Talk:2000s in science and technology
|WikiProject History of Science||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2012. The result of the discussion was snow keep.|
What does this bit mean? "Google and Yahoo search engines increases trafficability of the internet"
Eh? —greenrd 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Animated .gif files VS Adobe/Macromedia Flash
I think it's worth mentioning how the Adobe flash format replaced gifs (that were used through out the 90’s) as the most common Internet advertisement format. Also maybe mention the dramatic rise of malicious software.
Social Networking Sites
Shouldn't we include things like myspace and facebook because it has so far had decent amount of impact on society to be included in this article. -Pro66 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
^^^ I agree, social networking sites boomed this decade and related phrases are used in common dialect in the western world.
I suggest merging Technology of the 2000s into this page, as they seem to be about the same thing. When I searched for a page on Technology of the 2000s I found that, but meant to find this. And this page seems to be consistent with the set up of "technology in the..." for other decades, such as 1990s in technology & science and 1970s in technology. Hm, okay, admittedly the uniformity I was hoping for seems to be lacking... but that can be fixed. - A.J. (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
MERGE: I support a merger, but the sections provided for video games and television should be integrated into the their subject pages, (e.g. 2000s in video gaming, 2000s in television, etc...) The page would need to be cleaned(Tigerghost (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
Do not merge but change: I do not agree with you that this should be merged with that article. I believe that the things related to technology. Like the TV and all that should be merged to the article you propose. But anything related to science should be given it's own article as it is only indirectly connected to the technology of the 2000s. What I am saying is yes, merge anything related to Technology to the article you propose but anything related to science be given it's own article...like Advances in Science of the 2000s or something. Whatever you guys choose. Rgoodermote 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
MERGE: I support the merging of Technology of the 2000s into this article. It is redundant to have two articles that discuss essentially the same thing albeit a few exceptions. It would not only be more logical, but also easier to navigate with only one article. Award888 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of recent things are missing from this article. Specifically the finding of certain missing links and a very large atom smasher in Sweden. I also remember that in the recent months there have been a lot of recent findings in space and about our planet. I'm no science guy so I don't follow these things closely..so just do what you guys feel. Just suggesting here.Rgoodermote 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe Wikipedia should take a stance on this issue. We do not exist to tell people what manner of sexual behaviour is appropriate, nor do we have any authority to tell people when they should engage in such pursuits. Hence I have removed a negative inference wherein "sexting" was cited as a negative social implication. Please answer here before reverting (and allow me to answer that), if you deem that necessary. Also note that the same edit contained some copy-editing, and should not be undone wholesale, should such an action be deemed necessary.
I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- The behaviour that was being referred to, at least, given enough nudity, is illegal almost everywhere under child pornography statutes, I believe. Even in jurisdictions where proposals have been made to treat sexting by minors as a lesser offense (and I don't understand how this is supposed to interface with child porn laws), it is still supposed to be treated as a criminal offence. I don't see anyone except you, and possibly the perpetrators of these crimes and their relatives, arguing that they should be allowed.--greenrd (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I take back what I just wrote. From reading sexting, I've learned that a New York politician has proposed allowing it for minors under certain circumstances, so you are right - it is a disputed area. I was not aware of this.--greenrd (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Better sources needed
This page should not depend on a rather small group of Wikipedia authors that decide what technologies that are worth mentioning here and which are not, based on our private preferences and rather narrow interests. We should be more systematic. The starting point is to find good sources and good criteria. Are there any scientific prize to look at? Some journal or book that on a regular basis identifies the most important advanced that were made within quite wide areas. Some trend analysis and prognoses company identifying the most topical buzzwords in science and technology papers? Some lists of scientific papers with highest citation indices? Some futurology researcher that systematically makes prognoses for the future? Etc. Any concrete suggestions? Mange01 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)