Look at the last 15 articles on the front page. These guys are pimping every article coming out of the verge, guardian, vice, recode and nbc. Only a couple of them have an actual submitter, and in each case it's "an anonymous reader". There are of course 10+ websites to choose from covering every one of these topics.
Exactly the kind of bullshit article I've come to expect from The Verge, as they continue to push far-left clickbait in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. They're approaching the level of BuzzFeed at this point. What's incredible is that anyone continues to pay attention to the ham-fisted Trump condemnations that are now the bread and butter of these publications, and apparently the only kind of article they're capable to producing. Online journalism has become so lazy it's almost unbelievable.
So people should dial down or outright suppress their criticisms because a possibility exists that some of their more overzealous followers will harass the target of that criticism? Sounds good Amimojo, I'll be waiting for you to decry the next witch hunt initiated by a professional SJW with many followers. Waiting. Patiently.
Problem is the "private property" of a college campus doesn't belong to a small subset of entitled students who've decided their feelings are more important than someone else's right to speak. The default setting is that people are allowed to speak freely, and any listener is free to refute them after hearing them out. This doesn't strengthen any case for safe spaces, it's just another bullshit argument on your part driven by social justice ideology.
That would be because Peter Bright is one the biggest Microsoft shills alive and has managed to cultivate a small army of fanboys that fawn over everything MS does while taking a dim view of their main competitor.
Since you're getting praise above for prolific commenting, I'd like to state the opposite - it's annoying and pathetic to see people who can't restrain themselves to simply stating their opinions succinctly and moving on with their day. Nope, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that everyone in the thread with a 'wrong' opinion be corrected in every single instance, otherwise the racist alt-right bigots might... GASP... think they're winning. You spam around calling people out for a lack of decorum while showing none yourself. Slashdot ought to set a post limit to regulate this kind of behavior, which is reminiscent of a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum on twitter.
Seems likely they're also guilty of manipulating moderation when someone posts something critical of their management they don't want to hear. Take the comment thread linked below for example. When I first saw the parent post a few days ago, it was moderated at +3 or +4 insightful. Now it's at -1 flamebait while the boilerplate responses by whipslash are apparently worthy of +5.
I've actually more or less given up on public forums except for hackernews and a bit of reddit surfing (but not discussing). This is just another throwaway Google account after I deleted several/. accounts, all with excellent karma; I'm coming here less and less often, because the discussions have become too vitriolic - and I'm saying that as a Usenet veteran.
Hackernews is an extreme left Silicon Valley wankfest where, much like Ars Technica, they're very intolerant of any opinions viewed to be insufficiently progressive. You often hear the regulars chirping about how insightful the discussion is compared to so many other "toxic" websites, but this simply isn't supported by any objective appraisal of the commentary. Spending years living in an echo chamber distorts one's view of reality.
As is Glenn Greenwald. Regarding the second set of "independent researchers", a group by the name of PropOrNot: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald...
And as for the first source, The Foreign Policy Research Institute's motto is:
"Bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests"
Ahhh yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity from Gawker is definitely the one we need to point out the consequences of inaccurate reporting on the internet.
I'm curious to know, how can one possibly like an interview where the subject dodges every inconvenient questions asked? It was calculated PR and victim narrative just as everything Wu does is, and if you want to get behind that as being "a good interview" then I have no reservations in calling bullshit on it. The likes of amimojo and yourself seem desperate to normalize such content on slashdot, whereas the majority of the audience sees it for the progressive wank-fest that it is.
The remainder of your post merely serves to indicate how hypocritical an deluded you've become. Accuse other people of ad-homs when you yourself have only slung insults from the start and never explained your position. Ahh right, I forget the sort of mental gymnastics that are possible when you've decided ahead of time that you're on the good side fighting the good fight. No need for objective appraisal of people / events, just keep pounding away with labels and ideology.
As charming is the faux concern is ("IT WILL LEAD YOU THE DARK SIDE" lololol), if you're really out to change people's minds then you'd be well advised to explain yourself instead of acting like some crazed Baptist preacher at the pulpit.
The fact that the mere mention of Wu completely nukes any capability for rational thought in your brain indicated I still have plenty of work to do.
I gave a factually accurate statement about why Wu isn't an interesting interviewee for slashdot or any other tech focused site. Despite the gnashing of teeth and the fact that you seem to view yourself as her personal bulldog, you didn't provide any refutation to what I said. Nor can you.
The bolded text says it all about who's being rational and who's an extremist with an axe to grind.
