No true Scotsman? That sound like fun, let me try: Feminists are bigots. I know this because some feminists are bigots. If you dispute it you fall pray to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Actually MRA's generally hate red pillers and vise versa. Also MRA's don't believe the world is actually run by women for women. If you actually think that's what MRA's believe you should probably go talk to some.
When will we see equal representation in the fields of construction, military, sanitation, and plumbing? When will we see equality in homeless populations and suicides? When will family courts end their bias? When will we see equal sentencing for equal crime? Where are the grants and scholarships to get more men into teaching and nursing? How are we addressing unequal physical requirements for men and women in police and fire departments? Equal numbers of homeless shelters? Equal response for domestic violence victims? Equal funding for gender studies programs? When will the homicide numbers be made equal? Defend the men and bring crime victimization rates to equivalent standing.
That seems too large and too expensive to me. I'm not calling you wrong but why can't you just embed a radio signal emitter and battery in plastic and call it a satellite? If you want to get fancy a slightly larger battery and a small heater.
For tasks that need low level code optimization I can't see how this wouldn't hurt processing speed. Maybe it's time to add a tiny brain to each CPU capable of learning, in a primitive way, which execute orders work best?
Microbots that can move through brain tissue without causing harm
Microbots that can link together to from insulated wires, or build insulated wires that are safe in vivo.
Microbots that can transmit power and information through several layers of nerve and other tissue
The thing is, we're getting there. These are no longer science fiction: the path to each of these abilities is very clear. And when these abilities converge we'll have matrix style give-me-knowledge-now and complete VR. Not to mention brain augmentation. This future is far, far closer than it seems.
Which makes a person wonder why Dice would want to publish this inflated number. Trying to get low level coders for less money? Trying to create hype for certain stocks?
When old Yahoo made money from its search engine it did so by pushing paid sites as search results, cluttering up the interface with advertisements, and otherwise being intrusive and unpleasant. And it lacked the self-awareness to change this behavior. Rather than saying, "How can we make things better for the user?" they said, "How can we make more money from the user?" So while better search results was on their radar an interface like Google's just never came up as a possibility. That's why they were blown completely out of the water. Google made money as a search provider without using Yahoo-esque tactics by being the first to do what present social networks are doing (analytics) but more importantly by being a place users wanted to go. Twitter is already doing this successfully. Look at their interface: light, efficient, smooth, and fast. And they're very successful. By limiting user actions now they're eating the seed corn. The'll make more money in the short term but in the long term they're pushing users to less limited places.
But I digress. By "social networking" I meant Facebook-esque networking. Attempts to allow comprehensive social collectives to happen. Facebook has fallen far down the monetization rabbit hole in the same way old Yahoo did. The way Facebook thinks is of where to put ads, how to better manipulate users into sub-optimal decisions (such as mis-click capture), how to make games that will best entangle users... Rather than saying, "How can we make things better for the user?" they say, "How can we make more money from the user?" The money is in having many users and in letting them do what they do, with a completely unobtrusive, subtle advertising network offering things they like and want. When a social network focuses to a massive extent on making the user experience as excellent as possible even if that's less immediately profitable they'll get more than enough market share to make up the difference.
Social networking sites have forgotten the reason they exist, and the reason people use them. People don't go to a social networking site to be monetized, they tolerate being monetized so long as the social network provides sufficient value.
It's a similar situation to the early days of searching. People didn't go to early Yahoo.com to get the things Yahoo wanted to push, people went to search the internet and tolerated having things pushed at them as long as the search was good enough. But as soon as Google offered a good search with minimal advertising the market spoke very loudly about that kind of thing. I feel like there's a pent-up demand in social networking for low friction, low-bullshit connecting of people. The first social network that offers a superior product and doesn't stand in peoples' way will make a killing.
Tying whole corporate environments to a particular web browser is the greatest shit show of our time. I get that you don't want to have to support more than one browser but it's not hard to stick to highly standardized i/o that any browser can use. And if your web app is that fragile it says a lot of bad things about whoever designed it.
I'm more concerned that the mass panic over a couple of sonic booms caused enough calls to 911 to take down the system for a short time. Hypersensitive indeed.
I've found only one free antivirus where the nag screens can be turned off and stay off. Panda has treated me right so far and if things keep going this way I'm going to buy the premium version just to support the company. It's efficient, effective, and -- most importantly -- silent.
