News in No Particular Order.

[swestrup]

1. I lurve Wikipedia. It has gone from being a shoddy reference work to one of the best encyclopedias I've ever used. Sure, it contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, but it scores over more pedestrian works in that (a) when its being very stupid, you can fix it and (b) it contains a far WIDER range of articles than any other encyclopedia. Try looking up Celebrex or HHGTTG in any printed encyclopedia. (The online ones don't count because the regularly steal from Wikipedia...)
2. I don't blog about my weight much, since I don't honestly think it interests many folks but me, but two days ago I recorded my lowest morning weight in something over 15 years (253 Lbs ~ 115 Kg), so I felt justfied in partying at sfllaw's place and ignoring my diet. I've found that doing that once every 3-4 weeks seems to accelerate the weight loss. I don't know quite how, but I'm not going to argue about it. In any case, yesterday my evening weight was 256 Lbs, which is the lowest evening weight in 15 years, so its looking good.
   
3. Its looking very likely that taxlady and I shall be at the Old Dublin tomorrow night. I had feared that taxlady would be too busy, and it does seem like she has the day booked pretty solid, but her last client appointment ends around 6:00 pm, and she figures she'll be ready to relax a bit by then.

Comments

[thebabynancy.livejournal.com]

I agree. Wikipedia is good schtuff. But, it's like crack... and not butt crack either.


:D N

[sfllaw.livejournal.com]

You should bring kyotto, who will probably be glad to be out of the suburbs.

[dmckilli.livejournal.com]

I have reservations about the Wikipedia. It is a good resource quite a lot of the time, no question. However you mentioned "apocryphal or at least wildly inaccurate" content; more generally I would say that the Wikipedia is good on topics where they have attracted the interest of genuine experts (e.g. programming languages and science fiction ;-)), but it is much less reliable on, say, the history of Valois France. Real encyclopedias get genuine experts to write on those topics too, whereas with the Wikipedia you get a few geeky grad students, and as a result there are noticeable inconsistencies between articles -- *especially* if you start comparing what is said in en.wiki vs fr.wiki vs de.wiki and so on. In fact, coordination at the "other language" level seems to be pretty much non-existant.

The other area where the wikipedia shows its weaknesses is its lack of ability to screen out contributors with Agendas -- e.g. articles on current politicians being written by their own office staff. On a certain level, this is a measure of the institution's success: the hacks wouldn't bother if lots of people weren't reading it. But this is one area where the current wikipedia model is starting to show considerable strain.

I do use it. But I am cautious about it, too.

Congratulations on your progress with your weight! :-)

[swestrup]

While I don't disagree with the assessment that many articles are poorly written in Wikipedia, I get it for free. I paid over $1000 for my print edition Encyclopedia Britannica, which is now completely out of date, and has numerous annoying errors that the 'experts' should have avoided.

Of the two, I would generally trust Wikipedia more. I don't consider that a ringing endorsement of Wikipedia nearly as much as a condemnation of the editorial policies of the print encyclopedias.

[ai731.livejournal.com]

Congrats on the lower poundage!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_grey_knight/]

Well, that is the purpose of the 'free' day in the Body For Life program - it tricks your metabolism into thinking you are not on a calorie / carb reduced diet (which it will simply eventually adapt to), and so the body keeps the higher caloric burn rate going. Silly rabbit.

It also satisfies the human aspect of dieting - the temptation to cheat is circumnavigated in that you know you can have that chocolate at some point. If you can never have it, much more difficult. Like your love of pizza. If you could never ever have it again, you would be unhappy with the diet. If you know that you can have it once every second week, but that it will slow you down in reaching your goals, it is easier - for some to do.