PS: just in case that it wasn't clear, bear in mind that with "my sites" I meant customsolvers.com (main site) and varocarbas.com (where I store R&D-oriented anything). Their main purpose is to promote and to give some visibility to my work as a programmer (I don't get any direct income from the visitors they get). Also note that I don't manage others' websites (don't even build them).
No, I don't. WordPress or anything else. As said, I created both my sites from scratch (= wrote each single character of their codes); as far as programming is my work, why not using my sites as a permanent self-promotion? In the past, I did relied on WordPress to take care of secondary functionalities and didn't like that experience too much (I prefer my code:)).
must-have plugin for any WP site.
Even in the unlikely scenario of using WordPress, I wouldn't use plugins unless under very specific circumstances. If WP implies an increase of uncertainty (unsafety, unreliability, incompatibility, etc.), WP plugins extend that risk by orders of magnitude. I can do anything in PHP or in any other language myself (+ like coding + it is a self-promotion), why introducing potentially-problematic third elements when not required? I am not just talking about my situation or the one of any other experienced programmer: plugins aren't absolutely bad, but they shouldn't be included by default as the first option either.
I look through my server logs on some of my unprotected sites and I see a never-ending stream of GET-style attacks and queries and attempted SSH logins which are absolutely malicious in nature
I have also seen lots of malware-wannabe bots visiting my two sites (with very low traffic), but never really dangerous attempts. Most of them do completely stupid actions like expecting the database to be in a very specific location (and accessible via HTTP!!) or visiting pure gibberish. The less stupid ones look for what seem known exploits of applications, but in a pretty naive and arbitrary way (e.g., expecting to find WordPress files in a specific location when WordPress isn't even installed on that server). But, as said, I understand that the situation of my sites has nothing to do with the ones involving big (or many) sites: they get low traffic (+ don't contain valuable information which isn't public), I wrote their whole code from scratch and are hosted by a good hosting provider which takes care of quite a few issues for me.
Put it behind cloudflare, make sure the IP address isn't discoverable, and you'll be in pretty good shape.
Curiously, I had an argument with my internet provider this morning about their peculiar way to manage the visibility of my local network IP address. Unfortunately, what you propose isn't applicable to my situation because I will be certainly using that IP in quite a few places.
Thanks again for your feedback and helping me understand better what CloudFlare provides exactly; in any case, I am not planning to start using their products. For the time being, my overall impression about them has changed from kind-of-bad to kind-of-neutral:)
This is the bit which kind of puzzles me. During my quick test, I recall to have seen many threats being blocked. On the other hand, before using it or after disabling it, my site continued running fine (although motivatedly slow). So, the only improvement which I saw on the security front was getting a list of stopped threats, about which I wasn't aware and which didn't seem to have a relevant impact on my site.
I can say that I've been happy with them
This is all what matters. Although I didn't get a good impression about all this, I recognise my limited expertise and want to hear about others' experiences. People using a given product and being happy with it is a much more relevant feedback than preliminary impressions and abstract assumptions.
Yes, I do recall that feature, but I think that this wasn't the reason for my problems. Apparently, they didn't emulate my original conditions perfectly in their copy. But as said, this was a short test over 1 year ago of a free version, so it might have been anything.
While I agree that CF is in a position to be even more scary that Google
No doubt on that. They are plainly getting full copies of all your web-files and storing them in servers you cannot reach. This is plainly a fear-based business where you have to almost blindly trust your defenders. It is way much more invasive than what antivirus do, as far as they are fully managing (copies of) all your information without you being present at all. They even become your eyes/window to the external world, the only way you have to know about problems and solutions. In any case, I guess that there is no alternative, at least when dealing with big enough sites.
Thanks for sharing your experience. As commented above, protection against denial of service is a much more plausible explanation for their success than providing affordable CDNs.
I am genuinely curious about the actual advantages of the CloudFlare CDN.
Some time ago, I tried their most basic package and didn't notice any improvement. In fact, that site had some slow-page-loading issues which their CDN didn't reduce; additionally, some unknown-until-that-moment errors started appearing. Note that the whole point of that offer was convincing me to buy the proper version, so I assume that it was good enough. This was a quite short experience and that's why I don't have a clear opinion about them.
What I definitively find very curious is the relevant number of sites using CloudFlare. Another curious bit is that CloudFlare never fails, at least this is what the error messages say. I mean the ones which are shown when a site using CloudFlare is down, clearly stating that everything is that site's fault because the CloudFlare part is fine. I have never seen one of these error messages saying that the site is fine and CloudFlare is down.
I guessed that Slashdot was tracking IPs (have read some comments at different points which seemed to indicate so) and also that it was a known issue. Although I don't post anonymously (neither care about my privacy too much), I do understand that some people might be interested in all this. Here you have my contribution to raise more awareness.
?! Why recognising what I think that should be evident to everyone (not the fact of being a joke, because this is NOT A JOKE; but not being meant seriously) and what I never implied? Can you please tell me the exact part in any of my previous comments (remember that nothing of what is written in Slashdot can be edited/removed by the users) where I said that he seriously meant that sentence or that he was anti-Jew/Nazi or that he was angry or that he was calling for a manslaughter? You cannot find any reference because these ideas have only been in your head, while misinterpreting my actual intention.
