Slashdot Mirror

U.S. taxpayers paid for this "research", in part via an NSF grant of $459,452:

https://twitter.com/real_peerreview/status/706542972423249920

These days basically everyone in the gaming industry agrees that the world would be a better place if Konami finally dies in a fire.

#Fuckonami, started by Jim Sterling (Think Moviebob, but for Games) has gotten trendendous pickup right up to the audience having a solid reason to Boo! Konami at the Game Awards - they legally prevented from Hideo Kojima from recieving his own award (No joke!).

The borderline insane bullshit Konami has done in recent years is bedazzling and let's even non-industry observers wonder why a company is so hell bent on destroying its reputation and ip. Hideo Kojima has since moved on and Konami is shunned as the semi-dangerous nutbag bum in gaming town by just about anybody.

Bottom line:
If you want to mod a commercial game, steer clear of Konami.

Seems the guys' Tesla automagically downgraded its firmware after the discovery was made public. Musk's answer is priceless.

Not everyone who knew him in school thought great things about him. His college roommate, in particular, has taken to twitter to let the world know what he had to live with during that time...

Check it here:

https://twitter.com/clmazin

And Mozilla is officially a hate group now. You can say what you want about Pale Moon, but stealing money and code? Mozilla, seriously? https://twitter.com/EmpireConw... http://forum.palemoon.org/view...

https://twitter.com/davidscove...

Have they ever considered the possibility that Google is okay with people of both sides of their holy war using the app and considers an area safe until someone on either side reports a couple murderous militant assholes shooting someone who prays to wrong flavor of the same sky fairy?

https://twitter.com/tomgauld/s... ;)

This search engine blocks searches for things like Childline.

https://twitter.com/LaSouvarine/status/704651356351520768

No I think she is a rich spoiled elitist whose body language just screams "get these people away from me!" whose gonna be crucified if she gets the nomination by her own words from the past 30+ years. Want examples here you go. Notice how they can whip up in like 20 second a pic like this one which she gave DETAILED explanations on why she was FOR this or that, then turned right around when the wind started blowing the other way and then came out with the same amount of detail on why she is against it?

Hillary comes off as trustworthy as a used car salesman trying to sell an 85 Mustang and she has flip flopped so damned many times in her life they can make vid after vid after vid of Hillary going against herself. She does not have a prayer and you can thank her endless greed and ambition for why we will have President Donald.

No I think she is a rich spoiled elitist whose body language just screams "get these people away from me!" whose gonna be crucified if she gets the nomination by her own words from the past 30+ years. Want examples here you go. Notice how they can whip up in like 20 second a pic like this one which she gave DETAILED explanations on why she was FOR this or that, then turned right around when the wind started blowing the other way and then came out with the same amount of detail on why she is against it?

Hillary comes off as trustworthy as a used car salesman trying to sell an 85 Mustang and she has flip flopped so damned many times in her life they can make vid after vid after vid of Hillary going against herself. She does not have a prayer and you can thank her endless greed and ambition for why we will have President Donald.

Right, so again no specific complaints about any of the sources, just general vague ad-homs against the sources. In any case, here are the full, uncensored IRC logs:

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6...
http://archive.today/Ler4O

The second one was released by GamerGaters themselves. Documented here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

You can grep those logs yourself, and watch as they plan false flag operations, create fake social media accounts etc.

As for Sarkeesian doxing, I tracked down the original tweet: https://twitter.com/femfreq/st...

As you can see, the person in your source has carefully edited the image to make it look like there might have been some personal information there. In fact the information that was blacked out was an obviously fake email address and the "name" is "W.G., the Daily Telegraph interview request", not even an actual name.

You really should spend 1 minute checking these things out before believing them. That's how long it too to type the text of the tweet into Google and reveal the scam.

If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.

The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about.

A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours.

If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?

Read, then Post.

You mean how you didn't read my post where I said the same thing as you but with LESS CAPS?

Go read SB County's twitter:
https://twitter.com/CountyWire...

Well because ......... Internet of Shit

https://twitter.com/internetof...

https://www.twitter.com/peewee...

Why now? Well, actually, he's been making this statement for years, so it's not just grandstanding now: https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...

Taken from here:

[CSI at Starbucks]

"Ma'am you've been robbed. Suspect is at large."

Barista: At what?

"At large"

At what?

"At venti?"

OMG HOW AWFUL!!!

I waited and I waited and I saved and I saved and I saved, quite a god damn reasonable amount too but still the prices got away from me. They are unsustainably high.
I recommend watching this video and reading this guys tweets, he predicted Ireland, Spain, US etc.
https://twitter.com/jtepper2/status/701767213531971584

The video is a doozy.
Turnbull is going to get railroaded if he thinks supporting the 20% of home investors is the smart bet, the average person is sick of being unable to buy a fucking home.
Let it crash.

