removing it is not about "omg fascist controlling busybodies"
it's about the quality of the channel
if you gave ac commentary the same level playing field as real commentary, soon there won't be any real commentary, because anyone actually interested in having a useful discussion/ read useful comments will leave the board because the board is all this useless WHARGARBBBLE
requiring real names will improve quality, but a better way to squelch out all the useless noise is to bury it through moderation, like slashdot
yes, i as well have read the occasional gem of an ac comment on slashot. however, this is one out of hundreds. burying it at -1 is virtually the same as censoring commentary that is not a real account, with a slight chance of redemption. i'm sure there's hundreds of wonderful comments i have missed, and most everyone else, because the author posted ac for some reason
so really, all these people singing "battle hymn of the republic" and standing up for the nobility of ac speech are full of it:
1. 99% of it is crap that they don't read and don't want to read 2. it's virtually censored anyway at -1, and they are happy it is shoved out of their view 3. if they were forced to actually see ac commentary, they would never return to slashdot, as it would become unusable, signal drowned in noise 4. the occasional gem of an ac comment is rescued form the gutter, and everyone thinks it's wonderful, but no one thinks this just a random bit of luck?
so the ac stuff says virtually censored, with a crack in the door for redemption, and the idealists feel all smug, when nothing really is changed then as if ac never even existed
no, the limits are natural. people like to whine about government taking away their rights, and in many cases the government is hurting rights for bad or no good reasons. but there are also people who whine about limits on their rights who are just idiots who don't understand where their "freedoms" impact others: my freedom to drive drunk, my freedom to blast my music at 3 am, my freedom to have an unchained dog run at you on the road, etc.
there's that famous quote: "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
and what it means is your rights and freedoms naturally exist in tension with other people's rights and freedoms
so no, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because... fascist controlling government WHARGARBBBLLL...
no, because you might cause someone else's death or injury in panic
NATURAL limits on your freedoms
this is the difference between understanding freedom as a teenager understands it (freedom from responsibility) and understanding freedom as an adult understands it (freedom and responsibility)
this is not denigrate chronological teenagers: plenty of teenagers have a well-developed sense of morality on the subject, and plenty of chronological adults are immature irresponsible assholes: mental teenagers
Complain about anything you want in a free society.
But the concept of freedom of speech does NOT apply to:
1. talk about killing someone specifically 2. talk about blowing something up specifically
If you don't understand why, you are pretty stupid.
Everything has its limits. EVERYTHING. You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre. You don't threaten to kill or maim or bomb. You don't publish your ex-wife's nude photos, etc.: there are actually LIMITS on what you can do or say in a free society. Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.
The concept of freedom does not include the concept of freedom from responsibility.
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
You are proposing frat boy solutions to a frat boy problem.
It's easy: dont turn it into a frat boy game. Just say once, seriously, before the new employee starts: "I noticed the innuendo around here. It's not funny. Do it once, get a warning. Do it twice, get fired."
And then actually do that.
Sexual harassment isn't funny. Of course the frat boys will say it's just a little fun, no harm intended. Thats the problem.
The guy's question sounds like agonizing over the what color car to get before he has even picked out a car.
Vacation/sick days are something you track from within an employee hour tracking system that you should be worrying about first. And once you've chosen that, your solution is vacation/ sick day tracking becomes obvious.
Our politics has been infested with the corporate tendency to think short term, just as long as the next quarterly results. Which makes sense, since our representatives answer to the agendas of the corporations that fund them, certainly not the people who elected them.
The result of which is that the USA is declaring its intent to be a declining power in the world. You invest in science and education, or you head towards second rate status in the world. It's that simple.
Yet another reason why the corporate infection of our democracy basically means our doom.
What is the point of ANY forum being ruined by anonymous noise?
" Even though there are other forums that are readable in spite of not having such restrictions?"
Where?!
