Slashdot Mirror

Probably the total disregard and randomness with which he strung together a bunch of words and letters in an insulting caricature of an english sentence?

Atword actually thinks that a computer program can fix human behavior.

This is a bit of a caricature, with a grain of truth to it. His general philosophy (at least when he's talking about it) is to design the system your website operates under to encourage good behavior, discourage bad behavior, and be self-correcting by users (who there will be lots more of than administrators).

So while the flaming a-holes will always be among us, they don't get the satisfaction on say a SE site they can get on a dumb message board. Its not "fixing" human behavior, its working with it rather than trying to fight it. Sort of Zen website design.

Seriously, millennials are getting a lot of crap (just like every generation) for their lifestyle. Much of the caricature is the result of their rational reaction to an insecure life. Most folks in general would love to have a steady job and to own a home. Once you start expecting to have to change jobs every 6-18 months when your startup flops, or you get downsized out of your corporate one, you start looking at the whole world as temporary. Throw in low wages for the younger set, and even steady work doesn't let you live terribly well. Having a 5 year loan on a car becomes a huge liability if you have to make ends meet on unemployment, rather than just a monthly expense if you have a decent salary and some decent job security.

The son of one of our good friends falls into the hipster camp (young, gay, lived in San Francisco, worries about fashion too much, uses words I've never head before), and he and his new husband still want the same thing everyone else wants, a secure roof over their head. It cost them $500k for a 1 bed, 1 bath in Oakland to make it happen. So these kids are still going through huge hoops to get their crumb of the American Dream (I mean Oakland, really?!). I see no "entitlement" complex, just people trying to live in a world that has changed a lot from when I was their age and starting out.

A major draw of the bay area is that unlike many other places, it is very easy to get another job when your company inevitably spits you out on the street. In smaller towns the corporate pressure to cut costs is just as strong, but the chances of picking up another job without ripping up your life and moving are vastly diminished. Here in Portland we get a lot of California transplants who move once they have enough years of experience to be able to get a decently secure job in an area where they can actually afford a house. Just people making rational decisions in a pretty irrational world.

They used to have adult dorms very similar to what's described...state mental hospitals. :-)

Seriously. I somehow doubt this catching on. Every Millenial portrait I've seen/heard/read is a caricature...I have seen very few people who fit what are cemented as unshakable models of the generation. Outside of San Francisco hipster startup culture, I doubt anyone actually wants to live in a college dorm past their early 20s. I graduated in the 90s, so I was just before the generation that had all sorts of crazy dorm amenities like private bedrooms...my brother who is 6 years younger than I got to experience apartment style living.

Just because people grow up with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter doesn't make them all narcissistic social butterflies. It seems to me that if someone actually wanted this kind of experience, they could choose to live in a densely populated urban core and talk to their neighbors more often.

By the way, I'm a woman. Unlike many of the so-called "women" of the "social justice" movement, I was actually born a woman.

Calling someone a so-called woman is kind of insulting, don't you think? Not all of us are crazy SJWs who think that political correctness is our God. See my post here as one example. I've seen life from both sides of the fence, and yes, there are things that need to be changed. However, cooperation, discussion, compromise, and leading by example are a better method than SJWs, who seem to be preoccupied with scoring points on how many misanthropic positions they can stir up the muck around, how much PC they can force down the throats of BOTH sexes, and how much fame and fortune they can milk it for.

Compounding the problem is how some M2F transsexuals take on the whole agenda as a way of ensuring that others wouldn't dare question that they're women for fear of being attacked for being unPC, showing their inner uncertainty. Same as the ones who over-exaggerate, and end up looking like drag queens on parade, amplifying every single gesture and movement until they become caricatures of femininity. Come on, lose the scarecrow eye shadow, the million rings, the layers of make-up, and the 6" stilettos - it's not appropriate anywhere except a drag contest, and certainly not while doing the groceries.

Gene Roddenberry had nothing to do woth DS9 - not even in the first seasons. I think the creators were just still searching for the right tone and themes for the show for the first one and half seasons. The problem was I think that the characters were not fleshed out yet. For instance, the ferengi merchant was pretty much just a caricature at first but later they added some deeper qualities to him. Similarly, the main villain, who was played wonderfully Louise Fletcher (a.k.a. nurse Ratchet from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest) was just too despicable with no redeeming qualities. You can empathize with the later villains much better.

