Slashdot Mirror

Oblig. Dilbert

Is there any sort of guideline/range/fuzzy-logic-set of behaviors or symptoms that indicate that you are definitely not/likely not/maybe/likely/definitely experiencing or approaching burnout? It seems like you'd want to be able to definitely rule it out as something that you're experiencing, unless it's an issue of work/life balance, which never seems to be possible.

Isn't it more the consequences of once free speech.

If you host a site that encourages people to kill other people, be ready to take to the consequences of this.

I viewed the video, and it's not that bad. It's a live-action game of "doom" using real people.

My point is that the media adjectives and adverbs do not correctly describe the visceral impact of the video. Yes, people are killed. No, it's not "horrifying", "gut wrenching", "sickening", or any of the choice descriptions we see from the MSM outlets. It's about as bad as any active-duty military person has seen in real life, and any military person should be able to watch the video with a critical eye and note details that might be relevant to an investigation or court trial. (A lot of police could, also.)

This came up when someone online made a statement of fact about the video that seemed a bit... unlikely, so I went to check for myself(*).

While searching for the video online I noted that CNN was, at that very moment, pushing the hoax that Trump said Nazis were "fine people", which can be quickly dis-verified because Trump's statements are available online.

CNN probably considers Trumps words as racist and, if he weren't the president, could get his comments removed from the internet on that basis. A lot of people could simply report those words as racist speech, and the internet giants would dutifully remove those posts.

And we would have no source of information except the MSM version of what he said.

The only reason this doesn't happen to Trump is because he's a high-profile celebrity, but anyone else can be subject to misinformation, spin, and outright hoax. Like the Covington students being racist, Brett Kavanaugh being a serial rapist, and Trayvon Martin - that adorable teen-aged child - gunned down by a racist white man.

The video should be available for anyone to view online, the manifesto as well, because if it isn't we will have to rely on the judgement of experts in the MSM for content and significance.

And the judgement of experts in the MSM is untrustworthy(**).

(*) Yes, apparently the killer was listening to polka music (or similar) on his way to the mosque.

(**) The MSM is trying to paint the shooter as a right-wing zealot based on the manifesto, but do the actual manifesto words support that conclusion? New Zealand wants to ban the manifesto from the internet.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...

Did you say Dilbert?

[See the first two strips on the linked page.]

This is how to read professional reviews.....

If anyone's interested, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) is running a Climate change debate on his blog, where he invites believers and skeptics to post their best arguments with evidence, and he (as an intelligent person with no background) sorts through the bullshit for us.

One outcome of that debate is that claims of sea levels rising are bullshit. That's a concrete point, one where "the debate is settled" can now be applied. Sea levels have not risen to any appreciable degree, and that point cannot be made to show that climate change is real.

(They may rise in the future, but that is not the same as using *current* sea level changes as an argument for climate change.)

I look forward to Scott examining - one by one - all scientific claims of the climate change debate. Perhaps eventually we will arrive at a position everyone can agree on.

If anyone's interested, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) is running a Climate change debate on his blog, where he invites believers and skeptics to post their best arguments with evidence, and he (as an intelligent person with no background) sorts through the bullshit for us.

One outcome of that debate is that claims of sea levels rising are bullshit. That's a concrete point, one where "the debate is settled" can now be applied. Sea levels have not risen to any appreciable degree, and that point cannot be made to show that climate change is real.

(They may rise in the future, but that is not the same as using *current* sea level changes as an argument for climate change.)

I look forward to Scott examining - one by one - all scientific claims of the climate change debate. Perhaps eventually we will arrive at a position everyone can agree on.

Scott Adams's forecast for $COMPANY_NAME.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2017...

Scott Adams's forecast for $COMPANY_NAME.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2017...

Scott Adams's forecast for $COMPANY_NAME.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2019...
https://dilbert.com/strip/2017...

Someone at Slashdot seems to be pushing the "Russia supplied Wikileaks with the DNC hack info" theory as fact when it hasn't been proven. We've been hearing this supposition for over two years from Democrats and their media enabler who still can't bring themselves to believe the obvious truth that Hillary Clinton was a horribly corrupt and demonstratively incompetent candidate.

Anyone could have hacked the DNC, just like anyone could have hacked Hillary Clinton's illegal homebrew email server. It could have been the Russians, who regularly undertake malicious activity. But it could also be China, or a leak from within the DNC, or the Awan spy ring, who had access to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz's computers and tablets, as well as those of some 40 other House Democrats.

But the Russia theory is pushed above all because that's the one that fuels Democratic activist outrage and the "Russian collusion" fantasy the mainstream media has spent two years pushing. Which is why we get this piece from the hard-left Daily Beast on the front page of Slashdot.

Anything to maintain the mass hysteria bubble.

/Cue up the cries of "Russian bot" in 5...4...3...

Perhaps it has something to do with twizzling the flurm?

Obligatory Dilbert Comic on the issue.