On the other hand, I think that certain kind of messages aren't precisely ideal, much less by bearing in mind his young audience. To not mention the fact that some people might feel offended (I cannot say anything on this front, as far as I don't belong to any group which is the usual target of generic hate; so, my opinion on this front isn't worthy). These are also relevant implications of this video, whose importance I am not dismissing, but my comment was plainly focused on something else! Rather than trying to understand the true intention of my post, you preferred to misinterpret it by bringing into picture ideas which weren’t even implied!
In summary and without trying to offend you, I think that there is no point in continuing talking. Our positions are very different on many fronts and it seems that systematic misinterpretations will be the most likely output of our conversations. Bye (again).
This is plainly and simple a money-/many-ignorant-supported idiot behaving exactly as an idiot would do. This guy is part of the new internet-based elites who don't rely directly on traditional resources (e.g., money or family/contacts), but on generic metrics like followers or likes. They pursue exactly the same goal than all the elites before: imposing their positions and growing at the expense of others. They are equally concerned about their own interests and equally damaging for the many, for objective principles and for the growth of humankind.
Ah! I get it now! You submitted a new article defending this PukeSomething, which clearly explains where your misperception of my post came from. Hopefully, you know now that I don't think that this guy is a racist/anti-Jew or really meant the contents of this message (although not even the most racist person ever would mean it). He is plainly an idiot with a distorted perception of the world who isn't aware about it.
It is kind of ironic that he is complaining about status quo and elites when he belongs to the new elite (-> precisely what my critic was about). I am the anti-elite fighter, the only-one-against-many, the objective small-guy whose sole weapons are knowledge, reason and common sense, the one spitting on face of imposing attitudes, via traditional means (money) or new ones (lots of followers, ignorance-prone "wisdom", rich-people-expecting-everyone-understand-their-petty-problems, elites-buying-their-image-as-rebels, etc.). Seriously, your (and people-like-you's) perception is insultingly wrong. I re-insist in my suggestion of better not talking anymore.
BTW, I saw his video apologising and am happy to confirm that my first impression about him was right: he is a complete idiot/half-person/big-kid/etc. in my book.
Again, not liking something is fine. I don't like country music. That doesn't mean I can say "it's not music"
Regardless of everyone's taste, music is music, a joke is a joke, etc. Doing something stupid or shameful or (for an impressionable little kid) shocking to (presumably) prove a point isn't a joke. You can definitively prove a point in a humorous way (as I did in my previous reply to you, hope you got that), but this is again not the case here. A completely different story is saying "this is a joke" as a way to somehow justify your bad-in-appearance actions or to make a critic a bit less hard or to reduce your responsibility for whatever, etc., this is precisely what is being shown in that video. There are abstract references to the situation being a joke, but nothing of what is said or done there (other than the dancing and laughs of the 5$-hired people clearly not understanding too well what they were about to do and trying to relax things a bit) converts it in an actual joke. Just showing an offensive message doesn't make something a joke because you say it so. You need context, story, references, ironic/sarcastic bits, etc. the actually humorous parts which are non-existent in that video.
people having normal conversations with weird speech impediments
This isn't a humorous situation. This is a situation period. Some people might convert it into humorous (e.g., via their understanding impediments), but this isn't its actual essence. A person saying something serious isn't a joke because you consider that the way in which he talks is funny. You might find it funny and provide some contexts to help others see it in the same way, even convert it into a joke. But that situation isn't objectively (= for everyone hearing that person) humorous. This example reminds me your examples about pharaohs and 3 MIT undergrads in the nuclear-energy post where we firstly met, you seem to have some problems to put actually-relevant examples.
No, I'd say the most important opinions are the 10+ million people subscribed to PewDiePie's channel
You are saying that the +5 of this post isn't invalidated by your over-opinion but by PewWhatever's followers? If I ever say anything about this guy, I would have to respond to his 10M+ followers? Would I need to get at least 10M+ positive votes? Anyway, the result is the same: my original post is completely irrelevant. Thanks for helping me and future readers realise about this issue.
Those millions of people might all be morons but they could still confirm one thing for you: it's comedy
You are saying that comedians cannot be serious? That if a person work consists in telling jokes, all what this person says has to be a joke? That I have to consider previous videos and the opinion of many others to properly understand this video? I don't think so.
If you think that IT'S NOT HUMOR and that PewDiePie was SERIOUSLY mad
Mad is a too abstract and imprecise concept; additionally it doesn't reflect my critic. I think that this whole video is very descriptive of a personality, better a lack of it. By using an expression that this PewWeird might like: "he isn't fully baked yet, someone should put him in the oven for a bit longer" (-> this is a poor-taste joke by bearing in mind the current context:)). As explained in my original post, I think that he represents quite well a new generation of spoiled idiots. Bear in mind that becoming an adult, a person if you wish, is the result of a complex process which requires different times and experiences (problems) for every person. Conventionally, it is assumed that people have already become adults at certain age, but this assumption fails in quite a few scenarios like here. Logically, all this is my personal opinion and I might be wrong.
This is not "opinion". This is "ignorance" or "delusion".
I know that you are just doing an impression of an ignorant fanatic to help everyone get my point properly. But just to have some fun, here you have my answers:
Translation: I do not understand humor. Or at least not PewDiePie's humor
I can call what is shown in this video many things, but certainly not humour. FYI, I do love humour.
