The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
Yes, it is, because there's no such thing as a "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole". A real thing and an imaginary thing are not comparable.
Airline pilots are largely convinced of their own superiority to begin with.
Arrogance and narcissism are not even remotely the same things... though they may be related. In the same way, for example, that narcissism and sociopathy are sometimes related. But NOT the same things.
Give us job security (no more you-are-useless-if-you-are-over-40).
Especially when you consider that study after study has shown that older programmers consistently outperform younger programmers. This has been shown to be true up to about age 70.
To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:
You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.
It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.
--- It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?
You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.
As you can see, a PhD physicist has already said that "RespekMyAthorati" is wrong. But feel free to keep accusing me of being six different people. The irony is delicious.
I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really.
And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. Of course "nearly impossible" happens all the time in this world, but Slashdot is not the entire world.
You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.
And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.
Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens.
That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care.
Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.
Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.
You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.
I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.
Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?
Well, let's see if the rest of Slashdot has much of a problem with this logic:
For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics.
And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me.
Rather astounding coincidence, wouldn't you say?
I would. I bet if I put together a group of Slashdotters, and showed this to them, they would conclude that the one account is very likely (understatement again) a sock-puppet of the other.
And I know you don't seem to care, but Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry.
Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?
I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.
I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.
Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.
No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them.
That's called LYING, man. Or worse.
We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone.
No, of course not. But this discussion was about "the internet" hopelessly damaging children. I don't put "the internet" in quite the same category as automobiles.
Hey, I know kids that were addicted. I know one kid (who is no longer a kid) who was hopelessly addicted to video games. And he still is obsessed to what I feel to be an unhealthy degree with video games.
But he is an exception. I know far more kids who aren't like that at all.
And I just literally stumbled on this little gem. I wasn't even looking for anything, it was just a mis-click. RespekMyAthorati says:
Holy shit.
The second law says exactly the opposite: namely that entropy in a closed system will always increase over time, so that complexity and information content will always decrease.
Hahahaha!
This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist, and he doesn't know how information relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
"Jane Q. Public" is actually a man named Lonny Eachus.
Even if that happened to be true, who (besides you, that is), gives a damn? Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"?
Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts.
The other 0.01% would almost have to be one of Bryan's friends. If he has any. NOBODY ELSE, in all my years here, has bothered to try to harass me in this manner. Nobody.
Not that anecdotal evidence is data, but; you go ahead and tell me how healthy it is for a gender confused 12 year old to be given a data enabled iPhone by his/her non-custodial parent, who then can not remove the device even after stark evidence of grooming messaging taking place, because they threaten to suicide if it's taken away.
I didn't dispute that problems exist. But they also existed with old-style telephones and many other things.
My point -- and a correct one -- was that we've heard this before. Dysfunctional people will be dysfunctional people. Maybe technology exacerbates that in some ways, but it's a boon for the vast amount of people out there.
Why should I make any effort to be "charming" to YOU??? You have been anything BUT charming to me. It seems I see the old hypocrisy beginning to peek out just a little again.
And STOP taking my comments out of context and persistently misrepresenting them. That's dishonest!
I have explained to you many times that I was not disputing the definition of "net". So STOP LYING. Because that's what you are doing.
The modern Free Market is a lot better for the overall economy than mercantilism policies of the past - which were proven to concentrate wealth and power into a few hands over a 250 year period.
Free Market - means free and fair competition, not freedom from regulation.
I didn't say it should be "free from regulation". Just free from irresponsible, interventionist regulation.
Antitrust has been known to be an essential tool for keeping free markets free, at least since the days of Adam Smith. However, antitrust is not the same as the other kinds of government "interventionism" we see today, which history pretty clearly shows over the past 100+ years to be failed economic policy.
It didn't work for FDR, it didn't work for Carter, or Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush, and it sure as hell hasn't worked for Obama. Our economy is still largely stagnant... after more than 6 years!
That by itself should tell you something. Pre- Keynesian "government-interventionist" economic policy, we recovered from economic slumps in less than 2 years... usually less than one.
You know, you really should lay off. I looked at your recent posts, and of the first page, EVERY ONE was directed at JQP. It's disrupting the discussion, and I wish I had mod points.
He's been pulling this crap for somewhere around 5 years now. It didn't start out that bad, but progressively grew worse, except for some brief interludes.