Such a forum does not exist. Any successful forum has moderation, or it is destroyed by anonymous douchebags. Where "destroyed" means not useful for any serious interaction, 4chan being a special case where the whole point is to revel in the noise.
where i played hours and hours of 'DOOM' day after day
i did not turn into a massacring monster. the worst thing on my record is a speeding ticket. i am nonviolent
in fact, i am for much stricter gun control in the USA. the second amendment was written before semi-automatic firearms existed
i enjoyed the escapist violence in 'DOOM' because it is just a game, i can tell the difference between real life and a game. everyone can except a few nutjobs
the point is: violent videogames, movies, books, or any media do not turn certain people into nutjobs. certain people are just already nutjobs, and yes: certain media may set them off
however: in a world where all media is unicorns and flowers, the barking dog next door or the roommate's weird style of laughter or the burning red eyes of the toaster oven would set them off instead. meaning they are going to be set off, one way or another, no matter what media exists
so let us enjoy our first person shooters and batman movies. these media might set off nutjobs... nutjobs who would be set off anyways in any media environment regardless
to get quite pointed here about how silly it is to focus on media: if you are concerned about some media creating violent people, then the bible and the koran are the very first things you want to destroy, as those two books have served as the inspiration for the murder of millions. the contents of those two books are very violent, and suggest that an almighty invisible power has absolute authority to command you to obey its violent teachings. great, that's just what you need to tell a crazy person
in your situation, there is no real malice in the anonymous activities. you don't understand, or don't recognize, efforts by people to actually harm others online
your situation involves quaint, frivolous pursuits
shoot... you can't see... the comments are disabled now because this pakistani actress was getting multiple death threats for standing up to the conservative mullah. "grow up" or "relax" doesn't work on murderous dumb zealous thugs
the point is simply that "I will always choose anonymity online because I am a human being, not a consumer." sounds really awesome, but it only applies to the narrow way in which you use the web, and does not apply to the ways in which most other people do. this isn't about monetizing your internet existence, it is about establishing social standards of online discourse. not because of orwell, fascism, overcontrolling busybodies, censorship, etc., but to maintain simple decency and respect
that's not my point. that's not even google's point. that's the point of the concept of the tragedy of the commons
you're not stupid. you know that garbage signal ruins a forum. so why do you stand against efforts to actually make a forum useful?
now go on and gnash your teeth about fascism, over controlling busybodies, censorship, orwell... blah blah blah. hysterical nonsense
it's about a useful forum. or not. you can't have a conversation in a room if there's a handful of oddballs screaming the lyrics to random songs in people's ears. so you remove those folks. because you are controlling asshole? no, because you want to actually have a conversation!
Go. Read a thread on YouTube. That is worth your time?
Its not about being offended. Its about wasting your time on noise without signal.
Get off my high horse? Get off yours. You didnt even listen to what I said. You had some holier than thou response all picked out that doesn't even address my point.
because, as a look at youtube posts, or slashdot browsing at -1 proves, it destroys the forum
a communication channel will be abandoned by serious people if there is no signal and just a lot of useless noise. tragedy of the commons. so you need to police the commons
perhaps youtube could embrace moderation instead, but either way, you WANT to squelch, aka, censor, useless anonymous speech
i would be posting anonymously if i were in syria
but in the usa, if i post anonymously, my intentions are not in the interest of a good forum, but just abusing the forum for some antisocial problem of mine
there's always 4chan. for everything else serious, you need moderation or integrity of word and speaker with real life ids
i agree, i just need to check to see you understand the options to this horrible status quo:
1. no regulation. which means they dominate by fiat: they cheat in the market and squeeze the consumer and the smaller competitors
2. proper regulation. which means a government uncorrupted by large corporations
#2 is not easy. but #1 is clearly worse
what drives me a little nuts is people who see large corporations corrupting the government, and they think the solution is to remove regulations and government, rather than removing the corruption. removing the government and regulations just makes the large corporation's abuse of the consumer and smaller competitors even easier!
