"Where text used to be bold and dark, which contrasted well with predominantly white backgrounds"
Huh. I remember brightly colored text, black backgrounds and rotating GIFs.
One has the realize that Slashdot polls, comments, and articles are not a reflecting of the rest of the geek community as a whole. Linux and open-source is a fairly prominent topic within Slashdot, but most geeks as a whole outside the community are rarely concerned with Linux. In other words, Slashdot is not representative of the geek community. I work at a large software company in California with most employees in their 20s, and I do not recall anybody claiming to be a libertarian there. While I am sure there is somebody at the company who considers oneself a libertarian, I would have expected to have encountered a libertarian by now at work based upon this trollish question.
Oddly, the poll results seem odd when most of the outspoken opinions lean more liberal than libertarian within the Slashdot community in my opinion.
Judging from Dr. James Hansen's comments on the subject, I would hardly consider him unbiased on his research on the topic. When you begin to slander any opposite as manipulative, money-making bastards, one has to question how much he is allowing his personal opinions and beliefs affect his work. While it is known that global temperatures have been rising in recent years, I question if some of these so-called climate experts are doing enough to determine the cause rather than merely finger point for self-serving causes.
Currently, I am on the fence about the actual cause of global warming. Is the primary cause of global warming the result of human activities, or is this possibly a classic third variable scenario?
Let's look at a few facts about Wikipedia:
1. Virtually anybody can edit most articles in their encyclopedia.
2. Wikipedia is widely known, popular, and many Internet users regularly visit the website for information.
Rather than a conspiracy to manipulate information, likely many of these edits were done by employees without official authorization. It is likely that somebody connected to a company, organization, or political compaign casually ran into the Wikipedia entries and decide to make "corrections" based upon their own point-of-view.
Even the Slashdot article in Wikipedia has had quite a bit of so-called whitewashing to remove criticism, which I presume to be by slashdotters. Personallly, edits become of concern when they are attempts to manipulate, mislead, or contain false information. Or, if the edits were done to harm or deface a rival Wikipedia entry (i.e. a Repubilican candidate editing a Democratic candidate's entry).
Slashdot Mirror
That's when I turn off WiFi on my cell phone for the purposes of science.
Frieza time.
Do I also win the lottery if my numbers are +/- 5 from the winning numbers?
... with even more pop-up, redirect and page ads.
"Where text used to be bold and dark, which contrasted well with predominantly white backgrounds" Huh. I remember brightly colored text, black backgrounds and rotating GIFs.
"pay music publisher BMG Rights Management a sum of $25 in damages" Damn. I'd just pay the $25 and call it a day.
Oddly, the poll results seem odd when most of the outspoken opinions lean more liberal than libertarian within the Slashdot community in my opinion.
Currently, I am on the fence about the actual cause of global warming. Is the primary cause of global warming the result of human activities, or is this possibly a classic third variable scenario?
Let's look at a few facts about Wikipedia: 1. Virtually anybody can edit most articles in their encyclopedia. 2. Wikipedia is widely known, popular, and many Internet users regularly visit the website for information. Rather than a conspiracy to manipulate information, likely many of these edits were done by employees without official authorization. It is likely that somebody connected to a company, organization, or political compaign casually ran into the Wikipedia entries and decide to make "corrections" based upon their own point-of-view. Even the Slashdot article in Wikipedia has had quite a bit of so-called whitewashing to remove criticism, which I presume to be by slashdotters. Personallly, edits become of concern when they are attempts to manipulate, mislead, or contain false information. Or, if the edits were done to harm or deface a rival Wikipedia entry (i.e. a Repubilican candidate editing a Democratic candidate's entry).