It is quite simple. By participating, you encourage the activity. The activity is harmful. So don't participate or encourage others to. This isn't brain surgery.
First, it is poll, not pool (easy mistake for a non-native speaker, no worries). Second, we do not enlighten people that the polls are worse than merely invalid (they actually have negative value) when we encourage them to participate as Roblimo did. Third, you are wrong that complaining is worse than participating. It is abundantly clear that participation only encourages this negatively valued activity more, while complaining certainly does make a difference. Education is the key.
The ABC show Sports Night was excellent a couple of weeks ago... they shows an Internet poll and the spamming of it (I think they based it on what I did to the MLB All-Star poll in July... heh heh). Hopefully it did something to show how completely stupid these polls are. They even said on the show that they fixed the poll with a Perl program, so they get extra points.
Of course he gets it. He has been on this case for more than four years. He has been hearing about programming interfaces for longer than most Slashdot readers. His well-publicized reactions and statements in the courtroom on this leg of the case are clear evidence that he gets it; the finding of fact is mere confirmation of it.
How about some intellectual honesty for a change? Why not just ignore a poll that has absolutely no validity of any sort? By advocating the voting in it, you are just condoning this plague on modern society. You may say, "well, it doesn't matter, everyone knows it is invalid, so who cares?" Well, obsiouyl you guys do, or you wouldn't bother voting in it. Obviously CNN does, or they wouldn't bother conducting this "poll" in the first place. The only proper response to such polls is to ignore them or to complain about them. Once again, it is called intellectual honesty.
Jeez, who cares? At least, why should anyone care about reading this on Slashdot? It has nothing to do with ANYTHING on this site. I realize without stories like this you would cease to exist, but I suggest another venue for your tiresome missives.
No, no legal recourse can be taken, I think. Unless they signed a legal document or something promising they were telling the truth. You're allowed to lie to MTV in this country.:)
Objectivity is not false. Pure objectivity is false. Objectivity comes in gradations, like most things. Objectivity in journalism is doing your best to be impartial and tell what is verifiable fact. Of course biases come into play. You have to choose what facts are important, and in what order they should be introduced, and what part of the story to focus on, and even what stories to do in the first place and where to put them.
But there is such a thing as objectivity in journalism, and it is a virtue, one that few people know anything about anymore. More's the pity.
# This "Community Journalism" is going to be the next big thing. # Just remember that it all started here on/.
Nonsense. This kind of thing has been going on about as long as journalism has been going on. What is unique about this, aside from the fact that you can slap two bytes in front of it so IBM can brand it as "e-journalism"?
Re:What most Xtians haven't bothered to realize
on
Jesux, Hoax Confirmed
·
· Score: 2
This is patently false. The Greek New Testament we have today has more reliability as authentic than any ancient other writing, period. The second best is the Iliad, with 1000 years between its writing and our copies of it, and several hundred copies in existence. The Greek NT has just a couple hundred years of difference (with fragments separated by less than one hundred years), and several thousand copies in existence.
And when a new translation comes out (like the NASB, RSV, etc.) it is translated directly from this work, which all historians and paleographers and textual critics know to be very reliable.
There really is no solid footing to say what you've said.
You don't have to believe the Bible. But it is simply wrong to state that our copies of today are not reliable copies of the original text. Feel free to do some research on the subject. Metzger, Bruce M., "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration", Oxford (1991) is an excellent book on the subject.
Well, let me say that oppression of homosexual people pisses me off. But you can't reasonably ask Christians to not think homosexuality is a sin. It is right there in the Bible. I am not here to debate the issue; I ask that Christians be tolerant of homosexuals (and bisexuals), and that people who vehemently disagree with the views of Christians be tolerant of them. What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
I know you, and others, probably lash out because of the mistreatment you've received. Life sucks sometimes. I guess there is no answer. I'll make you a deal: if you are going to bomb my house, just give me enough warning so I can fire my bombs at you before yours hit.
Lawyers? For what?? Jeez. Yes, Roblimo did seem a bit... nasty. But certainly not as bad as your average flame. As to the password... there apparently is a password posted on the Jesux site. It's still there, too, I believe.
Actually, I thought Rob was just trying to make the Jesux people mad so they would give him what he wanted. You know, the old bad cop routine. "You call yourself a gansta? You couldn't even hold a gun, let alone shoot one!" "Naw, man, I capped the sucka!"
OK, so you cannot read, so I will spell it out. It says all NEW code would be licensed under the CSPL. The explanation page even emphasized this. Code that was already licensed under another license would not be changed. Of course, the thing doesn't exist and never would... but come on, just get a clue, please. If not for your sake, then think of the children!
There is nothing about relicensing linux on that site, anywhere. See those funny little symbols on the page? They are called "letters." They are used to make up "words."
First, Solaris will be free. Sun is moving to make all of its IP free (although some people think its license is not OSD-compatible, I think it is, and I don't care if others don't:), including hardware and software.