Generally they added more memorable recurring characters and that gave them much more room for good stories. And maybe it's not just that they had to learn how to do that, you have to give a large cast some time to flourish. All in all the quality was already pretty good at the end of Season 2 with some great episodes like The Maquis 1&2, The Jem Haddar or The Wire.

"The two definitions of respect: that it is deserved as a default vs earned on merit are part of the core ideological conflict between right and left."

That is no part of any established political theory that I've ever heard of.

The right is just as likely to respect people who have not earned respect as the left. The pro-life/anti-abortion right, for example, would say that they respect foetuses, and want foetuses to be treated with respect. Many conservatives would say that those in positions of authority ought to be respected, as should the elderly, irrespective of individual actions.

Life may be simpler if you just caricature the views of the people with whom you disagree, but it's like a filter on the world that strips out everything bar primary colours: it is impoverishing.

Pretty much... Earlier, I invited a poster to ask an actual Libertarian any question they wanted because it was obvious that they'd no idea what one was and assumed some sort of caricature. Same response...

Look, there goes a tumbleweed now...

Some logged in poster replied. I ignored them - they implied that yes, yes indeed, the free market would resolve this and that it would be done quickly. Heh...

Here's an amusing thing... As you may know, I sold my business. I modeled traffic. It was pretty lucrative. I had a couple hundred employees in five different offices. I could say, "I've got mine, fuck you." I'm telling you, right now, that I really think you should be supporting Sanders. He's the best chance you've got. Will I pay more? Yup. I'm okay with that. I already pay more than I'm obligated to by way of donations to worthy causes. I pay more than I'm able to use to reduce my tax burden, even. I do it because it's the responsible thing to do. I do it because I'm not a selfish prick who thinks he got here of his own efforts and without the need of anyone else. I've eaten Ramen noodles. Hell, that's more than some had.

I'm sometimes confused for a socialist. No, I don't agree with their authoritarian behavior. I don't agree that they should be able to determine how I think and I don't think they'll be concerned with my rights as an individual. Sanders is not an extreme socialist, not at all. I'm probably further left than he - but for a whole different reason. See, I'm not a socialist because I reasoned my way to the conclusions I have reached. I didn't emote my way here. I want a strong, healthy, educated, safe, and productive society because it's better for everyone and is the best chance we have to actually make use of our rights and preserve our freedoms. Also, I don't want you stealing my shit because you don't have any of your own shit to keep you occupied. It's cheaper and simpler to prevent problems than it is to fix them.

So, much of my ideology actually has a similar outcome to socialism but without the draconian oversight, rights restrictions, and otherwise silly stuff. Sanders is fairly close to an ideal candidate - not an exact match. He's not best for my wallet, bank account, or investments. He's what's best for you. I'm not a selfish prick. I want what's best for you - because that's also best for me. I'm not an altruist, either. Damned right, I want you educated and working. I want you to be able to have something to fall back on. I want you healthy, I support (strongly) single payer health care. I support, strongly, reasonable taxation on wealth (we can argue where those lines should be).

I still employ a few people, domestic type stuff, and I pay a lower tax rate than they do. I know why - I'm taxed on capital gains and this means I'm taxed at a lower rate to encourage investment. True... I'm not going to stop making money just because you take some more of it. Hell, I had no idea that it was this lucrative. I actually have more money now than I had when I sold my business - and trust me, that wasn't easy to do - I made a goodly sum of cash from that. I retired at 50, eight years ago! I don't even *have* to invest. I can spend like a drunken sailor and be okay. I just like poking buttons.

Anyhow, it's maddening, at times, to be told what I believe and what I stand for. This comes from people who don't even understand the differences between rights and freedoms. They'll sit there, and argue, telling me how I think. I explain and the next thread, some of them, repeat the same damned idiocy. They're like Pavlovian dogs. It's like they've been trained to ignore something, perhaps like The Allegory of the Cave (Plato?) or something. I don't get it... I simply don't understand. This is not true in every case, I've reached a number of people and they've since learned the differences between a caricature and the real thing. There are still a bunch that don't get it.