There's nothing *wrong* with that man
I rarely judge people who I don't know, but this video is descriptive enough to make an exception. I do think that there is something wrong with this guy. He might definetively grow up and become a person at some point of his life (perhaps you too!).
but Christ... how did this shit get modded up to +5?
Apparently, 5 people liked what I wrote; but what does anyone know, right? The only important opinion here is yours, so I guess that my post has now become irrelevant (+5 - everything). BTW, has the American Nuclear Society (or any other nuclear organisation) already contacted you to know more about your brilliant idea to manage nuclear waste?
Without knowing anything about this guy (other than the South Park reference mentioned above), I know already a lot about his personality just by watching this video excerpt, his intention, his apparent motivation, his reactions, etc.: the kind of rich (or problem-free or egoist) asshole with a distorted perception of the world, overwhelmed by the tremendous amount of information and all what is associated with internet, responsible for a new wave of extremely-ignorant-and-completely-unaware fanaticism. I don't mean just the usual peculiarities associated with the behaviour of these youtubers, but the whole internet-based group-thinking movement: SJWs (bear in mind that I am an over-understanding leftist), Twitter or Facebook or whatever lynch squads and even programming-related fanatic and ignorant group-thinking (I know something about this too).
Just in case my position is not clear, here comes a summary of what I see in this video:
1. The guy firstly complains about the people to whom he has paid $5 (!!!) not doing what he wants. My impression is that these people were trying to give more for the paid price, kind of highlighting that all was a joke. If I was in his shoes, just watching these guys doing these stupid things for me because I paid them $5 would have made me feel horrible.
2. The expected result is delivered exactly as instructed; and this guy behaves firstly as if it was incredible (?! Weren't you complaining 5 seconds before because they didn't do it?!) and then shameful?! They are just words, exactly your words?! Don't you feel ashamed about writing such a sentence and hire some people to show it in a video, but you do feel ashamed of watching it in that video?! Why? Out-of-context words have no meaning, and much less the exact format in which these words are expressed; all what matters is intention. If you have ever had that thought, it would be equally bad than writing it or showing it in a video. There is no difference. There is hypocrisy, ignorance, self-esteem issues and being overhelmed by what you cannot even understand. Only a hypocrite can see any difference between actually doing/thinking/saying something wrong in one format or a different one.
3. The most incredible part and what perfectly describes the aforementioned new wave of half-persons with lots of power (or, at least, a very large audience): he dares to blame the two guys he hired for $5 (!!) for doing what he asked them to do!!! Even though he was complaining when they delayed that output for some seconds!! Complains about the world being wrong because some people have to work for an asshole for 5 miserable dollars! But he doesn't realise that he is the asshole!! He is the person who has provoked such an output! He had the intention (= all what matters)!
This guy thinks that paying $5 to people needing that money to do something pathetic makes sense. He thinks that being angry with these people in case of not doing exactly what he wants makes sense. He thinks that blaming these people for doing exactly what he instructed them to do makes sense. He thinks that feeling bad (better: showing that he feels bad) about a specific format (actually showing certain words in a video), but not caring about other (thinking about/writing these exact words somewhere else or hiring someone to write them) makes also sense. If he read the current post (or other descriptive-enough text), he would likely understand what he did wrong, even feel bad about his behaviour and never repeat it again. He would learn (basics about being a person) because he doesn't know it, but he is surprisingly unaware about this fact. He most likely thinks that his understanding capabilities are better than the average ones, thanks to his blind-supporters bubble. Other very curious issue of this kind of people is that they seem to think that what they deliver ($5 or his ideas in the video or anything else) is really valuable! No idea what others think, but the only feeling which they can provoke in me is pity. Is he a bad guy? He will
Why's that domain still in use? Inertia more than anything else.
Actually, go.com is a quite attractive URL for the English-speaking market. Disney getting money from companies for using that domain does make sense to me, but what is the point of keeping the Disney contents in the root directory? People looking for Disney stuff will visit disney.com and those interested in things like ABC or ESPN news will find this a bit weird.
All the web links in Slashdot include a reference to the corresponding domain in parentheses, what also applies to the article titles. As you can see, the domain storing the referred article is go.com, despite belonging to ABC News. Is go.com part of ABC news? Is it a second-level domain/2-part top level domain (TLD)? None of this.
Note that I am currently doing my second attempt at collecting/ranking a big enough number of web domains (already wrote a reference to it in a previous comment). All this has helped me realise about the surprisingly complex structure of web domains, subdomains, TLDs, etc. Determining the domain name isn't as simple as it might seem and there are quite a few tricky scenarios.
I knew about go.com since the very first moment, because it is one of the most-liked domains in the whole internet (as per my current estimates, it is within the top 100; these are still too preliminary and unreliable conclusions though). What I found very curious was that it displays Disney contents (not identical to disney.com, but almost), not precisely the most logical scenario for a so high ranking. The curious explanation is that go.com behaves as a kind of second-level domain, where its subdomains store information of apparently-unrelated domains. For example and additionally to ABC News and Disney, it also stores ESPN.com contents as explained in the corresponding Wikipedia page.
Programming languages do not matter. Any program can be written in any language. Programming languages are as interchangeable as hammers.
