On 11/16/2011 3:33, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/11/2011 03:31 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 6:51, Invisible wrote:
>>> Sheesh... You know there are people who do this kind of crap for a
>>> living??
>>
>> You think that's bad? Imagine the same thing for the iTunes metadata
>> database, with like 6 million rows.
>
> If it's anything like CDDB, then that would be why I never use CDDB. :-P

Actually, CDDB was *way* better for me.  The main problem there was poor 
consistency, not downright inaccuracy. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
> Downloading 30 files, of 2KB each, is not exactly something that requires
> "optimising".

It's not a question of optimizing speed, but of making it work right at all. 
OK, so this one needs a cookie set, that one needs the right referrer, this 
other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to download IE or 
firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/11/2011 03:38 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
>> Downloading 30 files, of 2KB each, is not exactly something that requires
>> "optimising".
>
> It's not a question of optimizing speed, but of making it work right at
> all. OK, so this one needs a cookie set, that one needs the right
> referrer, this other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to
> download IE or firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.

Fortunately, in this instance, none of that was a problem. (This web 
site seems to be stuck in 1997.) Which is very, very fortunate, because 
trying to sort that lot out would probably have driven me insane! >_<

Post a reply to this message

> On 15/11/2011 02:51 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Remember couple #453? One of the two that got 7 recommendations in round
> 1? In round two, they got 1455666, and therefore came last. Again,
> everyone thought they should be bottom, except for ONE judge. THE SAME
> ONE, incidentally. I wonder what the hell *she* was watching?
>

Welcome to the world of subjective points attribution...

> [I can only imagine she was standing at the other end of the room or
> something, and so she did see #453 and nobody else did, and she didn't
> see #466 and everyone else did. But man, that's some weird stats...]

Maybe it was an arrangement with the russian judge...

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-11-17 22:38, Darren New a écrit :
> On 11/16/2011 6:11, Invisible wrote:
> this other gives you a redirect to a home page offering you to
> download IE or firefox if it doesn't see a User-agent header, etc.
>

I hate those with a passion.  "IE and Firefox don't work on my 
BlackBerry, you moron!  Now, let me see the page and deal with the fact 
that I can't see most of your nifty CSS tricks!"

(Rant not addressed to you personally)
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 16-11-2011 12:34, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/11/2011 03:49 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
>> As near as I can tell this problem is solved by not bothering to get it
>> right.
>
> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.
>
> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/

Isn't that also the Fox News way of working?

BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add 
something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is 
flagged for deletion almost automatically.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.

> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/

  I think there was an actual case of exactly that. Apparently a wikivandal
had added an additional name to a person's biografy in wikipedia. It was one
of those people who had a really long list of names (like eg. Picasso,
although I'm pretty sure it was not him in this case). Some magazine or
newspaper then copied the entire name, the fake one included, verbatim from
wikipedia. Then someone added the reference to wikipedia.

  Of course in this case checking the fact is relatively simple, as long as
someone notices it and bothers to check: Since wikipedia keeps a log of the
entire history of the page, check if the ostensibly fake name was added
before or after the name's appearance in the referenced magazine. If the
magazine is newer than the date that the name was added, it's immediately
suspect.

  I think that should be a rule in wikipedia: All references *must* be older
than the page which includes the (purported) fact being referenced. If it's
newer, then it's not reliable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add 
> something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is 
> flagged for deletion almost automatically.

  One of the major criticisms against wikipedia is that it's basically a
jungle, where actual experts have to compete with egoistic laymen and
outright vandals.

  For example, a physicist criticized wikipedia because he read one of its
physics pages (damned if I remember which one) and spotted several errors
and omissions, and proceeded to make lengthy corrections and tidying-up of
the page (probably spending hours on it). The original author of the page
reverted all is changes with the press of a button. The physicist gave up.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 16-11-2011 12:34, Invisible wrote:
> > On 16/11/2011 03:49 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> >
> >> As near as I can tell this problem is solved by not bothering to get it
> >> right.
> >
> > Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.
> >
> > Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/
>
> Isn't that also the Fox News way of working?
>
> BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add
> something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is
> flagged for deletion almost automatically.
>

Paid nazi moderators working for big corps like Pixar.  They need to protect
their IP and rewriting history has never been easier.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-11-2011 15:24, nemesis wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 16-11-2011 12:34, Invisible wrote:
>>> On 16/11/2011 03:49 AM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>>
>>>> As near as I can tell this problem is solved by not bothering to get it
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.
>>>
>>> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/
>>
>> Isn't that also the Fox News way of working?
>>
>> BTW from a friend I heard that it is almost impossible nowadays to add
>> something to wikipedia. Everything you do as a new contributor is
>> flagged for deletion almost automatically.
>>
>
> Paid nazi moderators working for big corps like Pixar.  They need to protect
> their IP and rewriting history has never been easier.
>

In this case it was about famous cardiologists in the netherlands and 
some cardiology institutions. Not really IP related I would say.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message