Kind of amazing how every time I say this, it gets reported like it's the first time. It's been the same since 2013.

https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...

This tweet is rather classic

Score:4 Informative, without any information, and full of dis-informations.

Tiger Forces complete the east Aleppo encirclement: 800+ ISIS fighters trapped

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/...
https://www.almasdarnews.com/a...

Al-Nusra Front Confirms Deaths of 300 Terrorists in Syria's Aleppo
http://sputniknews.com/middlee...

WOW, the title Syrian war: Russian-backed offensive in Aleppo has killed 500 people this month, Observatory says
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

But actually, by at least 500 people, including 89 civilians, have been killed since the Russian-backed offensive on Aleppo province began earlier this month
Now, do your homework!

Beware of hacked ISOs if you downloaded Linux Mint on February 20th, 2016!

#####

"I'm sorry I have to come with bad news.[1]

We were exposed to an intrusion today. It was brief and it shouldn't impact many people, but if it impacts you, it's very important you read the information below.

What happened?

Hackers made a modified Linux Mint ISO, with a backdoor in it, and managed to hack our website to point to it.

Does this affect you?

As far as we know, the only compromised edition was Linux Mint 17.3 Cinnamon edition.

If you downloaded another release or another edition, this does not affect you. If you downloaded via torrents or via a direct HTTP link, this doesn't affect you either.

Finally, the situation happened today, so it should only impact people who downloaded this edition on February 20th.

How to check if your ISO is compromised?"

Continued @: http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=2...

[1] Written by Clem on Sunday, February 21st, 2016 @ 1:44 am

#####

https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

https://lwn.net/Articles/67661...

https://twitter.com/Linux_Mint...

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=...

DOJ filing, page 18, footnote 7.

(credit: https://twitter.com/grimmelm/s... on twitter)

What makes a device an IoT device?

If it floats on a cloud, runs off the willpower of app developers and is a security and privacy nightmare. Then it's IoT.

The account https://twitter.com/internetofshit is a gold one!

What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people.

Do you really believe that? If so, you're even further gone than I thought. Here's a hint, Lonny. Try to provide a link to back up your accusation. As usual, you'll find that you can't even provide a single example. If you think about it long enough (with a therapist), you'll eventually realize that you're just projecting your own behavior onto others. You're intentionally posting public lies about people. Every time I show you evidence of your lies, you run away like a snivelling coward.

As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth. Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.

Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would. And here you brag about doing something that you actually refuse to do in reality? You have a remarkable ability to rationalize your behavior.

Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.

You're making a distinction with no difference. Either you're responsible for your own cussing and can recognize that it's uncivilized and that you have the power to stop, or you blame others for your own uncivilized behavior and refuse to stop. You seem to keep choosing the second option. Why?

What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people.

Do you really believe that? If so, you're even further gone than I thought. Here's a hint, Lonny. Try to provide a link to back up your accusation. As usual, you'll find that you can't even provide a single example. If you think about it long enough (with a therapist), you'll eventually realize that you're just projecting your own behavior onto others. You're intentionally posting public lies about people. Every time I show you evidence of your lies, you run away like a snivelling coward.

As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth. Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.

Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would. And here you brag about doing something that you actually refuse to do in reality? You have a remarkable ability to rationalize your behavior.

Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.

You're making a distinction with no difference. Either you're responsible for your own cussing and can recognize that it's uncivilized and that you have the power to stop, or you blame others for your own uncivilized behavior and refuse to stop. You seem to keep choosing the second option. Why?

What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people.

Do you really believe that? If so, you're even further gone than I thought. Here's a hint, Lonny. Try to provide a link to back up your accusation. As usual, you'll find that you can't even provide a single example. If you think about it long enough (with a therapist), you'll eventually realize that you're just projecting your own behavior onto others. You're intentionally posting public lies about people. Every time I show you evidence of your lies, you run away like a snivelling coward.

As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth. Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.

Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would. And here you brag about doing something that you actually refuse to do in reality? You have a remarkable ability to rationalize your behavior.

Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.

You're making a distinction with no difference. Either you're responsible for your own cussing and can recognize that it's uncivilized and that you have the power to stop, or you blame others for your own uncivilized behavior and refuse to stop. You seem to keep choosing the second option. Why?

What you SEEM to fail to understand is that there is a difference between criticizing someone, and libel. Libel is a deliberate untruth. I have demonstrated many times that you intentionally post public lies about people.

