Great David Sedaris essay read on Letterman;

[gearguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBdymtyXt8Y

Whats letterman?

Who is David Sedaris?

[bkkguy]

it is good to see nobody has leaked the contents!

bkkguy

[gearguy]

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

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

check out:
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/lists/sedaris/

Santaland Diaries is one of my favorite Christmas Stories.

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

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

check out:
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/lists/sedaris/

Santaland Diaries is one of my favorite Christmas Stories.

I thought Wikipedia was just there for the continued befuddlement of the grasp on reality that Americans already posses. As far as I know anyone and everyone may freely and easily edit to their hearts content, without so much as a quote. Does this make the content at all factual?

So what is a letterman, is this some sort of bog?

As far as I know anyone and everyone may freely and easily edit to their hearts content, without so much as a quote. Does this make the content at all factual?This is an Internet myth, Young Master Cedric. That is, there is an element of truth to it but it doesn't tell the full story. Wikipedia is a bit like having a moderated Forum where there is a panel of Moderators with some expertise who make their best efforts to ensuring that postings are accurate. It's somewhat (although not wholly) comparable to the "open source" philosophy in software development, where anyone may contribute but their contributions are reviewed and critiqued before inclusion

Such a democratic philosophy is open to abuse, and there have certainly been episodes where Wikipedia has been shown to be holding misinformation - usually this has been entered by someone attempting to make mischief against a colleague or relative. The Editors of Wikipedia have changed some of their methods to minimise this but the myth persists - and you have just repeated it

However that's not surprising; after all, you are one of those people in love with the greatest organized control freaks apart from Kim Jong Il currently alive - the government of the Peoples' Republic of China. For such people the entire Wiki movement is a complete anathema, representing as it does the democracy of information and knowledge

I have to disagree with you Hovel Thing, anyone may edit to their hearts content, there is no moderation at all. All supposed moderation is by contributors themselves i.e. the editors themselves, anybody, and even the moderation may be edited etc. Try yourself. I have changed the course of history in a number of entries and no one has ever bothered to correct or edit or moderate or otherwise bat an eye lid. The whole concept is flawed. It just depends on how much you desire to put your opinion or version of the truth forward, or on your personal agenda. You may even find that some agree with your agenda and safe guard it for you, you may also wake-up each morning and find a different version in its place but you may change it back indefinitely. You may even start a new entry to bolster your agenda and link it internally to your first entry, and to as many other entries as you like. You may build up an entire empire of crap. Even proxies will do it for you.

Anyone quoting Wikipedia is setting themsleves up for a fall.

:cheers:

Anyone quoting Wikipedia is setting themsleves up for a fall.I hope you'll let Aunty know. Apparently it's a textbook used in Philosophy of Science courses - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=338 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=338)

Perhaps this is so in a meritocracy, like America, it doesn't have to be the truth, proven or substantiated, as long as enough people are willing to believe it, then it is true, that is their god given right? But it certainly is not admissible in court or in any creditable institutions of learning. There have recently been and I kid you not, a few cases of judges in America quoting wikipedia.......dangerous world we live in master Jack.

[Aunty]

Your points about Wikipedia are well taken (an understood), Cedric, but I wouldn't overstate the case. Just because an article can be altered to contain errors or deliberate untruths, it doesn't follow that they have been thus altered. Moreover, given that this freedom to change things is open to anyone, there is no reason that an incorrect or inaccurate article has not been corrected. AYOR, as the old homosтАЩ would say.

I think in the case of Wikipedia, it is a good (and easy) starting point to get some background information about a topic. But thatтАЩs what it is, a starting point. From there one should progress to other more robust and reliable sources of information to verify what is in Wikipedia, but more importantly to develop a better, broader, more in-depth understanding/knowledge of that topic. In the case of the article on the Philosophy of Science, as a person who actually took an advanced paper in the Philosophy of Science when I was a student at University, IтАЩm lucky to have some background knowledge about this to make a judgement on the quality of Wikipedia's article on that topic, and therefore, to determine its validity as a tool for providing background information. Contrast that with the Hovel Thing. As somebody uninformed, he cannot make this judgement. He is like the proverbial possum caught in the head lights and just has to take what comes; and hope he never runs into somebody who actually knows what he [Beryl] thinks heтАЩs talking about.

