I gave you two links. One talked about passports the other one about education levels and income. You chose not to be exposed to information which contradicts your zealotly held beliefs.
Nope. I checked. How about coming back and posting those two links in your next reply:-D
Are all liberterians as stupid as you? I bet you are one of those people who call themselves liberterians because you are too ashamed to say you are a republican. Either way though you are a republitard. That's somebody who believes things that have no basis in reality.
Wow, you can't even find anything to say, so you just call me stupid. That's clever. I'll have to remember that technique. Anyway, no, I'm Libertarian. Sincere, real, Libertarian. Registered as one and everything.
Those are all results of conservative idealism. Josef Stalin was not a liberal. Pol Pot was not a liberal. These people were conservatives who were anti intellectual just like most republicans today.
Dude. Listen. Communism is a liberal political belief. What do you want? Really, do you want me to find a text book and point you to the page? Dude, I gave you a citation. That's what we do in academia. That's good enough for us. It should be goof enough for you.
So why did you bring it up then? You still haven't told me.
Actually, I did. It was one in a list of liberal political parties. That's all it was. I used it casually, and you blew up because you can't handle the idea that communism is a left-wing political party.
Here's the exact usage, "As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front."
See, all I did was to say that, in my experience, I've met more libertarians, who would be further to the right on economic issues, in IT than people who would be to the left in IT... Those parties are to the left.
You are a republitard. I made that name up by the way. A republitard is somebody who believes things that are factually wrong and can easily be demonstrated to be so. A republitard refuses to absorb any information which contradicts their rigidly held beliefs. I think that fits you perfectly.
Which beliefs are these? Your incoherent prattle has done nothing to sway me in any way. Do you think that calling me names is really a valid technique to change my opinion? Do you think that that makes you sound well educated?
I am mad at you for being a republitard. I am mad at you because you and republitards like you are a source of shame and embarassment for my country. People like you give all americans a bad name. few rotten apples and all that. It is because of you and your ilk that this country is where it is.
Wait, wait, wait... So, you're saying that you can't cite anything that I've done.
While we're at it, lets analyze a few of those "conservative" ideals that you were bandying about (not that I'm a conservative, I'm in the middle).
You're mad at me, supposedly, because of my political orientation. You really want me to just shut up and die because of it that's:
Bigotted
Censorship
Though-policing
I'm sure that you get the idea.
All of this intolerance that you cite as a consequence of the conservative ideals that you supposedly rail against, and yet, you're going to tell me that you're a liberal, and I'm a conservative, and that you're for the tolerance that you can't seem to extend to me.
Seriously, I'm a busy man. Why are you wasting my time? You're not listening to anything that I've said. You're not even making sense. You're ignoring all of the strong arguments that I've made against you and inserting strawmen in their place. If you can't win the argument, you should just admit it to yourself and pack it in. Really
Link. One link. Education was never mentioned. Ownership of passports was, but that doesn't say much about education.
and now went back into your dream world where the republican/fascist are for less taxes and want to cut spending.
Those facets of the Republican political agenda never entered this conversation, neither did my personal political orientation (I might have mentioned that I'm Libertarian at some point, but it's never really been a focus. Anyway, your idea that I'm Republican is way off.)
The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are.
See the above. Anyway, all I said, really, was that I wanted fewer purely political articles. You decided that the reason for that was because I disagreed with the liberal slant of the article. I actually like Stephen Colbert quite a bit. I'd just rather go back to the Slashdot that was predominantly about tech.
The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are. Even a cursory study of republican administrations shows that they don't shrink the govt and yet you continue to believe that they do. In fact the govt ran shrank under the clinton administration and grew under the bush administration.
Boy, you're just making up stuff now. I already said that I'm Libertarian. If it matters at all. Apparently it doesn't
As for communism why even bring it up? I didn't bring up fascism when talking about republicans why do you bring up communism when talking about democrats?
I actually never spoke about democrats at all. I spoke about liberalism and listed a handful of liberal ideas. The socialist party is actually a significant influence in the town in which I currently reside, which, by the way, prints its own currency. The "Ithaca Hour."
According to you communism is a liberal idea well crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, genocide are conservative ideas.