Do you really believe that? If so, you're even further gone than I thought. Here's a hint, Lonny. Try to provide a link to back up your accusation. As usual, you'll find that you can't even provide a single example. If you think about it long enough (with a therapist), you'll eventually realize that you're just projecting your own behavior onto others. You're intentionally posting public lies about people. Every time I show you evidence of your lies, you run away like a snivelling coward.

As much as reasonably possible I tell fact- and evidence-based truth. Am I wrong sometimes? It happens. But not intentionally, and when I've found that it has, I correct myself. You don't.

Again, do you really believe that? Lonny, you recently insisted that you don't need to correct yourself even though you gave your word that you would. And here you brag about doing something that you actually refuse to do in reality? You have a remarkable ability to rationalize your behavior.

Yet again, a claim that has no basis in reality. I wrote nothing of the sort. I take responsibility for my cussing. But that doesn't change the fact that it's prompted by reprehensible behavior on the part of others.

You're making a distinction with no difference. Either you're responsible for your own cussing and can recognize that it's uncivilized and that you have the power to stop, or you blame others for your own uncivilized behavior and refuse to stop. You seem to keep choosing the second option. Why?

Internet of Shit.

live train updates! ;)
https://twitter.com/Nationalra...

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.

According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?

Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.

The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question. Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:

As Al points out below, layzej reads like a “false flag” comment, an attempt to post lies about WUWT in hopes that others will take the bait, and then be used to discredit the climate realist community. There is a layzej at slashdot who seems to be a climate realist – I suppose this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well.

Possibiity B is that layzej decided what’s an acceptable strategy for the Romney campaign is good for everyone else to do. That would be a mistake, but it’s interesting that a comment to a blog post is being held to a higher ethical standard than the campaign for the likely Republican nominee.

Isn't that fascinating! The comment that led Jane to "no doubt" that Layzej is quote-mining out of context actually says "this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well."

Jane, are you trying to show everybody that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection, or are you just so far gone that you can't even recognize that that's what you're doing?

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.

According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?

Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.

The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question. Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:

As Al points out below, layzej reads like a “false flag” comment, an attempt to post lies about WUWT in hopes that others will take the bait, and then be used to discredit the climate realist community. There is a layzej at slashdot who seems to be a climate realist – I suppose this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well.

Possibiity B is that layzej decided what’s an acceptable strategy for the Romney campaign is good for everyone else to do. That would be a mistake, but it’s interesting that a comment to a blog post is being held to a higher ethical standard than the campaign for the likely Republican nominee.

Isn't that fascinating! The comment that led Jane to "no doubt" that Layzej is quote-mining out of context actually says "this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well."

Jane, are you trying to show everybody that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection, or are you just so far gone that you can't even recognize that that's what you're doing?

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.

According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?

Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.

The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question. Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:

As Al points out below, layzej reads like a “false flag” comment, an attempt to post lies about WUWT in hopes that others will take the bait, and then be used to discredit the climate realist community. There is a layzej at slashdot who seems to be a climate realist – I suppose this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well.

Possibiity B is that layzej decided what’s an acceptable strategy for the Romney campaign is good for everyone else to do. That would be a mistake, but it’s interesting that a comment to a blog post is being held to a higher ethical standard than the campaign for the likely Republican nominee.

Isn't that fascinating! The comment that led Jane to "no doubt" that Layzej is quote-mining out of context actually says "this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well."

Jane, are you trying to show everybody that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection, or are you just so far gone that you can't even recognize that that's what you're doing?

I didn't expect to convince you of anything. I did want to show other people what kind of person you are, and that I was right about you all along.

According to Lonny Eachus, that's dishonest. You don't want Lonny Eachus to think you're a dishonest woman, do you?

Thanks for so easily handing me the opportunity.

The opportunity to show that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection?

And why do you feel it necessary to lie? You still haven't answered that question. Strange, isn't it? 4 years ago someone else accused you of lying by "quote-mining" out of context. It is very clear that is exactly what you did. And there is no doubt it was you, because it's the same Blogger account and others referred to your account here on Slashdot by name.

Fascinating! Jane accuses Layzej of lying by quote-mining out of context and claims "no doubt" that was Layzej's comment because others referred to his account here on Slashdot by name. And yet Jane can't bring himself to quote the comment which referred to Layzej's account and led Jane to his "no doubt" conclusion. Odd, isn't it? Especially since Jane's entire accusation revolves around quote-mining out of context. Let's see that comment:

As Al points out below, layzej reads like a “false flag” comment, an attempt to post lies about WUWT in hopes that others will take the bait, and then be used to discredit the climate realist community. There is a layzej at slashdot who seems to be a climate realist – I suppose this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well.