Your points about Wikipedia are well taken (an understood), Cedric, but I wouldn't overstate the case. Just because an article can be altered to contain errors or deliberate untruths, it doesn't follow that they have been thus altered. Moreover, given that this freedom to change things is open to anyone, there is no reason that an incorrect or inaccurate article has not been corrected.

And how do you suppose we know that it has been corrected or is correct in the first place? Given that we are looking for the information ourselves, we are hardly likely to know this. I think the case should be stated, and it is widely accepted. Choose any entry you like, I will change it. I will change it as often or even more often than anyone else. Whats to say my or their opinion is true. Neither of us have to be an authority on the subject, neither of us have to properly quote an authority on the subject, we may do so if we wish, we may also quote a bogus source if we wish.

Beryl might very well be the Null Hypothesis of knowledge, but Wiki comes a close second in unreliability at any-rate.

He is like the proverbial possum ... As my dear friend Dame Edna Everage says, "Hullo, possums"

[Aunty]

And how do you suppose we know that it has been corrected or is correct in the first place?

Well, I guess you get what you pay for! I read a few weeks ago about a huge scandal involving Wikipedia where some undergrad student was passing themselves off as a learned history Professor and writing history pieces on Wikipedia. He was finally unmasked. I seem to remember that Wikipedia are in the process of tightening up their procedures. But the reality is, no one should rely on just one source for their information. Everything to a greater or lesser extent is a matter of opinion, even scholarly articles.

Anyway, matey, have you seen 'Letters from Iwo Jima' yet? Do me a favour (I'm serious) and go and see it, I'd love to know what you think.

Recognized for its beauty, in the Bible, in Ezekiel 1:16, the wheels of God's throne is described as having the appearance of "gleaming beryl"One thinks of oneself more as God than his throne, but I sure we're all grateful to Tourette for pointing us to this great body of knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl and http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=312 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=312)

Hovel-thing I could barely supress a big fat smirk, i am sure. I will do you that favour and go and see the movie Aunty, not sure if its been and gone or is still comming, or should I get the video, sounds like my love life.

See what I mean about Wikipedia, here is an exert on the entry Bangkok, is it correct? Ok I have already edited it back to the original.


Bangkok, known in Thai as Krung Thep Maha Nakhon or city of the murdered angelic german boy (IPA: [kru?t?e?p maha?nak??n], ????????????? (help┬╖info)) or Krung Thep (???????? (help┬╖info)) for short, is the capital of and largest city in Thailand, with an official year 2000 census population of 6,355,144, but actually numbering at least twice that. Bangkok is located at 13┬░45?N 100┬░31?ECoordinates: 13┬░45?N 100┬░31?E, on the east bank of the Chao Phraya River, near the Gulf of Thailand.

I'm not sure where Tourette is at the moment - off hunting for the Higgs boson, I expect

[Bob]

(Lifted from some dull website): "....as a consequence of wave-particle duality, all quantum fields have a fundamental particle associated with them. The particle associated with the Higgs field is called the Higgs boson."

This isn't the first time I've had to google to figure out what dear old Hom was referencing. And I always learn something that, upon reflection, I wish I hadn't (my personal harddrive has no room for such trivialities....hehe).
Hom, font of all facts known and not known, they just have to pickle your brain upon your demise (or, alternatively, get ahold of it after a late night out in Bangkok). :albino:

[Aunty]

I'm not sure where my most desired is at the moment - off hunting for the Higgs boson, I expect

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, you dumb bitch.

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, you dumb bitch.But Tourette darling, it got a "bite" out of you - that's all I ask. That you're a laboratory technician busily dissecting amoebae rather than helping hunt down the Higgs boson is frankly a mere detail in which I have no interest

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, you dumb bitch.

Another big, fat, barely contained smirk rolling around in my tight cheeks. I prefer biologists myself, physicists just seem so crusty and boring and full of theory and chalk dust, like socks and sandals and foot-powder, they just don't do much for me.

I know this is not exactly in your field Aunty but, as I write, outside my window up the Jackfruit tree is a large hairy curly coated rat, balancing on tip toes with its long fat tail swaying around in circles to keep it from falling, it is eating a large Jackfruit hollow. Are forest rats the same as the city kind? Should I be worried about it? He is there every day. One fell out of the sky yesterday and hit the terrace a few inches from my nose, a raptor I think.