You really didn't read my link, did you. Communism is a liberal idea. That's just life man. All of those other things, those are acts. The communist party is a liberal political party. Look it up. I can back my stuff from text books. You're just trying to find inflamatory words. Then again, we already went over this. Have fun with your straw man. I've already disarmed this one. Reiterating it really won't help your already weak case.
I didn't bring those up and yet you reflexively reached for the communist word.
Goodness. I just listed a political party. Get over it. You could have said fascist. Fascist is the only correct word to use in the place where I used Communist. Not genocide... yadda yadda. This is a political party. Even so, I didn't bring it up for shock value. You're still beating your strawman.
That tells me everything I need to know about you.
I don't think you needed much since you made up most of it.
There is only word that describes people like you: Republitard.
Hahaha. You're so smart to be able to turn "republican" into "republitard." Where did you come up with that clever one? Anyway, I'm very well educated, and, again, I'm not Republican. You just decided that I was because you wanted to fight.
So, what are you mad at me for again? Aside from being Republican... which I'm not.
If you read the spectrum, you would realize that these are completely different ideals, and that I never made the inference. You jumped on my statement that communism is a liberal ideal. What can I say, you are unwilling to accept this. You feel that I am making an attack on you because you are uncomfortable with the idea that you're liberal, and that communism is extreme liberalism.
Your personal insecurities have nothing to do with what I was saying. You can leave them out of this discussion.
Seriously, you decided that that's what I was saying, and drew the lines to absurd ends so you could feel that you won the argument. The world that I was speaking in is the world that everyone speaks in. It's the one that's taught in high school civics classes, and the one that is taught in modern political science classrooms.
I'm not expert on the topic, I never claimed to be, but even an amatueresque understanding of the topic yields these rather obvious facts. Perhaps, again, you are "willfully ignorant," since you'd rather feel that Communists are bad guys off in China and Cuba, and ones that we beat when the Berlin Wall came down.
All of that, but you'll be damned if we don't push taxes up and to bolster welfare programs.
Anyway. The very fact that you have to change what I have said demonstrates that you've lost this argument. I'll continue to post back about your strawman argument until you stop beating on that drum, so I guess that this could take a while unless you add some other rhetorical flaw to your repetoire.
I think that I've clarified that communist issue for you a number of times.
I don't know if you're communist, are you?
Also, you can give me the line of leading a horse to water all you want. You cited statistics that you made up and then gave a kind of thin study to back it up.
I don't need to argue this point with you, since it is obvious that you will be swayed by nothing. I could turn your little "I gave you the search..." mumbling back on you, and point out that I sent you a link to the political spectrum that demonstrates my point, and that I was merely pointing out communism because it is a liberal political ideal. If you want to take it as a politically charged word, then you can.
I suppose that I can turn your little point about being willfully ignorant back on you as well.
Sorry, it fired me up when you were rude to me about the search engine results and called me willfully ignorant, but I shouldn't return in kind, because I feel that it lacks class.
The farthest left is communism, the farthest right is fascism.
See, it's not just "politically charged words," it's "real political parties." I'm not saying "communist" to fire people up, I'm saying it because it's fact. You, however, were just looking for charged words.
I don't consider myself willfully ignorant. I become annoyed when people don't cite statistics that they claim, and so, asked for a citation in a manner that I considered to be polite.
The very fact that people are citing Stewart's action places Colbert in his shadow. I think that both guys are great, and Colbert is certainly making a name for himself, but to really stand out, he has to do something that Stewart hasn't done. Even if he is doing things that Stewart did, but better (and, hey, perhaps he is), The Colbert Report and this are just too close to what Jon Stewart has done to "define" the guy.
The guy is (hopefully) not looking for the eulogy at his funeral to read something like, "Stephen Colbert... he did everything that Jon Stewart did... only better."
Something will rip through OSX. It may not harm much, but the news to a lot of users is that it could happen at all.
The real shocker will be when most Linux users get some nasty virus. It won't have to damage much.
Simply put, viruses happen. That's life. Don't protect yourself, it's like sex without a condom. It's not that its usually unsafe, it's just that the one time it gets you, you end up with some terrible disease (and, if any future girlfriends read this, I'd just like to note that this hasn't happened to me).