Ah well... I suspect that you understand. You seem to. I just figured I'd elaborate for those who don't as well as vent some steam. Also, for those who do not understand the differences between rights and freedoms... Well... I like to phrase it like this: "I have the freedom to kill you. I do not have the right to do so. I am not at liberty to take your life."

Really, did Altavista return Porn routinely? Did Ask Jeeves? (Yahoo was always crap, but it was always generic crap.)

Your obsessions are getting in the way of your perspective. You really _are_ a caricature of Bud Bundy. Honk-Honk! But of course, Bud Bundy was _fictional_.
You, I assume, on occasion dwell in Meatspace.

"I wanted to know when that era was,..."
No, you didn't. Right up front, you denied that era ever existed. Here it is, in your own words:
"When was this? When I first started getting on the net search engines were used to pick the information you need out of a sea of porn."
"You seriously don't remember when websites mainly presented porn. Heh."

When given proof, with a whole lot of documentable details discounting your preversions, you simply chose to ignore it.
Now, about Google...
"...abuse of meta tags led to Google quickly being favored when it came about because it actually returned results based on the content we saw, not based on the content they declared themselves to be a part of."
The only way that makes any sense at all, in your context, is for all the other Search Engines returning only Porn for you, what and when queried, which they most certainly did not do so.
You are Liar, and an Idiot.

Lastly:
"...How you frolicked around the web for so many decades..."
I did so because I chose to. It was Fun much of the time, and Work on occasion.
You have _no_ idea of who I am, and why I have allowed you to prattle away, here, and now.

In 1979, I signed away a Patent to UC for the use of Variable Virtual Machine Addresses.
It was just a Diagnostic Tool for me, back then.
Have you the remotest idea of what that eventually led to?

Frolicking, indeed.

I wanted to know when that era was, then you decided to have a go at me for my remark about search engines returning porn. Which... they did, and that abuse of meta tags led to Google quickly being favored when it came about because it actually returned results based on the content we saw, not based on the content they declared themselves to be a part of.

How you frolicked around the web for so many decades without being aware of that bit of history, instead choosing to assume I'm a caricature of Bud Bundy or something, I really don't know, but it is amusing.

the largest group of folks who say 'ban all the guns' is the caricatures of the opposition that exist within the minds of the gun nuts.
ie, its a fantasy of the NRA.

the majority of folks don't seek to ban all guns. they only seek reasonable gun control, such as had been proven quite effective in quite a few other advanced nations that are peers of the US.

however the NRA and its cronies DO oppose any and all regulations, and support complete and unfettered access to them.
and their main tactic is to consistently misconstrue gun control advocates as gun grabbers who want to ban all guns.

Why I say screw the NRA.

-a gun owner who supports gun control

I've established a fair reputation here and I've been pretty consistent for the duration of my stay. It should be well known that I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian though the moniker is, really, Classic Libertarian. I'm neither a follower of Rand nor a believer in anarcho-capitalism nor a conservative - by any stretch of the imagination. I've explained this, time and time again actually. I'll spare you the details unless you promise to read them and do so with an open mind but, rest assured, that the vast majority of Libertarians are nothing like the caricatures that you see on television or see people self-identifying as on the internet. I know, no true Scotsman. However, it's true. Wikipedia (just the first four paragraphs is enough) is actually pretty good - I was quite surprised.

So don't think that the angry parts of what is to come are directed towards you - they're not. I actually agree with you but will need a minute to explain. Sound fair? Okay...

Now, my beliefs are very strongly that the rights belong to the individual (and no, businesses have rights but they're really friggin' low on the list) are the most important and must be balanced with the rights of the whole. Government should be small but powerful. It needs to be. No one political ideology will ever be successful in its pure form - we're too human for that utopia and almost all of them could be a utopia if it weren't for those pesky humans.

