Were you literally born yesterday? People made these accounts before Google+ existed, and then Google+ presences were forced on people after the fact without their consent or desire. That's sneaky.
As a side note: I have a Blogger account and whenever I go to the Account Personal Info page, there is a banner that says "Upgrade to Google+; Google gets better with Google+; Upgrade Now/ Learn More". Hasn't happened yet. Irritating to be nagged like that, but if it's forced on me I'll be more displeased.
Suggested clarification: Someone presenting themselves with the title "Financial Adviser", who meets with you in person without you paying them (e.g., front-load mutual fund company agents), is a scam.
"I anticipate eventually that stock will be worth as much as stock in Pets.com..."
You know, I was just saying that as much as Pets.com is the poster child for dumbest dot-com-bubble company ever -- last weekend in NYC I started seeing ads for Wag.com which is the EXACT. SAME. THING.
"I think it's time to call the near top of the social media bubble. Maybe this one will be called the Web 2.0 Bubble... How about all the IPOs of completely unprofitable companies based only on the fact that they sold stuff online or were funded by advertising?"
Absolutely. Remember Pets.com, I think the poster child for dumbest dot-com bubble company? Well just last weekend in NYC I started seeing ads for Wag.com which is the EXACT. SAME. THING.
I call BS. For a decade I've lived in a predominantly Muslim area of Brooklyn, NY and not once has anyone tried to subdue or kill me.
There have been nights where something wonky happened in another neighborhood and I breathed a sigh of relief when I got back here and felt safe again.
"So instead of bitching about it to corporate owners who do not care, get off your arses and build something better."
There is a cost to forking the site; namely that the existing data of comments and discussions are locked up by Dice. So it's sensible to apply some political organizing and public protest in the hope that Slashdot comes to its senses and not effectively destroy itself with Beta. If that doesn't work, then of course forking the site is a reasonable backup plan. But not optimal due to lost data.
I was going to mod you up, but I think you'll get to 5 anyway, so instead I will add to your astute observation.
Firstly, it pleases me for Slashdotters to recognize the need for joint organizing and pressure on management, aka, a form of *union*. I'm downright impressed.
Secondly, I think there are several nations in crisis today where the protesters are acting on your words; while the sitting powers seek to divide and distract them with partial and vague promises, the protesters are taking this as the moment to redouble pressure, and it seems like that those instances are the most successful. So there are more case studies of what you mention happening around the world this very instant.
I mean, how could Slashdot Beta be such a steaming pile of shit for half a year and still be expected to be rolled out? Was Dice hacked by Russian malware? Are the pipes not like trucks? Is Natalie Portman planning to blow up the House of Lords?
True. One problem Slashdot/Dice has here is that so many in this community are actually in the industry and recognize and see through the corporate bullshit they just tried out here. (Kind of like when clueless IT fuckups try to use their standard lies on better-informed software developers.) Second problem is that Slashdot types have both the ability and the precedence for forking projects when needed.
One problem that we have is that, like all conglomerates, the Slashdot branch of Dice is probably fairly small potatoes; if it dies tomorrow, no CEO at Dice is going to be particularly inconvenienced or even notice very much. So there's no particular downside to throwing it all away on an outrageous bet that they might somehow miraculously latch onto a large number of new customers. (Kind of like poker players going "all in" on unseen cards with their last few chips.)
"If you were browsing through modern news sites and you stumbled across this [archive.org], would it not give you pause?"
Actually, I would think, "Hey: there's that useful, efficient, non-whorish design, similar to what Yahoo used to have, such that when they changed it caused me to leave forever after 20 years of usage as my home page."
I hope everybody reads the parent post because unfortunately it's the clearest indication that this site has no hope that I've seen.
Super-skeptical. This pops up over and over again through the years, and any time I see these cases they've always been thrown out on free-speech considerations. Do you have a citation to a case where this "conspiracy" theory was ever even charged, never mind convicted? (I know the answer: you don't.) Even in the linked Florida case here, the charge was not for conspiracy.
"Intentionally tying is absolutely stupid unless your opponent happens to be an utter retard who you know you can beat again."
