I bricked about this happening to "meme" [slashdot.org] a couple years ago, then bricked the solution, [slashdot.org] so I'd like to brick some words of encouragement to anyone who feels bricked by the loss: brick your vengeance. If you can't brick "brick," then nobody can.
Heretofore, "to brick" can brick anything. You can brick a beer; you can brick a pizza. You can brick a computer; and you can brick your girlfriend. You can brick your hat, except in Soviet Russia, where hat bricks you.
Go brick something, and then brick somebody about it in the hopes that they'll brick someone else. Brick the word, so the whole world will brick that they bricked "brick." Hopefully after that, maybe they will have bricked that some words are better off left unbricked.
People like you rot me, who take away from the significance of a comment by pointing out the obvious without regarding specifics.
The specific examples you gave and which he quoted are exactly as he says; a normal young adult being a normal young adult. His reply was also inoffensively humourous. Get off your high horse.
Thus, by applying both settings, manual double-checking would only be required on 34% of all edits.
Or, you know, just keep applying the first setting that always correctly detects 20% of vandalism on the 80% that's left over, until there's nothing left. Problem solved.
I imagine that for most of the Slashdot audience, sitting at work is often unavoidable
Not necessarily - I had back problems a few years ago that made it painful to sit in a chair, but moving the chair to the side and just kneeling in front of the desk was fine. Your bum's the same height from the floor, your upper body in the same position it was with a chair - no new desk or extra equipment or expense required. Except; home was carpeted, work was shiny hard floors, so I got a gardener's kneeling mat for work, cost a fiver.
I don't know if kneeling has the same health benefits as standing, but it feels healthier than sitting.
When a word is wrong it interrupts the flow of the sentence - the reader may understand what the person meant, but at the cost of being figuratively knocked sideways so they are now thinking about something else. If the point of your writing is to get across an idea, then something that interrupts your message is doing you a disservice.
Also, this is a geek website. We tend to like things to be correct.
And finally - most importantly - being corrected is not something anyone should take offence to. It is part of the way we learn and become better skilled at anything we do. Being indignant because someone offered advice or information is entirely wrong - there was no malice that I can see in the GP's post - it was blunt, maybe, but it was informative.
That's what I was implying. There is also anonymity, but only for certain values of anonymous - if you post something that attracts the interest of the authorities you probably won't stay anonymous for long.
But nobody is having a problem getting porn on to their iPhone - it has a browser on it with unrestricted access to all the porn in the world. Who is finding porn so hard to find on the internet that they need an _app_ for it?
The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour.
Easy there, Stalin. My approach would be education. It's slow, but it works.
You misunderstood. I wasn't advocating it, I was saying that would be the only way eradicate it, because I don't believe it would be possible or right to try to educate away somebody's religion.
And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it.
How in the world did you come to that conclusion?
It's not a conclusion, it's a possibility. A lot of what religions teach is good, and societies are often built on a religious foundation - so without religion maybe societies would have lacked some of that social cohesion and been more fragmented. From your response I take it you don't see any good in religion, but do you have any evidence that a world without it would be a better place? Even if you are saying that it was useful in the past but has now had its day, I'd still doubt it. Most of the people in the world are religious - you and I are in the minority - and most of the world most of the time functions fairly well.
I'd like to be able to be as optimistic as you, but everything I've seen points to the opposite. Take away religion (let's just assume it's possible) and people will continue to kill and persecute each other, but in the name of something else. Maybe they'd have to be less hypocritical about their true reasons for doing so, but they'd still do it. Take away cocaine, take away all drugs until the only one left is coffee, and people will abuse coffee and kill over it in the same way they do over cocaine.
The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour. Apart from the problem of killing almost everyone on the planet, you would also be killing some of our most creative and useful members of society. Some of my favourite music and literature would not exist without drugs. And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it. It's not going to be possible to rid everyone in the world of their relgious and addictive urges - you are assuming (hoping) that without those outlets the urges will disappear or maybe be re-routed through something you think would be beneficial to society. I really doubt that.
You can't just remove religion and cocaine and then expect irrational beliefs and addictive behaviour to go away. You are taking away the symptoms and expecting the causes to disappear.
There is no Slashdot consensus. Did you not realise when you posted a response saying the parent was wrong that you were invalidating your own argument? Did you not ever notice that almost every response to every post on Slashdot is someone violently disagreeing?
Another update: I've taken the page down due to an incident involving an email address at "terrorist.me.uk" which has now involved the police. Nothing to do with the terrorism laws, but a guy got extremely angry with the email address and threatened violence (and he possibly has my home address, I don't know yet). I thought under the circumstances it would be better not to antagonize the police.
Or, government is a multi-headed beast made up of thousands of people, so it's no surprise it acts in a manner that appears schizophrenic. But its desire for power has to come from somewhere - and you only have to look at Peter Mandelson to see that there are certain driving forces in government who are after power for power's sake, not just as a side-effect of wanting something else. And while I think his megolomania is a serious mental problem, he would rationalise all the power-hungry aspects of his character to be good points.
People like Mandelson do seem to be drawn to government - people who believe they know better how to run other people's lives than the people themselves - and when they look around and see other people like themselves it reinforces and justifies their own beliefs. And that concentration of self-importance is what is driving these ever-greater reaches of government control in to our lives./rant
Because the government wants power for power's sake and now that it's had a taste it wants complete control and nothing less will do. It is insane and is using the actions of an external force to rationalise its own insanity. I can't think of any other explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
From http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=423338&cid=22102564
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twat
Wow, you got off your high horse and found a giraffe.