I think that this sentence, understood in the right context, is quite accurate. Logically, 20-year ago languages are different to the ones being used right now. Also there are notable differences among different current languages. In any case, an experienced enough programmer in whatever (modern) language should be able to perform 99% of all the programming work without any problem.
Objectively more (un-)friendly features of a given programming language might be compensated with experience. For example, a programmer used to the peculiarities of certain programming language might not mind them; and might prefer to continue using that language rather than getting used to the peculiarities of a different one which might address some of the problems but might provoke other problems. Or perhaps a less friendly language is more widely used and has a lower number of compatibility issues. Or perhaps a more or less complex system was built on a certain language and rewriting it in a different one wouldn't make too much sense.
The programming languages as a whole are certainly improving; but thinking that there is an absolutely better alternative independently upon anything else is plainly wrong. I can defend the features of the languages in which I am more experienced, but can also understand that other people might prefer different things for whatever reason. What I cannot defend is those half-learning any new approach and hoping it to (magically) compensate their limited skills. Learning many languages or just a few are both fine-to-me options, but only when learning them properly and not delivering nicely-labelled crap.
There are many approaches to this problem (more theoretical than actually used) and I am not saying that it will remain a problem forever. My whole point is that, at the moment, it isn't solved; right the contrary: it is a big uncertainty (= cost) which is usually ignored by (not too honest/knowledgeable) generic-speaking people; the ones who are now claiming that nuclear power is clean. As per our current knowledge, we are plainly "passing the buck" to the next generations; a buck about which we don't know too much and which might potentially be dangerous/expensive.
In any case, I insist in the fact that I am not saying that nuclear power is the worst possible alternative, but certainly not the best one. I don't see it as the go-to option, not even as a sustainable long-term approach. There are quite a few fission power plants whose replacement is very difficult and this is an acceptable reality. But claiming that nuclear power is clean, cheap, safe, etc. and using such hypocrite nonsense to support building more plants isn't acceptable.
In your first paragraph you imply that an isotope having a long half-life makes it more dangerous.
?! Where exactly have you got such nonsense from? If you read all what I wrote and understand it adequately (= the context and my intention), you would get that the point I was trying to make is that nuclear waste have to be taken care of for very long time!! The longer the half-lives, the more care (= time = money) you would have to put in. Logically, the longer the waiting period the less aggressive the radiation (that's why this whole process is called decay), but you would have to take care of it anyway.
In summary (you seem to be too stupid to summarise things by your own): for the intend of my comment, the longer the half-live the worst the product, not because of being intrinsically more dangerous but because of implying longer time/money/uncertainty.
You must really be afraid of potassium-40 with a half-life of 1.2 billion years.
Afraid?! Where have I said that I was afraid of anything? As explained (although you are so stupid that I will better say it here again), my point was focused on the time and, consequently, the cost which will be extended much beyond the generation of the product. I didn't say anything about specific products, how dangerous they are or what might be the cost at each point.
I plainly highlighted in quite generic terms the simple (or, at least, I thought so; for you or people like you, it doesn't seem simple) reality defined by the following points:
* You have a given raw material which isn't dangerous in nature (you don't need to care about it; or eventually just trying to not live close to it for too long), but which becomes extremely dangerous after being used by a reactor (+ all the sub-products which the process generates).
* Now that it is extremely dangerous you have to take care of it.
* Depending upon the material and the exact conditions, it will remain dangerous for certain period of time. The danger will be reduced with time (I thought that this was evident; my bad for not realising about the kind of knowledge and understanding capabilities that my potential audience might have), but in any case the time will be very long and you will have to take care of it during that whole period (at least, in theory).
* This process represents an additional cost likely to be very high, but in any case impossible to be determined a priori. This was my whole point!
Idiot.
If you have understood now half of what I have written above, you would know who the idiot here is. It is kind of ironic that you (= the ignorant part, unable to even understand the actual intention of a quite short text) were the first one insulting. Did you feel frustrated with all these words/concepts saying something different than what your 2 generic ideas on this front seem to indicate? Did I subvert your “this is bad because [short and simple idea]”/”this is good because [short and simple idea]”-based way of life? Sorry, I didn't intend to hurt defenceless beings.
There is something which I don’t fully understand in your behaviour though. Why wasting your time reading just a couple of sentences I wrote (what I presume that was a big effort for you and your "brain") and not delivering your output (arbitrary insult) right away? Why proving your lack of understanding on top of your aggressive stupidity, when you can just prove your aggressive stupidity?
Assuming that the people in charge of this shit are competent is a total non-starter
One thing is being in charge in a field where ignorance might be acceptable. A different story is being in charge when only technical issues and results matter (= engineering), mainly when dealing with something as dangerous and unknown as nuclear power. Do I blindly trust in anyone having done whatever perfectly? No. Do I trust in engineering practices which have been around for over 50 years in a so delicate field like nuclear engineering (about which I have a quite good knowledge myself)? Yes, although certainly not blindly.
Slashdot Mirror
by hand, no IDE, just CEdit and a lot of coffee. :)
Exactly like me except for the editor (NotePad++ over here); at least, when using PHP. With other languages like C#, I also enjoy fully-featured IDEs.
PS: just in case that it wasn't clear, bear in mind that with "my sites" I meant customsolvers.com (main site) and varocarbas.com (where I store R&D-oriented anything). Their main purpose is to promote and to give some visibility to my work as a programmer (I don't get any direct income from the visitors they get). Also note that I don't manage others' websites (don't even build them).