Well, he did just handily beat said opponent so evidence is precisely in that effective direction. Having the next opponent possibly be "even more weaker" is of negligible benefit, since continuing to play is binary. If you feel confident about handling player X, then the stupid thing would be to increase your sample size beyond player X.
I agree with you. I must admit that numerous times I've had casual friends playing a game who felt that "playing to win" was the opposite of "playing for fun", and complained thusly. I've also seen articles written about how often an overturn in conventional strategy is met with fierce resistance, moreso if it's a winning strategy; there's usually pressure to change the rules to keep the favored strategy and observed gameplay fixed.
That's totally not what anyone's talking about. We assume that the winner ensures themselves a victory if they answer right; that part's not in question. The question is whether they permit someone else the possibility of tying them; i.e., if they set their winnings at twice what the second-place player had pre-bet.
Let x be the leader's money, and y the second-place person's money before the final bet. Post-bet, as long as the leader has at least 2y money, then they have to win. Traditionally the leader always bets (2y-x)+1 dollars, this guy is just betting (2y-x) instead. (In the case that x is already greater than 2y, then usually the leader bets something close to zero and wins automatically, regardless of whether they even get the last question right.)
No. This consideration is only in regards to the final play where each player makes a single bet, up to their current winnings. Let x be the leader's money, and y the second-place person's money before that bet. Post-bet, as long as the leader has at least 2y money, then they have to win. Traditionally the leader always bets (2y-x)+1 dollars, this guy is just betting (2y-x) instead. (In the case that x is already greater than 2y, then usually the leader bets something close to zero and wins automatically, regardless of whether they even get the last question right.)
Slashdot Mirror
From the movie Nebraska:
Receptionist: Does he have Alzheimer's?
David Grant: No, he just believes what people tell him.
Receptionist: Oh, that's too bad.
Were you literally born yesterday? People made these accounts before Google+ existed, and then Google+ presences were forced on people after the fact without their consent or desire. That's sneaky.
As a side note: I have a Blogger account and whenever I go to the Account Personal Info page, there is a banner that says "Upgrade to Google+; Google gets better with Google+; Upgrade Now/ Learn More". Hasn't happened yet. Irritating to be nagged like that, but if it's forced on me I'll be more displeased.
The 90's called (circa collapse of USSR and Cold War), they want their vain hope back.
Suggested clarification: Someone presenting themselves with the title "Financial Adviser", who meets with you in person without you paying them (e.g., front-load mutual fund company agents), is a scam.
"I anticipate eventually that stock will be worth as much as stock in Pets.com..."
You know, I was just saying that as much as Pets.com is the poster child for dumbest dot-com-bubble company ever -- last weekend in NYC I started seeing ads for Wag.com which is the EXACT. SAME. THING.
"I think it's time to call the near top of the social media bubble. Maybe this one will be called the Web 2.0 Bubble... How about all the IPOs of completely unprofitable companies based only on the fact that they sold stuff online or were funded by advertising?"
Absolutely. Remember Pets.com, I think the poster child for dumbest dot-com bubble company? Well just last weekend in NYC I started seeing ads for Wag.com which is the EXACT. SAME. THING.
I call BS. For a decade I've lived in a predominantly Muslim area of Brooklyn, NY and not once has anyone tried to subdue or kill me.
There have been nights where something wonky happened in another neighborhood and I breathed a sigh of relief when I got back here and felt safe again.
False. Yahoo founding date: 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo
"So instead of bitching about it to corporate owners who do not care, get off your arses and build something better."
There is a cost to forking the site; namely that the existing data of comments and discussions are locked up by Dice. So it's sensible to apply some political organizing and public protest in the hope that Slashdot comes to its senses and not effectively destroy itself with Beta. If that doesn't work, then of course forking the site is a reasonable backup plan. But not optimal due to lost data.
Mod this up.
Totally agreed. He's trying to exhaust the "audience's" ability to redirect the conversation.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
http://www.ada.gov/
"Yeah, but at least in the workplace the people the lies are targeted at have to pretend they can't see through them."
I've never done that. Up to and including calling a guy out on it at my workplace last night.
I was going to mod you up, but I think you'll get to 5 anyway, so instead I will add to your astute observation.