Oh dear, we seem to have a nutjob. What is it about people like you? As soon as you see "Zoe Quinn" or "Brianna Wu" your brain short circuits and you start babbling incoherent crap.
Nah. It really is OK to point out the rather large difference between interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on a site that's ostensibly "news for nerds". It's left as an exercise for you to determine which of these individuals should have something of interest to say on the collection of topics that fall under that banner.
Now serviscope, I can't help but notice you running around this thread lashing out at all the "nutjobs" who express dissatisfaction with the barrage of social justice fodder that's appeared on this site recently, and it isn't the first time you've done so. As I recall, you've shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of facts but heavy on finger-pointing and ideology. Who is the nutjob with an obsession here?
Some people really, really don't seem to like stories about women or education... More interviews would be good too. The recent ones with Stallman and Wu were interesting. Keep them coming.
I like you how casually put interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on the same footing. Really now Amimojo, maintaining the delusion that a failed mobile game developer who has taken up a new career as professional victim has done anything worthwhile in the tech community just to perpetuate her unearned e-celebrity status isn't going to lead to a good outcome for anyone. Aside from the extra cash in Wu's Patreon account, that is, which is I recall was brazenly linked to directly in the summary.
to the point that it includes anything various special snowflake SJW cliques don't like to hear. Even pointing out the absurdity of their arguments without slinging any insults is viewed as oppressive. EFF jumping on the "internet needs to be civilized" boat suggests they've jumped the shark instead.
Doing so is not censorship—it’s being part of the fight for an inclusive and speech-supporting Internet.
Yea, but what's more screwy in this case is that the 'bounce back' effect was actually accepted as a valid patent. C'mon, is that what qualifies for innovation worthy of protection nowadays? What a joke.
Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.
Don't they? Have YOU read the contract? Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it?
Indeed, contracts do have fine print for a reason. That reason is for high and mighty business thugs such as yourself to be able to dick over little guys without making them aware of it beforehand. It's pretty simple - Yahoo was caught trying to (quietly) weasel out of their responsibilities to avoid backlash for hosting speech that they realized would be unpopular with some people. A spineless move.
You'll have to excuse recoiledsnake. He's been singing the praises of the XBone's grand vision and customer appeal for weeks, so MS's recent policy reversal coupled with the head of the division getting shit-canned was a heavy blow. Around E3 he was making an endless stream of posts pumping the XBone which rose almost immediately to +4 or +5, and then eventually fell back down to troll status. Clearly this indicates an anti-MS conspiracy on slashdot.
Why exactly he cares so deeply that people acknowledge Ballmer's new role as temporary is beyond me. It's not like anyone is going to give a flying fuck what suit eventually settles into this position.
Why do games need to be backward compatible. It's not as if you will throw away your XBox360 when you buy an XBox One.
Because it's a pain in the ass to have to keep the old console hooked up / get it out of the closet for those occasions when you want to play an old game.
Yeah, yell, any drunken sailor that almost double the value of my investment in one year (you have to click on the button) is alright with me
The question is why. What has Yahoo actually done in the last year to justify a near doubling of their share price? Have they put out a new product that everyone loves which is making them gobs of money? Unless you consider canceling work-from-home and paying out a shitload of money for a half-assed content summarizing app stroke of genius...
I think Harrison Ford would actually be in complete agreement with you. I recall an interview with him where he was recounting his early career and how he eventually became a big name actor. Basically, in a minor role as a bus boy, he had been pulled aside by a movie exec and told that he didn't have the 'star power' required to make it in Hollywood. The exec cited another popular actor of the era and said that he was easily recognizable as a star, even in a similar minor role. Ford replied something like "I thought the audience was supposed to be seeing a bus boy, not a movie star".
Yea, I actually gave Apple too much credit by implying that these attributes were rolled into a single design patent. They were all distinct but asserted simultaneously against Samsung during the trial as a combination of design and utility patents.
Let me ask though, do you think that strengthens or weakens the validity of design patents? I mean, did you even look at the ornamental tablet design patent you're linking to above? Completely devoid of any specific or unique characteristics whatsoever.... just a drawing of a thin rectangular device with a screen, no buttons even.
Your post is the ejaculation of a frothing fanboy.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a petty jackass who posts link that don't say what you claim and then throws a tantrum when people point that out.
Look at the last 15 articles on the front page. These guys are pimping every article coming out of the verge, guardian, vice, recode and nbc. Only a couple of them have an actual submitter, and in each case it's "an anonymous reader". There are of course 10+ websites to choose from covering every one of these topics.