[Aunty]

I'm a biologist, not a physicist, you dumb bitch.

Another big, fat, barely contained smirk rolling around in my tight cheeks. I prefer biologists myself, physicists just seem so crusty and boring and full of theory and chalk dust, like socks and sandals and foot-powder, they just don't do much for me.

I know this is not exactly in your field Aunty but, as I write, outside my window up the Jackfruit tree is a large hairy curly coated rat, balancing on tip toes with its long fat tail swaying around in circles to keep it from falling, it is eating a large Jackfruit hollow. Are forest rats the same as the city kind? Should I be worried about it? He is there every day. One fell out of the sky yesterday and hit the terrace a few inches from my nose, a raptor I think.

Rats are incredibly agile creatures and, believe it or not, superb tree climbers. So any kind of food that a rat finds in a tree, it will be back. I have a problem where I live as I have a lot of tress around my house and the little (and not so little shits') climb up the trees and onto my roof. When so afflicted I say oh, Beryl's back, and I feed them poison. I nice little blood thinner so when they squeeze their fat little bodies through tight spaces and rupture their capillaries they bleed to death internally. If they don't carry disease they are more nuisance than worry, but they often do carry disease.

It sounds to me like you're describing the Norwegian rat (is it grey-brown)? It's happily at home in the city and the forest.

[Aunty]

[But Tourette darling, it got a "bite" out of you - that's all I ask. That you're a laboratory technician busily dissecting amoebae rather than helping hunt down the Higgs boson is frankly a mere detail in which I have no interest

If you think that's getting a bite out of me, then you don't know me at all. But then what can one expect from a 'make-believe' Colonel.

You don't have the brains to have being a Colonel Beryl, have you thought about that! You're as unconvincing as you are boring.

Hmm I suppose it could be a Norwegian rat, are they rare? I live in Hong Kong. I know rats get about, maybe it jumped ship. I could never poison it because the dogs and the owls and the buzzards and the leopard cats and snakes and and and would all get a dose as well. Grief it has brought its friend along! Its even bigger, maybe I better trap them and take them to Hong Kong Island. In mandarine season the hedge is alive with them and flying-foxes. Usualy at night, these two are exceptionaly brazen.
They are grey colour with a black tail and a wavy rex like coat, one has a kink in its tail. its strange but i feel better that i can actualy see what they are up to, if I threw a stone at them they would just come back, the ex-gardner was very good with a stone and used to take the frogs out the pond with them for his dinner, plus one or two unfortunate sword-fish.

[Aunty]

Hmm I suppose it could be a Norwegian rat, are they rare?

No they are very common. They're also known as the Ship Rat and have a global distribution now, but they were thought to be native to East Asia, China and Japan. So it makes sense to call them the Norwegian rat, eh, rather than the Chinese Rat or the Japanese Rat. But then maybe your rats are another local Asian species. But if you want to get rid of them without poison, it's a rat trap!

[bing]

Gearguy, thank you for the delightful clip on Peeing in public. I actually had a belly laugh watching it. Don't know how your simple posting got high jacked into whatever has transpired in these two pages. Again, Thanks.

[gearguy]

for more David Sedaris:

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/lists/sedaris/

What video clip, who is David Sedris? A swarm of bees has temporarily set up home in the hollowed jack-fruit. So the Norwegians are no longer a distraction. The bees have a very facinating way of putting of attackes by the wasps, and rats no doubt, besides stinging that is, they all do the Mexican wave (this could be football term) with their wings very fast and repeating every time anythything comes near.

[gearguy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=740vawIjMmc

Thanks gearguy, that was a very good little practical about bee keeping and behaviour. I love honey in the comb, maybe I will try and catch me a swarm. They seem just like mini homing pigeons on the video. I am used to the African ones who take pre-emptive action even if you just blink.
Here the bees are tiny and discreet, there is a huge mother ship of a colony under the terrace. Every spring great big undulating waves of them set of over the forests with much excitement and buzz. I can just see my self as the Vita sackville-West of bee hive design. I saw some interesting ones at Chelsea flower show last year, or the little carved wooden drum ones you get in Africa, all you do is open the two halfs and eat, they look charming hanging in the trees.