Dear Wikipedia Staff, I fail to see why I should make any donations here, when I receive no stipends at Wikia, because Sannse has respect for DDD when I make comments (such as "P^P"), no compensation for my labor here or anywhere else. Without material compensation and the respect due my very-much-more Intelligent ass, I fail to see how you can deserve anything more with your entitlement and legitimacy that vastly outstrip your contributions and meaningfulness.
- 1 Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants
- 2 Experientialism
- 3 Other Stuff
- 4 I Can Haz Bookz?:
- 5 Industry Standard Userpage NavBox (prototype)
- 6 End NavBox
- 7 Masculism
- 8 Greatness Awaits
- 9 It ain't mine, I'm just wishing...
- 10 A Little Wiki Music
- 11 Ghost publishing
- 12 New Results in Foldit
- 13 Project Afterburner:
- 14 Time Travel, Dude!
Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants
Yes, that's up top on purpose. Check out my Wikia to see why. Or look just below this line. I do not have the time or patience to suffer fools gladly, especially fools full of their own ignorance, credentials, and misbegotten authority. Right, Sannse?
I Can Haz Bookz?:
37 DHAMMĀ of
- Recipe -- Find a Wikia.com that you are most at home with, then create a NavBox. Add your new Userpage to the list there, then copy and paste it (in source code) whenever you join a new Wikia, directly to your new Userpage.
Sooo... I edited Masculism#Criticisms_and_responses today, adding the dreaded "Citation Needed" tag in a way that might be seen as hostile, so let me clear up a few things, beginning with some citations from within WP that may help somewhat.
Feminism#Men_and_masculinity (the phrase "limiting forms of masculinity" is actually welcome and, I hope, accurate)
"However, some argue that while male engagement with feminism is necessary, it is problematic [for men, but women are perfect???] due to the ingrained social influences of patriarchy in gender relations. The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that both genders can and should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism [sic, "Feminism"].
Noooooooo...! How about "constructive gender relations"?
Men_and_feminism#History: One argument against female participation, both at the World Anti-Slavery Convention, and commonly in the nineteenth century, was the suggestion that women were ill-constituted to assume male responsibilities. Abolitionist Thomas(!!!) Wentworth Higginson argued against this, stating:
"I do not see how any woman can avoid a thrill of indignation when she first opens her eyes to the fact that it is really contempt [my emphasis, TLWS], not reverence, that has so long kept her sex from an equal share of legal, political, and educational rights…[a woman needs equal rights] not because she is man's better half, but because she is his other half. She needs them, not as an angel, but as a fraction of humanity."
I'm afraid that the reason I am unconvinced of Feminism's advocacy of Masculine issues is a result of the frequent demonstration of contempt toward men, individually and collectively, in such matters as "testosterone poisoning" and a variety of similar positions which cast men in not just a critical light, but in seemingly villainous roles, both historically and in the present.
"Alright, well, check this out...":
Scarcity and Value
Sperm +++++ Too damn many sperm and sperm donors +++++ Go to War, go directly to War, do not pass Go
Eggs ++++++ Some, but not a crapload +++++++++++++++++ Free pass, send the "Dear John" letter already
Wombs +++++ One to a woman (last I checked) ++++++++++ Infanticide of male heirs as Terrorism (or "Guess whose kid is on the throne? Not yours!")
Thus, Destructive Feminism simply takes the historical ("Patriarchal"??? Really???) "Men [are coerced to] go to war, therefore men are violent" and then turns it backward and says, "Men are violent, therefore men go to war". Big f--king improvement, huh? You musta sweated for that one!
Who are you not to be great? You, with the imagination of a brilliant child and the powers of an ancient god.
Who are you to be ordinary? You, who can “rescind” life, or raise the dead…
Who are you to be afraid? You, who can serve as judge and jury while hoarding infinite lives.
Who are you to be a slave to the past? You who can travel time like the oceans and rewrite history with a single word.
Who are you to be anonymous? You, whose name should be spoken in reverent tones or in terrified whispers.
