Thanks for the correction. You are correct about the orientation of the site vis Norway. Also, I wrote "protonks" (a pluralization of the old version of the proton rocket) because I'm so used to writing my nick, protonk. Was too hasty.

Protonks (AFAIK) are launched out of Baikonur Cosmodrome, thousands of miles southwest of Norway. I'm unsure how a launch in Kazakhstan would cause a light show in Norway, especially since the insertion into orbit proceeds east of the launch site.

Airline food, isn't it terrible? And the lines! Also some people are bad at driving. I mean...gratz on a well constructed criticism of powerpoint in the classroom, but you aren't really breaking new ground.

So we'll be seeing fewer reviews on slashdot, then?

Eh....kind of. MTBF comes from the assumption of an exponential distribution for failure in devices. Depending on whether or not failures of multiple devices are independent of each other, the probability of failure for a bunch of them may be normally distributed. Or it may not.

Is anyone surprised that it has a terrible name like that? I'm actually glad they didn't call it "Livesearch Expression Web SuperPreview Pro. For windows"

Google (honestly, for most things). Or maxima.

WP:EPR
Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies

Dig in. Or we could look at the increase in "Featured" articles and "Good" article stats, though the latter is not a community process but an individual process.

Anyone with an academic background will understand the difference and the reason behind the policy. Substantive original research takes time, expertise and effort. There is a reason we have long training periods for PhDs--we try to ensure those people are capable of conducting research independently. When you can't verify who people are, you have to limit the amount of "original research" they can do.
It is just a different kind of writing than an original paper. People who make it out to be anti-academic or sneaky miss the boat entirely.

[Citation needed]
You can say a lot of things about wikipedia, but if you say that the majority of articles are worse off now than in (say) 2002, you'll be full of shit. You can point to some good articles in the past that have degraded from random edits. Or articles which have been subject to turf wars. But on the whole, there is improvement.