Slashdot Mirror

Not really, as they took the stories (changed them a little bit) and made a new animated movie.. Unlike what this guy tries to do, rip the video from https://archive.org/details/su... then uploaded it to google and expects money from it, without doing anything himself.. He's just lame....

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Fixed regurgitate link.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Perhaps a slightly better mirror / archive of the text:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely.

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

It can be read here.

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selection-3375.25-3375.75

I'm willing to amend my statement...

Your statement, Jane? That statement was actually made by a man-child named Lonny Eachus!

John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

... pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. ...

What a funny coincidence! Pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by Lonny Eachus's friends and associates, with Eachus's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. (Let me guess: Jane and Nova's claim about Cook is totally different because blah blah blah...).

... However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus also doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Even the "gal" who calls "herself" Jane and claims Lonny's statements as "her" own doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Hmm...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selec...

That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media? http://web.archive.org/web/201...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selec...

That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media? http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Everybody Lies

Go outside and get some sunshine and fresh air. Sounds like you really need it...

No, that's not the reason. The GP explained away that bullshit excuse of yours. Go read the motherfucking comment and look at what it linked to. Here's the relevant part for you:

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

The evidence shows very clearly that it was not quieter during the summer 10 years ago, even on a Saturday. As is so plainly obvious, there were many more comments then than there are now.

It's not about it being summer. It's not about it being Saturday. It's about stupid policies having ruined Slashdot!

Go outside and get some sunshine and fresh air. Sounds like you really need it...

No, that's not the reason. The GP explained away that bullshit excuse of yours. Go read the motherfucking comment and look at what it linked to. Here's the relevant part for you:

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

The evidence shows very clearly that it was not quieter during the summer 10 years ago, even on a Saturday. As is so plainly obvious, there were many more comments then than there are now.

It's not about it being summer. It's not about it being Saturday. It's about stupid policies having ruined Slashdot!

No, that's not the reason. The GP explained away that bullshit excuse of yours. Go read the motherfucking comment and look at what it linked to. Here's the relevant part for you:

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

The evidence shows very clearly that it was not quieter during the summer 10 years ago, even on a Saturday. As is so plainly obvious, there were many more comments then than there are now.

It's not about it being summer. It's not about it being Saturday. It's about stupid policies having ruined Slashdot!

No, that's not the reason. The GP explained away that bullshit excuse of yours. Go read the motherfucking comment and look at what it linked to. Here's the relevant part for you:

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

The evidence shows very clearly that it was not quieter during the summer 10 years ago, even on a Saturday. As is so plainly obvious, there were many more comments then than there are now.

It's not about it being summer. It's not about it being Saturday. It's about stupid policies having ruined Slashdot!

As I look upon the Slashdot front page today, I see only one story with more than 100 comments. Most submissions here routinely get only 50, if not much fewer. One submission from yesterday only has 20 comments!

This very submission has been on the front page for over 30 minutes, and there wasn't one single comment when I started writing this one!

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

Dice, we need to have a talk about this existential problem, and how to remedy this situation.

The first thing to do is to stop with the -1 moderations that plague so many discussions here. Too much perfectly fine content ends up at -1 right away. We're pretty sure it's somebody affiliated with Slashdot who is responsible. Even if it isn't, Slashdot should not be giving mod points to whoever is engaging in this harmful moderation.

The second thing to do is to get rid of the posting limits. They made sense when submissions here routinely got hundreds of comments. Now that the numbers of comments is measured using tens, the limits should go. Users should get an unlimited number of comments a day, and the time between comments should be at most one minute. Remember, this is a discussion site. Putting up artificial barriers to discussion, like rate limits, only causes harm!

The third thing to do is to avoid the social justice submissions. Yes, they get lots of comments, but they're extremely low-quality comments. 500 of those comments are worth less than even just 10 good comments about a legitimate topic.

It's not too late to save Slashdot. With some simple and sensible changes, this site could easily be restored to its former glory. Get rid of the bad moderators, get rid of the posting limits, and let us actually converse here! Help restore this site to a place where people actually want to come and visit. Please, Dice, do the right thing!