At any rate. Saying that you're immune to viruses because you run OSX or Linux is fanboyism. You're immune because the OS is obscure, not because it's super-impossible for a virus to attack it. Linux may be better on this front (one can't really say it has a better track record, because it has a smaller user base. If you want to hear about damage done in *ix, ask someone about sendmail or NFS exploits, or httpd, or telnet, or xdmcp.)
I used to fix problems with files on my old company's fileserver (with permissions that I didn't have) through NFS via Linux.
Perhaps, though, honestly, I feel that the site has become kind of watered down, and that the absence of such articles would bring it to a more concentrated strength. I wouldn't mind it, except that I feel that the presence of these articles change the focus group of the site. Filtering them out wouldn't do what I want, you see. I want the hardcore technophiles to hammer at the fun articles, and feel that this sort of stuff makes the signal to noise ratio much lower.
Perhaps you're right though. There are plenty of people with 5 digit and lower UIDs who seem to agree with you. I'm just not one of them. If it's any consolation, it doesn't seem that anything is as it was in the olden-golden days, (not that a guy in his 20's can claim much seniority on anyone), but perhaps at the end of this confusion, the net will be better.
One has to remember that chat is different... forums are different... It's all different. Not necessarily better, but perhaps it's my interest that is waning, not so much the quality of the medium. Not in technology mind you. I hammer away at a few papers a day, bury my nose in books, and am working on 3 research projects at the moment (and, yes, my associates think that this pace will kill me eventually, quite literally).
Eh, oh well. I probably should spend less time on such things anyway, and more time sleeping or something:-D
That's my interpretation as well. They are showing off the laws of physics. I doubt that they were somehow failing to obey them, beating and humiliating them, then showing the whole world how they "flouted" the laws of physics.
That's kind of what I meant. Jon Stewart couldn't have done that to the Oscars, and Stephen couldn't have done that in this case. He had gutz, and the events are comparable, but they aren't the same.
Oh yeah. I was also going to mention "Your Rights Online." That's also been another section that gets that tired "well, this is the politics section," line.
It's "Your Rights Online," not "Your Rights... Presented Online."
Get it? If it hasn't anything to do with the Internet, it doesn't belong there.
Let me go ahead and follow up on this, and then finish some experiments.
There is a politics section, but there is a lot of politics in technology. That doesn't make the whole of politics have a relationship to tech. Philip Zimmerman and Kevin Mitnick might have a thing or two to say about how technology relates to politics. This article, does not. Mitnick probably talked a bit about this on Coast to Coast AM tonight, when he was talking with, of all people, Steve Wozniak.
I tried to find the studies that you cite, but could not find them in Google. Would you care to share a source. I know that I foe'd you a while ago, but, this has nothing to do with that. I'm sure that a study has been done, and I cannot find it.
As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front.
DefCon did have an event where they all run off into the desert and fired off their guns... I guess that they are Democrats... except when it comes to gun control.
ESR certainly seems to like guns. He advocated carrying them on airplanes to fight would be hijackers on an emailing list that I was a member of. He definitely isn't a Democrat. Lots of people here like him though.
The September 11 attacks were the first time that Slashdot really seemed to be very much at all about politics, and the story wasn't even posted right away (I was watching on the news, and this was years ago, but, at least, I seem to remember it that way, perhaps you'll go back and prove me wrong).
Before this, people were complaining that Slashdot had lost its initial focus (bear in mind, this is 5 years ago). Kuro5hin.org was started. K5 was initially about tech, but the articles are reader selected. You got REAL whack-jobs on K5. Doubt it? Try this, an article was FP'd over there that criticized the media for praising the police in NYC in the fallout of the attacks because police are, "the sworn enemy of the black man." No lie.
When JonKatz was posting a column to the site, it seemed an attempt to broaden the site a bit. There was a backlash. Many readers didn't care for it, and, well, he doesn't post a column any more. The content? Well, Voices From the Hellmouth is probably his best known work. You could, perhaps, compare how that relates to content related to technology, and where it sits politically, and extrapolate a bit to see how that relates to "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Now, try the same with this.