a capitalist wants a marketplace of equals competing (which is only maintained by health regulations)
a rent seeking parasite will talk about capitalism a lot, but what they really want is their monopoly or oligopoly preserved. so any government regulation or taxation is evil and anti-capitalist... when of course, the monopoly or oligopoly whining about capitalism is the genuine anti-capitalist force
the greatest enemy of capitalism is not "socialism" (the random bogeyman curse word that has no relevant meaning in the USA), it is anti-competitive practices by entrenched large players, including corrupting our government
but you're a fucking moron. the regulations need to be enforced
poor people with a destroyed environment for generations can't fight corporate lawyers with deep pockets and political connections
the function of the government is to represent and protect the people. fuck you and your ignorant "oh you don't need speed enforcement, just sue the broke drunk when he kills you" no regulations approach
because the inspectors are in cohoots with the industry. they are more interested in their golf game together than a proper adversarial arrangement necessary for an effective job
i said lack of regulations and EFFECTIVE REGULATORS is the problem
where regulations are excessive and confusing, an effective regulator can still understand the problem and know what needs to be followed to prevent disasters
but republicans gut regulatory agency's funding and gut regulations
and i find your line of reasoning specious: that we need less regulations. it isn't about quantity. it is about quality and proper enforcement activity
as long as things like BP are happening, your line of reasoning is dangerous and wrong. we obviously need MORE effective enforcement of regulations
i have a problem with the assholes who think they have a right to choose not to get any insurance, then, when they break their arm, avoid the bill or declare bankruptcy. freeloaders. then we have to catch the slack with our taxes and insurance rates
they apparently believe freedom is freedom from responsibility
Slashdot Mirror
removing it is not about "omg fascist controlling busybodies"
it's about the quality of the channel
if you gave ac commentary the same level playing field as real commentary, soon there won't be any real commentary, because anyone actually interested in having a useful discussion/ read useful comments will leave the board because the board is all this useless WHARGARBBBLE
requiring real names will improve quality, but a better way to squelch out all the useless noise is to bury it through moderation, like slashdot
yes, i as well have read the occasional gem of an ac comment on slashot. however, this is one out of hundreds. burying it at -1 is virtually the same as censoring commentary that is not a real account, with a slight chance of redemption. i'm sure there's hundreds of wonderful comments i have missed, and most everyone else, because the author posted ac for some reason
so really, all these people singing "battle hymn of the republic" and standing up for the nobility of ac speech are full of it:
1. 99% of it is crap that they don't read and don't want to read
2. it's virtually censored anyway at -1, and they are happy it is shoved out of their view
3. if they were forced to actually see ac commentary, they would never return to slashdot, as it would become unusable, signal drowned in noise
4. the occasional gem of an ac comment is rescued form the gutter, and everyone thinks it's wonderful, but no one thinks this just a random bit of luck?
so the ac stuff says virtually censored, with a crack in the door for redemption, and the idealists feel all smug, when nothing really is changed then as if ac never even existed
"Only if you put limits on it."
no, the limits are natural. people like to whine about government taking away their rights, and in many cases the government is hurting rights for bad or no good reasons. but there are also people who whine about limits on their rights who are just idiots who don't understand where their "freedoms" impact others: my freedom to drive drunk, my freedom to blast my music at 3 am, my freedom to have an unchained dog run at you on the road, etc.
there's that famous quote: "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
and what it means is your rights and freedoms naturally exist in tension with other people's rights and freedoms
so no, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because... fascist controlling government WHARGARBBBLLL...
no, because you might cause someone else's death or injury in panic
NATURAL limits on your freedoms
this is the difference between understanding freedom as a teenager understands it (freedom from responsibility) and understanding freedom as an adult understands it (freedom and responsibility)
this is not denigrate chronological teenagers: plenty of teenagers have a well-developed sense of morality on the subject, and plenty of chronological adults are immature irresponsible assholes: mental teenagers
Complain about anything you want in a free society.
But the concept of freedom of speech does NOT apply to:
1. talk about killing someone specifically
2. talk about blowing something up specifically
If you don't understand why, you are pretty stupid.
Everything has its limits. EVERYTHING. You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre. You don't threaten to kill or maim or bomb. You don't publish your ex-wife's nude photos, etc.: there are actually LIMITS on what you can do or say in a free society. Those limits are where your "free speech" results in real harm to other individuals.
Plus, much of the people whining that no one can take a joke any more will be whining about why the police didn't follow up on the public comments of the next psycho who shoots up a mall or bombs a bus terminal, comments made before he did those atrocities.