Firstly, it pleases me for Slashdotters to recognize the need for joint organizing and pressure on management, aka, a form of *union*. I'm downright impressed.
Secondly, I think there are several nations in crisis today where the protesters are acting on your words; while the sitting powers seek to divide and distract them with partial and vague promises, the protesters are taking this as the moment to redouble pressure, and it seems like that those instances are the most successful. So there are more case studies of what you mention happening around the world this very instant.
To me, the closest analog is D&D 4th Edition; change everything, explicitly fuck the old guard, hope-and-pray for a rain newbies.
One year later, and thereafter: over half their customer base is gone, and the Pathfinder game is top of the heap.
But then I'm a D&D geek and probably Dice doesn't want me around anymore, either.
I mean, how could Slashdot Beta be such a steaming pile of shit for half a year and still be expected to be rolled out? Was Dice hacked by Russian malware? Are the pipes not like trucks? Is Natalie Portman planning to blow up the House of Lords?
True. One problem Slashdot/Dice has here is that so many in this community are actually in the industry and recognize and see through the corporate bullshit they just tried out here. (Kind of like when clueless IT fuckups try to use their standard lies on better-informed software developers.) Second problem is that Slashdot types have both the ability and the precedence for forking projects when needed.
One problem that we have is that, like all conglomerates, the Slashdot branch of Dice is probably fairly small potatoes; if it dies tomorrow, no CEO at Dice is going to be particularly inconvenienced or even notice very much. So there's no particular downside to throwing it all away on an outrageous bet that they might somehow miraculously latch onto a large number of new customers. (Kind of like poker players going "all in" on unseen cards with their last few chips.)
"If you were browsing through modern news sites and you stumbled across this [archive.org], would it not give you pause?"
Actually, I would think, "Hey: there's that useful, efficient, non-whorish design, similar to what Yahoo used to have, such that when they changed it caused me to leave forever after 20 years of usage as my home page."
I hope everybody reads the parent post because unfortunately it's the clearest indication that this site has no hope that I've seen.
Probably me. We should fork the site.
Super-skeptical. This pops up over and over again through the years, and any time I see these cases they've always been thrown out on free-speech considerations. Do you have a citation to a case where this "conspiracy" theory was ever even charged, never mind convicted? (I know the answer: you don't.) Even in the linked Florida case here, the charge was not for conspiracy.
Dumbass Internet lawyering...
"Intentionally tying is absolutely stupid unless your opponent happens to be an utter retard who you know you can beat again."
Well, he did just handily beat said opponent so evidence is precisely in that effective direction. Having the next opponent possibly be "even more weaker" is of negligible benefit, since continuing to play is binary. If you feel confident about handling player X, then the stupid thing would be to increase your sample size beyond player X.
Mod this up.
I agree with you. I must admit that numerous times I've had casual friends playing a game who felt that "playing to win" was the opposite of "playing for fun", and complained thusly. I've also seen articles written about how often an overturn in conventional strategy is met with fierce resistance, moreso if it's a winning strategy; there's usually pressure to change the rules to keep the favored strategy and observed gameplay fixed.
That's totally not what anyone's talking about. We assume that the winner ensures themselves a victory if they answer right; that part's not in question. The question is whether they permit someone else the possibility of tying them; i.e., if they set their winnings at twice what the second-place player had pre-bet.
Let x be the leader's money, and y the second-place person's money before the final bet. Post-bet, as long as the leader has at least 2y money, then they have to win. Traditionally the leader always bets (2y-x)+1 dollars, this guy is just betting (2y-x) instead. (In the case that x is already greater than 2y, then usually the leader bets something close to zero and wins automatically, regardless of whether they even get the last question right.)
No. This consideration is only in regards to the final play where each player makes a single bet, up to their current winnings. Let x be the leader's money, and y the second-place person's money before that bet. Post-bet, as long as the leader has at least 2y money, then they have to win. Traditionally the leader always bets (2y-x)+1 dollars, this guy is just betting (2y-x) instead. (In the case that x is already greater than 2y, then usually the leader bets something close to zero and wins automatically, regardless of whether they even get the last question right.)