Who are you to deny greatness? If you would deny it to yourself, you would deny it to the entire world.
And we will not be denied.
Who are you to feel powerless? You, who are the master of your own Phenomenal World, the one place in all of existence where anyone can truly feel at home.
Who are you to feel helpless? You, whom every hero and villain of fact and imagination serves willingly, and with joy in their hearts.
Who are you to feel unimportant? You, who will have greatness in your own two hands in every situation you encounter, not just for a moment, but for all of time.
Who are you to feel empty? You, who can define and affirm greatness in anyone; first and foremost, in yourself.
Who are you to feel confusion? You, for whom every system of thought, magical, mundane, or other-worldly, is no farther from your complete understanding than your fingertips.
Who are you to feel out-of-touch? You, for whom any event you choose, is yours to walk through its midst, fully aloof, fully engaged, or anywhere in between?
Who are you to feel lost? You, who are the very definition of what it means to be found.
Who are you to doubt? You, who give comfort to those who suffer, encouragement to those who struggle, and hope to all -- even those who mourn.
Who are you to be without a voice? You, whose eloquence can move the mountains to the seas, strong men to tears, entire armies to victory, and whole peoples to peace.
Who are you? You ARE Greatness. Greatness awaits you.
Consciousness Explained is a 1991 book by the American philosopher Daniel Dennett which offers an account of how consciousness arises from interaction of physical and cognitive processes in the brain.
Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence.
Greatness is innate. Greatness is a choice. Greatness is your legacy, provided to you as your birthright. You are the product of the emergence and evolution of Life itself. Sentience is a form of wealth, held in trust by each individual, to do with as they will. We have not come to this point by having all our eggs in one basket, marching to one monotonous drumbeat, dancing to one tune. There are no experts in Existing, no doctorates in Survival, and no grades in Happiness or Fulfillment. The Phenomenal World of your experience is not to be denied to you simply because it cannot be measured by instruments, regulated by a single institution, hoarded by a single miser, or sold to the rest of Humanity as a product. Your mind is your own; your world-view is for others to indulge, consider, or influence, but it remains yours, no matter what efforts others may bring to bear. Your greatness is your legacy to others. Greatness awaits you.
Gene Genius; Wired Magazine; Zhao
I haven't been away that long, have I?
I may not end up contributing all that often, but before everything disappears again, check the contribution logs for location as well as number? Might be illuminating.
- User:TheLastWordSword/Defining the Boundaries of Original Research
- User:TheLastWordSword/"Citation Needed"
- User:TheLastWordSword/Just So and Five Nines
It ain't mine, I'm just wishing...
A Little Wiki Music
- cheap thumb drives
- "floppy" disks (they used to be floppy, honest!)
- any others?
When exactly will we be restoring the "Lambda wave" page, hmmmm?
What's the difference between Capitalism and Marketism? Under Capitalism, the market of goods and services can dry up and blow away. Under Capitalism, the regulations are for sale, and the goods and services are not.
New Results in Foldit
The new results in Foldit, in which the working groups at home provided an actual and novel solution to the morphology of a protein, after having requested and receiving a new tool for the analysis and folding processes, seem to indicate that the description given in that section would now be somewhat inaccurate. This new development means that the untrained human effort has vastly outstripped both the software and the expert skill-set which were, together, unable to find the proper morphology.
While this new refinement might be formalized in either software or methodology at a later date, we can easily imagine that a similar "surpassing" event might happen again, perhaps repeatedly or even reliably. This puts the non-technical effort in an entirely new light, doesn't it? (Sort of like an encyclopedia written by the public at large surpassing the expertise previously applied, and soon to surpass the expertise currently applied.)
For a reference, I cite: http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n10/extref/nsmb.2119-S1.pdf which mentions the request for a new tool which was foreign to the formal methodology previously applied. (I wonder just how many times the requests were refused before they were finally granted?)