The concept of freedom does not include the concept of freedom from responsibility.
Now mod me as troll, because I don't tow the ridiculously naive and cluelessly idealistic slashdot party line on "free speech".
Sorry, I'm not eating grey goo nanotech ice cream.
You are proposing frat boy solutions to a frat boy problem.
It's easy: dont turn it into a frat boy game. Just say once, seriously, before the new employee starts: "I noticed the innuendo around here. It's not funny. Do it once, get a warning. Do it twice, get fired."
And then actually do that.
Sexual harassment isn't funny. Of course the frat boys will say it's just a little fun, no harm intended. Thats the problem.
The guy's question sounds like agonizing over the what color car to get before he has even picked out a car.
Vacation/sick days are something you track from within an employee hour tracking system that you should be worrying about first. And once you've chosen that, your solution is vacation/ sick day tracking becomes obvious.
son, if you are running a Tor exit node, you're not an "innocent civilian" according to any government
benign neglect is what you can hope for in the west. a knock on the door by nice policeman or worse in china or iran
they can aid dissidents in China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, etc.
and they can keep an eye on kiddie porn assholes
sound like an exotic weird idea? Tor was started by the government, specifically the US Naval Research Laboratory
heck, i can see the Chinese government running their own exit nodes for keeping an eye on political dissidents
all your Tor is belong to government
are investments in the future.
Our politics has been infested with the corporate tendency to think short term, just as long as the next quarterly results. Which makes sense, since our representatives answer to the agendas of the corporations that fund them, certainly not the people who elected them.
The result of which is that the USA is declaring its intent to be a declining power in the world. You invest in science and education, or you head towards second rate status in the world. It's that simple.
Yet another reason why the corporate infection of our democracy basically means our doom.
What is the point of ANY forum being ruined by anonymous noise?
" Even though there are other forums that are readable in spite of not having such restrictions?"
Where?!
Such a forum does not exist. Any successful forum has moderation, or it is destroyed by anonymous douchebags. Where "destroyed" means not useful for any serious interaction, 4chan being a special case where the whole point is to revel in the noise.
where i played hours and hours of 'DOOM' day after day
i did not turn into a massacring monster. the worst thing on my record is a speeding ticket. i am nonviolent
in fact, i am for much stricter gun control in the USA. the second amendment was written before semi-automatic firearms existed
i enjoyed the escapist violence in 'DOOM' because it is just a game, i can tell the difference between real life and a game. everyone can except a few nutjobs
the point is: violent videogames, movies, books, or any media do not turn certain people into nutjobs. certain people are just already nutjobs, and yes: certain media may set them off
however: in a world where all media is unicorns and flowers, the barking dog next door or the roommate's weird style of laughter or the burning red eyes of the toaster oven would set them off instead. meaning they are going to be set off, one way or another, no matter what media exists
so let us enjoy our first person shooters and batman movies. these media might set off nutjobs... nutjobs who would be set off anyways in any media environment regardless
to get quite pointed here about how silly it is to focus on media: if you are concerned about some media creating violent people, then the bible and the koran are the very first things you want to destroy, as those two books have served as the inspiration for the murder of millions. the contents of those two books are very violent, and suggest that an almighty invisible power has absolute authority to command you to obey its violent teachings. great, that's just what you need to tell a crazy person
in your situation, there is no real malice in the anonymous activities. you don't understand, or don't recognize, efforts by people to actually harm others online
your situation involves quaint, frivolous pursuits
that's no all there is on youtube
start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMnAmRa4NYw
shoot... you can't see... the comments are disabled now because this pakistani actress was getting multiple death threats for standing up to the conservative mullah. "grow up" or "relax" doesn't work on murderous dumb zealous thugs
the point is simply that "I will always choose anonymity online because I am a human being, not a consumer." sounds really awesome, but it only applies to the narrow way in which you use the web, and does not apply to the ways in which most other people do. this isn't about monetizing your internet existence, it is about establishing social standards of online discourse. not because of orwell, fascism, overcontrolling busybodies, censorship, etc., but to maintain simple decency and respect
no one reads youtube comments
that's not my point. that's not even google's point. that's the point of the concept of the tragedy of the commons
you're not stupid. you know that garbage signal ruins a forum. so why do you stand against efforts to actually make a forum useful?
now go on and gnash your teeth about fascism, over controlling busybodies, censorship, orwell... blah blah blah. hysterical nonsense
it's about a useful forum. or not. you can't have a conversation in a room if there's a handful of oddballs screaming the lyrics to random songs in people's ears. so you remove those folks. because you are controlling asshole? no, because you want to actually have a conversation!
