Update: 3/17/2008 I was made aware by a reader that this post might be taken as acceptance of the practice of using wikipedia as citation for research work. I am not making this point, I am simply highlighting the vector toward more truthful , that all articles on wikipedia tend to be directed as time and contributors increases. In the most mature wikipedia articles, one will note a plethora of valid technical first source citations at the bottom of the article that can be used for academic sources. Again, the post below is simply illustrating the trend toward "incremental truth" that attends wikipedia articles. I originally commented on this article in an email to my brother, the entire comment in transcribed below. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html (may require free registration to access) This article is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is soo cool! On one hand I agree with professors that say it shouldn't be used as a citation sour...
A chronicle of the things I find interesting or deeply important. Exploring generally 4 pillars of intense research. Dynamic Cognition (what every one else calls AI), Self Healing Infrastructures (how to build technological Utopia), Autonomous work routing and Action Oriented Workflow (sending work to the worker) and Supermortality (how to live...to arbitrarily long life spans by ending the disease of aging to death.)