Construction is mentioned only twice, near the bottom of the article. The majority is about rubble removal. There are three mentions of the word "Fukushima", two of which are in sentences about contracts to remove radioactive waste/rubble. I agree that the article isn't about organized crime trying to remove the plant waste (unlike TFHeadline suggests), but I still believe that TFS is related enough that this calls for a "NO U".
I'd give you a mod point, but instead I'm going to just try and highlight your point more clearly, since you seem to be accruing mod points anyway.
LulzSecurity is doing a bunch of high-profile, childish, silly things. That's all the weather there is to report. There's nothing else going on. There's no golden age, no silver age, no information age. Just one group being trollish, and otherwise, the attacks we're hearing about aren't that out of the norm. The exponential curve is right on schedule, as usual.
Hopefully, however, the LulzSec attitude—that you don't have to be important in order to be an interesting target for having your pants pulled down in front of the rest of the class—will drive organizations toward better security policies. TFA is obviously not interested in this aspect of things (and ends in a pessimistic note about people asking for help with test configurations) which is... not that surprising from PCPro.
Sony and Microsoft are unmotivated to fill a niche market due to the low ROI of the research involved. I am not saying anything about the market as a whole, only the participation of the first-party manufacturers within it. Please kindly die in a fire.
Well, it means that people who do prefer the Android way of doing things, and (for some reason beyond my imagination) require a tablet-like device, will be able to get the product they want instead of resorting to their less-preferred Apple backup. I think it's a win for everyone. Definitions of "ease of use" and "interoperability" go both ways, naturally.
The DHS was, as you probably know, originally made out of the DEA. Think of them as the Department of Bullshit Ideologically-Driven Pseudo-Wars, or Miniluv for short. They're both the consequence of bad policy choices and the enforcers of bad policy choices, all of which liberal thinkers wish had not been made. If we can eliminate the DHS and the laws it enforces, American civilization will make most of the progress that it needs to make in order to be saved.
Of course, that will never happen, because the drug, military-industrial, and media cartels don't want their business model compromised.
I guess we'll just go with "IHBT, I hope it makes you feel better about yourself" at this point. Unless you really want to go on a pedantic rampage.
We could do that, you and I: picking through each others' entire comment history, drawing attention to typos and logical inconsistencies until the end of time. I don't know who would win. I don't really want to find out. But don't assume it would be you.
However, it would not be very productive, and if Slashdot hadn't alerted me that your reply had been made, there would most likely be no one whatsoever to "note" your statement at all, excepting perhaps Qzukk, the only person to have replied to any of your journal posts in the past two months. And that's without consideration for your—frankly, quite enlightening—Tripod site, which does not appear to be written as a satire or a character study.
Here's a hint: monkey say, monkey do. If you want to interact with others, don't do it by going out of your way to insinuate and accuse that their statements have been insufficiently rigorous. At the time you do it, it may feel like you're a hero, defending the coherence and validity of truth, but you'll quickly find that your would-be audience has little interest in the kind of pedantry that belongs in a thesis defence.
As a small testament to that, I point out that my response to you received a "+1, Underrated" moderation, whereas yours was spared this minor honour. This suggests that someone climbed over your initial post, left it untouched, and gave the point to mine instead. Admittedly, this is circumstantial evidence, as I could be an army of sockpuppets manipulating the whole thing—and, hey, you seem like a pretty solipsist guy, so let's pretend I am—or merely have friends, but in general it appears that many of your more analytical comments (disclaimer: I only checked down to March 14th) have garnered a similar level of attention. While they do not exhibit the same degree of viciousness as your appearance in this thread, an unverified skim suggests that in context most of your other analytical posts have a moderately abrasive tone. Perhaps they were meant to be troll posts, but they certainly didn't get a rise out of any moderators. (I hope you find it sound reasoning when I tell you that Slashdot is in fact big enough that I did not personally oversee the decision to leave all of them unmoderated.)
This is still circumstantial evidence, of course, but I feel it is a somewhat stronger defence of the point which I wish to make: your style of commenting gets you ignored more often than not. At this point, it seems like a lovely little day-trip into marquis1740.tripod.com is in order, to perhaps come up with an explanation as to why that might be the case, but I don't aim to be merely offensive. My thesis is that you should work on your social skills. It will make you a happier person.
Not unrelatedly at all, arguing about gender on the internet is simultaneously very impolite and in violation of Occam's razor. If you can't handle (a) transgendered people or (b) the possibility that someone might present themselves online inconsistently with their physical person, and you're so upset about one or both of those that you're willing to "take it out" out on a random passerby in a fashion that compromises the tone of what was otherwise a perfectly respectable and level-headed piece of criticism, I strongly invite you to stop posting on Slashdot and take up permanent residence at 4chan, where such things are much more commonplace and even socially acceptable.