This. OMG this. There's a lot of truth here... Dice's handling of Slashdot is slowly killing it... :(

As I look upon the Slashdot front page today, I see only one story with more than 100 comments. Most submissions here routinely get only 50, if not much fewer. One submission from yesterday only has 20 comments!

This very submission has been on the front page for over 30 minutes, and there wasn't one single comment when I started writing this one!

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

Dice, we need to have a talk about this existential problem, and how to remedy this situation.

The first thing to do is to stop with the -1 moderations that plague so many discussions here. Too much perfectly fine content ends up at -1 right away. We're pretty sure it's somebody affiliated with Slashdot who is responsible. Even if it isn't, Slashdot should not be giving mod points to whoever is engaging in this harmful moderation.

The second thing to do is to get rid of the posting limits. They made sense when submissions here routinely got hundreds of comments. Now that the numbers of comments is measured using tens, the limits should go. Users should get an unlimited number of comments a day, and the time between comments should be at most one minute. Remember, this is a discussion site. Putting up artificial barriers to discussion, like rate limits, only causes harm!

The third thing to do is to avoid the social justice submissions. Yes, they get lots of comments, but they're extremely low-quality comments. 500 of those comments are worth less than even just 10 good comments about a legitimate topic.

It's not too late to save Slashdot. With some simple and sensible changes, this site could easily be restored to its former glory. Get rid of the bad moderators, get rid of the posting limits, and let us actually converse here! Help restore this site to a place where people actually want to come and visit. Please, Dice, do the right thing!

This. OMG this. There's a lot of truth here... Dice's handling of Slashdot is slowly killing it... :(

The article says the state of Georgia is suing Mr. Malamud. But who is "the state of Georgia" in this case?

The bottom of this document (sorry, I'm not a lawyer - I don't know what the document is called) indicates Anthony B. Askew's signature. Is he the one who decided to sue Mr. Malamud?

As I look upon the Slashdot front page today, I see only one story with more than 100 comments. Most submissions here routinely get only 50, if not much fewer. One submission from yesterday only has 20 comments!

This very submission has been on the front page for over 30 minutes, and there wasn't one single comment when I started writing this one!

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

Dice, we need to have a talk about this existential problem, and how to remedy this situation.

The first thing to do is to stop with the -1 moderations that plague so many discussions here. Too much perfectly fine content ends up at -1 right away. We're pretty sure it's somebody affiliated with Slashdot who is responsible. Even if it isn't, Slashdot should not be giving mod points to whoever is engaging in this harmful moderation.

The second thing to do is to get rid of the posting limits. They made sense when submissions here routinely got hundreds of comments. Now that the numbers of comments is measured using tens, the limits should go. Users should get an unlimited number of comments a day, and the time between comments should be at most one minute. Remember, this is a discussion site. Putting up artificial barriers to discussion, like rate limits, only causes harm!

The third thing to do is to avoid the social justice submissions. Yes, they get lots of comments, but they're extremely low-quality comments. 500 of those comments are worth less than even just 10 good comments about a legitimate topic.

It's not too late to save Slashdot. With some simple and sensible changes, this site could easily be restored to its former glory. Get rid of the bad moderators, get rid of the posting limits, and let us actually converse here! Help restore this site to a place where people actually want to come and visit. Please, Dice, do the right thing!

As I look upon the Slashdot front page today, I see only one story with more than 100 comments. Most submissions here routinely get only 50, if not much fewer. One submission from yesterday only has 20 comments!

This very submission has been on the front page for over 30 minutes, and there wasn't one single comment when I started writing this one!

To really see what I'm talking about, look at Slashdot as it appeared a decade ago on July 25, 2005. Or compare it to the nearest Saturday to then, July 23, 2005.

Almost all of those submissions had at least 100 comments. Many of them had far more. In fact, it was routine to see submissions with 400 or even 500 comments. So clearly something is extremely wrong today, when 100 comments is considered a lot.

Dice, we need to have a talk about this existential problem, and how to remedy this situation.

