Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully HEY!!!! I'll have you know that Canada's been the U.S.'s bitch WAY longer!
It is the first general-circulation coin in the world to have ever been issued in colour. IIRC, Canada is still the only country to issue coloured coins in general circulation (the mint later issued one with a pink ribbon as part of a breast cancer fund-raising campaign). The images are "painted" (printed actually) by computer using some kind of epoxy on a small mesh substrate, which is then cured (not sure if this required heat or not, but it becomes quite a durable finish). If by "durable" you mean that most of it rubs off after a couple of days in your pocket with the rest of your change, and that the mint ran ads saying "if you find some in your change, keep it" because they knew full well that would happen, then yes.
Explain to me how one goes about blocking a user from replying to your posts on slashdot
Mark him as foe, and set those up to -6 in your preferences (and anonymous people too, if needed). Then browse at 0+. Not perfect, but it would work.
Unfortunately that affects many more people than just the intended target. I already devalue my foe's post, but just by one mod, in order to negate their karma bonus. Pushing them all down for the actions of one obsessive asshole wouldn't be satisfying. I appreciate the comment though, but I would want his karma to reflect his behaviour, not his proficiency at karma whoring.
Taco was right, in the end, he tired himself out. But Taco was wrong, implicitely, in allowing his broken moderation system to go on the way it does: When you can prove with someone's posting history that his positive karma is due to a flaw in the system, there ought to be a mechanism to do the moderator's job correctly, in their absence.
Most major BB distros these days do have this feature, but/.'s forum system is proprietary and does not. For a time, I even got the blessing of a paid/. susbriction from a generous third party, but alas, even when shelling out the cash, you still can't really protect yourself (outside of your own journal).
Exactly. It's not right, but it's not a crime -- after all, virtual killing (i.e. games) isn't a crime. Everyone is agreed that equating it to a real rape is absolutely ridiculous, but keeping that mindset, wouldn't virtual killing be when your account is permanently disabled? Because if you respawn, it's more like a virtual nap than a virtual death, IMHO. Especially if it's part of the game. The thing we're actually discussing here is behaviour outside of the parameters of the game.
If someone uses game avatars to, say, negotiate the price and drop off point of a drug deal, or to discuss the details of their conspiracy to commit investment fraud, the fact that game avatars were saying the words doesn't make the conspiracy any less of a crime. It's the projection of real-world criminal behaviour through virtual presence that's interesting in this story, not the hysterics about the bad word "rape".
There is not, and SHOULD NOT, be a right to not be offended. It is not the governments job to let us live in some mythical 50's utopia. This comment will make sense when the phrase "fuck, those were nice nipples!", with accompanying visuals, is heard plainly on regular broadcast television.
1) don't read every reply to your posts if you're so horrified by bad words being in close proximity on the screen to messages that you posted. As an example, I probably won't ever read any replies to this post. I'll also probably email Taco a note thanking him for not breaking Slashdot just because one person wanted the ability to restrict the replies of people who disagree. 1- Bad words don't phase me, systematic harrasment is another matter. 2- Slashdot IS broken, I was asking for a fix. 3- Disagreeing != stalking;
I think this works, but haven't tried it myself: if you mark someone as a foe, then auto-downmod foes to -1, theoretically they vanish from your ken. Unless, of course, you read at -1. Yeah, but that's a lot of collateral damage for one jerk. Thanks anyway:)
If someone starts calling us names online, we can't have the sense to block them on our messenger of email or forums or wherever else they're bothering us? No.
Explain to me how one goes about blocking a user from replying to your posts on slashdot. I'm interrested to know how you think this can be done, because some loser spent a year stalking me on slashdot, posting scatological drivel in reply to my post in pretty much every thread I participated in (usually two days later, so no moderators would see his posts) and the best that Taco could offer me was to ignore him until he got tired of it.
