> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart > Silverstrim > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 7:06 AM > To: Paul Schmehl > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: Wikipedia's perfection (was Re: Discussion of therelative > advantages/disadvantages of PAE (was Re: Memory>3.5GB not used?)) > > > > On Apr 25, 2007, at 3:51 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, April 25, 2007 15:29:04 -0400 Thomas Dickey > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:15:03PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > >>> No kidding. That professor should have his Wikipedia account > >>> banned, > >>> and the head of his department should be informed of his > >>> vandalism. I > >>> don't suppose you know the name of his Wikipedia account, or his > >>> legal > >>> name. . . . > >> > >> yawn. That sort of research has been going on for years. > >> > >> Less interesting is the sort of trash emitted by people who don't > >> like > >> knowing that whatever they've read on a webpage might not be > >> completely > >> accurate, and that they might have to do some of their own thinking. > >> > >> regards. > > > > At one time I had high hopes that the internet would usher in a new > > era of increased knowledge and reduced gullibility. Instead it > > seems to have simply hastened the arrival to the wrong conclusions. > > There are opportunities for increased knowledge. Gullibility, > though, is part of our human nature. > > How many of you delve four levels deep when looking for a quick > reference on something that, in the long run, you care little about?
I try to avoid stuff I don't care about. > If you're not a mechanic or car enthusiast, do you look into anything > and everything on how a clutch works, or every variation of four > wheel drive implementations? Probably not. Yes, but if your driving a car you should. There's a lot of stuff people should be doing these days that they aren't doing. I guess people's mothers aren't telling their kids to eat their vegetables anymore. > We don't devote time and > resources into being "renaissance people". Most of us don't. And the reasons why are complex, but what it essentially boils down to is that there's a lot of vested interests out there that don't want the majority of people to be renaissance people and so they have been on a campaign for many years to discourage it, and a lot of people are stupid and have fallen for that. > For me, I look up the > answer, if it sounds reasonable, I go with it unless someone else > points out a deficiency in the answer. I need a quick and dirty > answer to move on to things I *do* care about. > Why do you need a quick and dirty answer for stuff you admittedly don't care about? > The problem is that people will accept an answer whether it makes > sense or not. We had someone once convinced that a "Laser Car Wash" > cleaned cars by shooting small lasers at the car to clean it. It was > something so far left field of what they're interested in and > knowledgeable about that they just accepted the answer, even though > there's no way such a system would be affordable (or safe enough) to > use as a car washing tool. > Damn, there goes those patent plans... > Then again, there are those that do this intentionally, because > spreading misinformation is in their best interest and they profit > from it. Even schools profit, not necessarily monetarily, by keeping > students from questioning what they are taught. Yes, that is true. But it's important to keep in mind that while schools profit from this, many teachers don't - and therefore buck the pressure to churn out unquestioning students. Ted _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"