If you use Wordpress
No, I don't. WordPress or anything else. As said, I created both my sites from scratch (= wrote each single character of their codes); as far as programming is my work, why not using my sites as a permanent self-promotion? In the past, I did relied on WordPress to take care of secondary functionalities and didn't like that experience too much (I prefer my code :)).
must-have plugin for any WP site.
Even in the unlikely scenario of using WordPress, I wouldn't use plugins unless under very specific circumstances. If WP implies an increase of uncertainty (unsafety, unreliability, incompatibility, etc.), WP plugins extend that risk by orders of magnitude. I can do anything in PHP or in any other language myself (+ like coding + it is a self-promotion), why introducing potentially-problematic third elements when not required? I am not just talking about my situation or the one of any other experienced programmer: plugins aren't absolutely bad, but they shouldn't be included by default as the first option either.
I look through my server logs on some of my unprotected sites and I see a never-ending stream of GET-style attacks and queries and attempted SSH logins which are absolutely malicious in nature
I have also seen lots of malware-wannabe bots visiting my two sites (with very low traffic), but never really dangerous attempts. Most of them do completely stupid actions like expecting the database to be in a very specific location (and accessible via HTTP!!) or visiting pure gibberish. The less stupid ones look for what seem known exploits of applications, but in a pretty naive and arbitrary way (e.g., expecting to find WordPress files in a specific location when WordPress isn't even installed on that server). But, as said, I understand that the situation of my sites has nothing to do with the ones involving big (or many) sites: they get low traffic (+ don't contain valuable information which isn't public), I wrote their whole code from scratch and are hosted by a good hosting provider which takes care of quite a few issues for me.
Put it behind cloudflare, make sure the IP address isn't discoverable, and you'll be in pretty good shape.
Curiously, I had an argument with my internet provider this morning about their peculiar way to manage the visibility of my local network IP address. Unfortunately, what you propose isn't applicable to my situation because I will be certainly using that IP in quite a few places.
:)
Thanks again for your feedback and helping me understand better what CloudFlare provides exactly; in any case, I am not planning to start using their products. For the time being, my overall impression about them has changed from kind-of-bad to kind-of-neutral
They do seem to
This is the bit which kind of puzzles me. During my quick test, I recall to have seen many threats being blocked. On the other hand, before using it or after disabling it, my site continued running fine (although motivatedly slow). So, the only improvement which I saw on the security front was getting a list of stopped threats, about which I wasn't aware and which didn't seem to have a relevant impact on my site.
I can say that I've been happy with them
This is all what matters. Although I didn't get a good impression about all this, I recognise my limited expertise and want to hear about others' experiences. People using a given product and being happy with it is a much more relevant feedback than preliminary impressions and abstract assumptions.
feature called Rocketsomething
Yes, I do recall that feature, but I think that this wasn't the reason for my problems. Apparently, they didn't emulate my original conditions perfectly in their copy. But as said, this was a short test over 1 year ago of a free version, so it might have been anything.
While I agree that CF is in a position to be even more scary that Google
No doubt on that. They are plainly getting full copies of all your web-files and storing them in servers you cannot reach. This is plainly a fear-based business where you have to almost blindly trust your defenders. It is way much more invasive than what antivirus do, as far as they are fully managing (copies of) all your information without you being present at all. They even become your eyes/window to the external world, the only way you have to know about problems and solutions. In any case, I guess that there is no alternative, at least when dealing with big enough sites.
Thanks for sharing your experience. As commented above, protection against denial of service is a much more plausible explanation for their success than providing affordable CDNs.
Thanks for the info. DoS protection makes much more sense than the affordable-CDN-for-everyone which I thought that was their primary business.
I am genuinely curious about the actual advantages of the CloudFlare CDN.
Some time ago, I tried their most basic package and didn't notice any improvement. In fact, that site had some slow-page-loading issues which their CDN didn't reduce; additionally, some unknown-until-that-moment errors started appearing. Note that the whole point of that offer was convincing me to buy the proper version, so I assume that it was good enough. This was a quite short experience and that's why I don't have a clear opinion about them.
What I definitively find very curious is the relevant number of sites using CloudFlare. Another curious bit is that CloudFlare never fails, at least this is what the error messages say. I mean the ones which are shown when a site using CloudFlare is down, clearly stating that everything is that site's fault because the CloudFlare part is fine. I have never seen one of these error messages saying that the site is fine and CloudFlare is down.
I guessed that Slashdot was tracking IPs (have read some comments at different points which seemed to indicate so) and also that it was a known issue. Although I don't post anonymously (neither care about my privacy too much), I do understand that some people might be interested in all this. Here you have my contribution to raise more awareness.
?! Why recognising what I think that should be evident to everyone (not the fact of being a joke, because this is NOT A JOKE; but not being meant seriously) and what I never implied? Can you please tell me the exact part in any of my previous comments (remember that nothing of what is written in Slashdot can be edited/removed by the users) where I said that he seriously meant that sentence or that he was anti-Jew/Nazi or that he was angry or that he was calling for a manslaughter? You cannot find any reference because these ideas have only been in your head, while misinterpreting my actual intention.