Enough with the leftist tech site circlejerk.
Exactly the kind of bullshit article I've come to expect from The Verge, as they continue to push far-left clickbait in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. They're approaching the level of BuzzFeed at this point. What's incredible is that anyone continues to pay attention to the ham-fisted Trump condemnations that are now the bread and butter of these publications, and apparently the only kind of article they're capable to producing. Online journalism has become so lazy it's almost unbelievable.
So people should dial down or outright suppress their criticisms because a possibility exists that some of their more overzealous followers will harass the target of that criticism? Sounds good Amimojo, I'll be waiting for you to decry the next witch hunt initiated by a professional SJW with many followers. Waiting. Patiently.
Problem is the "private property" of a college campus doesn't belong to a small subset of entitled students who've decided their feelings are more important than someone else's right to speak. The default setting is that people are allowed to speak freely, and any listener is free to refute them after hearing them out. This doesn't strengthen any case for safe spaces, it's just another bullshit argument on your part driven by social justice ideology.
That would be because Peter Bright is one the biggest Microsoft shills alive and has managed to cultivate a small army of fanboys that fawn over everything MS does while taking a dim view of their main competitor.
Since you're getting praise above for prolific commenting, I'd like to state the opposite - it's annoying and pathetic to see people who can't restrain themselves to simply stating their opinions succinctly and moving on with their day. Nope, it's ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that everyone in the thread with a 'wrong' opinion be corrected in every single instance, otherwise the racist alt-right bigots might ... GASP ... think they're winning. You spam around calling people out for a lack of decorum while showing none yourself. Slashdot ought to set a post limit to regulate this kind of behavior, which is reminiscent of a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum on twitter.
Seems likely they're also guilty of manipulating moderation when someone posts something critical of their management they don't want to hear. Take the comment thread linked below for example. When I first saw the parent post a few days ago, it was moderated at +3 or +4 insightful. Now it's at -1 flamebait while the boilerplate responses by whipslash are apparently worthy of +5.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I've actually more or less given up on public forums except for hackernews and a bit of reddit surfing (but not discussing). This is just another throwaway Google account after I deleted several /. accounts, all with excellent karma; I'm coming here less and less often, because the discussions have become too vitriolic - and I'm saying that as a Usenet veteran.
Hackernews is an extreme left Silicon Valley wankfest where, much like Ars Technica, they're very intolerant of any opinions viewed to be insufficiently progressive. You often hear the regulars chirping about how insightful the discussion is compared to so many other "toxic" websites, but this simply isn't supported by any objective appraisal of the commentary. Spending years living in an echo chamber distorts one's view of reality.
Take your concern trolling elsewhere.
As is Glenn Greenwald. Regarding the second set of "independent researchers", a group by the name of PropOrNot:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald...
And as for the first source, The Foreign Policy Research Institute's motto is:
"Bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests"
Ahhh yes, that bastion of journalistic integrity from Gawker is definitely the one we need to point out the consequences of inaccurate reporting on the internet.
I'm curious to know, how can one possibly like an interview where the subject dodges every inconvenient questions asked? It was calculated PR and victim narrative just as everything Wu does is, and if you want to get behind that as being "a good interview" then I have no reservations in calling bullshit on it. The likes of amimojo and yourself seem desperate to normalize such content on slashdot, whereas the majority of the audience sees it for the progressive wank-fest that it is.
The remainder of your post merely serves to indicate how hypocritical an deluded you've become. Accuse other people of ad-homs when you yourself have only slung insults from the start and never explained your position. Ahh right, I forget the sort of mental gymnastics that are possible when you've decided ahead of time that you're on the good side fighting the good fight. No need for objective appraisal of people / events, just keep pounding away with labels and ideology.
As charming is the faux concern is ("IT WILL LEAD YOU THE DARK SIDE" lololol), if you're really out to change people's minds then you'd be well advised to explain yourself instead of acting like some crazed Baptist preacher at the pulpit.
The fact that the mere mention of Wu completely nukes any capability for rational thought in your brain indicated I still have plenty of work to do.
I gave a factually accurate statement about why Wu isn't an interesting interviewee for slashdot or any other tech focused site. Despite the gnashing of teeth and the fact that you seem to view yourself as her personal bulldog, you didn't provide any refutation to what I said. Nor can you.
The bolded text says it all about who's being rational and who's an extremist with an axe to grind.
