Footboy posted:

The Stranger's blog points out that the anatomical picture for the Humans article uses a clinical pose for the male and a provocative pose for the female, for seemingly no reason.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/02/the-woman-of-humans

fishmech posted:

There weren't very many elephants roaming the British Isles when people were speaking old and middle english bro.

JawnV6 posted:

actually there were a lot of them when hadrian crossed the alps to build his wall

qirex posted:

He never did that a tiny force of spartans stopped them and won the war

WikiBooks posted:

WIMP

WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointer) was invented for Smalltalk in the late 1970s. Since that time, it has steadily colonized modern operating systems. Unfortunately, nearly all implementations of WIMP are broken variants without the full programmable power of CLIs. Some simple CLI concepts that could be easily added to WIMP include pipes, scripts and graphical location history. If these were incorporated, CLIs could be done away with.[citation needed]

Beyond WIMP

Despite the decrepitude of WIMP, there has been no meaningful advance in mainstream OS' HCI since 1980.[citation needed] That's decades of stagnation punctuated by minor innovations like virtual desktops and context menus. The latest triviality to hit the market is the ever so gradual replacement of icons by object miniatures. Fortunately, despite the total incompetence[citation needed] of mainstream OS designers, research in HCI has managed to sustain a snail's pace.

RZApublican posted:

WikiBooks, "Open books for an open world", where wikipedians try their hand at being authoritative

let's see what they have to say about Evolution of Operating Systems Designs

RZApublican posted:

WikiBooks, "Open books for an open world", where wikipedians try their hand at being authoritative

let's see what they have to say about Evolution of Operating Systems Designs

quote:

In fact, mere commercial success isn't sufficient to make an operating system noteworthy. It also emphasizes working implementations over mere projects.

quote:

6. Properties of Namespaces
1. Namespaces in Unix and Plan 9
a) Reserfs and the Power of Namespace Unification
2. Namespaces in Languages
3. Namespaces in HURD
4. Namespaces in Grasshopper
5. Other Namespaces
6. Theoretical Namespaces

JawnV6 posted:

mere? mere.

table of contents:
this is v. important guys. v. important.

JawnV6 posted:

mere? mere.

table of contents:
this is v. important guys. v. important.

haveblue posted:

Reiserfs and the Power of Namespace Unification

haveblue posted:

Reiserfs and the Power of Namespace Unification

Furnok Dorn posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_Kingdom

haveblue posted:

Reiserfs and the Power of Namespace Unification

Virion posted:

Footboy posted:

Let's see what Wikipedians have to say about WIMP.

quote:

This article does not seem completely accurate conisdering the studies that have been done showing that GUI environments are actually more complicated for completely new users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.99.52 (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Footboy posted:

The Stranger's blog points out that the anatomical picture for the Humans article uses a clinical pose for the male and a provocative pose for the female, for seemingly no reason.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/02/the-woman-of-humans

haveblue posted:

no, an "in anime" section

Blue Footed Booby posted:

i just stumbled across this and had to post it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AIDS_denialism
it's the discussion page on the article about folks who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS. the article is sane enough, but the discussion page

quote:

I'm back! And why? All because of WikiProject Alternative Views! A good idea! If it was around in Aristarchus' day, there certainly would be more progress toward the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I find the policy of simply defending whatever the dominant paradigm is to be both intellectually lazy, and a bit too wishy-washy relativist for my personal liking, but then some might say I am overly devoted to the scientific method, rather than guy-on-TV-said-so-ism. Sometimes common sense must come into play, instead of whatever our scientist-priests tell us, don't you think? I could go on and on about how all the reactionary defenders of AIDS orthodoxy here on Wiki would have just as insultingly attacked anyone like Aristarchus, who dared question the scientific consensus of his day, and kept science on the wrong paradigm for 1700 years, but that would be petty. In fact, the sole reason I came to Wiki was to cast legitimate doubt on the intentionally insulting and invalidating term "denialist." The discussions on Wiki are so willfully and proudly ignorant of AIDS dissidents and their work, that some people even drew laughable divisions between "denialists" and deissidents, as if there was any difference. All I wanted is to get rid of this insipid and inaccurate term "denialist" so that some semblance of a respectful discussion might exist. I didn't even change anything in a single article. Posting on the discussion page was enough for people to start saying I was on a soapbox, but my intent was merely to point out that rethinking AIDS is a legitimate scientific position, held by legitimate scientists, on a legitimate scientific basis, not pseudoscience, not sociopolitics, but on a scientific basis. So it is a science-versus-science debate, not science vs. pseudoscience, as the AIDS industry likes to portray it as. Every word of mine was to point out that the term denialist is NOT the right word to use, since it is both innacurate and intentionally invalidating and obfuscating. It's not using Wiki like an "AIDS-denialist blog" to point all this out. In fact, it's an important first step in WikiProject Alternative Views, to cover these views "without bias." Using the term "denialist" is HEAVILY biased. It is also wildly "misrepresenting" rethinkers. Am I correct in assuming nothing has changed here? This new movement is far more PR than anything else? Tell me now so I don't waste anyone's time.

And yes I know there is an entry on the N-word, but it accurately speaks of how it is a pejorative term, which is more than I can say about the word "denialist" bandied about here. And my point was that a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting. As far as me coming here to "get famous"? Are you serious? With a pseudonym? (Haytham is not my real name, by the way). Did any moderators come and post on your page how you are supposed to "stick to the subject?" I somehow doubt this. By using the term "denialist", Wiki is misrepresenting the rethinkers/reappraisers/dissidents - who NEVER use that term to describe themselves - EVER. I think replacing the insulting term "denialist" to something *neutral* would be a step in the right direction, the goal of the project to strive towards more "neutrality." Haytham2 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MindSet posted:

A dutch oven is a fart chamber (a contained area of flatus) created by pulling a blanket over someone's head and breaking wind. The phrase is a slang description based on the cooking action of a Dutch oven where food is cooked and steamed inside a closed chamber. Performing a Dutch oven creates an area of foul-odored air in an enclosed space that must be breathed in.[1] This is done as a prank or by accident to one's sleeping partner.[2][3]

A related concept is that of the dutch wind, which does not involve creating a closed chamber over the head, but instead concentrating the fragrance under the covers and then allowing the concentrated scent to waft past one’s sleeping partner’s nostrils. The concentration creates an olfactory intensity akin to that which would occur with anal-nasal proximity, with no opportunity for the aroma to be diluted by air.

LunixArchduke posted:

also, on a related note, parenthetical definition will be the first EP from my new band, fart chamber

clamiam posted:

page titles are case-sensitive, too, and i've run across some pages that differ only in capitalization

of course there was no explanation as to "you might've meant this" for this particular pair of pages

LunixArchduke posted:

I love the parenthetical definition of "fart chamber"

also, on a related note, parenthetical definition will be the first EP from my new band, fart chamber

RZApublican posted:

WikiBooks, "Open books for an open world", where wikipedians try their hand at being authoritative

let's see what they have to say about Evolution of Operating Systems Designs

quote:

Note: left-handed people usually transpose the hands in the above explanation.