The first thing to do is to stop with the -1 moderations that plague so many discussions here. Too much perfectly fine content ends up at -1 right away. We're pretty sure it's somebody affiliated with Slashdot who is responsible. Even if it isn't, Slashdot should not be giving mod points to whoever is engaging in this harmful moderation.

The second thing to do is to get rid of the posting limits. They made sense when submissions here routinely got hundreds of comments. Now that the numbers of comments is measured using tens, the limits should go. Users should get an unlimited number of comments a day, and the time between comments should be at most one minute. Remember, this is a discussion site. Putting up artificial barriers to discussion, like rate limits, only causes harm!

The third thing to do is to avoid the social justice submissions. Yes, they get lots of comments, but they're extremely low-quality comments. 500 of those comments are worth less than even just 10 good comments about a legitimate topic.

It's not too late to save Slashdot. With some simple and sensible changes, this site could easily be restored to its former glory. Get rid of the bad moderators, get rid of the posting limits, and let us actually converse here! Help restore this site to a place where people actually want to come and visit. Please, Dice, do the right thing!

Yay for vaccine, some day, even for infants.
Yay for FREE mosquito nets.
But you do realize however... these are measures that we --- the countries who have already eradicated Malaria --- would not tolerate, if WE were as affected as they?

THE WHITEWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY
You're living it. Most people have no real perspective on DDT at all, it is simply something evil which allowed persons in developed countries which had already eradicated Malaria to claim its discontinuance as "the greatest environmental victory for everybody, ever"... though actually, taking lead out of gasoline was the real greatest victory. Most are too zero-tolerance enviro-Puritan even to consider a distinction between a light regimen of spraying walls inside homes versus the (mind bogglingly huge) agricultural applications throughout North America up to 1972, which everyone agrees was a bad idea. DDT is simply some 'evil banned substance'. Anyone talking about it is a loon. Anyone asking, where could they possibly get some is a subversive. It has come to this. That is the extent of this modern ugly.

THE UNWASHED VERSION OF HISTORY: BLOOD ON OUR HANDS
How do you calculate the value of 50 million lives, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa, most of them children? Sadly, you have to go to a politically motivated website to find this figure in proper context, and an an excellent summary of DDT's history:

"As recently as 2005, 500 million people around the world (approximately one-twelfth of the earth's population) were contracting malaria on an annual basis; and each year, 2 to 3 million of them died as a result. Since the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT, more than 50 million people--about 90 percent of whom resided in sub-Saharan Africa, and most of whom were children younger than five--have died of malaria. Said the World Health Organization, "more people are now infected [with malaria] than at any point in history," with "up to half a billion cases [being reported] every year." Anywhere from 1 to 2 million of those people die from the disease. Dr. Wenceslaus Kilama, chairman of Malaria Foundation International, placed this figure into perspective: "This is like loading up seven Boeing 747 airliners each day, then deliberately crashing them into Mt. Kilimanjaro." "The resurgence of a disease that was almost eradicated [many] years ago is a case study in the danger of putting concern for nature above concern for people," said Nizam Ahmad, a Bangladeshi analyst who focuses on the problems that affect developing countries.

Or find this Wayback New Yorker article describing the human triumph of malaria eradication that may well be from the point of view of DDT itself, for no other measure taken deserves near as much praise. Or this which cites a telling South African infection/mortality study with a particularly chilling graph.

Or the paper The Burden of Early Exposure to Malaria in the United States, 1850-1860: Malnutrition and Immune Disorders [2007] which not only describes the direct impact of malaria in the United States, but also suggests some previously-unexplored side effects of such an endemic disease on populations that made life really suck. For example, "Union Army recruits who spent their early years in malaria-endemic counties were 1.1 inches shorter at enlistment due to malnutrition and were 13 percent more susceptible to infections during the U.S. Civil War as a result of immune disorders than were those from malaria-free regions."

I'm not bringing all this up because I'm trying to convince you that Malaria is bad. We know it's bad. But in the early 1970s something happened within the United States and

Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.

The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200...

That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?

Regarding aspertame:Unfortunately, even though studies have shown it to be fine for the general population, it is not fine for everyone. Indirectly, it also causes you to feel hungry, so you are more likely to eat more when using it.