But I will not be your self-esteem punching bag. If you feel like you really, really still need one, please forgo my suggestion that you move to 4chan and simply get a therapist. That's what they're for.
For those out of the loop: this is funnier when you are aware of a certain alarmingly long schedule proposed by Ian Hickson, which would not see HTML 5 completely finished until 2020 or 2022 depending on your definition.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it sounded offish—this is what I get for thinking I've memorized Wikipedia articles correctly. (Oi moi.)
I expect Slashdot will probably never support anything beyond what appears to be Windows-1252. But it's been well over thirteen years now. I don't think it's realistic to hope. But consider: it's not like Slashcode can't handle other encodings, given the obvious success of Slashdot.jp. I presume someone's just too lazy to weed out the extra copies of the Latin alphabet (and apparent homologues) and all of the spamming potential they contain.
Agreed. This could just as easily be a false leak. It would be ridiculous to take these statements at face-value, given that misinformation is one of the CIA's strongest suits.
Now, if only someone could convince browser vendors that the reason it was bad was more than "computers were too slow at the time."
Although, to be fair, consider that most of Firefox (and indeed every other major Mozilla product) is made out of Javascript, CSS and XML files bundled up in a ZIP archive. It's not exactly a speedy design in the first place. So they're kind of losing the race out of the gate here.
B. Humour is subjective. Plenty of undergraduates still worship crap that some realised was childish in grade nine. Sounds like someone's had a bad day.
No, I'm well aware what you meant. I'm respectfully disagreeing that mileage may vary in this case. We are discussing a matter of fact, not a personal experience or opinion. The human brain is naturally wired to suppress primitive predatory instincts (when raised properly) as part of the whole social animal gig. Perhaps you've just been around a lot of crappy people?
I completely agree with your position, and apologise for the accusation. Unfortunately, however, having a solution to the problem isn't actually enough: there are so many psychotics and special interest groups and lobbyists that nothing short of a massive popular uprising like in the recent Arab revolutions (in the US's case, easily on the order of tens of millions of people) could have any coherent sway.
I must respectfully disagree. We have a psychiatric diagnosis for being unable to act better than your cat-and-mouse example: sociopathy. A great deal of the success of the human species is owed to the ability to suppress that.
I would say that a substantially less antisocial perspective can permit the internal justification of vengefulness in the context of protecting a social unit, whereas Western culture treats downright predatory behaviour without any such pretext as much less acceptable.
(I'll assume you aren't a misandrist and really meant "people" there)
I'm sorry; coming from a literary background I was using "men" in its historical meaning, which looks uncomfortably gendered to us today, but once simply meant "humans". I assumed that the floweriness of the rest of my post would fend off any misunderstandings. If you're interested in the mechanics of the history of the word, "wifman" used to mean "male person", which parallels "woman" much better, but is confusing next to "wife". "Were" (as in werewolf) was also a term used for a male human.
The problem is the last assertion is contradicted by the first statement. People are tyrants and sadists. It takes an effort of will for people not to be like that. Remember all those experiments 40 and 50 years ago - like dividing university students up into "guards" and "prisoners" and just how astonishingly fast the "guards" became tyrannical and brutal?
You're thinking of the Stanford prison experiment, of which there was only one (fortunately), and perhaps also the less-immediately-pertinent Milgram experiment. Also related are the experiments carried out by Harry Harlow on Rhesus monkeys, to which we owe the term "pit of despair", which was an actual pit.
The Stanford experiment didn't necessarily show that people are innately horrible, but that under the right circumstances they can become horrible. Nothing about its design suggested that the subjects involved were waiting for an opportunity to express their inner sociopath; instead, it confirms the results of the Milgram experiment, where the guards were pushed by the perception of an authority figure to act in a given way, and the prisoners responded in a manner (out of desperation) that drove the guards to sink further into their complementary roles.
At any rate, if we accept that people are sadists and tyrants just waiting to bubble up, I would change my original post to say that the people at the NSA in this case aren't necessarily behaving in a sadistic or tyrannical manner given that Drake's account suggests their motives are more about revenge and protecting their tribe from another loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Construction is mentioned only twice, near the bottom of the article. The majority is about rubble removal. There are three mentions of the word "Fukushima", two of which are in sentences about contracts to remove radioactive waste/rubble. I agree that the article isn't about organized crime trying to remove the plant waste (unlike TFHeadline suggests), but I still believe that TFS is related enough that this calls for a "NO U".
I'd give you a mod point, but instead I'm going to just try and highlight your point more clearly, since you seem to be accruing mod points anyway.