Whether or not there was a promise of quid quo, to trade dirty pictures with someone who is presently one's student is unacceptable. But you know what? I'm so numb from the constant barrage of social justice stories that I just don't give a shit anymore. Enough already.
I don't buy it. I don't buy it. To project virtual objects into the real world required precise head tracking and real-time adjustment of virtual images. It also requires a very powerful video card. To project virtual objects and actually make them look solid takes even more power, both in terms of processing ability and brightness. The description of these glasses looks like it came straight from science fiction. I'll believe it when can see and test them myself and not a moment sooner.
Google has some of the best minds in the world but it's still vulnerable to making mistakes, mostly when the information to make the right choices just doesn't exist yet.
Top-down control of the masses just doesn't work when they have freedom of choice. Google didn't leap to the top of the search market on a giant advertising campaign, they lept to the top because they offered something immensely better than their competitors. They don't mind advertising revenue by using market power to force people into their adwords API, they offer a smoother, better written, more intuitive, and more efficient interface that results in less friction and more profit all around. These are important lessons that Google missed when it tried to make Google Plus happen. To get enough people onto a social network you have to offer a social network that's so damn good people want to go there. People have to want to pay the cost of migration. "This lets me comment on youtube" just doesn't cut it.
Maybe it's impossible with today's technology. Maybe there's just no social networking killer app possible. Or maybe they'll hit on the answer this year. Whatever the case Google Plus was dead from the start.
I have no objection to a software subscription service done right. But my definition of doing it right is to keep pushing security updates, API's, and compatibility patches(i.e. non-feature updates) even for expired subscriptions. I have the strong feeling that Microsoft will stop providing ANY updates when the subscriber stops paying. Or even worse: nag screens and eliminating existing features.
To trust Microsoft not to abuse this position would be like loaning money to a heroin addict.
GamerGate runs a harassment patrol, tracked down a harasser in Brazil, and generally loudly shouts down any support of doxxing and harassment. The behavior does not come from within GamerGate.
It's marginally tech related (internet trolls and all that) but it's on Slashdot for the twentieth time because someone is pushing an agenda. I'm about one socjus story from permanently closing my Slashdot account.
GamerGate is lashing out against bad journalism, and it's doing so with a boycott and letter writing campaign. You pretend to have spoken to enough GamerGate supporters to have formed a solid opinion, but the fact that you think GamerGate harasses people determines that to be a lie.
I can't believe this biased drivel is modded informative. The only evidence that GamerGate is about harassing people are the unsubstantiated claims of certain people who are profiting from the "harassment" amplified and echoed manifold by an agenda pushing media. I implore anyone who reads this to read the actual voices of GamerGate and to withhold judgement until they have. Go to 8ch.net/gamergate and see how many posts support harassment. Look at the ethics policies we've brought about. Look at what we do and not what the media says we do.
I get it. You think GamerGate is the SS reborn and you support every form of elevating women above men wherever and whenever possible. You are feminism reborn, with a vengeance. Men are pigs and hail the SCUM manifesto.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I absolutely support you having and expressing that opinion. I think each person should say the thing they feel strongly about as frequently and loudly as possible. I would never, ever try to take that voice from you. From the most extreme Marx worshiper to the people who worship the ground Bush II walked on I love they have a voice. It's cliche but I feel it so strongly: I would gladly die to support and defend that voice. Go you! I mean that.
These things said I must admonish the way you go about voicing your opinions. Slashdot is taken as a news source: as the place to gain new insight and understanding of the world. As such choosing and phrasing stories in a politically biased manner does great disservice to your readers and harms your credibility as a place to learn. Newspapers in the past have had this problem too: How to say what should be while honestly reporting on what is? The answer they came up with suited very well, and has become an honored tradition.
That tradition is the editorial column. When you feel a social or political issue is important you can have a separate place to announce your opinion, and it will be given the eyes of every reader who chooses to learn what you have to say. The key word there is choice. When you present these opinions by changing the choice of article and editorializing in the summary, you're trying to take away people's ability to learn facts without political bias.
I still respect you. I still read you. But please. Please. make and maintain an editorial column and choose the stories you publish as news to be pure, unadulterated information about the world around us.
did you just think CPS officers get a kick out of taking children from their homes?
I know they do. I have been a victim of self-righteous "child protection" fascists. And I'm not using the word "fascist" hyperbolically: we're talking about government workers tripping on power.