I'm involved in a study which at least shows that GMO food does have something different in it that causes some people to be allergic to it or have reactions making them feel unwell. Modified Wheat seems to be the worst, causing more reactions than any other modified item we have found to date.

I didn't believe this myself, but after countless encounters with random people all over the world, there has to be something to this. Don't believe me, that's ok, I didn't believe either. Go to your local grocery store, and find the gluten-free aisle. Ask people who are looking for gluten free items, and you will see the pattern. Whenever we are in countries where GMO food does not exist, those people are not getting sick.

Believe what you want.

You seemed to completely miss the idea of the emotions being enjoyed when listening to music and how hearing that music again brings back the sense of those emotions and memories. That's real human values, not some esoteric nonsense about the ohh lah lah of sophistication. Yep, the only music I value is the music I have shared with others during memorable events, sitting passively listening to music does nothing for me. Right now I am still into the far more imaginative world of radio dramas https://archive.org/details/ol..., I suppose a little too main stream pop culture for you ;D.

Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.

The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200...

That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?

You have better odds of hitting the powerball than doing your own defense and winning though

That is more the effect of the pro-se and Judge's not wanting to deal with them than the pro-se being an idiot.

The pro-se will not win their case due to law and facts being on their side. They will win because the politics are on their side and your anonymous hand-waving can't get the Internet masses to throw in politically. (the Rule of law radio personality Randy Kelton spends hours discussing how to play the political part of the game BTW)

(The most fun I've had reading pro-se's slugging it out is over here: https://ia801402.us.archive.or... The one pro-se makes claims about redcoats/nazi's and Selma Alabama in his filings and the other is trying to be funny. Failing at it, mostly.)

MariaDB. Google switched from MySQL to Oracle to MySQL to Google F1 for it's AdWords technology. See the wiki page on Adwords. Since then, many companies, including Google have switched their smaller MySQL databases to MariaDB.

There is an interesting account of the Google Oracle migration at the wayback machine.

So I guess in the interests of fairness you would suggesting lobotomizing everyone to bring them down to your level of stupidity?

No need for that when simple distractions work. Unlike Harrison's father, we carry our distractions in our pockets and sleep with them next to our beds.
https://archive.org/stream/Har...
"Who knows better than I do what normal is?"

https://archive.org/details/mo... has a few, if you have some they are missing scan and upload them :)

Let's put your bullshit claim to the test. We don't have to remember anything. In fact, we can view Slashdot like it was on July 4, 2005.

I don't see any of this sort of clickbait there. I viewed each day for a full week before and a full week after July 4, 2005, too. There were absolutely no clickbait submissions then, either, over that 2 week period.

So you are clearly the one who is wrong. 10 years ago the quality of the stories here were much higher. The topics were more interesting. They were meant to promote good discussion, not just get people to click on links in a fit of digital rage.

Face it, Paco. Things here have changed for the worse! Nobody is "misremembering" anything. There's nothing to remember! We can look directly at Slashdot as it was then, and it is clear that every submission then was better than every submission now.

Found them!

This isn't new.

Side effects of SSRI based anti-depressants - in addition to subduing the creative thought process and destroying the sex drive - include what has been termed emotional blunting.

In effect, blunting erodes one's ability to feel emotional response or empathy - such as being able to feel the 'warm fuzzies' in a relationship. This is a very dangerous road that can lead to sociopathy.

The stated side effects of SSRI based anti-depressants also include violent and/or suicidal behavior.

It is also interesting to note that the majority of mass shooters in the last 25 years have been under the influence of - or withdrawing from - SSRI based anti-depressents. John DeCamp, lawyer for the Columbine shooters, and author of The Franklin Cover-up, attempted to use the side effects of SSRI's as a defense. Details here.

Simply put, these drugs are terrible and should never have been allowed to be marketed.

Instead of reaching for pills, people with depression should instead get some regular exercise, a good diet and a positive attitude.

Pills are not the answer. Especially these pills.