Second, you want the subjunctive. It is not "if Solaris was free," but "if Solaris were free."
"later"? How much later are you thinking of? In the New Testament, "daimon" is clearly used to denote a "demon" in every instance. Now, Homer and others did use it to mean "a divinity." But it clearly refers to a demon in the New Testament (which is clearly the basis for the Jesux people's choices:).
See Mark 5:12, Luke 8:29, Rev. 16:14, 18:2.
Derivatives of the word ("daimonion") sometimes occur, and still mean "demonic" (with the possible exception of Acts 17:18, where it could simply mean "divine," but it is clear that it means "foreign gods" at best, which is not "good" in any sense, taken the context).
So yes, "daimon" does not always mean "demon". But at the least, it has for 2000 years or so.
Regardless, the Jesux people note on their page that meanings are not as relevant as connotations, so the precise meaning is not important anyway. I think it is silly, but if you are going to criticize them, take them at their word and criticize them.:)
roblimo, I don't see a necessary correlation to jokes about these things and the fact that this must be a joke. I mean, look at Ross Perot: sometimes jokes are indisinguishable from reality.
Anyway, I think the name "Jesux" probably wouldn't be used if it were legitmate. On the other hand, they could have just made a bad choice, not noticing that it could be rendered as "Jesus sux". I've seen dumber mistakes than that.
I actually don't care if it is a joke or not. I mean, what will it change, whether or not it is real? Will we get any less of a laugh out of it either way? Will it change Linux significantly? Even if it is a hoax, that does not preclude people from taking some of its ideas and making a real "Jesux" distribution (with a better name:). It may be interesting to see how it plays out.
Nonsense. First, DTDs are, by definition, the first and last word in correctness, and that is what validators use. Second, if "correct" HTML looks bad it is because the designer is not a designer, or is a bad one.
It is not merely missing quotes. No doctype, unbalanced and wrong tags, etc. OK, it is not totally screwed, but it is very broken and should be fixed. I'd rather have good HTML and ad banners than no ads and bad HTML. With good HTML, it is easy to filter the ads.:)
Absolutely, I am being a hypocrite.:) But I have not touched the design of that page in like 3 years. When I do, it will be proper HTML. I just need some spare tuits, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops, sorry, I am sleep-posting again. Word to your manager.
It is quite simple. By participating, you encourage the activity. The activity is harmful. So don't participate or encourage others to. This isn't brain surgery.
First, it is poll, not pool (easy mistake for a non-native speaker, no worries). Second, we do not enlighten people that the polls are worse than merely invalid (they actually have negative value) when we encourage them to participate as Roblimo did. Third, you are wrong that complaining is worse than participating. It is abundantly clear that participation only encourages this negatively valued activity more, while complaining certainly does make a difference. Education is the key.
... they shows an Internet poll and the spamming of it (I think they based it on what I did to the MLB All-Star poll in July ... heh heh). Hopefully it did something to show how completely stupid these polls are. They even said on the show that they fixed the poll with a Perl program, so they get extra points.
The ABC show Sports Night was excellent a couple of weeks ago
Of course he gets it. He has been on this case for more than four years. He has been hearing about programming interfaces for longer than most Slashdot readers. His well-publicized reactions and statements in the courtroom on this leg of the case are clear evidence that he gets it; the finding of fact is mere confirmation of it.
How about some intellectual honesty for a change? Why not just ignore a poll that has absolutely no validity of any sort? By advocating the voting in it, you are just condoning this plague on modern society. You may say, "well, it doesn't matter, everyone knows it is invalid, so who cares?" Well, obsiouyl you guys do, or you wouldn't bother voting in it. Obviously CNN does, or they wouldn't bother conducting this "poll" in the first place. The only proper response to such polls is to ignore them or to complain about them. Once again, it is called intellectual honesty.
Jeez, who cares? At least, why should anyone care about reading this on Slashdot? It has nothing to do with ANYTHING on this site. I realize without stories like this you would cease to exist, but I suggest another venue for your tiresome missives.
Why did you even bother posting such an asinine topic on Slashdot? Come on.
No, no legal recourse can be taken, I think. Unless they signed a legal document or something promising they were telling the truth. You're allowed to lie to MTV in this country. :)
Does someone have a link to the text of this "policy"?
Objectivity is not false. Pure objectivity is false. Objectivity comes in gradations, like most things. Objectivity in journalism is doing your best to be impartial and tell what is verifiable fact. Of course biases come into play. You have to choose what facts are important, and in what order they should be introduced, and what part of the story to focus on, and even what stories to do in the first place and where to put them.
But there is such a thing as objectivity in journalism, and it is a virtue, one that few people know anything about anymore. More's the pity.
# This "Community Journalism" is going to be the next big thing. /.
# Just remember that it all started here on
Nonsense. This kind of thing has been going on about as long as journalism has been going on. What is unique about this, aside from the fact that you can slap two bytes in front of it so IBM can brand it as "e-journalism"?
