223561 Bullies, 3925 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 181 to 190 of 202
Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91516171819 2021 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. BackFistMonkey is offline
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar

    Actual Photo

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    8,285

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 12:23am

    supporting member
     Style: Recovery-Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    some actual wisdom.

    Now read this bitches.

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

    :owneddanc

    -ED
    Which is exactly what you appear to be suffering from.

    * edit *

    alternately : Irony Troll is Ironic

    */edit*
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    Nuke a unborn gay whale for Christ.
    “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994
  2. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,056

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 12:26am

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
  3. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,056

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 12:28am

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Backfistmonkey View Post
    Which is exactly what you appear to be suffering from.

    * edit *

    alternately : Irony Troll is Ironic

    */edit*
    To quote Fake "AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_defense

    You are learning so much, following my carrot.

    -ED
  4. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 12:35am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    "Rough equivalent". We see what you did there, trying to discredit the indiscreditable. Try to disprove the CONTENT dude.
    Well, yes, as encyclopedia entries are not term papers and as the specific demand for proper citations instead of vague ones is not quite the same as saying "revise and resubmit", they are rough equivalents and not exact equivalents.

    It's funny that on the one hand you insist that Wikipedia is a good source because the entries themselves cite good sources, but the one entry you insist is correct (after punting on the 100 random articles gambit, which went down 5-for-5!) doesn't have useful citations because the connection between the content and the sources are vague. Your late move of the goalposts to deal with content only is just an admission that I am, once again, correct, and that all your degrees and your record collection and your family and your military friends are all meaningless.

    Here's a better challenge: why not find a Wikipedia entry that actually meets your claim for accuracy—since "99.9%" of them are supposedly 100% correct (which would include proper use of citations), how hard could it be?

    Finally, to answer the question as to the content being "correct", one need only look at the discussion page on the entry, specifically the back and forth regarding Bell's inequality. Amusingly, whether the entry is correct or not depends on the moment at which it is observed!
  5. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,056

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 1:13am

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post


    It's funny that on the one hand you insist that Wikipedia is a good source because the entries themselves cite good sources, but the one entry you insist is correct (after punting on the 100 random articles gambit, which went down 5-for-5!) doesn't have useful citations because the connection between the content and the sources are vague.
    Useful citations? Sources are vague?? I can stop you right there, son.

    Do me a favor, learn what a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is. Now I want you the realize a great majority of the world's knowledge of physical phenomena is housed at Princeton University, and in that archive lies a document named "
    Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?"

    A co-author of the document is A. Einstein. This document DOI is part of the American Physical Society's archiving complex. This document describes, in detail, theories produced in 1935 at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University.

    This reference is properly cited in the article on quantum entanglement. Proving once and for all, everyone flames me without thinking.

    ED
  6. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 1:43am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    Useful citations? Sources are vague?? I can stop you right there, son.
    Sorry junior, let me stop you instead.

    This reference is properly cited in the article on quantum entanglement. Proving once and for all, everyone flames me without thinking.

    This is a great little pair of sentences, because they betray real-life pathological narcissism. There exists an entry on a bibliography in a Wikipedia entry, and therefore...everyone flames you without thinking. Not even, "therefore, the QE article on Wiki is 100% correct" which would still be wrong, but would at least be sane. (PS: Dear Crazy, how's that Ignore button coming along?)

    As already quoted, the sources are vague not because they don't exist, but because there are an insufficient number of inline citations in this entry. If one presented a paper with an expansive Works Cited section, but didn't actually bother citing the work in the paper—e.g., (Smith, 2000) or As Smith (2000) notes...—then the sources would be vague because their use is vague. Are they really sources or just random lines copied onto a term paper? Are the claims in the paper actually supported by the sources? Unclear! Revise and resubmit!

    It's worth noting that the Einstein paper you're so enamored with is cited only in the entry's lead, which doesn't really deal with the meat of the entry's topic. The entry falls apart when, for example, stuff like this:



    Theories involving hidden variables have been proposed in order to explain this result. These hidden variables would account for the spin of each particle, and would be determined when the entangled pair is created. It may appear then that the hidden variables must be in communication no matter how far apart the particles are, that the hidden variable describing one particle must be able to change instantly when the other is measured. If the hidden variables stop interacting when they are far apart, the statistics of multiple measurements must obey an inequality (called Bell's inequality), which is, however, violated both by quantum mechanical theory and experimental evidence.