On getting a glimpse of something strange in the telescope:

"It makes me realize how desperately alone the Earth is, hanging in space like a fleck of food floating in the ocean, sooner or later to be swallowed up by some creature floating by."

https://archive.org/details/Te...

Maybe not old as in really old, but at least since 2012/2013/2014.

Even artists know about it.

2012
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"Researchers have moved one step closer to facial reconstruction with DNA by discovering the genes that help control the width of the human face. A recent study of almost 10,000 individuals revealed five genes associated with different facial shapes – known as PRDM16, PAX3, TP63, C5orf50, and COL17A1. Manfred Kayser and his team of the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of people’s heads to map facial landmarks and estimate facial distances."

2013
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09... "We leave genetic traces of ourselves wherever we go -- in a strand of hair left on the subway or in saliva on the side of a glass at a cafe. So you may want to think twice the next time you spit out your gum or drop a cigarette butt in public. New York artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg might pick it up, extract the DNA and create a 3-D face that could look like you. Her project, "Stranger Visions," fashions portrait sculptures from bits of genetic material collected in public places."

2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...
"Sometime in the future, technicians will go over the scene of the crime. They’ll uncover some DNA evidence and take it to the lab. And when the cops need to get a picture of the suspect, they won’t have to ask eyewitnesses to give descriptions to a sketch artist – they’ll just ask the technicians to get a mugshot from the DNA. That, at least, is the potential of new research being published today in PLOS Genetics. In that paper, a team of scientists describe how they were able to produce crude 3D models of faces extrapolated from a person’s DNA."

http://www.kuleuven.be/english...
"Scientists are getting closer to constructing a likeness of a person's face using nothing but a DNA sample. Postdoctoral researcher Peter Claes and his colleagues describe the technique in a recent publication in PLOS Genetics. Their work opens a horizon of potential future applications in forensics, anthropology and medicine."

Now its 2015.

I was listening to NPR the other day, and this story popped up: Examining Race-Based Admissions Bans On Medical Schools .

The short version is; certain states have ruled that colleges are not allowed to consider race as part of their admissions criteria, and medical schools are noticing that black and latino graduation numbers have decreased since then.

The intent was to focus on merit-based evaluations. Seems noble, right? We want the best doctors we can get. However, the effect appears to be to reduce the number of minority students admitted. This, of course, has people outraged, and scrambling to find ways to work around the system - like sending recruiting teams to primarily-black or latino high schools, and hoping that will increase the applicant numbers.

What shocked me is that everyone is dancing around the race issue (and only certain races; not, for example, Indian or other asians). Everyone agrees the minority graduation numbers have dropped because individuals from a given group don't actually meet the admissions criteria. They're not qualified to be students or doctors. That apparently hundreds or thousands of people's failing grades were ignored because of their race. That prior to the no-race rule, doctors, in this case, were not necessarily the most well qualified individuals for the job. In fact, some significant percentage of them should not have been allowed in.

This trend isn't new either. When I was a lifeguard back in the 90's, the requirements changed from being able to swim a specific distance in a certain time, to removing many of these fitness requirements altogether. The reason? It was apparently unfairly eliminating people with poor physical ability or handicaps. The new focus was to do all the lifeguarding from the side of the pool: hooks, ropes, and life preservers.

Heck, just last month there was a minor kerfuffle about fire departments force- and expedited-promotions of minorities over whites.

I can't help but see this girls-only computer science focus being another of these sorts of ill-considered plans, where capability takes a back seat to minority inclusion and political correctness. Sure, it's not as vital as our doctors, firemen, and lifeguards, but it's the same line of thought. In our rush to be politically correct and all inclusive, we mistake equality for equally fair, and it serves no one well except those promoting our differences.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? Like Harrison Bergeron crazy? I can't be the only one, right?

I think the Buddha's Kalama Sutta, called his "charter of free inquiry" , is relevant here. The current Dalai Lama has said "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

The effect is the same. Usually the capacitance is adjusted to series resonate with the inductance from length of feedline going to the drive point tap. Whether it's a physical series capacitor, or the effective capacitance of a coupling sleeve doesn't change the theory. Obviously the feedpoint impedance will vary with the length of the plasma plume. The transmission line length will be relatively short, so mismatched impedance isn't a problem there. The interfacing electronics needs to tolerate wide variations. While dynamic matching could be used, it would be tempting to have the operating frequency follow the resonance of the plasma plume. Unfortunately nearby planets might gripe about interference to other spectrum users. But if they set of an EMP first...