I have solid evidence that his tactics of, well, let's just say "bothering me" have included sock-puppetry here on Slashdot, and even attempted impersonation. Which didn't work but as they say it's the thought that counts.
I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. He's obviously been doing a lot of research, for some strange reason unknown to me, and which I believe is pretty much well over the weirdo line.
And look at that first comment: it's from almost 5 years ago! Who does things like this? I ask you.
I think you've been on the Internet long enough to know that just because someone uses a female handle/nick, doesn't mean they are actively trying to deceive others into believing they are female.
You haven't seen some of the things he's written about me.:)
No, he quite obviously has NOT been around long enough. Although he's been around here a very long time.
In fact, he seems to have grown quite an obsession with me for some reason. There is evidence of it all over Slashdot.
He also doesn't seem to realize I do not have a similar obsession about him. Quite the opposite: I would appreciate it very much if he went away and left me alone. It's kind of ironic that he posts here where the topic is harassment.
Sure, they added climate change to try to stay relevant when nuclear stockpiles plunged, but there are so many possible doomsdays they ignore entirely.
I see nothing about zombies on the site, for example.
Personally, I consider zombies to be vastly more likely a threat than any "climate change" from CO2.
Which is to say: not at all. Zombies in the movies kill people who are stupid and slow.
But maybe the whole CO2 warming schtick is aimed at stupid and slow people too. Even better.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.
Yes, it is, because there's no such thing as a "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole". A real thing and an imaginary thing are not comparable.
Airline pilots are largely convinced of their own superiority to begin with.
Arrogance and narcissism are not even remotely the same things... though they may be related. In the same way, for example, that narcissism and sociopathy are sometimes related. But NOT the same things.
Give us job security (no more you-are-useless-if-you-are-over-40).
Especially when you consider that study after study has shown that older programmers consistently outperform younger programmers. This has been shown to be true up to about age 70.
To whoever modded me "troll", I'll explain my position this much further:
You don't get to step on the Constitutional rights of one group in order to uphold another.
It doesn't work that way. Trying to do so will inevitably backfire. You set a terrible precedent, and weaken everybody's rights, including your own, when you do that.
---
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." -- Thomas Jefferson
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think?
You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true.
I assure you, it's not.
Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.
You have not once demonstrated that any of my "accusations", as you call them, were in any way "baseless".
Saying my comments were baseless is a bald-faced lie. One which you know to be a lie.
That's something that is (at least in the moral sense) called libel. Knock it off.
I'm not accusing you of libel in any legal sense. At least not yet. If I do, I'm not the person you will hear about it from.
If GenCon moves because of this bill, I will make it a point not to attend GenCon.
I am with you on this. I do not perceive it to be an anti-gay bill at all, but rather a bill that protects religious freedom.
I'm no religious nut myself, nevertheless forcing people to do things that violate their genuine religious beliefs is the opposite of "tolerance".
As you can see, a PhD physicist has already said that "RespekMyAthorati" is wrong. But feel free to keep accusing me of being six different people. The irony is delicious.
I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really.
And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. Of course "nearly impossible" happens all the time in this world, but Slashdot is not the entire world.
You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.
And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record.
Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens.
Answered here.
I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"?
One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.
STOP LYING.
That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care.
Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.
Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.
You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.
I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.
Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?
Well, let's see if the rest of Slashdot has much of a problem with this logic:
For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics.
And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me.
Rather astounding coincidence, wouldn't you say?
I would. I bet if I put together a group of Slashdotters, and showed this to them, they would conclude that the one account is very likely (understatement again) a sock-puppet of the other.
And I know you don't seem to care, but Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry.
Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?
I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to.
I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it.
Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.
No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them.
That's called LYING, man. Or worse.
We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone.
Or are you?
No, of course not. But this discussion was about "the internet" hopelessly damaging children. I don't put "the internet" in quite the same category as automobiles.
Hey, I know kids that were addicted. I know one kid (who is no longer a kid) who was hopelessly addicted to video games. And he still is obsessed to what I feel to be an unhealthy degree with video games.
But he is an exception. I know far more kids who aren't like that at all.
Holy shit.
The second law says exactly the opposite: namely that entropy in a closed system will always increase over time, so that complexity and information content will always decrease.
Hahahaha!
This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist, and he doesn't know how information relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
Apparently RespekMyAthorati has never heard of "event horizons" and why those were a big theoretical problem for physics, because of the information loss.