To come on and tell me that this has been going on for years on Slashdot is merely to indicate how much the site has changed. When I signed up the majority of articles were about tech and pro-open source. The complaining that got people fired up initially for K5 wasn't politics... it was that it seemed that lots of managers and business people were becoming interested in Slashdot, and perhaps a bit of the politics that seeped in with the afforementioned column. Oh, and talking about stock prices. It seemed that a lot of the readership wanted to talk about stock prices when "insider info" from Slashdot seemed a good way to get info regarding RedHat's stock (back when you could buy it cheap and become a millionaire if you wrote a Linux utility that found its way into the distribution).
So, no, you're wrong. I don't want to make you feel bad. I don't want to call you out, but you're just wrong. I want to talk about open source, and software, and technology. I like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with what this site is about, or, at least, what it was about when I joined.
Need a bit more feedback on it? Read the article where the big Taco himself asked what people wanted out of Slashdot. Read a few of his replies.
Colbert never could have pwned that event like Jon pwned Crossfire. I find the two events to be a little similar, but, simply put, Colbert knew that he couldn't flip the crowd like Jon did, and he didn't even try. That's why he stuck to jabbing at the media's engagement of the President, rather than at the President, and why he, really, only made a couple little jabs, with a lot of material in between (that one joke took 7.5 minutes, and really didn't say anything very harsh directly to the people that he was criticizing).
So, essentially, no, it wasn't Jon doing Crossfire. It was a poke. If this were his Crossfire, he'd have had the White House in an out of control situation that they didn't know how to take care of. He didn't do that and it's obvious that he didn't try.
Either would have done it. He did pretty much directly insult the entire press, the president, and everyone what the event supposedly honored (save 1 or 2 people). It's kind of expected to be grilled a bit.
Even so, option three is that nobody cares about these speeches anwyay. Did anyone reading this article watch as second of last year's White House Correspondent's Dinner? I know that I didn't.
Perhaps it was the blurriness of the video that I watched, but Colbert didn't seem to meet with too much dissapproval. He didn't get roaracious laughter, but it wasn't his best work. It was funny at parts, but I was expecting better, given his work on television. Also, several of the targets of his jokes laughed in what appeared to be a sincerely appreciative manner.
Addressing Iraq... I think that everyone knew that he would do that when they let him on. Seriously, I don't think that anybody thought that he wouldn't.
He took a swing, but it was an expected swing, and not so offensive that anybody would have done much about it. Honestly, I think that he held back somewhat, given that he had to go only so far as good taste would have allowed. He couldn't pwn the president on his own turf like Jon Stewart did with Crossfire. Not only would it not work, but it would have been poorly received... even in the absence of some ubar police state.
Simply put, it wasn't as funny as I expected, it was as biting as I would have expected. It didn't get mass coverage because things like this never get mass coverage. I wouldn't have expected it to, though, perhaps the press corps would have felt less like airing it after he ripped into them.
Also, I don't really see the media being silent on Iraq. Everyone in the US knows about the prison in Guantanamo, everyone hates the war in Iraq. I think that he overexaggerated his point on this front, trying to make up for shortcomings on other fronts that he couldn't attack in such a face-forward manner. It seems like I'm surrounded by people who hate the war in Iraq. I'm not saying that I agree with it, I just see that fairly few outlets are saying anything positive about it.
Anyway, it was as hard pitch as it was going to get, but still pretty soft pitch. Well played. I liked it, I wasn't dissapointed, but the conspiracy theorists on Slashdot are flying too far in every direction.
Also. Seriously. This had NOTHING to do with "News for Nerds." Even if it is "Stuff that Matters," even if I did want to see it. If my voice is to be heard at all, let me say that I prefer articles that stick to technology. Technology is never mentioned in this article. I know that there is "politics.slashdot.org," but I tend to think that what belongs there are articles about politics... as it relates to thinks that "nerds" care about (and you folks saying that there are different types of geeks... well, feh).
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, ok.
Then why is everyone complaining that it's not being aired?
Those political stories belong here because they have some technical content.
This had none.
Hey, turn this into a political site if you want. It'll be great.
As for being "enlightened," all I did was say, "boy, it would be interesting it Slashdot was still on topic."
Nope. I checked. How about coming back and posting those two links in your next reply
Are all liberterians as stupid as you? I bet you are one of those people who call themselves liberterians because you are too ashamed to say you are a republican. Either way though you are a republitard. That's somebody who believes things that have no basis in reality.