On the other hand, I think that certain kind of messages aren't precisely ideal, much less by bearing in mind his young audience. To not mention the fact that some people might feel offended (I cannot say anything on this front, as far as I don't belong to any group which is the usual target of generic hate; so, my opinion on this front isn't worthy). These are also relevant implications of this video, whose importance I am not dismissing, but my comment was plainly focused on something else! Rather than trying to understand the true intention of my post, you preferred to misinterpret it by bringing into picture ideas which weren’t even implied!
In summary and without trying to offend you, I think that there is no point in continuing talking. Our positions are very different on many fronts and it seems that systematic misinterpretations will be the most likely output of our conversations. Bye (again).
This is plainly and simple a money-/many-ignorant-supported idiot behaving exactly as an idiot would do. This guy is part of the new internet-based elites who don't rely directly on traditional resources (e.g., money or family/contacts), but on generic metrics like followers or likes. They pursue exactly the same goal than all the elites before: imposing their positions and growing at the expense of others. They are equally concerned about their own interests and equally damaging for the many, for objective principles and for the growth of humankind.
To know more about my opinion regarding all this, about the non-joke essence of the referred videos and to even enjoy an actual bad-taste joke, take a look at my reply to the submitter of this article in the previous one about this PewNonsense.
Ah! I get it now! You submitted a new article defending this PukeSomething, which clearly explains where your misperception of my post came from. Hopefully, you know now that I don't think that this guy is a racist/anti-Jew or really meant the contents of this message (although not even the most racist person ever would mean it). He is plainly an idiot with a distorted perception of the world who isn't aware about it.
It is kind of ironic that he is complaining about status quo and elites when he belongs to the new elite (-> precisely what my critic was about). I am the anti-elite fighter, the only-one-against-many, the objective small-guy whose sole weapons are knowledge, reason and common sense, the one spitting on face of imposing attitudes, via traditional means (money) or new ones (lots of followers, ignorance-prone "wisdom", rich-people-expecting-everyone-understand-their-petty-problems, elites-buying-their-image-as-rebels, etc.). Seriously, your (and people-like-you's) perception is insultingly wrong. I re-insist in my suggestion of better not talking anymore.
BTW, I saw his video apologising and am happy to confirm that my first impression about him was right: he is a complete idiot/half-person/big-kid/etc. in my book.
Again, not liking something is fine. I don't like country music. That doesn't mean I can say "it's not music"
Regardless of everyone's taste, music is music, a joke is a joke, etc. Doing something stupid or shameful or (for an impressionable little kid) shocking to (presumably) prove a point isn't a joke. You can definitively prove a point in a humorous way (as I did in my previous reply to you, hope you got that), but this is again not the case here. A completely different story is saying "this is a joke" as a way to somehow justify your bad-in-appearance actions or to make a critic a bit less hard or to reduce your responsibility for whatever, etc., this is precisely what is being shown in that video. There are abstract references to the situation being a joke, but nothing of what is said or done there (other than the dancing and laughs of the 5$-hired people clearly not understanding too well what they were about to do and trying to relax things a bit) converts it in an actual joke. Just showing an offensive message doesn't make something a joke because you say it so. You need context, story, references, ironic/sarcastic bits, etc. the actually humorous parts which are non-existent in that video.
people having normal conversations with weird speech impediments
This isn't a humorous situation. This is a situation period. Some people might convert it into humorous (e.g., via their understanding impediments), but this isn't its actual essence. A person saying something serious isn't a joke because you consider that the way in which he talks is funny. You might find it funny and provide some contexts to help others see it in the same way, even convert it into a joke. But that situation isn't objectively (= for everyone hearing that person) humorous. This example reminds me your examples about pharaohs and 3 MIT undergrads in the nuclear-energy post where we firstly met, you seem to have some problems to put actually-relevant examples.
No, I'd say the most important opinions are the 10+ million people subscribed to PewDiePie's channel
You are saying that the +5 of this post isn't invalidated by your over-opinion but by PewWhatever's followers? If I ever say anything about this guy, I would have to respond to his 10M+ followers? Would I need to get at least 10M+ positive votes? Anyway, the result is the same: my original post is completely irrelevant. Thanks for helping me and future readers realise about this issue.
Those millions of people might all be morons but they could still confirm one thing for you: it's comedy
You are saying that comedians cannot be serious? That if a person work consists in telling jokes, all what this person says has to be a joke? That I have to consider previous videos and the opinion of many others to properly understand this video? I don't think so.
If you think that IT'S NOT HUMOR and that PewDiePie was SERIOUSLY mad
Mad is a too abstract and imprecise concept; additionally it doesn't reflect my critic. I think that this whole video is very descriptive of a personality, better a lack of it. By using an expression that this PewWeird might like: "he isn't fully baked yet, someone should put him in the oven for a bit longer" (-> this is a poor-taste joke by bearing in mind the current context :)). As explained in my original post, I think that he represents quite well a new generation of spoiled idiots. Bear in mind that becoming an adult, a person if you wish, is the result of a complex process which requires different times and experiences (problems) for every person. Conventionally, it is assumed that people have already become adults at certain age, but this assumption fails in quite a few scenarios like here. Logically, all this is my personal opinion and I might be wrong.
This is not "opinion". This is "ignorance" or "delusion".
Why?
I meant 4 people (+ my karma).
Better: 3 people (+ my karma + my starting point).