I encourage you, and anyone else, to realize that Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - the two are far from inseparable. Again, rights must be balanced with the favor going to the individual. An example might be that I strongly support a social safety net, libraries, roads, education, welfare, and a reasonable taxation rate. Why? Because it's cheaper in the long run and more economical to prevent harm than it is to cure it. When we, as a society, can increase ourselves unilaterally then we all benefit. It is for my benefit. I don't want raving mad, disenfranchised, horded of hungry storming my house and taking my shit. I paid for my shit because I like it and I'd like to keep it. I want you to keep your shit too.

I want you to be free to do with your body what you will. If the object of your affection or lust doesn't mind then cram whatever into whatever hole you'd like. What ever you want so long as you're harming only you and the person with you - it's cheaper to just accept it and move along than to fight it. You want to be a freak? Get freaky with it. Have a good time, post pics, and slap *it* on the ass once for me.

This is your typical Libertarian but, unfortunately, our voices are drowned out by the idiots who can speak the loudest and by those who choose to opine without any actual knowledge. This is partially my fault and I apologize. See, rights come with responsibilities and accepting them is one of the most important things. That there? That's me accepting accountability and this is me attempting to change it. You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue. Well, maybe not you but hopefully you get the idea.

Anyhow, I mention all that to mention this...

Of all the people who are currently running for the presidency slot - Sanders is the most likely candidate to get my vote. He is also the recipient of my money and will surely get more depending on how things go. I'd prefer to see him run as a American Socialist Party candidate, I think it would be more honest, but that's okay.

Why is he my favorite? Of all the candidates he's the only one that I've seen who puts the valuation on rights in the correct order. The individual, the group, the government, the businesses. That seems to be his thinking and I could pick at it a bit but, you know what? It's CLOSE ENOUGH. He's the best we've got and he's not even a member of our party. I'd love to have a chat with him and put him under the flaps of our tent. He'd be welcome if we could shut the mouthpieces up for a while.

Anyhow, it is

No, the ggf and you are implying a strawman. Almost no feminist is the way you suggest they are, a large majority of feminists fit perfectly in the definition of the anonymous gf: "someone who supports women's rights based on equality of men and women". That's how the movement started over a century ago and that's exactly what it is today. Of course, today like the day feminism begun, there are some people (mostly men) who caricature the movement and attack and obvious strawman because, deep down, the feel uncomfortable competing in equality with women.

I'm a feminist, my gf is a feminist and I would never ever date someone who wasn't a feminist.

Thank you. I thought that I'd read that stuff before. I'm an outside watching while eating the proverbial popcorn. It's mostly just to amuse myself that I even check on it and I only bothered because it kept coming up and I had no idea what the hell an SJW was. Someone had accused me of being an MRA and I was baffled. I looked it up and giggled as it couldn't be further from the truth. I'm an egalitarian and employed numerous high quality engineers and programmers that were female and very good at their job.

Oh no! I want people to be good at their job! That means I'm some sort of sexist, racist, or homophobic or whatnot? It's even more confusing because I spend a goodly amount of time hanging around with the 'genderqueer" community. I'm also racially mixed. :/ Ah well... I really don't understand it and the more I try to get it (the whole understanding of the thinking process - of both sides, really) the more confused I get.

I will say that there has been horrific behavior on both sides at this point and that no side is able to claim the moral high ground from what I can see. I'm sure certain individuals can but the groups, as a whole, have failed to do so. I also wonder who's trolling who and pretending to be acting on behalf of the other group. I'm sure there's some much like there are Republicans who pretend to be Democrats just to make them seem a caricature.

Um, they do have a live studio audience [imgur.com]

Yes, they make a big deal about their "live studio audience", but that doesn't mean it isn't annoying as hell. In fact, I'd prefer it if they used a laugh track, because at least then they'd adjust it so it doesn't sound like a bunch of inebriated hyenas. Of course, just because they have an audience doesn't mean it isn't rigged:

A friend of mine has been to a taping of the show. They spend 20-30 minutes getting the audience ready with a stand-up comedian and other fluffers. Their whole purpose is to get the audience excited and in a laughing mood. They really pile on the hype about their laughter making the show successful and how important the reaction is. They talk about the microphones needing big loud laughs. Etc.