The specific examples you gave and which he quoted are exactly as he says; a normal young adult being a normal young adult. His reply was also inoffensively humourous. Get off your high horse.
Even better, feed them the food they have EVOLVED to eat.
I still don't get it. Can you clarify your clarification, please?
In fact, can you continue clarifying 20% of the 80% left from each previous clarification until you reach infinity? I think that'll do it.
Or, you know, just keep applying the first setting that always correctly detects 20% of vandalism on the 80% that's left over, until there's nothing left. Problem solved.
Give the guy a brake.
Not necessarily - I had back problems a few years ago that made it painful to sit in a chair, but moving the chair to the side and just kneeling in front of the desk was fine. Your bum's the same height from the floor, your upper body in the same position it was with a chair - no new desk or extra equipment or expense required. Except; home was carpeted, work was shiny hard floors, so I got a gardener's kneeling mat for work, cost a fiver.
I don't know if kneeling has the same health benefits as standing, but it feels healthier than sitting.
When a word is wrong it interrupts the flow of the sentence - the reader may understand what the person meant, but at the cost of being figuratively knocked sideways so they are now thinking about something else. If the point of your writing is to get across an idea, then something that interrupts your message is doing you a disservice.
Also, this is a geek website. We tend to like things to be correct.
And finally - most importantly - being corrected is not something anyone should take offence to. It is part of the way we learn and become better skilled at anything we do. Being indignant because someone offered advice or information is entirely wrong - there was no malice that I can see in the GP's post - it was blunt, maybe, but it was informative.
That's what I was implying. There is also anonymity, but only for certain values of anonymous - if you post something that attracts the interest of the authorities you probably won't stay anonymous for long.
Better: If you EVER MIGHT want it private, don't post it on the internet.
But nobody is having a problem getting porn on to their iPhone - it has a browser on it with unrestricted access to all the porn in the world. Who is finding porn so hard to find on the internet that they need an _app_ for it?
There are plenty of situations where doing the same thing over and over again produces different results.
Also, insanity has a lot going for it.
No. Nobody posts on Usenet. It is of no interest to you or anyone else. We can go about our business.
{ { { waves hand } } }
You misunderstood. I wasn't advocating it, I was saying that would be the only way eradicate it, because I don't believe it would be possible or right to try to educate away somebody's religion.
It's not a conclusion, it's a possibility. A lot of what religions teach is good, and societies are often built on a religious foundation - so without religion maybe societies would have lacked some of that social cohesion and been more fragmented. From your response I take it you don't see any good in religion, but do you have any evidence that a world without it would be a better place? Even if you are saying that it was useful in the past but has now had its day, I'd still doubt it. Most of the people in the world are religious - you and I are in the minority - and most of the world most of the time functions fairly well.
I'd like to be able to be as optimistic as you, but everything I've seen points to the opposite. Take away religion (let's just assume it's possible) and people will continue to kill and persecute each other, but in the name of something else. Maybe they'd have to be less hypocritical about their true reasons for doing so, but they'd still do it. Take away cocaine, take away all drugs until the only one left is coffee, and people will abuse coffee and kill over it in the same way they do over cocaine.
The only way to get rid of the cause of the problem (us) would be to kill every person in every generation who shows any signs of religious or addictive behaviour. Apart from the problem of killing almost everyone on the planet, you would also be killing some of our most creative and useful members of society. Some of my favourite music and literature would not exist without drugs. And there is the strong possibility that without religion, people throughout the ages would have been MORE violent and oppressive to one other than they are with it. It's not going to be possible to rid everyone in the world of their relgious and addictive urges - you are assuming (hoping) that without those outlets the urges will disappear or maybe be re-routed through something you think would be beneficial to society. I really doubt that.
You can't just remove religion and cocaine and then expect irrational beliefs and addictive behaviour to go away. You are taking away the symptoms and expecting the causes to disappear.
There is no Slashdot consensus. Did you not realise when you posted a response saying the parent was wrong that you were invalidating your own argument? Did you not ever notice that almost every response to every post on Slashdot is someone violently disagreeing?
You must be new here.
For anybody elkse wondering what DRD stands for, I looked it up and it means Discrete Rectal Dongle.
Another update: I've taken the page down due to an incident involving an email address at "terrorist.me.uk" which has now involved the police. Nothing to do with the terrorism laws, but a guy got extremely angry with the email address and threatened violence (and he possibly has my home address, I don't know yet). I thought under the circumstances it would be better not to antagonize the police.
I've updated the page - "terrorist.me.uk" was available, so...
terrorist.me.uk.
Check
Check
and check.
Or, government is a multi-headed beast made up of thousands of people, so it's no surprise it acts in a manner that appears schizophrenic. But its desire for power has to come from somewhere - and you only have to look at Peter Mandelson to see that there are certain driving forces in government who are after power for power's sake, not just as a side-effect of wanting something else. And while I think his megolomania is a serious mental problem, he would rationalise all the power-hungry aspects of his character to be good points.
/rant
People like Mandelson do seem to be drawn to government - people who believe they know better how to run other people's lives than the people themselves - and when they look around and see other people like themselves it reinforces and justifies their own beliefs. And that concentration of self-importance is what is driving these ever-greater reaches of government control in to our lives.
Because the government wants power for power's sake and now that it's had a taste it wants complete control and nothing less will do. It is insane and is using the actions of an external force to rationalise its own insanity. I can't think of any other explanation.