See, Shane_etc.? I can extract kind-of-humorous essence from virtually any situation, but this video has nothing to work with.
Apparently, 5 people liked what I wrote
I meant 4 people (+ my karma).
Translation: I do not understand humor. Or at least not PewDiePie's humor
I can call what is shown in this video many things, but certainly not humour. FYI, I do love humour.
There's nothing *wrong* with that man
I rarely judge people who I don't know, but this video is descriptive enough to make an exception. I do think that there is something wrong with this guy. He might definetively grow up and become a person at some point of his life (perhaps you too!).
but Christ... how did this shit get modded up to +5?
Apparently, 5 people liked what I wrote; but what does anyone know, right? The only important opinion here is yours, so I guess that my post has now become irrelevant (+5 - everything). BTW, has the American Nuclear Society (or any other nuclear organisation) already contacted you to know more about your brilliant idea to manage nuclear waste?
Without knowing anything about this guy (other than the South Park reference mentioned above), I know already a lot about his personality just by watching this video excerpt, his intention, his apparent motivation, his reactions, etc.: the kind of rich (or problem-free or egoist) asshole with a distorted perception of the world, overwhelmed by the tremendous amount of information and all what is associated with internet, responsible for a new wave of extremely-ignorant-and-completely-unaware fanaticism. I don't mean just the usual peculiarities associated with the behaviour of these youtubers, but the whole internet-based group-thinking movement: SJWs (bear in mind that I am an over-understanding leftist), Twitter or Facebook or whatever lynch squads and even programming-related fanatic and ignorant group-thinking (I know something about this too).
Just in case my position is not clear, here comes a summary of what I see in this video:
1. The guy firstly complains about the people to whom he has paid $5 (!!!) not doing what he wants. My impression is that these people were trying to give more for the paid price, kind of highlighting that all was a joke. If I was in his shoes, just watching these guys doing these stupid things for me because I paid them $5 would have made me feel horrible.
2. The expected result is delivered exactly as instructed; and this guy behaves firstly as if it was incredible (?! Weren't you complaining 5 seconds before because they didn't do it?!) and then shameful?! They are just words, exactly your words?! Don't you feel ashamed about writing such a sentence and hire some people to show it in a video, but you do feel ashamed of watching it in that video?! Why? Out-of-context words have no meaning, and much less the exact format in which these words are expressed; all what matters is intention. If you have ever had that thought, it would be equally bad than writing it or showing it in a video. There is no difference. There is hypocrisy, ignorance, self-esteem issues and being overhelmed by what you cannot even understand. Only a hypocrite can see any difference between actually doing/thinking/saying something wrong in one format or a different one.
3. The most incredible part and what perfectly describes the aforementioned new wave of half-persons with lots of power (or, at least, a very large audience): he dares to blame the two guys he hired for $5 (!!) for doing what he asked them to do!!! Even though he was complaining when they delayed that output for some seconds!! Complains about the world being wrong because some people have to work for an asshole for 5 miserable dollars! But he doesn't realise that he is the asshole!! He is the person who has provoked such an output! He had the intention (= all what matters)!
This guy thinks that paying $5 to people needing that money to do something pathetic makes sense. He thinks that being angry with these people in case of not doing exactly what he wants makes sense. He thinks that blaming these people for doing exactly what he instructed them to do makes sense. He thinks that feeling bad (better: showing that he feels bad) about a specific format (actually showing certain words in a video), but not caring about other (thinking about/writing these exact words somewhere else or hiring someone to write them) makes also sense. If he read the current post (or other descriptive-enough text), he would likely understand what he did wrong, even feel bad about his behaviour and never repeat it again. He would learn (basics about being a person) because he doesn't know it, but he is surprisingly unaware about this fact. He most likely thinks that his understanding capabilities are better than the average ones, thanks to his blind-supporters bubble. Other very curious issue of this kind of people is that they seem to think that what they deliver ($5 or his ideas in the video or anything else) is really valuable! No idea what others think, but the only feeling which they can provoke in me is pity. Is he a bad guy? He will
Why's that domain still in use? Inertia more than anything else.
Actually, go.com is a quite attractive URL for the English-speaking market. Disney getting money from companies for using that domain does make sense to me, but what is the point of keeping the Disney contents in the root directory? People looking for Disney stuff will visit disney.com and those interested in things like ABC or ESPN news will find this a bit weird.
All the web links in Slashdot include a reference to the corresponding domain in parentheses, what also applies to the article titles. As you can see, the domain storing the referred article is go.com, despite belonging to ABC News. Is go.com part of ABC news? Is it a second-level domain/2-part top level domain (TLD)? None of this.
Note that I am currently doing my second attempt at collecting/ranking a big enough number of web domains (already wrote a reference to it in a previous comment). All this has helped me realise about the surprisingly complex structure of web domains, subdomains, TLDs, etc. Determining the domain name isn't as simple as it might seem and there are quite a few tricky scenarios.
I knew about go.com since the very first moment, because it is one of the most-liked domains in the whole internet (as per my current estimates, it is within the top 100; these are still too preliminary and unreliable conclusions though). What I found very curious was that it displays Disney contents (not identical to disney.com, but almost), not precisely the most logical scenario for a so high ranking. The curious explanation is that go.com behaves as a kind of second-level domain, where its subdomains store information of apparently-unrelated domains. For example and additionally to ABC News and Disney, it also stores ESPN.com contents as explained in the corresponding Wikipedia page.
