It was not a rhetorical question, and the conditional clause was genuine. Yes, things like that can matter. If you think i am being hostile or insulting to you, i will remove myself from further discussion, because it is not my intent. Maestlin 00:24, (UTC)Come on, in such a discussion you can't ask me whether I have actually read the book in question (of course i have!) and expect that I don't at least draw attention to the fact that this is an ad hominem remark. Under the circumstances, i think the discussion here is still very civil, though, and I'm not insulted, especially i guess because i've actually read the book. . ;-) Clossius 06:55, (UTC) to keep this exchange simpler I will just copy from above: I'd simply say this neutrally, such as "It is still popular with a general audience" or something like that. (Clossius) to me they are not dismissive.
Thesis, notes - the, thesis, statement 1 declares subject of the essay
It wasn't as bad as White says it at also explains why White was pov by your standards (and by mine as well but he wasn't a wikipedia author, but wrote a book that by the standards of his time was certainly good scholarship. When he started the project, it may have been good scholarship, but by the time he published the final book? Wasn't the study of history in America copying the german model by that point? Yes it was, and he of course was a very germanized scholar; all his serious studies were done there, his academic-administrative merits are mostly in the adaption of the german university model for the us (Cornell, Stanford, johns Hopkins etc. and he was in close contact with the leading German historians of his time. And I like think the. Warfare is a very german book indeed - a dash late, perhaps, but still not out of place at this time. And to answer the ad hominem rhetorical question: Yes, i have read White, the. Warfare as well as his other books, and much of his papers. Not that this really matters, because the issue here is simply that of an encyclopedic contribution. Clossius 10:15, (UTC)I made park a deliberate effort not to sound ad hominem, but I guess it didn't work.
Nothing specific, but I for fully accept your reasoning as regards the stubbiness of the article. The reason I commented at all is because i got here via the White entry. Furthermore, you may also wish to consider why exactly White is still read today - there is obviously an interest in this kind of book precisely because the "enemy" seems to be, or actually is, still there - at least in certain parts of the. I wonder how one can understand interpretive models of science if one doesn't realize to which question they form the is because white is still read today that it is relevant to evaluate the quality of his scholarship in modern terms. Many readers of this article may have ideas about historical events drawn from the conflict model. The conflict model has an ongoing life, as you say, so a part of the article will be oriented towards current interpretations. Not to do so would, imo, make the article t irrelevant, but "merely" historical, i'd say. . ;-) But after all, i agree with you that the ct is still relevant and that this should be addressed here, and along the lines to say - only in neutral, and (as) objective (as possible) terms that take into account what is relevant when. After all, the reason you don't like the conflict thesis seems to be more one of degree than of principle,.
Any good history of science realizes the context of science and science discourse, and an interpretive model like this cannot be simply dismissed cavalierly as "false by today's standards which is perhaps the least interesting you could ere is almost no content of any sort. This was a "to-do" on the history of science wikiproject. I decided that it would be better to put up a little bit and give other editors something they could modify by bits, instead of spending months trying to write up a full-fledged article on my own. Yes, there should be some context for the 19th century authors. Yes, i planned to get to it someday, if nobody else did, but to do a decent job hibernation would take time and research for me because i don't know all that much about the era. It sounds like you have something pretty specific in mind. If you do, would you consider either writing it up or naming some relevant readings?
I can definitely see how the entire"tion is not a good idea here. What if it were cut to something like "because of White's impressive documentation." (ellipses would be put in the article; I'm not trying to be deceptive on this talk page)? I think it's worth mentioning the citations. Since it's something that has been mentioned to me more than once, i think readers see it as important and it explains part of the book's ongoing success. What i am objecting to in this" is the gratuitous remark, "impression of scholarship which means that it is not really scholarship. I don't think, however, that the. Warfare is a polemic dressed up with fake"s, but that it is the result of genuine, serious scholarship. The earlier versions, manuscript, White's letters, etc., clearly show that. Whether it was successfully done or not, or whether it convinces today or not, is an entirely different d the worst part is that there is no contextualization; any good history of science would try to understand what the role of the conflict thesis was.
Disintegrating, thesis, notes - uoguide, the Ultima Online Encyclopedia
In the current context, it seems to me that festival "nonspecialists" and "popular" are meant as dismissive, and I'm not wrong, am I? That teh" by l n, which i indeed don't regard as gospel truth or even as a particularly successful book on the subject - and it is only one, i don't look on it as gospel truth myself, but you tossed out the word. What would you point to as an example in this subject? Would you consider it (or any book) gospel truth? Would you consider it successful?