    The entry itself helpfully requests a citation of this passage and further, notes that one of the sources listed in the bibliography would likely be of help if someone would actually connect the source to the claim...but the article continues to fail to properly cite its claims.


    And this is the article you presented as a paragon of Wikipedia's utility and accuracy. A utility you insist exists because of the quality of the research (which you previously and falsely called peer-reviewed) and sources presented in the bibliographies.
  7. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    insight combined with intel, fuse, and dynamite

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    8,056

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 2:05am

    supporting member
     Style: (Hung Ga+BJJ+MT+JKD) ^ Qi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post

    snip

    And this is the article you presented as a paragon of Wikipedia's utility and accuracy. A utility you insist exists because of the quality of the research (which you previously and falsely called peer-reviewed) and sources presented in the bibliographies.
    You've failed. You simply cannot discuss this matter at a quantum mechanics level can you. You can only rationalize and mince words disowning source material that includes direct theoretical and lab research performed by Einstein, can you. His work was just the FIRST source I mentioned. There is a whole list there. Trust me I went and checked them all.

    You keep citing references, resources. How is what is written on the page inaccurate? Is it misleading? If so, how? I understand quantum entanglement theory. I've told you what is on this page is correct from my POV, from a mathematicians standpoint. The authors have referenced work at Princeton (I could definitely reference much more). I concur.

    Do ye yield? The ignore feature is at my mercy, I have this great "See his posts/don't seen them" URL, its perfect.

    Edit: You challenge Wikipedia as not being peer reviewed...what the **** do the think Wikipedia and by that extension, Bullshido are?

    Peer reviewed. You do realize scientists and engineers and physicists community review articles on QE and quantum mechanics right? You're not just projecting your own mentality: that internet forum nerds battle over the content on these sites?

    Right?

    lordy,

    ED

    Edit: to the people bitching about Wikipedia's editing policies/politics: sounds like you got burned at one time eh? Welcome to the world of information warfare, bitches.
    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 6/28/2010 2:26am at .
  8. BackFistMonkey is offline
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar

    Actual Photo

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    8,285

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 2:44am

    supporting member
     Style: Recovery-Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Amusingly, whether the entry is correct or not depends on the moment at which it is observed!
    Irony runs deep in Irony Troll.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    Nuke a unborn gay whale for Christ.
    “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994
  9. BackFistMonkey is offline
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar

    Actual Photo

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    8,285

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 2:53am

    supporting member
     Style: Recovery-Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    Edit: You challenge Wikipedia as not being peer reviewed...what the **** do the think Wikipedia and by that extension, Bullshido are?

    Peer reviewed. You do realize scientists and engineers and physicists community review articles on QE and quantum mechanics right? You're not just projecting your own mentality: that internet forum nerds battle over the content on these sites?

    Right?

    lordy,

    ED

    Edit: to the people bitching about Wikipedia's editing policies/politics: sounds like you got burned at one time eh? Welcome to the world of information warfare, bitches.
    Irony Troll Decloaks?

    The plot thickens but only a janitor cares at this point.

    For anyone who delights in small furry animals.

    YouTube- Tickling Slow Loris
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhi108 View Post
    Nuke a unborn gay whale for Christ.
    “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994
  10. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,924

    Posted On:
    6/28/2010 2:57am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Earth Dragon View Post
    You've failed. You simply cannot discuss this matter at a quantum mechanics level can you. You can only rationalize and mince words disowning source material that includes direct theoretical and lab research performed by Einstein, can you. His work was just the FIRST source I mentioned. There is a whole list there. Trust me I went and checked them all.

    You keep citing references, resources. How is what is written on the page inaccurate? Is it misleading? If so, how? I understand quantum entanglement theory. I've told you what is on this page is correct from my POV, from a mathematicians standpoint. The authors have referenced work at Princeton (I could definitely reference much more). I concur.

    Do ye yield? The ignore feature is at my mercy, I have this great "See his posts/don't seen them" URL, its perfect.

    Edit: You challenge Wikipedia as not being peer reviewed...what the **** do the think Wikipedia and by that extension, Bullshido are?

    Peer reviewed. You do realize scientists and engineers and physicists community review articles on QE and quantum mechanics right? You're not just projecting your own mentality: that internet forum nerds battle over the content on these sites?

    Right?

    lordy,

    ED

    Edit: to the people bitching about Wikipedia's editing policies/politics: sounds like you got burned at one time eh? Welcome to the world of information warfare, bitches.
    Like I keep saying he is a wiki mod.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.