It seems unlikely to me that the antennae work...although the commenter claiming that it can't work because it's not attached is absolutely wrong...but the above test is biased from the outset.
A real skeptic doesn't set out to prove something wrong. He sets out to find out WHETHER it's true or not.
The goal of the test should simply have been to test it, as accurately as possible. The goal having been to disprove the test, the outcome cannot be trusted, even if the methodology appears correct.
The real problem is that the anti-spam measures, as noted in the article, do not work.
What they do, as with gun prohibition, is punish the legitimate users. They've made posting, or replying, ever-more complicated, until this damned phone verification thing, which for me is the final straw.
I hate the constant struggle to post, far more than the annoying spam.
I've had an account on CL for years, and suddenly now THAT account has to be verified? I could see if it were a new account, but this is just absurd.
It is even more foolish to fall for the anti-wikipedia propoganda as the anti-facebook.
Wikipedia is already the best single source of information in (human) existence. The complaint that "anyone can edit it" speaks to a gross ignorance of how it works.
It also ignores the fact that the /problem/ with most information sources is that a more monolithic entity edits them. Each other source, ultimately, is irresponsible, speaking only to the agenda of its controller.
In any significant article on wikipedia, ONLY well-sourced information will survive for any length of time, regardless of the agenda of its author. But, likewise, any truth that someone decides to add cannot easily be kept out. As long as they can footnote it correctly, it will likely end up remaining.
The reason that mainstream media and academia attack it is that they HATE the idea of information that they cannot censor and control.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by KAZ.
Flawed Motive...
It seems unlikely to me that the antennae work...although the commenter claiming that it can't work because it's not attached is absolutely wrong...but the above test is biased from the outset.
A real skeptic doesn't set out to prove something wrong. He sets out to find out WHETHER it's true or not.
The goal of the test should simply have been to test it, as accurately as possible. The goal having been to disprove the test, the outcome cannot be trusted, even if the methodology appears correct.
Anti-Spam Obsessives
The real problem is that the anti-spam measures, as noted in the article, do not work.
What they do, as with gun prohibition, is punish the legitimate users. They've made posting, or replying, ever-more complicated, until this damned phone verification thing, which for me is the final straw.
I hate the constant struggle to post, far more than the annoying spam.
I've had an account on CL for years, and suddenly now THAT account has to be verified? I could see if it were a new account, but this is just absurd.
Re: Re: Re:
It is even more foolish to fall for the anti-wikipedia propoganda as the anti-facebook.
Wikipedia is already the best single source of information in (human) existence. The complaint that "anyone can edit it" speaks to a gross ignorance of how it works.
It also ignores the fact that the /problem/ with most information sources is that a more monolithic entity edits them. Each other source, ultimately, is irresponsible, speaking only to the agenda of its controller.
In any significant article on wikipedia, ONLY well-sourced information will survive for any length of time, regardless of the agenda of its author. But, likewise, any truth that someone decides to add cannot easily be kept out. As long as they can footnote it correctly, it will likely end up remaining.
The reason that mainstream media and academia attack it is that they HATE the idea of information that they cannot censor and control.