And what, btw, does "successful" mean here? Standard - you were right in guessing what I meant. And no, i would not consider any book gospel truth. . ;-) (And I would not consider l n successful, but that's indeed a matter of judgment.)which claims that "White's impressive documentation gave the appearance of sound scholarship" is, both in the book and as a" here, entirely polemical. I think it is very obvious that the prupose of the article is, contrary to that of what an encyclopedia article should do, not to understand and explain, but to criticize - while there is a section called "criticism already the descriptive part is negative. I pulled out that sentence because i wanted to get in the idea that Draper was widely read in the short run, and explain why he was being mentioned even though Prometheus does not carry his book (or didn't last time i checked but.
Clossius 08:22, (utc what do you see as emotional? I will agree that there is very little context, but if you look at the history, you will see it is a stub and only about 24 hours old. If you have some context, your contribution would be welcome, and if you have some language you think would be more neutral, please suggest. Lindberg and Numbers have been collaborating on this topic for some time, and their work is what I would consider canonical on the subject. There are older works that give different interpretations of science-and-religion, like merton, but l n are among the first to address themselves directly to the history of the concept of conflict. Along with jb russell of flat-earth fame.
Maybe i do not understand what you mean by "canon" either. Maestlin 09:08, (UTC)Oops, it is more like 2 days old, but still. Have you read White btw? If not you should, then you would learn what emotional, pov, polemic, unscholarly writing on the subject is really like. Maestlin 09:15, (UTC)I think that "it has come to be regarded as false by historians" is emotional, would you approve of something like the rewrite ragesoss has made. At "It retains great popularity among nonspecialists, and it is sometimes found in popular works on the history of science" is dismissive and patronizing, At this point i am afraid there is no way i can rewrite this that you will not see. The underlying idea i was trying to communicate is that full-fledged conflict interpretation may still be found today from time to time, but it is not at all likely to be found in the works of someone with academic credentials like history-of-science or simply say.
Get m news, thesis, notes, guidelines for your, thesis
If you would like to writing support the project, essay please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on wikipedia. C, this article has been rated. C-class on the project's quality scale. Mid, this article has been rated. Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Contents, andrew Dickson White edit, i came across this because of a conflict over. It seems to me that this article is very emotional and npov; historical thought is not even attempted to be understood and placed in context, but is judged on the basis of a few recent (and, after all, also not particularly 'canonical works; the language. Too bad, really, because the substance is not wrong. Perhaps someone detached can look at and edit this.
Ptejte se assignment na cokoliv, co vás zajímá ohledně produktu notes on a thesis. Zkušení uživatelé vám rádi poradí či pomohou. Otázka: Stručně položte svůj dotaz, měli byste se vejít do max. 6-8 slov, doplnění otázky: Zde můžete uvést upřesnění otázky co nejpodrobněji. Pište prosím s diakritikou. Html není povoleno, emaily jsou chráněny proti spamu, www adresy jsou převáděny na odkazy. Jméno: E-mail: Zadejte číslici 12: Upozorněte mě na reakce, poslat dotaz zároveň e-mailem až 5 majitelům produktu. This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on wikipedia.
recommendation requests per second can be served with a latency below. We conclude that matrix factorisation can be used online in large-scale settings but specific care has to be taken when clustering the items. And though it may not make much sense without me talking, here are the slides from this mornings defense. The presentation, this will also mark the last post on this blog. From now on you can only find. So long and thanks for all the fish! Zde se nacházíte: filmy, knihy, hry knihy notes on a thesis poradna položit otázku, put off what you intended to do today and go out and buy it, right now.'Rachel cooke, observerAn Observer book of the yearWhen jeanne is accepted on to a phD course.
Essentially it has been a tool for personal reflection on my learning process. After I have let the last few weeks sink in a bit, i will try to do a summary on my personal blog. Anyway, for those of you who are interested, you can download a full copy of the thesis and read all about its juicy details. If you have any questions about the work, dont hesitate to shoot me an e-mail. Abstract, in social networks, e-commerce systems, and other web-services the sheer size of available content is overwhelming. Highlighting relevant content is the focus of recommender systems. Most previous research in the area has provided several algorithms for personalising the user experience, but few have addressed the issues of scalability. In this study we show how matrix factorisation, one of the more accurate recommendation techniques, can be used to serve recommendations online engelsk for millions of items and millions of users.
Shanglun Wang - freelance, python, developer for Hire
Since january 12, 2012 ive been slowly working on my master thesis called. Online recommendations at web-scale using matrix factorisation. Today i successfully defended it and can happily say im satisified with the results. Over the course of the semester this blog has served as a place to degenerative vent ideas and clarify problems for myself. Perhaps most of all it has been an experiment where i could document my progress. I wanted to, in retrospect, be able to see how my perception of the problem changed over time. As I learned more and more about the problem, how did my understanding change? What decisions led to progress and when did they not?