Yes, I realize that XKCD is the actual obligatory comic source. I have unilaterally decided it is time to change all that.

https://dilbert.com/strip/1997-11-13

I must be getting old, no-one else thinks of this when they hear "bug bounty"?

https://dilbert.com/strip/1995...

Story reminded me of this one. https://dilbert.com/strip/2004...

Yep. That was my thought too; surely the ranking member of each government department subject to the shutdown would have to be considered as essential personnel? At the very least *someone* has to give the order to staff to return to work, so this is yet more cowardice from Pai, pure and simple. Still, given that his boss is Donald "You're Fired!" Trump, perhaps he ought to consider the possibility that Trump might be peering out of the Oval Office window with a pair of binoculars per this Dilbert classic.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2011...

https://dilbert.com/strip/2017...

Dilbert anyone ?!?

I just outsource my AI paper publishing to the Chinese.

That's nothing ... I just outsource my AI paper publishing to AI itself.

(What good is AI if it can't write research papers???)

That's nothing. One day I was just thinking about something that I not normally think about. Later that day I looked up the YouTube main page and there was a movie about what I thought about in the Recommended section.

Oh yeah? That's nothing ... YouTube shows me things even before I think about them!

Scott Adam's Dilbert strip on this:
https://dilbert.com/strip/1992...

It is always hilarious that the most illegible, easily manipulated transmission vector is the gold standard for authenticity. Photoshop away, print it out, and FAX it to someone and it is valid.

*sigh*

A Photoshopped document, whether uploaded to Imgur, e-mailed, faxed, mailed, or sent via carrier pigeon, is still the same document. If there is a signature on it, then the signature is still binding to whatever the photoshopped document says, unless the contents of the document itself are in dispute. I don't see how that applies uniquely to faxes.

Fax is considered a secure method of transmission for a number of reasons. First, in a court case, theoretically each side has their copy of the document, which can be compared. Second, a nontrivial part of it is the timestamp - if prompted, both the sender and recipient have a record of when the fax was sent and received. E-mail has this too, to an extent, but for the moment, a timestamp of a fax is legally admissible; an e-mail...might be. Third, fax is a very good lowest common denominator - have a state of the art VoIP PBX with SIP trunks? Great! you can successfully transmit a fax to a 25-year-old fax machine still using film-based toner rolls. E-mail? we're still dealing with file format discrepancies, junk mail filters, encryption standards, and plenty of other areas where agreement is far from a given. Sure, ASCII text on port 25 is basically universal, but anything above that is basically "Whatever enough people agree upon". That's not even getting started on file transfer options; basically none of the even-kinda-legally-okay ones are possible to self-host.

Finally, you say it's "easily manipulated"...how? I mean, is there really such a thing as an MITM attack for a fax? Short of something bizarre like making an audio recording of the acoustic transmission or eavesdropping both of which require foreknowledge of when a fax will take place AND access to the transmission lines...how exactly is a fax hacked?

It's not a matter of legibility, it's a matter of reliability and veracity.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2011-05-27

It's this, except at the org-level?

This comes to mind

Eventually, yes, you begin to understand.

Why would you want to shave whales? Do they even have any hair?

http://dilbert.com/strip/1989-11-17

Here's a nickle kid, get a real computer.

This walk-out is great. I don't like the part where they come back, though.

Still, this will make things much easier for the next round of layoffs.

Like most problems, it will go away if you just wait long enough.

Thanks to the weathering of silicates, atmospheric carbon is slowly being absorbed over geological time.

Oblig. link to relevant comic strip. Timely too.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-...

Another one with actual blinders, but still in the context of cubicles: http://dilbert.com/strip/2012-11-14

To get as much work done as you want....

the choice

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...

Sounds like Panasonic owes Scott Adams some royalties:

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...

Wow that's 22 years ago! Scott is a genius

Sounds like Panasonic owes Scott Adams some royalties:

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...

I thought these were thought of more than 20 years ago...

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-...

It's not like they have a history of posting fake news or anything.

http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/0...

https://www.godsavethepoints.c...

https://donsurber.blogspot.com...

You have been marked by the Angel of Competence.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2005-...

Well, it's not as if anyone else would date you.

For example, he talked about how he generally interrupts other people because he can tell what they're going to say, what he has to say is more important, and he doesn't want to waste his time listening to them.

Presumably you're talking about this then?

"Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that's true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers. The alternative interpretation of the situation -- that women are more verbal than men -- is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where -- on average -- the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most? I don't know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. My point is that men are assumed guilty in this country. We don't even explore their alibis. (And watch the reaction to even bringing up the topic.)"

You misrepresented him.

Maybe they get a ten dollar bonus for every paper they write!

So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't support anything.

It doesn't support anything and it's not their fault.

Right behind carbon paper.

Didn't Dilbert suggest this back in 1998.

Is Agile some kind of religion for coders?

Almost right. It's a religion for managers.

A Dilbert for this sentiment was actually posted today...