Jump to content

Talk:P. W. Singer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References

[edit]

Chunks of this article are plagiarized from Peter Singer's personal website. See http://www.pwsinger.com/biography.html. Feralcats 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say, it has the self-advertising character of a resume. --Sophrosune33 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "self-advertising" character of this article would be somewhat abrogated by a little criticism. In this article http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/a-defence-force-of-terminators-is-almost-here-20090510-az6u.html?page=2 he writes:

"Remember, one of the rules when it comes to technology is Moore's law, that the computing power that can fit on a microchip doubles just under every two years. If this trend holds true, as it has for the past several decades, Australia's Force 2030 will be operating in a world in which our information technology will be a billion times more powerful than today. Notably, this isn't an amorphous "billion", as Dr Evil would pontificate in the movie Austin Powers, but literally taking the power of our current computers multiplying it by 1,000,000,000. But imagine if that law doesn't hold true, and Moore's Law works out at only a hundredth of its past pace. Then the computers that power robots in the era of Force 2030 will only be a mere 1,000,000 times more powerful."

Ironically, his grasp of numeric quantities is probably even further off than Dr. Evil's. If "computing power" doubles every two years for twenty years, the resulting increase in computing power would be just 1024 times more powerful (2^10 = 1024 see http://www.google.com/search?q=2^10&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t), not "a billion". And if computing power increased at 1/100th of its current pace (i.e. instead of doubling, increasing at one-one-hundredth of 2 = 0.02 per annum), the resulting increase in power would be just 1.02^10: computers would be 1.21899442 times as powerful as those today.

All this would probably be more relevant if he even managed to get Moore's Law correct in the first place. Moore's Law did not relate to "computing power" but to the density of transistors in a given area. In practical terms, a doubling of the number of transistors /= doubling of computing power... so we CERTAINLY aren't going to facing armies of Terminators, a "billion" times more computationally powerful than the robots of today!!!

I shudder to think that this is the quality of strategic advice being given to the highest eschalons of the US government!!! mlearning 0:20 (UTC) 11 May 2009

Wikification Project

[edit]
 P. W. Singer needs to be Wikified!
So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria. (pending)
    Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject. (pending)
    Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup. (pending)
    Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article. (pending)
    Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one). (pending)
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

Bensci54 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV censoring

[edit]

The information about both the Children at war and corporate warriors was covered in the books. The first claim that it was irrelevant to the book was clearly false. Then when that was refuted you don’t appear to have checked the source but used a different excuse to delete it. This book and article was heavily sourced. These sources are credible. It seems as if the POV problem may be yours. To delete things you disagree with without checking sources would be POV. You have indicated you haven’t even checked the source which is valid. Even if it is Singer’s point of view this is legitimate since many articles about academic sources point out the beliefs of the academic source. Therefore I am restoring it. If you have objections please read the sources. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am trying to censor your POV in favor of Singer's.... Still, even if it is Singer's or the book's POV, it was stated as if it were fact. Singer not sufficiently reliable for that to be included in Wikipedia without other reliable sources. As I don't have a copy of the book, I can't tell if it's accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on P. W. Singer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:P._W._Singer&oldid=1210389581"