Slashdot Mirror
No true Scotsman? That sound like fun, let me try: Feminists are bigots. I know this because some feminists are bigots. If you dispute it you fall pray to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Actually MRA's generally hate red pillers and vise versa. Also MRA's don't believe the world is actually run by women for women. If you actually think that's what MRA's believe you should probably go talk to some.
When will we see equal representation in the fields of construction, military, sanitation, and plumbing? When will we see equality in homeless populations and suicides? When will family courts end their bias? When will we see equal sentencing for equal crime? Where are the grants and scholarships to get more men into teaching and nursing? How are we addressing unequal physical requirements for men and women in police and fire departments? Equal numbers of homeless shelters? Equal response for domestic violence victims? Equal funding for gender studies programs? When will the homicide numbers be made equal? Defend the men and bring crime victimization rates to equivalent standing.
I stand with you feminists! Equality now!
That seems too large and too expensive to me. I'm not calling you wrong but why can't you just embed a radio signal emitter and battery in plastic and call it a satellite? If you want to get fancy a slightly larger battery and a small heater.
For tasks that need low level code optimization I can't see how this wouldn't hurt processing speed. Maybe it's time to add a tiny brain to each CPU capable of learning, in a primitive way, which execute orders work best?
Come on, even Playboy has a nice cover. Let's see a chapter list and a summary of one of the ideas.
Most companies can't afford to forgo a market? That isn't even internally logically consistent. Try "Most companies are evil enough to follow along".
I wonder how many people would sign a contract putting them in VR heaven as long as $bigevil inc. gets to use their body.
The thing is, we're getting there. These are no longer science fiction: the path to each of these abilities is very clear. And when these abilities converge we'll have matrix style give-me-knowledge-now and complete VR. Not to mention brain augmentation. This future is far, far closer than it seems.
Which makes a person wonder why Dice would want to publish this inflated number. Trying to get low level coders for less money? Trying to create hype for certain stocks?
How?
... Rather than saying, "How can we make things better for the user?" they say, "How can we make more money from the user?" The money is in having many users and in letting them do what they do, with a completely unobtrusive, subtle advertising network offering things they like and want. When a social network focuses to a massive extent on making the user experience as excellent as possible even if that's less immediately profitable they'll get more than enough market share to make up the difference.
When old Yahoo made money from its search engine it did so by pushing paid sites as search results, cluttering up the interface with advertisements, and otherwise being intrusive and unpleasant. And it lacked the self-awareness to change this behavior. Rather than saying, "How can we make things better for the user?" they said, "How can we make more money from the user?" So while better search results was on their radar an interface like Google's just never came up as a possibility. That's why they were blown completely out of the water. Google made money as a search provider without using Yahoo-esque tactics by being the first to do what present social networks are doing (analytics) but more importantly by being a place users wanted to go. Twitter is already doing this successfully. Look at their interface: light, efficient, smooth, and fast. And they're very successful. By limiting user actions now they're eating the seed corn. The'll make more money in the short term but in the long term they're pushing users to less limited places.
But I digress. By "social networking" I meant Facebook-esque networking. Attempts to allow comprehensive social collectives to happen. Facebook has fallen far down the monetization rabbit hole in the same way old Yahoo did. The way Facebook thinks is of where to put ads, how to better manipulate users into sub-optimal decisions (such as mis-click capture), how to make games that will best entangle users
Social networking sites have forgotten the reason they exist, and the reason people use them. People don't go to a social networking site to be monetized, they tolerate being monetized so long as the social network provides sufficient value.
It's a similar situation to the early days of searching. People didn't go to early Yahoo.com to get the things Yahoo wanted to push, people went to search the internet and tolerated having things pushed at them as long as the search was good enough. But as soon as Google offered a good search with minimal advertising the market spoke very loudly about that kind of thing. I feel like there's a pent-up demand in social networking for low friction, low-bullshit connecting of people. The first social network that offers a superior product and doesn't stand in peoples' way will make a killing.
Tying whole corporate environments to a particular web browser is the greatest shit show of our time. I get that you don't want to have to support more than one browser but it's not hard to stick to highly standardized i/o that any browser can use. And if your web app is that fragile it says a lot of bad things about whoever designed it.
I'm more concerned that the mass panic over a couple of sonic booms caused enough calls to 911 to take down the system for a short time. Hypersensitive indeed.
I've found only one free antivirus where the nag screens can be turned off and stay off. Panda has treated me right so far and if things keep going this way I'm going to buy the premium version just to support the company. It's efficient, effective, and -- most importantly -- silent.