There is prior art for that... (load conditions, through feedback, setting the frequency) 7 inch 1945 Motorola television sets had a sleeve around the glass of the high voltage rectifier, essentially a feedback capacitor. It fed the grid (input) of the tube driving the high voltage transformer. Although it looked odd, the spring around that tube was very much a required part in the circuit. They could have used a manufactured capacitor, but it would have had to handle about 7,000 volts. The inductance of the transformer secondary resonating with the total of its own capacitance and that of the wiring and rectifier, set the oscillation frequency. Unlike larger screen sets that used magnetic deflection of the c.r.t. beam, the radar/scope-like c.r.t of the 7 inch sets had electrostatic deflection. That meant the high voltage transformer didn't have to run at a precise frequency to drive scan coils on the c.r.t. from a portion of the transformer winding.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

So the plasma antenna should work, and it's probably less complicated than a 1945 television.

The Web is designed to not need APIs or dedicated documentation. You might have heard of REST - it's a set of constraints on network architecture designs, which are: client-server protocol, layered interface, caching, stateless connections, code-on-demand (e.g. Javascript), and a uniform interface (e.g. HTML). REST is defined by the principal author of HTTP, Roy T. Fielding.

Lots of people call themselves RESTful (Amazon, Twitter) but aren't even close. A RESTful service is pretty much just like a website: You enter at an entry point, then start following hyperlinks and filling out forms to manipulate the state of your client and the server (respectively).

If you have an existing plain-old-HTTP API, you might want to build a hypertext interface on top of it that users can browse and submit documents with. Use a hypermedia data format like JSON-LD, Hydra, or JSON Hyper-schema to expose machine-readable hypertext. HTML is perfectly fine too, and preferable if you want to navigate the API with a Web browser.

See:

http://martinfowler.com/articl...

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

http://www.amazon.com/RESTful-...

Jane's too busy to respond to dblll or david_thornley, but his alter ego is repeating Jane's claims: https://web.archive.org/web/20...

I share your concern, but I really don't think this will happen unless major labels are attempting to sell to this market through other means. Besides... it wouldn't be enforceable. People would just store their data by more unconventional means (by putting it on cell phones, for example). In the worst possible scenario, for the time where we live in a horrid dystopia in which the only form of storage for users is "the cloud", we still have public key cryptography. It still sucks for those with no internet though.

Comment Signature

Actually, that point is rather closely analogous to a theological argument made by St. Augustine.

>So we build desalination plants. And then it rains. Then what?

Santa Barbara sold off the key pieces of their $34 million dollar plant built in the early 90's but too expensive to run while other water was available, claiming it would be a minor project to get it online again. Now they say the old plant was obsolete, showing pictures of a few old PCs (as if those cost much) without even mentioning the looting and pillaging of the key hardware. Of course the trivial restart turns out to be another TWENTY MILLION.

http://www.keyt.com/news/city-...

Does this line out of Wikipedia sound like propaganda? "While it has a high operating cost, the facility only needs to operate infrequently, allowing Santa Barbara to use its other supplies more extensively."

Touting high cost as a feature that "allows" use of something else???

An earlier city page disclosed sold-off components. It's very misleading for people to have later described the plant as being in "stand by" when the actual parts that do the desal are missing.

http://web.archive.org/web/201...

Look at Lua, originally a company language for PetroBras. It never became mainstream.

Well, unless you count video game scripting. "Lua has become an extremely popular programming language, so much so that it's achieved a critical mass of developers in the game industry, meaning Lua skills are transferable from company to company."

>> How does anyone imagine that is achievable

"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal..."
http://archive.org/stream/Harr...

Not saying Sourceforge is or isn't evil, but I've been poking around archive.org and it looks like the "nmap" project never had any files.

http://web.archive.org/web/201...