Wow, you can't even find anything to say, so you just call me stupid. That's clever. I'll have to remember that technique. Anyway, no, I'm Libertarian. Sincere, real, Libertarian. Registered as one and everything.
Those are all results of conservative idealism. Josef Stalin was not a liberal. Pol Pot was not a liberal. These people were conservatives who were anti intellectual just like most republicans today.
Dude. Listen. Communism is a liberal political belief. What do you want? Really, do you want me to find a text book and point you to the page? Dude, I gave you a citation. That's what we do in academia. That's good enough for us. It should be goof enough for you.
So why did you bring it up then? You still haven't told me.
Actually, I did. It was one in a list of liberal political parties. That's all it was. I used it casually, and you blew up because you can't handle the idea that communism is a left-wing political party.
Here's the exact usage, "As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front."
See, all I did was to say that, in my experience, I've met more libertarians, who would be further to the right on economic issues, in IT than people who would be to the left in IT... Those parties are to the left.
You are a republitard. I made that name up by the way. A republitard is somebody who believes things that are factually wrong and can easily be demonstrated to be so. A republitard refuses to absorb any information which contradicts their rigidly held beliefs. I think that fits you perfectly.
Which beliefs are these? Your incoherent prattle has done nothing to sway me in any way. Do you think that calling me names is really a valid technique to change my opinion? Do you think that that makes you sound well educated?
I am mad at you for being a republitard. I am mad at you because you and republitards like you are a source of shame and embarassment for my country. People like you give all americans a bad name. few rotten apples and all that. It is because of you and your ilk that this country is where it is.
Wait, wait, wait... So, you're saying that you can't cite anything that I've done.
While we're at it, lets analyze a few of those "conservative" ideals that you were bandying about (not that I'm a conservative, I'm in the middle).
You're mad at me, supposedly, because of my political orientation. You really want me to just shut up and die because of it that's:
I'm sure that you get the idea.
All of this intolerance that you cite as a consequence of the conservative ideals that you supposedly rail against, and yet, you're going to tell me that you're a liberal, and I'm a conservative, and that you're for the tolerance that you can't seem to extend to me.
Seriously, I'm a busy man. Why are you wasting my time? You're not listening to anything that I've said. You're not even making sense. You're ignoring all of the strong arguments that I've made against you and inserting strawmen in their place. If you can't win the argument, you should just admit it to yourself and pack it in. Really
SO you have chosen to ignore the links I sent you
Link. One link. Education was never mentioned. Ownership of passports was, but that doesn't say much about education.
and now went back into your dream world where the republican/fascist are for less taxes and want to cut spending.
Those facets of the Republican political agenda never entered this conversation, neither did my personal political orientation (I might have mentioned that I'm Libertarian at some point, but it's never really been a focus. Anyway, your idea that I'm Republican is way off.)
The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are.
See the above. Anyway, all I said, really, was that I wanted fewer purely political articles. You decided that the reason for that was because I disagreed with the liberal slant of the article. I actually like Stephen Colbert quite a bit. I'd just rather go back to the Slashdot that was predominantly about tech.
The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are. Even a cursory study of republican administrations shows that they don't shrink the govt and yet you continue to believe that they do. In fact the govt ran shrank under the clinton administration and grew under the bush administration.
Boy, you're just making up stuff now. I already said that I'm Libertarian. If it matters at all. Apparently it doesn't
As for communism why even bring it up? I didn't bring up fascism when talking about republicans why do you bring up communism when talking about democrats?
I actually never spoke about democrats at all. I spoke about liberalism and listed a handful of liberal ideas. The socialist party is actually a significant influence in the town in which I currently reside, which, by the way, prints its own currency. The "Ithaca Hour."
According to you communism is a liberal idea well crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, genocide are conservative ideas.
You really didn't read my link, did you. Communism is a liberal idea. That's just life man. All of those other things, those are acts. The communist party is a liberal political party. Look it up. I can back my stuff from text books. You're just trying to find inflamatory words. Then again, we already went over this. Have fun with your straw man. I've already disarmed this one. Reiterating it really won't help your already weak case.
I didn't bring those up and yet you reflexively reached for the communist word.