This is patently false. The Greek New Testament we have today has more reliability as authentic than any ancient other writing, period. The second best is the Iliad, with 1000 years between its writing and our copies of it, and several hundred copies in existence. The Greek NT has just a couple hundred years of difference (with fragments separated by less than one hundred years), and several thousand copies in existence.
And when a new translation comes out (like the NASB, RSV, etc.) it is translated directly from this work, which all historians and paleographers and textual critics know to be very reliable.
There really is no solid footing to say what you've said.
You don't have to believe the Bible. But it is simply wrong to state that our copies of today are not reliable copies of the original text. Feel free to do some research on the subject. Metzger, Bruce M., "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration", Oxford (1991) is an excellent book on the subject.
Well, let me say that oppression of homosexual people pisses me off. But you can't reasonably ask Christians to not think homosexuality is a sin. It is right there in the Bible. I am not here to debate the issue; I ask that Christians be tolerant of homosexuals (and bisexuals), and that people who vehemently disagree with the views of Christians be tolerant of them. What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?
I know you, and others, probably lash out because of the mistreatment you've received. Life sucks sometimes. I guess there is no answer. I'll make you a deal: if you are going to bomb my house, just give me enough warning so I can fire my bombs at you before yours hit.
Lawyers? For what?? Jeez. Yes, Roblimo did seem a bit ... nasty. But certainly not as bad as your average flame. As to the password ... there apparently is a password posted on the Jesux site. It's still there, too, I believe.
Speaking of basic fact-checking ... the jesux.com domain doesn't appear to have any relationship to the Jesux page on _geocities_.
Actually, I thought Rob was just trying to make the Jesux people mad so they would give him what he wanted. You know, the old bad cop routine. "You call yourself a gansta? You couldn't even hold a gun, let alone shoot one!" "Naw, man, I capped the sucka!"
Of course you can't. And nowhere on the page is there any hint that that would happen.
OK, so you cannot read, so I will spell it out. It says all NEW code would be licensed under the CSPL. The explanation page even emphasized this. Code that was already licensed under another license would not be changed. Of course, the thing doesn't exist and never would ... but come on, just get a clue, please. If not for your sake, then think of the children!
And what cracked password?
Ahem.
Hey ignorant loser!
There is nothing about relicensing linux on that site, anywhere. See those funny little symbols on the page? They are called "letters." They are used to make up "words."
First, Solaris will be free. Sun is moving to make all of its IP free (although some people think its license is not OSD-compatible, I think it is, and I don't care if others don't :), including hardware and software.
Second, you want the subjunctive. It is not "if Solaris was free," but "if Solaris were free."
"later"? How much later are you thinking of? In the New Testament, "daimon" is clearly used to denote a "demon" in every instance. Now, Homer and others did use it to mean "a divinity." But it clearly refers to a demon in the New Testament (which is clearly the basis for the Jesux people's choices :).
:)
See Mark 5:12, Luke 8:29, Rev. 16:14, 18:2.
Derivatives of the word ("daimonion") sometimes occur, and still mean "demonic" (with the possible exception of Acts 17:18, where it could simply mean "divine," but it is clear that it means "foreign gods" at best, which is not "good" in any sense, taken the context).
So yes, "daimon" does not always mean "demon". But at the least, it has for 2000 years or so.
Regardless, the Jesux people note on their page that meanings are not as relevant as connotations, so the precise meaning is not important anyway. I think it is silly, but if you are going to criticize them, take them at their word and criticize them.
roblimo, I don't see a necessary correlation to jokes about these things and the fact that this must be a joke. I mean, look at Ross Perot: sometimes jokes are indisinguishable from reality.
:). It may be interesting to see how it plays out.
Anyway, I think the name "Jesux" probably wouldn't be used if it were legitmate. On the other hand, they could have just made a bad choice, not noticing that it could be rendered as "Jesus sux". I've seen dumber mistakes than that.
I actually don't care if it is a joke or not. I mean, what will it change, whether or not it is real? Will we get any less of a laugh out of it either way? Will it change Linux significantly? Even if it is a hoax, that does not preclude people from taking some of its ideas and making a real "Jesux" distribution (with a better name
Nonsense. First, DTDs are, by definition, the first and last word in correctness, and that is what validators use. Second, if "correct" HTML looks bad it is because the designer is not a designer, or is a bad one.
It is not merely missing quotes. No doctype, unbalanced and wrong tags, etc. OK, it is not totally screwed, but it is very broken and should be fixed. I'd rather have good HTML and ad banners than no ads and bad HTML. With good HTML, it is easy to filter the ads. :)
Absolutely, I am being a hypocrite. :) But I have not touched the design of that page in like 3 years. When I do, it will be proper HTML. I just need some spare tuits, that's all.