Very funny! I also liked the one about NoSQL being web-scale referred in a comment some weeks ago.
Programming languages do not matter. Any program can be written in any language. Programming languages are as interchangeable as hammers.
I think that this sentence, understood in the right context, is quite accurate. Logically, 20-year ago languages are different to the ones being used right now. Also there are notable differences among different current languages. In any case, an experienced enough programmer in whatever (modern) language should be able to perform 99% of all the programming work without any problem.
Objectively more (un-)friendly features of a given programming language might be compensated with experience. For example, a programmer used to the peculiarities of certain programming language might not mind them; and might prefer to continue using that language rather than getting used to the peculiarities of a different one which might address some of the problems but might provoke other problems. Or perhaps a less friendly language is more widely used and has a lower number of compatibility issues. Or perhaps a more or less complex system was built on a certain language and rewriting it in a different one wouldn't make too much sense.
The programming languages as a whole are certainly improving; but thinking that there is an absolutely better alternative independently upon anything else is plainly wrong. I can defend the features of the languages in which I am more experienced, but can also understand that other people might prefer different things for whatever reason. What I cannot defend is those half-learning any new approach and hoping it to (magically) compensate their limited skills. Learning many languages or just a few are both fine-to-me options, but only when learning them properly and not delivering nicely-labelled crap.
There are many approaches to this problem (more theoretical than actually used) and I am not saying that it will remain a problem forever. My whole point is that, at the moment, it isn't solved; right the contrary: it is a big uncertainty (= cost) which is usually ignored by (not too honest/knowledgeable) generic-speaking people; the ones who are now claiming that nuclear power is clean. As per our current knowledge, we are plainly "passing the buck" to the next generations; a buck about which we don't know too much and which might potentially be dangerous/expensive.
In any case, I insist in the fact that I am not saying that nuclear power is the worst possible alternative, but certainly not the best one. I don't see it as the go-to option, not even as a sustainable long-term approach. There are quite a few fission power plants whose replacement is very difficult and this is an acceptable reality. But claiming that nuclear power is clean, cheap, safe, etc. and using such hypocrite nonsense to support building more plants isn't acceptable.
In your first paragraph you imply that an isotope having a long half-life makes it more dangerous.
?! Where exactly have you got such nonsense from? If you read all what I wrote and understand it adequately (= the context and my intention), you would get that the point I was trying to make is that nuclear waste have to be taken care of for very long time!! The longer the half-lives, the more care (= time = money) you would have to put in. Logically, the longer the waiting period the less aggressive the radiation (that's why this whole process is called decay), but you would have to take care of it anyway.
In summary (you seem to be too stupid to summarise things by your own): for the intend of my comment, the longer the half-live the worst the product, not because of being intrinsically more dangerous but because of implying longer time/money/uncertainty.
You must really be afraid of potassium-40 with a half-life of 1.2 billion years.
Afraid?! Where have I said that I was afraid of anything? As explained (although you are so stupid that I will better say it here again), my point was focused on the time and, consequently, the cost which will be extended much beyond the generation of the product. I didn't say anything about specific products, how dangerous they are or what might be the cost at each point.
I plainly highlighted in quite generic terms the simple (or, at least, I thought so; for you or people like you, it doesn't seem simple) reality defined by the following points:
* You have a given raw material which isn't dangerous in nature (you don't need to care about it; or eventually just trying to not live close to it for too long), but which becomes extremely dangerous after being used by a reactor (+ all the sub-products which the process generates).
* Now that it is extremely dangerous you have to take care of it.
* Depending upon the material and the exact conditions, it will remain dangerous for certain period of time. The danger will be reduced with time (I thought that this was evident; my bad for not realising about the kind of knowledge and understanding capabilities that my potential audience might have), but in any case the time will be very long and you will have to take care of it during that whole period (at least, in theory).
* This process represents an additional cost likely to be very high, but in any case impossible to be determined a priori. This was my whole point!
Idiot.
If you have understood now half of what I have written above, you would know who the idiot here is. It is kind of ironic that you (= the ignorant part, unable to even understand the actual intention of a quite short text) were the first one insulting. Did you feel frustrated with all these words/concepts saying something different than what your 2 generic ideas on this front seem to indicate? Did I subvert your “this is bad because [short and simple idea]”/”this is good because [short and simple idea]”-based way of life? Sorry, I didn't intend to hurt defenceless beings.
There is something which I don’t fully understand in your behaviour though. Why wasting your time reading just a couple of sentences I wrote (what I presume that was a big effort for you and your "brain") and not delivering your output (arbitrary insult) right away? Why proving your lack of understanding on top of your aggressive stupidity, when you can just prove your aggressive stupidity?
Assuming that the people in charge of this shit are competent is a total non-starter
One thing is being in charge in a field where ignorance might be acceptable. A different story is being in charge when only technical issues and results matter (= engineering), mainly when dealing with something as dangerous and unknown as nuclear power. Do I blindly trust in anyone having done whatever perfectly? No. Do I trust in engineering practices which have been around for over 50 years in a so delicate field like nuclear engineering (about which I have a quite good knowledge myself)? Yes, although certainly not blindly.