Goodness. I just listed a political party. Get over it. You could have said fascist. Fascist is the only correct word to use in the place where I used Communist. Not genocide... yadda yadda. This is a political party. Even so, I didn't bring it up for shock value. You're still beating your strawman.
That tells me everything I need to know about you.
I don't think you needed much since you made up most of it.
There is only word that describes people like you: Republitard.
Hahaha. You're so smart to be able to turn "republican" into "republitard." Where did you come up with that clever one? Anyway, I'm very well educated, and, again, I'm not Republican. You just decided that I was because you wanted to fight.
So, what are you mad at me for again? Aside from being Republican... which I'm not.
"In my world."
No.
If you read the spectrum, you would realize that these are completely different ideals, and that I never made the inference. You jumped on my statement that communism is a liberal ideal. What can I say, you are unwilling to accept this. You feel that I am making an attack on you because you are uncomfortable with the idea that you're liberal, and that communism is extreme liberalism.
Your personal insecurities have nothing to do with what I was saying. You can leave them out of this discussion.
Seriously, you decided that that's what I was saying, and drew the lines to absurd ends so you could feel that you won the argument. The world that I was speaking in is the world that everyone speaks in. It's the one that's taught in high school civics classes, and the one that is taught in modern political science classrooms.
I'm not expert on the topic, I never claimed to be, but even an amatueresque understanding of the topic yields these rather obvious facts. Perhaps, again, you are "willfully ignorant," since you'd rather feel that Communists are bad guys off in China and Cuba, and ones that we beat when the Berlin Wall came down.
All of that, but you'll be damned if we don't push taxes up and to bolster welfare programs.
Anyway. The very fact that you have to change what I have said demonstrates that you've lost this argument. I'll continue to post back about your strawman argument until you stop beating on that drum, so I guess that this could take a while unless you add some other rhetorical flaw to your repetoire.
I think that I've clarified that communist issue for you a number of times.
I don't know if you're communist, are you?
Also, you can give me the line of leading a horse to water all you want. You cited statistics that you made up and then gave a kind of thin study to back it up.
I don't need to argue this point with you, since it is obvious that you will be swayed by nothing. I could turn your little "I gave you the search..." mumbling back on you, and point out that I sent you a link to the political spectrum that demonstrates my point, and that I was merely pointing out communism because it is a liberal political ideal. If you want to take it as a politically charged word, then you can.
I suppose that I can turn your little point about being willfully ignorant back on you as well.
Sorry, it fired me up when you were rude to me about the search engine results and called me willfully ignorant, but I shouldn't return in kind, because I feel that it lacks class.
What I meant was.
You are citing actions. I was citing parties.
See, Communism really is at the far left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
Here, here's the "spectrum," or "ruler.
The farthest left is communism, the farthest right is fascism.
See, it's not just "politically charged words," it's "real political parties." I'm not saying "communist" to fire people up, I'm saying it because it's fact. You, however, were just looking for charged words.
No, ethnic clensing and mass murder are actions.
Communism is a political party.
Did you never see a political compass in high school, or a political ruler?
I bow to your brilliance. Truely, I am humbled. You must be a professor of political science I take it.
I don't consider myself willfully ignorant. I become annoyed when people don't cite statistics that they claim, and so, asked for a citation in a manner that I considered to be polite.
Wow, I'm intellectually bankrupt, yet you can't say anything coherent.
Lets look at those political articles you cite. Oh, most of them have something to do with computers, whereas this doesn't.
"You, whiny, intellectually-bankrupt tool." (I fixed that comma for you, you moron.)
The very fact that people are citing Stewart's action places Colbert in his shadow. I think that both guys are great, and Colbert is certainly making a name for himself, but to really stand out, he has to do something that Stewart hasn't done. Even if he is doing things that Stewart did, but better (and, hey, perhaps he is), The Colbert Report and this are just too close to what Jon Stewart has done to "define" the guy.
The guy is (hopefully) not looking for the eulogy at his funeral to read something like, "Stephen Colbert... he did everything that Jon Stewart did... only better."
Just wait.
Something will rip through OSX. It may not harm much, but the news to a lot of users is that it could happen at all.
The real shocker will be when most Linux users get some nasty virus. It won't have to damage much.
Simply put, viruses happen. That's life. Don't protect yourself, it's like sex without a condom. It's not that its usually unsafe, it's just that the one time it gets you, you end up with some terrible disease (and, if any future girlfriends read this, I'd just like to note that this hasn't happened to me).
