Monthly Archives: February 2013
You may have been reading thinking well the world is morally bankrupt. Some parts certainly are. But technically correct is the best kind of correct. So someone went out and turned the twisted legal system against itself and bankrupted all the bad guys, the banks (you probably don’t know about that own the banks you do know about the governments own by the banks etc.
So after the receivership is completed the money will be shared out amongst us all.
A you might have suspected with all the valueless money printing going on in the fiat currency system, mostly held by the banks them selves , there’s a ridiculous sum of money to carve up between us all.
32 quadrillion dollars 32,000,000,000,000,000,000, I think that is right.
So you each get 5 billion dollars each
So don’t party just yet, as we know most of the money has no real world value and if everyone has 5 billion dollars you are not vastly wealthy by comparison to the people next door.
So this is a story to watch unfold.
There is talk the reason the pope resigned was to avoid the Vatican being caught up in this bankruptcy.
More to come watch this space.
Originally posted on What Is Research?:
Over the past few months, I’ve been collecting newspaper and magazine articles about the phenomenon of Wikipedia. (I’ve myself written two blog posts on Wikipedia here and here). Prominent among the Wikipedia critics is Seth Finkelstein, a consulting programmer who does technology journalism on the side and publishes columns in the Guardian. Seth’s criticism is largely related to the politics of getting people to work for free. The Register has published many news and analysis articles critical of Wikipedia, such as this, this, this, and many others. The Register points out the many flaws in Wikipedia’s editing system, and has been critical of what it terms the cult of Wikipedia.
View original 2,055 more words
I have always thought the policies of Wikipedia were a bit strange. But having seen this ‘Editgate’ saga unfold, they seem unworkable.
They want people with no bias on a topic to write it, the reality is almost everyone has a bias (opinion) on almost anything they know enough about . So effectively no-one is qualified to write anything.
In editing they prefer people with no knowledge of the topic to edit it. So effectively only the clueless are qualified to edit the articles that no-one is properly qualified to write, because they are biased.
In any inevitable dispute about the article, the knowledgeable are attacked for bias, by the impartial who know nothing. So effectively the truth becomes a popularity contest between idiots.
Potential Wikipedia article on the number 4:
4 is a number.
2+2 = 4
No source that 4 exists, recommend deletion of all instances of 4.
2+2 =5 to replace 2+2 =4, reached by consensus amongst editors.
[removed, no source]
2+2 = 5
Worst of all these Wikipedia editors seem to be horrified by the idea that there could be real world consequences for the information they alter. It is almost as if they think they are living in a parallel universe and the information they edit applies to a world they don’t live in. While in most cases the information is so removed from their personal lives they alter data without consequence, but ultimately someone is affected. They are just horrified when it come back to them. “How dare someone make me accountable for what I do!”
A thing like Wikipedia could be a good thing but the mindset of the editors is critical. What kind person wants to read through page after page of text on a computer just to find a correction and score a brownie point? I’d bet not the typical person, I’d hazard a guess not an overly social person in many instances.
Wikipedia is starting to sound like an Orwellian book burning organization with strong Marxist overtones. It was Marxists that caused problems at Occupy Melbourne, just wanting to criticize with no knowledge, criticism about everything except their own Marxist ideology.
Ever notice how many Wikipedia article pages are getting smaller?
The modern day book burning is happening online one word at a time, changing the context of everything.
Wikipedia the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but some animals are more equal than others.
Yesterday the Mildly Amusing Action Squad struck again, huge roving action in the city, drawing attention to the plight of Bradley Manning.
Julian Assange , who lives in confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, has publicly stated, that as difficult as his circumstances are, those of Bradley Manning are far worse. Bradley Manning was about to be discharged from the Army, because he was deemd psychologically unfit, but instead was sent to Iraq. None of this matters, he is considered guilty before being proven guilty by the US government .
Since when does a soldier not have the right to a speedy and fair trial?
Through some investigations we have discovered the likely originator of the edits on the Wikipedia page of Occupy Melbourne, which mirrored the insidious edits done by Melbourne City Council IP address 18.104.22.168
Introducing Zhou Fang BSc, a self described ‘stubborn arsehole’.
He is one the the least qualified people at Biomathematical Statistics Scotland. While claiming to have PhD his employers seem to have no knowledge of it, did he just bullshit his Facebook friends? Perhaps this inadequacy is the reason he wants to beat his chest on the internet.
Zhou Fang has publicly stated he is available for interview at any time, so why not get in contact? See if he would like to explain why the he edited the Wikipedia Occupy Melbourne page with absolutely no evidence or knowledge of the topic.
work ph: +44 (0)131 650 4897
work fax: +44 (0)131 650 4901
work email: email@example.com
facebook: zhou fang 14
Mobile phone: coming soon!
If you are one of the many people in the world who happen to share the same straw man name of Zhou Fang , maybe you would like to let him know how bad he is making you look.
The real question is why was he even at the page in the first place?
Why were his edits to simply redo exactly what MCC did?
Something stinks here what are the connections?
Now a flurry of edit are occurring on the Wikipedia page with vast chunks of the page disappearing apparently at the hands of senior Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia editors are breaking their own rules by editing without any facts.
Details are sketchy at this stage, what is anonymous planning?
Editgate cyberwar continues:The same Occupy Melbourne Wikipedia page edits redone, but now from Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland?
A peaceful protest outside Melbourne City Council on 21 10 2012 to mark the one year anniversary of the brutal city square eviction, and the political death of MCC Mayor Robert Doyle.
I guess this story has either, not got big enough yet, and a random bystander has accidentally stepped into the fray, OR a proxy war.
Hard to be certain at this stage but I got to admit the name ‘Nutter’ is ironic if you assume that they had prior knowledge of the controversy surrounding the event.
Editor identified using handle ‘Zhou Fang’ claiming to be using the IP 22.214.171.124. confession in comments section.
Apologies to David we suspected you were a possibly a network admin rather than the user.
Do not forget.
Honestly who are these people, and what do they think they know about Occupy Melbourne from the other side of the world? Sure, there is a Melbourne in Scotland , but I’m pretty sure the Wikipedia page makes it clear this one is in Australia.
A pair of young men from Canada were concerned with the lack of understanding of politics in society. So just prior to the 2012 US elections their put their thoughts as poetry to music and made a lovely video to go with it.
*Contains some George Carlin and anti capitalism themes.