Whether or not there was a promise of quid quo, to trade dirty pictures with someone who is presently one's student is unacceptable. But you know what? I'm so numb from the constant barrage of social justice stories that I just don't give a shit anymore. Enough already.
I don't buy it. I don't buy it. To project virtual objects into the real world required precise head tracking and real-time adjustment of virtual images. It also requires a very powerful video card. To project virtual objects and actually make them look solid takes even more power, both in terms of processing ability and brightness. The description of these glasses looks like it came straight from science fiction. I'll believe it when can see and test them myself and not a moment sooner.
Google has some of the best minds in the world but it's still vulnerable to making mistakes, mostly when the information to make the right choices just doesn't exist yet.
Top-down control of the masses just doesn't work when they have freedom of choice. Google didn't leap to the top of the search market on a giant advertising campaign, they lept to the top because they offered something immensely better than their competitors. They don't mind advertising revenue by using market power to force people into their adwords API, they offer a smoother, better written, more intuitive, and more efficient interface that results in less friction and more profit all around. These are important lessons that Google missed when it tried to make Google Plus happen. To get enough people onto a social network you have to offer a social network that's so damn good people want to go there. People have to want to pay the cost of migration. "This lets me comment on youtube" just doesn't cut it.
Maybe it's impossible with today's technology. Maybe there's just no social networking killer app possible. Or maybe they'll hit on the answer this year. Whatever the case Google Plus was dead from the start.
I have no objection to a software subscription service done right. But my definition of doing it right is to keep pushing security updates, API's, and compatibility patches(i.e. non-feature updates) even for expired subscriptions. I have the strong feeling that Microsoft will stop providing ANY updates when the subscriber stops paying. Or even worse: nag screens and eliminating existing features.
To trust Microsoft not to abuse this position would be like loaning money to a heroin addict.
GamerGate runs a harassment patrol, tracked down a harasser in Brazil, and generally loudly shouts down any support of doxxing and harassment. The behavior does not come from within GamerGate.
It's marginally tech related (internet trolls and all that) but it's on Slashdot for the twentieth time because someone is pushing an agenda. I'm about one socjus story from permanently closing my Slashdot account.
GamerGate is lashing out against bad journalism, and it's doing so with a boycott and letter writing campaign. You pretend to have spoken to enough GamerGate supporters to have formed a solid opinion, but the fact that you think GamerGate harasses people determines that to be a lie.
I can't believe this biased drivel is modded informative. The only evidence that GamerGate is about harassing people are the unsubstantiated claims of certain people who are profiting from the "harassment" amplified and echoed manifold by an agenda pushing media. I implore anyone who reads this to read the actual voices of GamerGate and to withhold judgement until they have. Go to 8ch.net/gamergate and see how many posts support harassment. Look at the ethics policies we've brought about. Look at what we do and not what the media says we do.
Dead Slashdot owners and editors,
I get it. You think GamerGate is the SS reborn and you support every form of elevating women above men wherever and whenever possible. You are feminism reborn, with a vengeance. Men are pigs and hail the SCUM manifesto.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I absolutely support you having and expressing that opinion. I think each person should say the thing they feel strongly about as frequently and loudly as possible. I would never, ever try to take that voice from you. From the most extreme Marx worshiper to the people who worship the ground Bush II walked on I love they have a voice. It's cliche but I feel it so strongly: I would gladly die to support and defend that voice. Go you! I mean that.
These things said I must admonish the way you go about voicing your opinions. Slashdot is taken as a news source: as the place to gain new insight and understanding of the world. As such choosing and phrasing stories in a politically biased manner does great disservice to your readers and harms your credibility as a place to learn. Newspapers in the past have had this problem too: How to say what should be while honestly reporting on what is? The answer they came up with suited very well, and has become an honored tradition.
That tradition is the editorial column. When you feel a social or political issue is important you can have a separate place to announce your opinion, and it will be given the eyes of every reader who chooses to learn what you have to say. The key word there is choice. When you present these opinions by changing the choice of article and editorializing in the summary, you're trying to take away people's ability to learn facts without political bias.
I still respect you. I still read you. But please. Please. make and maintain an editorial column and choose the stories you publish as news to be pure, unadulterated information about the world around us.
did you just think CPS officers get a kick out of taking children from their homes?
I know they do. I have been a victim of self-righteous "child protection" fascists. And I'm not using the word "fascist" hyperbolically: we're talking about government workers tripping on power.