LulzSecurity is doing a bunch of high-profile, childish, silly things. That's all the weather there is to report. There's nothing else going on. There's no golden age, no silver age, no information age. Just one group being trollish, and otherwise, the attacks we're hearing about aren't that out of the norm. The exponential curve is right on schedule, as usual.
Hopefully, however, the LulzSec attitude—that you don't have to be important in order to be an interesting target for having your pants pulled down in front of the rest of the class—will drive organizations toward better security policies. TFA is obviously not interested in this aspect of things (and ends in a pessimistic note about people asking for help with test configurations) which is... not that surprising from PCPro.
Complementing a crowd is simple. You just subtract it from 90 degrees.
(I kid, I kid, of course.
...It's really 1/4 tau radians.)
The analogy was under-cooked to begin with. Perhaps even corny or cheesy.
Sony and Microsoft are unmotivated to fill a niche market due to the low ROI of the research involved. I am not saying anything about the market as a whole, only the participation of the first-party manufacturers within it. Please kindly die in a fire.
Yes, but due to the dynamics of capitalism, they don't.
Well, it means that people who do prefer the Android way of doing things, and (for some reason beyond my imagination) require a tablet-like device, will be able to get the product they want instead of resorting to their less-preferred Apple backup. I think it's a win for everyone. Definitions of "ease of use" and "interoperability" go both ways, naturally.
Sure they are. It's only corruptible if you flip the right switch underneath it. And it's reliably corrupt when you do.
And don't call me Shirley!
(I am nothing like her.)
The DHS was, as you probably know, originally made out of the DEA. Think of them as the Department of Bullshit Ideologically-Driven Pseudo-Wars, or Miniluv for short. They're both the consequence of bad policy choices and the enforcers of bad policy choices, all of which liberal thinkers wish had not been made. If we can eliminate the DHS and the laws it enforces, American civilization will make most of the progress that it needs to make in order to be saved.
Of course, that will never happen, because the drug, military-industrial, and media cartels don't want their business model compromised.
Wow. That link backfired. Here's the one you were going for.
(Or will it backfire again?)
I guess we'll just go with "IHBT, I hope it makes you feel better about yourself" at this point. Unless you really want to go on a pedantic rampage.
We could do that, you and I: picking through each others' entire comment history, drawing attention to typos and logical inconsistencies until the end of time. I don't know who would win. I don't really want to find out. But don't assume it would be you.
However, it would not be very productive, and if Slashdot hadn't alerted me that your reply had been made, there would most likely be no one whatsoever to "note" your statement at all, excepting perhaps Qzukk, the only person to have replied to any of your journal posts in the past two months. And that's without consideration for your—frankly, quite enlightening—Tripod site, which does not appear to be written as a satire or a character study.
Here's a hint: monkey say, monkey do. If you want to interact with others, don't do it by going out of your way to insinuate and accuse that their statements have been insufficiently rigorous. At the time you do it, it may feel like you're a hero, defending the coherence and validity of truth, but you'll quickly find that your would-be audience has little interest in the kind of pedantry that belongs in a thesis defence.
As a small testament to that, I point out that my response to you received a "+1, Underrated" moderation, whereas yours was spared this minor honour. This suggests that someone climbed over your initial post, left it untouched, and gave the point to mine instead. Admittedly, this is circumstantial evidence, as I could be an army of sockpuppets manipulating the whole thing—and, hey, you seem like a pretty solipsist guy, so let's pretend I am—or merely have friends, but in general it appears that many of your more analytical comments (disclaimer: I only checked down to March 14th) have garnered a similar level of attention. While they do not exhibit the same degree of viciousness as your appearance in this thread, an unverified skim suggests that in context most of your other analytical posts have a moderately abrasive tone. Perhaps they were meant to be troll posts, but they certainly didn't get a rise out of any moderators. (I hope you find it sound reasoning when I tell you that Slashdot is in fact big enough that I did not personally oversee the decision to leave all of them unmoderated.)
This is still circumstantial evidence, of course, but I feel it is a somewhat stronger defence of the point which I wish to make: your style of commenting gets you ignored more often than not. At this point, it seems like a lovely little day-trip into marquis1740.tripod.com is in order, to perhaps come up with an explanation as to why that might be the case, but I don't aim to be merely offensive. My thesis is that you should work on your social skills. It will make you a happier person.
Not unrelatedly at all, arguing about gender on the internet is simultaneously very impolite and in violation of Occam's razor. If you can't handle (a) transgendered people or (b) the possibility that someone might present themselves online inconsistently with their physical person, and you're so upset about one or both of those that you're willing to "take it out" out on a random passerby in a fashion that compromises the tone of what was otherwise a perfectly respectable and level-headed piece of criticism, I strongly invite you to stop posting on Slashdot and take up permanent residence at 4chan, where such things are much more commonplace and even socially acceptable.