At any rate. Saying that you're immune to viruses because you run OSX or Linux is fanboyism. You're immune because the OS is obscure, not because it's super-impossible for a virus to attack it. Linux may be better on this front (one can't really say it has a better track record, because it has a smaller user base. If you want to hear about damage done in *ix, ask someone about sendmail or NFS exploits, or httpd, or telnet, or xdmcp.)
I used to fix problems with files on my old company's fileserver (with permissions that I didn't have) through NFS via Linux.
Perhaps, though, honestly, I feel that the site has become kind of watered down, and that the absence of such articles would bring it to a more concentrated strength. I wouldn't mind it, except that I feel that the presence of these articles change the focus group of the site. Filtering them out wouldn't do what I want, you see. I want the hardcore technophiles to hammer at the fun articles, and feel that this sort of stuff makes the signal to noise ratio much lower.
:-D
Perhaps you're right though. There are plenty of people with 5 digit and lower UIDs who seem to agree with you. I'm just not one of them. If it's any consolation, it doesn't seem that anything is as it was in the olden-golden days, (not that a guy in his 20's can claim much seniority on anyone), but perhaps at the end of this confusion, the net will be better.
One has to remember that chat is different... forums are different... It's all different. Not necessarily better, but perhaps it's my interest that is waning, not so much the quality of the medium. Not in technology mind you. I hammer away at a few papers a day, bury my nose in books, and am working on 3 research projects at the moment (and, yes, my associates think that this pace will kill me eventually, quite literally).
Eh, oh well. I probably should spend less time on such things anyway, and more time sleeping or something
Oh yeah. My search terms were education and liberalism.
Also, that article doesn't mention education at all.
Dude. Communism is an extreme of fiduciary liberalism. I'm not "labeling" anyone, I'm listing a political party, not painting someone negatively.
I don't care one way or another if people are communist.
That's my interpretation as well. They are showing off the laws of physics. I doubt that they were somehow failing to obey them, beating and humiliating them, then showing the whole world how they "flouted" the laws of physics.
Stupid gravity. Take that!
That's kind of what I meant. Jon Stewart couldn't have done that to the Oscars, and Stephen couldn't have done that in this case. He had gutz, and the events are comparable, but they aren't the same.
Oh yeah. I was also going to mention "Your Rights Online." That's also been another section that gets that tired "well, this is the politics section," line.
It's "Your Rights Online," not "Your Rights... Presented Online."
Get it? If it hasn't anything to do with the Internet, it doesn't belong there.
Let me go ahead and follow up on this, and then finish some experiments.
There is a politics section, but there is a lot of politics in technology. That doesn't make the whole of politics have a relationship to tech. Philip Zimmerman and Kevin Mitnick might have a thing or two to say about how technology relates to politics. This article, does not. Mitnick probably talked a bit about this on Coast to Coast AM tonight, when he was talking with, of all people, Steve Wozniak.
I tried to find the studies that you cite, but could not find them in Google. Would you care to share a source. I know that I foe'd you a while ago, but, this has nothing to do with that. I'm sure that a study has been done, and I cannot find it.
As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front.
DefCon did have an event where they all run off into the desert and fired off their guns... I guess that they are Democrats... except when it comes to gun control.
ESR certainly seems to like guns. He advocated carrying them on airplanes to fight would be hijackers on an emailing list that I was a member of. He definitely isn't a Democrat. Lots of people here like him though.
This is all just anecdotal though.
Hi,
The September 11 attacks were the first time that Slashdot really seemed to be very much at all about politics, and the story wasn't even posted right away (I was watching on the news, and this was years ago, but, at least, I seem to remember it that way, perhaps you'll go back and prove me wrong).
Before this, people were complaining that Slashdot had lost its initial focus (bear in mind, this is 5 years ago). Kuro5hin.org was started. K5 was initially about tech, but the articles are reader selected. You got REAL whack-jobs on K5. Doubt it? Try this, an article was FP'd over there that criticized the media for praising the police in NYC in the fallout of the attacks because police are, "the sworn enemy of the black man." No lie.