When the show finally starts filming, it's a rare scene that's filmed in one take. Therefore when the show is edited, they will independently choose the "best" laugh and use that for final take. In that sense they do use an edited laugh track, it's just one that's created by the current audience.

Then there's the dialog pacing, which is constructed to suit the exaggerated laughing instead of the comedy. This awkwardly false nature can be easily seen if you take away the laugh track or (less subtley) replace it with a caricature laugh. This is a problem with a lot of sitcoms, but Big Bang Theory seems to be especially bad.

Now take a look at John Cleese's approach on handling audience laughter while filming Fawlty Towers. Here's an example from A Room with a View. Compared to that, Big Bang Theory feels stilted and forced, while Fawlty Towers has a more natural rhythm that's so much easier to laugh at.

Of course, it also helps that Fawlty Towers had good writing and actually is funny. Two things Big Bang Theory can rarely claim.

I bet walking dead has a dead studio audience. that would be awefuckingsome.

Heck, just look at the caricature they make of Penny's ex boyfriend. They call him cro-magnon, and he acts like he has a 30 IQ.

The same could be directed back at you...

You are aware it has, right? To often tedious degrees.

Some of the "progressive" ideas being tossed around these days are just stupid, but you can't see it because they are "new and different".

Some of those "progressive" ideas being tossed around are distorted caricatures from "conservatives", but most of them can't see it because of them own biases as they believe the world was once a better place, they just have to go back to it. Somehow. Someway.

Some of the new stuff is good. Equal rights, respect for all humans, these are good things.

How kind of you to admit that, but these may be older than you think. Or perhaps the excuses for inequality are newer. They may seem to be the old way, but they actually had newer origins, or at least, justifications than most realize.

But that doesn't mean all that is new is good.

A platitude of no particular value, you might as well say that all that is old is not good for the same merit to it.

We have a whole generation of kids growing up with no respect for authority.

Sadly you have failed to assert why that's a bad thing. And it's not a new complaint. It's an old, old one. People in authority have been making that complaint for centuries, from Pharaohs to Caesars to Emperors of China.

This has nothing to do with whatever you think is "progressive" but is a much older one, and while you may think having "no respect for authority" is a useful expression, it's really not particular helpful. It's not about "no respect" in most cases, the few exceptions are hardly meaningful contributors and more often just strawmen anyway.

I can articulate the problems with respecting authority. It often leads to a failure to question, to challenge, to resist when wrong is being done, because, well, somebody in authority said so, so let's not speak out.

That's the peril in your naive expression. I'm sure you mean well, I'm sure you are thinking that you have the right idea.

But a "respect for authority" is rather scary in some other aspects. Perhaps spending a little more time doing that would be useful, and you should step away from the "no respect for authority" statement you made, to see the value in having some disrespect for authority.

Sometimes the only way to do right is to reject whatever authority might exist.

And yes, there are purported "progressive" authorities who should have not been respected too, just in case you're wondering.

The most dangerous thing besides thinking you know something yourself? Thinking somebody else knows something.

Exactly. I have seen development methodologies come and go. The one thing they all have in common is that they are created for and marketed to the management. Because management is not good at, well, managing, development methodologies give them things that they can see and touch and thus believe that progress is being made. Meanwhile, every single development methodology has aspects that do not fit how development actually happens, and as such, time is wasted trying to fit how real life works into the development methodology. I have been at two different companies that used Agile. At one, I never heard the words "scrum" or "sprint" or "stand-ups". At the other I did, but the developers computers were locked down so that participation in the stand ups was difficult.
Agile, to me, almost looks like a caricature of a development methodology. It is almost like Scientology, where L. Ron Hubbard made a bet that he could create a new religion and gullible idiots would eat it up.

This. So much this. In the first few seasons there where characters with personalities. After around season 3, they stopped writing characters and went for caricatures. Especially with the females on the show, two dimensional is generous. Bernadette used to be an interested and well developed character. Then they decided it would be funnier if she turned into Howard's mom and was the same angry harpy wife that is so common a trope. Amy was a fantastic character when she debuted, but then they turned her into the butt of every joke and made her a creepy adult with an 8 year old mind.

I stopped watching. After several seasons where Sheldon never uttered "Bazinga" I figured out it was a lost cause.