Go. Read a thread on YouTube. That is worth your time?
Its not about being offended. Its about wasting your time on noise without signal.
Get off my high horse? Get off yours. You didnt even listen to what I said. You had some holier than thou response all picked out that doesn't even address my point.
because, as a look at youtube posts, or slashdot browsing at -1 proves, it destroys the forum
a communication channel will be abandoned by serious people if there is no signal and just a lot of useless noise. tragedy of the commons. so you need to police the commons
perhaps youtube could embrace moderation instead, but either way, you WANT to squelch, aka, censor, useless anonymous speech
i would be posting anonymously if i were in syria
but in the usa, if i post anonymously, my intentions are not in the interest of a good forum, but just abusing the forum for some antisocial problem of mine
there's always 4chan. for everything else serious, you need moderation or integrity of word and speaker with real life ids
it will never live up to that ideal
no market will ever perfect
all you can do is enforce regulations and get as close as possible to a fair marketplace
but no regulations at all certainly leads to horrible abuses (except in the minds of those who believe libertarian fantasies)
ok, i'm not falling for the troll this time
yeah, and we also had a lot more abuse without regulation
this is what you want?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_Government_Services,_Inc.
frankly, the $10k per employee is cheap, compared to the alternatives
i agree, i just need to check to see you understand the options to this horrible status quo:
1. no regulation. which means they dominate by fiat: they cheat in the market and squeeze the consumer and the smaller competitors
2. proper regulation. which means a government uncorrupted by large corporations
#2 is not easy. but #1 is clearly worse
what drives me a little nuts is people who see large corporations corrupting the government, and they think the solution is to remove regulations and government, rather than removing the corruption. removing the government and regulations just makes the large corporation's abuse of the consumer and smaller competitors even easier!
they are rent seeking parasites
a capitalist wants a marketplace of equals competing (which is only maintained by health regulations)
a rent seeking parasite will talk about capitalism a lot, but what they really want is their monopoly or oligopoly preserved. so any government regulation or taxation is evil and anti-capitalist... when of course, the monopoly or oligopoly whining about capitalism is the genuine anti-capitalist force
the greatest enemy of capitalism is not "socialism" (the random bogeyman curse word that has no relevant meaning in the USA), it is anti-competitive practices by entrenched large players, including corrupting our government
dude, i totally fell for the poe's law effect on that one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
but you're a fucking moron. the regulations need to be enforced
poor people with a destroyed environment for generations can't fight corporate lawyers with deep pockets and political connections
the function of the government is to represent and protect the people. fuck you and your ignorant "oh you don't need speed enforcement, just sue the broke drunk when he kills you" no regulations approach
because the inspectors are in cohoots with the industry. they are more interested in their golf game together than a proper adversarial arrangement necessary for an effective job
i said lack of regulations and EFFECTIVE REGULATORS is the problem
where regulations are excessive and confusing, an effective regulator can still understand the problem and know what needs to be followed to prevent disasters
but republicans gut regulatory agency's funding and gut regulations
and i find your line of reasoning specious: that we need less regulations. it isn't about quantity. it is about quality and proper enforcement activity
as long as things like BP are happening, your line of reasoning is dangerous and wrong. we obviously need MORE effective enforcement of regulations
i don't have a problem with you
i have a problem with the assholes who think they have a right to choose not to get any insurance, then, when they break their arm, avoid the bill or declare bankruptcy. freeloaders. then we have to catch the slack with our taxes and insurance rates
they apparently believe freedom is freedom from responsibility
explain the BP Gulf disaster
explain this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2996611&cid=40732551
lack of regulations and effective regulators is the problem