When JonKatz was posting a column to the site, it seemed an attempt to broaden the site a bit. There was a backlash. Many readers didn't care for it, and, well, he doesn't post a column any more. The content? Well, Voices From the Hellmouth is probably his best known work. You could, perhaps, compare how that relates to content related to technology, and where it sits politically, and extrapolate a bit to see how that relates to "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Now, try the same with this.
To come on and tell me that this has been going on for years on Slashdot is merely to indicate how much the site has changed. When I signed up the majority of articles were about tech and pro-open source. The complaining that got people fired up initially for K5 wasn't politics... it was that it seemed that lots of managers and business people were becoming interested in Slashdot, and perhaps a bit of the politics that seeped in with the afforementioned column. Oh, and talking about stock prices. It seemed that a lot of the readership wanted to talk about stock prices when "insider info" from Slashdot seemed a good way to get info regarding RedHat's stock (back when you could buy it cheap and become a millionaire if you wrote a Linux utility that found its way into the distribution).
So, no, you're wrong. I don't want to make you feel bad. I don't want to call you out, but you're just wrong. I want to talk about open source, and software, and technology. I like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with what this site is about, or, at least, what it was about when I joined.
Need a bit more feedback on it? Read the article where the big Taco himself asked what people wanted out of Slashdot. Read a few of his replies.
Colbert never could have pwned that event like Jon pwned Crossfire. I find the two events to be a little similar, but, simply put, Colbert knew that he couldn't flip the crowd like Jon did, and he didn't even try. That's why he stuck to jabbing at the media's engagement of the President, rather than at the President, and why he, really, only made a couple little jabs, with a lot of material in between (that one joke took 7.5 minutes, and really didn't say anything very harsh directly to the people that he was criticizing).
So, essentially, no, it wasn't Jon doing Crossfire. It was a poke. If this were his Crossfire, he'd have had the White House in an out of control situation that they didn't know how to take care of. He didn't do that and it's obvious that he didn't try.
Either would have done it. He did pretty much directly insult the entire press, the president, and everyone what the event supposedly honored (save 1 or 2 people). It's kind of expected to be grilled a bit.
Even so, option three is that nobody cares about these speeches anwyay. Did anyone reading this article watch as second of last year's White House Correspondent's Dinner? I know that I didn't.
Perhaps it was the blurriness of the video that I watched, but Colbert didn't seem to meet with too much dissapproval. He didn't get roaracious laughter, but it wasn't his best work. It was funny at parts, but I was expecting better, given his work on television. Also, several of the targets of his jokes laughed in what appeared to be a sincerely appreciative manner.
Addressing Iraq... I think that everyone knew that he would do that when they let him on. Seriously, I don't think that anybody thought that he wouldn't.
He took a swing, but it was an expected swing, and not so offensive that anybody would have done much about it. Honestly, I think that he held back somewhat, given that he had to go only so far as good taste would have allowed. He couldn't pwn the president on his own turf like Jon Stewart did with Crossfire. Not only would it not work, but it would have been poorly received... even in the absence of some ubar police state.
Simply put, it wasn't as funny as I expected, it was as biting as I would have expected. It didn't get mass coverage because things like this never get mass coverage. I wouldn't have expected it to, though, perhaps the press corps would have felt less like airing it after he ripped into them.
Also, I don't really see the media being silent on Iraq. Everyone in the US knows about the prison in Guantanamo, everyone hates the war in Iraq. I think that he overexaggerated his point on this front, trying to make up for shortcomings on other fronts that he couldn't attack in such a face-forward manner. It seems like I'm surrounded by people who hate the war in Iraq. I'm not saying that I agree with it, I just see that fairly few outlets are saying anything positive about it.
Anyway, it was as hard pitch as it was going to get, but still pretty soft pitch. Well played. I liked it, I wasn't dissapointed, but the conspiracy theorists on Slashdot are flying too far in every direction.
Also. Seriously. This had NOTHING to do with "News for Nerds." Even if it is "Stuff that Matters," even if I did want to see it. If my voice is to be heard at all, let me say that I prefer articles that stick to technology. Technology is never mentioned in this article. I know that there is "politics.slashdot.org," but I tend to think that what belongs there are articles about politics... as it relates to thinks that "nerds" care about (and you folks saying that there are different types of geeks... well, feh).