new features. If they were, the chances are they'd have upgraded years ago. They have XP, they like XP, they are only going to upgrade grudgingly. So they want to know that Windows 8.1 isn't too different, isn't going to break all their files, and won't take another 12 years to master.

Unfortunately, we all know that Microsoft have gone out of their way to remove familiar stuff from Windows 8, and can't really say much about how it's like XP. But this is why you pay ad people; to conjure something out of nothing.

Comment: Re:Why is revenge still a role of justice? (Score 1) 326

by gsslay (#46366679) Attached to: The Science of Solitary Confinement

More like; what's the difference between 10 years and 20 years, if people commit a crime on the basis that they will not get caught.

Very few commit crime anticipating they will be caught. So the difference in the number of years given when convicted really doesn't much feature in their thinking.

Comment: Re:Rejects (Score 1) 921

by gsslay (#46360107) Attached to: Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

I suspect that the street performer was more likely just engaging in banter. That's what street performers do. If you're doing/wearing something that makes you stand out, expect to be drawn into the performance.

The idea that a street performer didn't know others were recording, had a problem with it, and expected to be able to stop people doing it, really doesn't sound credible. You wouldn't last long as a street performer with that attitude. Far more likely that the performer just wanted to guilt them into putting more cash in the hat.