But I will not be your self-esteem punching bag. If you feel like you really, really still need one, please forgo my suggestion that you move to 4chan and simply get a therapist. That's what they're for.
I apologise; it appears that I conflated some details of the Four Hundred with the democracy that it interrupted.
You could have been more polite about it, though.
Indeed! Surprise! Surprise and fear! Their two chief weapons are surprise and fear!
For those out of the loop: this is funnier when you are aware of a certain alarmingly long schedule proposed by Ian Hickson, which would not see HTML 5 completely finished until 2020 or 2022 depending on your definition.
Incidentally, this problem is similar to why the Athenians abandoned democracy (lack of rapid response) and has been presented as an explanation for why Lisp isn't as popular as it once was (endless disagreements about how to do things.)
The really remarkable part, though, is that they're making any progress at all with HTML5, so some kudos is in order.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it sounded offish—this is what I get for thinking I've memorized Wikipedia articles correctly. (Oi moi.)
I expect Slashdot will probably never support anything beyond what appears to be Windows-1252. But it's been well over thirteen years now. I don't think it's realistic to hope. But consider: it's not like Slashcode can't handle other encodings, given the obvious success of Slashdot.jp. I presume someone's just too lazy to weed out the extra copies of the Latin alphabet (and apparent homologues) and all of the spamming potential they contain.
Agreed. This could just as easily be a false leak. It would be ridiculous to take these statements at face-value, given that misinformation is one of the CIA's strongest suits.
Yes!
Now, if only someone could convince browser vendors that the reason it was bad was more than "computers were too slow at the time."
Although, to be fair, consider that most of Firefox (and indeed every other major Mozilla product) is made out of Javascript, CSS and XML files bundled up in a ZIP archive. It's not exactly a speedy design in the first place. So they're kind of losing the race out of the gate here.
A. What? Look up the fifth definition of vein and read the summary again.
B. Humour is subjective. Plenty of undergraduates still worship crap that some realised was childish in grade nine. Sounds like someone's had a bad day.
No, I'm well aware what you meant. I'm respectfully disagreeing that mileage may vary in this case. We are discussing a matter of fact, not a personal experience or opinion. The human brain is naturally wired to suppress primitive predatory instincts (when raised properly) as part of the whole social animal gig. Perhaps you've just been around a lot of crappy people?
I completely agree with your position, and apologise for the accusation. Unfortunately, however, having a solution to the problem isn't actually enough: there are so many psychotics and special interest groups and lobbyists that nothing short of a massive popular uprising like in the recent Arab revolutions (in the US's case, easily on the order of tens of millions of people) could have any coherent sway.
This. MIT students have a long and storied history of similar pranks.
You're right! How could I ever have forgotten that? Or remember it? What a world.
I must respectfully disagree. We have a psychiatric diagnosis for being unable to act better than your cat-and-mouse example: sociopathy. A great deal of the success of the human species is owed to the ability to suppress that.
I would say that a substantially less antisocial perspective can permit the internal justification of vengefulness in the context of protecting a social unit, whereas Western culture treats downright predatory behaviour without any such pretext as much less acceptable.
(I'll assume you aren't a misandrist and really meant "people" there)
I'm sorry; coming from a literary background I was using "men" in its historical meaning, which looks uncomfortably gendered to us today, but once simply meant "humans". I assumed that the floweriness of the rest of my post would fend off any misunderstandings. If you're interested in the mechanics of the history of the word, "wifman" used to mean "male person", which parallels "woman" much better, but is confusing next to "wife". "Were" (as in werewolf) was also a term used for a male human.
The problem is the last assertion is contradicted by the first statement. People are tyrants and sadists. It takes an effort of will for people not to be like that. Remember all those experiments 40 and 50 years ago - like dividing university students up into "guards" and "prisoners" and just how astonishingly fast the "guards" became tyrannical and brutal?
You're thinking of the Stanford prison experiment, of which there was only one (fortunately), and perhaps also the less-immediately-pertinent Milgram experiment. Also related are the experiments carried out by Harry Harlow on Rhesus monkeys, to which we owe the term "pit of despair", which was an actual pit.
The Stanford experiment didn't necessarily show that people are innately horrible, but that under the right circumstances they can become horrible. Nothing about its design suggested that the subjects involved were waiting for an opportunity to express their inner sociopath; instead, it confirms the results of the Milgram experiment, where the guards were pushed by the perception of an authority figure to act in a given way, and the prisoners responded in a manner (out of desperation) that drove the guards to sink further into their complementary roles.
At any rate, if we accept that people are sadists and tyrants just waiting to bubble up, I would change my original post to say that the people at the NSA in this case aren't necessarily behaving in a sadistic or tyrannical manner given that Drake's account suggests their motives are more about revenge and protecting their tribe from another loss.