Oh dear, we seem to have a nutjob. What is it about people like you? As soon as you see "Zoe Quinn" or "Brianna Wu" your brain short circuits and you start babbling incoherent crap.
Nah. It really is OK to point out the rather large difference between interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on a site that's ostensibly "news for nerds". It's left as an exercise for you to determine which of these individuals should have something of interest to say on the collection of topics that fall under that banner.
Now serviscope, I can't help but notice you running around this thread lashing out at all the "nutjobs" who express dissatisfaction with the barrage of social justice fodder that's appeared on this site recently, and it isn't the first time you've done so. As I recall, you've shown yourself to be willfully ignorant of facts but heavy on finger-pointing and ideology. Who is the nutjob with an obsession here?
Some people really, really don't seem to like stories about women or education ... More interviews would be good too. The recent ones with Stallman and Wu were interesting. Keep them coming.
I like you how casually put interviewing Stallman and Brianna Wu on the same footing. Really now Amimojo, maintaining the delusion that a failed mobile game developer who has taken up a new career as professional victim has done anything worthwhile in the tech community just to perpetuate her unearned e-celebrity status isn't going to lead to a good outcome for anyone. Aside from the extra cash in Wu's Patreon account, that is, which is I recall was brazenly linked to directly in the summary.
And you can of course consult RPS for the first of Grayson's PR pieces as it is still up:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.co...
I see you're willfully misinformed about the TFYC incident also.
The response you're looking for concerning the positive PR Quinn received from Grayson has already been posted:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
But you already knew that, didn't you AntiMojo. By all means please continue to troll your own thread ...
Doing so is not censorship—it’s being part of the fight for an inclusive and speech-supporting Internet.
Yea, but what's more screwy in this case is that the 'bounce back' effect was actually accepted as a valid patent. C'mon, is that what qualifies for innovation worthy of protection nowadays? What a joke.
Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.
Don't they? Have YOU read the contract? Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it?
Indeed, contracts do have fine print for a reason. That reason is for high and mighty business thugs such as yourself to be able to dick over little guys without making them aware of it beforehand. It's pretty simple - Yahoo was caught trying to (quietly) weasel out of their responsibilities to avoid backlash for hosting speech that they realized would be unpopular with some people. A spineless move.
You'll have to excuse recoiledsnake. He's been singing the praises of the XBone's grand vision and customer appeal for weeks, so MS's recent policy reversal coupled with the head of the division getting shit-canned was a heavy blow. Around E3 he was making an endless stream of posts pumping the XBone which rose almost immediately to +4 or +5, and then eventually fell back down to troll status. Clearly this indicates an anti-MS conspiracy on slashdot.
Why exactly he cares so deeply that people acknowledge Ballmer's new role as temporary is beyond me. It's not like anyone is going to give a flying fuck what suit eventually settles into this position.
Why do games need to be backward compatible. It's not as if you will throw away your XBox360 when you buy an XBox One.
Because it's a pain in the ass to have to keep the old console hooked up / get it out of the closet for those occasions when you want to play an old game.
Yeah, yell, any drunken sailor that almost double the value of my investment in one year (you have to click on the button) is alright with me
The question is why. What has Yahoo actually done in the last year to justify a near doubling of their share price? Have they put out a new product that everyone loves which is making them gobs of money? Unless you consider canceling work-from-home and paying out a shitload of money for a half-assed content summarizing app stroke of genius ...
I think Harrison Ford would actually be in complete agreement with you. I recall an interview with him where he was recounting his early career and how he eventually became a big name actor. Basically, in a minor role as a bus boy, he had been pulled aside by a movie exec and told that he didn't have the 'star power' required to make it in Hollywood. The exec cited another popular actor of the era and said that he was easily recognizable as a star, even in a similar minor role. Ford replied something like "I thought the audience was supposed to be seeing a bus boy, not a movie star".
I managed to find part of the interview here:
http://www.biography.com/people/harrison-ford-9298701/videos
Relevant bit starts 40 seconds in, but unfortunately it does not include Ford's rebuttal to the exec.
Yea, I actually gave Apple too much credit by implying that these attributes were rolled into a single design patent. They were all distinct but asserted simultaneously against Samsung during the trial as a combination of design and utility patents.
Let me ask though, do you think that strengthens or weakens the validity of design patents? I mean, did you even look at the ornamental tablet design patent you're linking to above? Completely devoid of any specific or unique characteristics whatsoever .... just a drawing of a thin rectangular device with a screen, no buttons even.
Your post is the ejaculation of a frothing fanboy.