Note that this section is on my own page to be recovered in case of vandalism by The Great Powers That Be, who have no flipping sense of humor, and take their Expertise in all Cramped, Painful WikiCode all too seriously. TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Search for the wildcard term (econom*) in Google across the Wikipedia domain, searching for situations in which Moore's Law decrease costs below a cost threshold for a particular application or IT process, or reduces the amount of energy consumed and the associated energy costs. Creating a word-cloud of associated terms in positive results, then expand the search across other domains, especially technology sites. Examples of search areas include Flash RAM, whether or not positive results are actually obtained.
Before Afterburner: Establish as many implications of Moore's Law as is possible under the knowledge-base already present. Look for other principles which have similar implications.
- PDF of Intel press release concerning diminishing power consumption
- Is Moore's Law a measure of contacts between persons, either directly (steam train) or by proxy (telephone and telegraph, esp. in journalism)?
During Afterburner: Disseminate findings in an open-source forum, allowing for recursive benefits. It seems that useful hits may require a higher level of specification than initially anticipated:
- "significantly higher speeds economical site:en.wikipedia.org"
After Afterburner: What structural and procedural changes would be advisable in Wikipedia and other sites to maximize Afterburner, or any search of a similar nature? Seems to resemble a variation of "citation needed", but does it take WP and other sites "off-mission", or entail too large an effort to be feasible?
To unlock the "Beware the Hungry Wolf" Achievement Badge, consider and project upon the following "laws", either separately or together:
- Clarke's First Law (single atom transistor and 12-atom bit-mem are already here; can we get smaller? P:D)
- Metcalfe's Law (extend to costs, bandwith, quality of content, convenience of downloads of software "features" [see Wirth below])
- Moore's Law (extend to items such as "1/2 power, 1/8 price; both upscale and downscale)
- [Nacchio's Law]
- [Gilmore's Law] "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." In combination with Amdahl's Law, this forms the cornerstone of "The Dark Side of Moore's Law", practically guaranteeing that outdated memes will drive their hosts to extinction.
- [Amara's Law]
- Amdahl's law (Which part or parts of a global information system most restrict system performance and quality? Can these flaws be addressed directly, or only indirectly?)
- Bradford's law (What are the implications both in the current expertise distribution, and in any future [hopefully broader] distribution?)
- [Freedman's law] (more new programmers, but less documentation; open source better?)(see also: 
- [Gilmore's First Law] ("The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." This has implications for both institutional transparency [THIS MEANS YOU, TOO, WP] and personal privacy.)
- Power law -- "With real data, such straightness is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the data following a power-law relation. In fact, there are many ways to generate finite amounts of data that mimic this signature behavior, but, in their asymptotic limit, are not true power laws. Thus, accurately fitting and validating power-law models is an active area of research in statistics."[emphasis mine]
- Shannon's Law [C = W log2(1 + S)] where S is governed at a minimum by properties of the "wires" themselves
- Brook's Law
- [Classen's Law] (or why everything besides IT is "stuck in Stupid Gear".)
- Parkinson's Law
- Rock's Law (largely disproven, examine "garage chip-fab")
- [Thackara's First Law] (computers enhancing rote memorization in public schools, or being used to fill out online applications for minimum-wage jobs)
- Wirth's Law
Time Travel, Dude!
"This could mean that the Novikov self-consistency principle does not actually place any constraints on systems outside of the region of spacetime where time travel is possible, only inside it."Novikov_self-consistency_principle#History_of_the_principle What does place constraints on the influence a system may have outside the Cauchy envelope is the energy available to it while it is on the far side of the journey, or how much energy expressed would violate the Cauchy envelope of the system itself. (You can travel into your own past, and may eat and perform labor, but you can't "alter" your own history beyond an envelope which would violate consistency. Inside that envelope, you can do anything! Anything at all!!!) Please note that the perception of history ("It's a huge mystery! None of the earthquake victims' bodies were found!") does not violate the Cauchy envelope, just our sensibilities of cause and effect. Travel into the future would be even easier, as there are no risks of violating such an envelope of constraint.