Gotcha again, dude! And I'm no physicist. Never claimed to be. But I sure seem to know more about it than you do.
If you keep losing arguments this spectacularly, you're probably going to have to give back that degree.
If you're not an old fart like me maybe you'll live long enough to find out how wrong you are about anthropogenic climate change.
More likely I'll live long enough to freeze my ass off waiting for it to happen.
"Jane Q. Public" is actually a man named Lonny Eachus.
Even if that happened to be true, who (besides you, that is), gives a damn? Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"?
Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts.
The other 0.01% would almost have to be one of Bryan's friends. If he has any. NOBODY ELSE, in all my years here, has bothered to try to harass me in this manner. Nobody.
Not that anecdotal evidence is data, but; you go ahead and tell me how healthy it is for a gender confused 12 year old to be given a data enabled iPhone by his/her non-custodial parent, who then can not remove the device even after stark evidence of grooming messaging taking place, because they threaten to suicide if it's taken away.
I didn't dispute that problems exist. But they also existed with old-style telephones and many other things.
My point -- and a correct one -- was that we've heard this before. Dysfunctional people will be dysfunctional people. Maybe technology exacerbates that in some ways, but it's a boon for the vast amount of people out there.
Charming. Jane
Why should I make any effort to be "charming" to YOU??? You have been anything BUT charming to me. It seems I see the old hypocrisy beginning to peek out just a little again.
And STOP taking my comments out of context and persistently misrepresenting them. That's dishonest!
I have explained to you many times that I was not disputing the definition of "net". So STOP LYING. Because that's what you are doing.
Once again, leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud?
I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations.
If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation".
And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes
See what I mean, folks?.
That is a website summary of various issues and reports, not the actual report referenced above.
If you want to argue about something else, then argue about something else. But don't try to call it the same.
The modern Free Market is a lot better for the overall economy than mercantilism policies of the past - which were proven to concentrate wealth and power into a few hands over a 250 year period.
Free Market - means free and fair competition, not freedom from regulation.
I didn't say it should be "free from regulation". Just free from irresponsible, interventionist regulation.
Antitrust has been known to be an essential tool for keeping free markets free, at least since the days of Adam Smith. However, antitrust is not the same as the other kinds of government "interventionism" we see today, which history pretty clearly shows over the past 100+ years to be failed economic policy.
It didn't work for FDR, it didn't work for Carter, or Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush, and it sure as hell hasn't worked for Obama. Our economy is still largely stagnant... after more than 6 years!
That by itself should tell you something. Pre- Keynesian "government-interventionist" economic policy, we recovered from economic slumps in less than 2 years... usually less than one.
You know, you really should lay off. I looked at your recent posts, and of the first page, EVERY ONE was directed at JQP. It's disrupting the discussion, and I wish I had mod points.
He's been pulling this crap for somewhere around 5 years now. It didn't start out that bad, but progressively grew worse, except for some brief interludes.
I have solid evidence that his tactics of, well, let's just say "bothering me" have included sock-puppetry here on Slashdot, and even attempted impersonation. Which didn't work but as they say it's the thought that counts.
I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. He's obviously been doing a lot of research, for some strange reason unknown to me, and which I believe is pretty much well over the weirdo line.
And look at that first comment: it's from almost 5 years ago! Who does things like this? I ask you.
I think you've been on the Internet long enough to know that just because someone uses a female handle/nick, doesn't mean they are actively trying to deceive others into believing they are female.
You haven't seen some of the things he's written about me. :)
No, he quite obviously has NOT been around long enough. Although he's been around here a very long time.
In fact, he seems to have grown quite an obsession with me for some reason. There is evidence of it all over Slashdot.
He also doesn't seem to realize I do not have a similar obsession about him. Quite the opposite: I would appreciate it very much if he went away and left me alone. It's kind of ironic that he posts here where the topic is harassment.
Sure, they added climate change to try to stay relevant when nuclear stockpiles plunged, but there are so many possible doomsdays they ignore entirely.
I see nothing about zombies on the site, for example.
Personally, I consider zombies to be vastly more likely a threat than any "climate change" from CO2.
Which is to say: not at all. Zombies in the movies kill people who are stupid and slow.
But maybe the whole CO2 warming schtick is aimed at stupid and slow people too. Even better.