sci.physics

On Aug 7, 11:40 pm, a_plutonium wrote:
> [...]
> About the only real advantage the old fashioned means of publishing has over Internet
> publishing is the pictures and diagrams capability. Computers often have a botched
> integration of pictures with text.

Man, this revelation ought to kill the online porn industry outright.

> They are often unbotched when it comes to text only, and
> usually botched when pictures are included. I like to include some pictures whenever
> available even if ascii art.
>
> And a feature that is really outstanding about Internet publishing is the date time group
> given to every post, or page of the book.
>
> And there is no real need for a index because a search engine provides the index.
>
> And what I especially learned about publishing books on the Internet from January
> to June was that I should have a last chapter devoted to recent news and research
> reports on the issues of the book. So that all the other chapters are about the
> central ideas of the theory and those chapters are not easily changed nor are
> they often changed, but if new
> data arise, it is incorporated in the last chapter and if that new data becomes
> so important to the book that it forces the overhauling of earlier chapters.

Hence books have different *editions*.

> So the
> theory is put forward by all the chapters except the last chapter which is the
> chapter that could cause wholescale changes of the prior chapters. What I am
> trying to say is that the more I publish these books on the Internet, they more
> I become skilled on how to write the books.

I've thought about "publishing books on Usenet" and have come to some
conclusions about it.

I don't have any trouble with works of fiction or poetry. And in my
high school, a student by the name of Scott Dyer came up with (or more
likely, stole) the technique of multiple, alternate endings,
popularized as "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. Since threads are
non-linear, this would provide the ideal medium for such books.

However, when a document (of whatever medium) claims to purport The
Truth, things get a lot more iffy.

This may be interpretted as "an ad hominem attack against AP", but I
am only mentioning AP because he himself said something which is
extremely relevant to my eventual principle.

AP once posted a suggestion for Usenet, namely that the original
poster decides whose reponses get included in the thread, and which
don't. His exact words were:

> Can some software engineer tell me if it is difficult or easy to have
> the Science Newsgroups equiped with a Trashcan function that allows the
> initial author of a thread to completely moderate all replies.
> [...]
> This is what the sci newsgroups need in the future.

(This post is in the "one page proof of the Infinitude of Twin Primes"
thread in , on February 26, 2006.)

This is heading towards the principle: Non-fiction books simply must
have their facts checked BY SOMEONE ELSE.

If AP's scheme comes to pass, the following will in all likelihood
happen: Let's say that X (not AP) posts a "book" which claims, in
part, that pi is really equal to . Y reads this post and sees an
obvious flaw. Y posts a reply, showing exactly where the flaw is.

Now X browses Usenet one more time. X sees that Y has refuted one of
his points, and since X can, X deletes Y's post. Y tries to repost,
explaining that his refusal of X's work is not an ad hominem attack,
and that X really has some of the details wrong.

X deletes Y's post again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

AP claims to have solved this problem:

> Where if
> a person wants to exercise Freedom of Speech, he/she can start their
> own thread.

(From the same post, Feb 26, 2006.)

So Y posts a thread called "Why X is Wrong", pointing out the mistake.
Maybe Y allows X to respond, maybe not. It's not really relevant to
the scenario itself.

Time passes. X and Y pass on.

Z wants to look up articles in Usenet which talk about the value of
pi. The "best" response turns out to be X's original post, for some
bizarre reason. Z reads X's post, and maybe Z is not too bright, or
maybe Z is lazy, and then he decides that pi is in fact equals .
Z thinks the issue is settled, and never reads Y's post and finds out
that X is, after all, wrong.

What leads to this scenario happening? Claim of The Truth without
outside verification.

Non-fiction books (in whatever medium) simply must have their facts
checked BY SOMEONE ELSE.

--- Christopher Heckman