I was thinking about that the other day. I've had my standalone GPS for 2-3 years now, and I consider it one of my best electronics purchases ever: It still works as well as it did the day I bought it, and still does everything I want it to do -- not true of my similarly aged DVD player, audio receiver, laptop computer, phone, etc. Of course, that's not good for Garmin, because I don't have any pressure to upgrade.

That's what I was thinking. I wasn't even aware that the iPhone had turn-by-turn GPS apps yet. Surely that must be very recent.

Yelling "Install NoScript you n00bs!!1!" won't register noobs... because they're newbs.

And if they were to install noscript, they wouldn't have the skill or patiance to configure all the exceptions, and would complain to you about their broken Internet.

Am I the only one on Slashdot who thinks javascript is a powerful tool adds much more to the web than it risks? I mean, sure, cutting off your arm is a great way to reduce the risk of fingernail infection, but who would want to do that?

"legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality" Who gets to define legitimate?

As others have pointed out, 'The Community.' But I have a hard time believing something of that length could possibly be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Then again, that applies to be existing wikipedia articles....

because the Wikipedia Search "feature" sucks unless you know exactly what you're looking for

I feel strongly enough to throw in a 'me too.'

The wikipedia search feature is dreadful, but as others have pointed out, Google's is pretty good. I'll usually append or prepend the phrase 'wiki'. E.g.: 'wiki paw-paw' or 'wiki radiant intensity'.

Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are expert in, or even have a good passing knowledge of -- any subject, pick a few even. Go to the wikipedia page on that topic, and you will find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, conjecture, missing information and sometimes downright lies.

I've found Wikipedia to be very accurate on topics in mathematics, physics, basic chemisry, and other 'nerdy but not controversial' topics (especially as a general reference for formulas, constants, and methods). When I've examined articles on topics about which I'm especially familiar I've found that writing quality and organization are pretty good indicators of accuracy. I assume that applies broadly.

That's not the point, though. You're absolutely right that wikipedia shouldn't be the final source for anything critically important (with few exceptions). But it is good enough for most casual (entertainment) tasks, and even many professional ones, assuming you work with hard sciences.

I use google for math all the time. It's fast, convenient, recognizes units and constants, and doesn't require installing anything -- a key advantage when I'm at work and am using random computers / am prohibited from installing software. I guess I could use matlab, but that is not a fast-launching program by any stretch of the imagination.