Possibiity B is that layzej decided what’s an acceptable strategy for the Romney campaign is good for everyone else to do. That would be a mistake, but it’s interesting that a comment to a blog post is being held to a higher ethical standard than the campaign for the likely Republican nominee.

Isn't that fascinating! The comment that led Jane to "no doubt" that Layzej is quote-mining out of context actually says "this “layzej” here could be a spoof meant to discredit the original as well."

Jane, are you trying to show everybody that your accusations are just blatant psychological projection, or are you just so far gone that you can't even recognize that that's what you're doing?

How fascinating that Lonny Eachus projects his own sociopathy onto others. Lonny, you cuss at many people at the drop of a hat. The only common element in all those exchanges is a sociopath named Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Northern Hemisphere Summer is warmer than Winter globally basically because there is more land surface area north of the equator. (Oceans moderate seasonal temperature changes.) August 2014 might be the hottest Month but as Gavin Schmidt points out the whole method is based on anomalies so getting to the hot month might not be possible. https://twitter.com/ClimateOfG...

Timothy Lord, you have a coconut for a brain

Stealth Mountain is a Twitter bot that tersely informs Twitter users when they mistakenly write “sneak peak": @___ I think you mean sneak peek.

The enraged, frothing responses confirm that this is an exemplar of how Twitter should be used.

Stealth Mountain is a Twitter bot that tersely informs Twitter users when they mistakenly write “sneak peak": @___ I think you mean sneak peek.

The enraged, frothing responses confirm that this is an exemplar of how Twitter should be used.

OK how about the San Francisco/Silicon Valley "Fondations" like the some ones listed here. Which includes greats like Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian.

https://about.twitter.com/safe...

Sure, I'll buy that, yeah , alrightythen.

Sure, I'll buy that, yeah , alrightythen.

Sure, I'll buy that, yeah , alrightythen.

https://twitter.com/akofink

At least one of the authors is a socjus activist.. Perhaps he really really really wants it to be true and is cherry picking facts like a creationist. Considering all the propaganda and groupthink activism out there now, this is likely. You should be asking him to have his paper peer reviewed (check the link it hasn't been) and asking western feminists about those labor camps..

Reverse-discrimination against men? Rejected, per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified.

unless of course that discrimination is made up and socjus has not simply evened the odds but actually biased selection in favor of women.

Women take fewer risks, and thus are more likely to provide solutions that are accepted? The authors cite a study that claims women are, on average, more risk-averse than men. However, this is inconsistent with the observation that women change more lines of code.

many smaller changes might be more appealing to risk adverse submitters. They're also less likely to move the project in new directions. Lines of code isn't a very good metric for this either.

Women in open-source are more competent than men? This is the hypothesis that the authors support the most. They suggest it somes about due to survivorship bias and/or self-selection and/or higher implicit performance-standards in the female population of open-source coders.

Of course they do. This is a socjus article where the premise is set first, and convenient factoids are carefully selected..you know, like a creationist 'analysis' of evolution.

also, from the link
This report has not yet been peer-reviewed, and thus the findings should be considered preliminary. Before citing this paper, please check for an updated version here: http://people.engr.ncsu.edu/er...

andrew kofink a "Universal rights activist". This guys' already got a predisposition..
https://twitter.com/akofink

https://twitter.com/Sushilulut... would be the first one found in a second of searching. When you mix in Harper bragging about contacts at twitter, being the one that reported the person, and the later reversal of it as a mistake after escalation? Sounds like either some of the staff are pushing an agenda, or twitter as a whole has one and only reversed after public attention.

As for the Dworkin quote, as far as I know it's misattribution and is paraphrasing Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto. However twitter is rampant with 'Kill all ____' as long as...well.. as far as I know it's just rampant. #killallturnips is somewhat proof few take it as an actual threat

She's saying that the approach in the clip you posted isn't ACTUALLY a useful way to approach issues (and how awful she was when she was acting like that.) She makes it very clear that she doesn't approve of the approach you're ascribing to her.

I'm just going to snip that down and point out, that she does indeed agree that's the way to approach issues. And in not only with her other speeches, but in what she tweets out via FF she subscribes to that idea. This should help give you a very brief synopsis that she was lying through her teeth when she said "but I don't really believe that..."

For those who think a lot of the comments are paranoid conspiracy theory, lets take a look at who's on this council:
https://about.twitter.com/safe...

Doing a quick scan, I recognized Anita Sarkeesian (search for "feminist frequency").

That's definitely a neutral unbiased third party who hasn't made controversial videos and never claimed that disagreement with her opinions were trolling and abuse.

you should meet Anita Sarkeesian.

Looks like that is a large part of the problem!

https://twitter.com/DotGovs/st...