If there were an effective mechanism to block trolls, the net would be a much better place. But this is a social problem that cannot be solved by a technological solution, therefore you need a real world mechanism (a law) to deal with these people. "Virtual rape" is sexual harassment, not rape, but "toughen up" is not a valid response to harassment, that amounts to saying that the harasser is in his right to be an ass, and that their victims are in the wrong for, well, for being victims of harassment. Whenever a position is that victims are at fault, then the position is wrong, it wasn't their idea, it's not their responsibility.
Some may argue coercion, but things like pressuring someone to have sex to keep there job generally isn't enough to render the encounter non-consentual (that is, however, a nice sexual harassment lawsuit). Threats of violence or fiduciary hardship are equally valid as tools of coersion. "I will beat you" and "you will lose your job/house" are both effective threats.
what they're really talking about is simply harassment. Calling it rape is an insult to anyone who has ever been raped. Someone saying naughty words to you in a video game, or even having their character make nasty gestures, is NOT on the same level as rape. That sums it up nicely: It's online sexual harassement, not rape. Kudos.
if you are being virtually raped you should log off. there. that's fixed. You've just equated it to a denial of service attack and you think that fixes anything?
As long as there are gene sequencer machines on the market and people like me studying cell biology, don't worry, it'll be done in private residences. Switching on genes isn't so hard. That actually got me to START worrying! Thanks a lot, Dr. Frankenstein.
It's just you. Popular Mechanics tested a bunch of CFL bulbs against incandescents It's not just him, those freakin things feel to me like someone is scraping the inside of my retina with a rusty spork.
And I followed your link, they tested against ONE incadescent, not "incadescents", you little misleader you.
and what about the so-called "Clean Coal", which presumably reduces the amount of mercury pollution? Bullshit propaganda from the coal mine owners who do not want to see their profits decrease in favour of renewable energy.
If you believe coal salesmen when they tell you coal is clean energy, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I have fixtures that have two bulbs. I have 1 CFL and 1 incandescent in each. Sounds like a good plan, except that for reasons unkown to rational minds, governments are banning incadescent light bulbs.
According to the Canadian minister for Pretending To Care About The Environement, that's gonna reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All my electricity comes from renewable energy (hydro), so his reasoning is pure, distilled bullshit, but he's gonna ban 'em!
I wonder how many shares of the fluo bulb manufacturers he bought beforehand...
quite close to incandescents in color, and have an effectively instant warm up time. Sure, and the dirty corn syrup they serve at IHOP is quite close to maple syrup? The yellow oily stuff they put on movie popcorn is quite close to butter?
People don't want to pay for music either:) Unless they really-really have to, or love the artist ??!? iTunes sold one BILLION songs; Stop repeating that RIAA FUD.
The story points to them being a "straight A student". What does this have to do with anything? Are they implying that a persons GPA is an indicator of their abilities to shoot others at school? Just what was the point of that? He's not a holligan, he's a good tudent punished for doing his schoolwork according to the teacher's instructions. His grades are relevant here, because a C student might have censored themselves rather than fall for the teacher's bait.
HOWEVER, they're including out of habit, because it lets their readers judge the people involve. Grade A student: Good person. Drop out candidate? Scum of the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait, that's not something to be proud of...
If you weren't being obliquely ironic, then, no.
No, it ain't. But that doesn't make it a crime, necessarily.
True, that doesn't mean it should be ignored and tolerated, either.Which was mah point.
Mark him as foe, and set those up to -6 in your preferences (and anonymous people too, if needed). Then browse at 0+. Not perfect, but it would work.
Unfortunately that affects many more people than just the intended target.I already devalue my foe's post, but just by one mod, in order to negate their karma bonus. Pushing them all down for the actions of one obsessive asshole wouldn't be satisfying. I appreciate the comment though, but I would want his karma to reflect his behaviour, not his proficiency at karma whoring.
Taco was right, in the end, he tired himself out. But Taco was wrong, implicitely, in allowing his broken moderation system to go on the way it does: When you can prove with someone's posting history that his positive karma is due to a flaw in the system, there ought to be a mechanism to do the moderator's job correctly, in their absence.
It's not right, but it's not a crime -- after all, virtual killing (i.e. games) isn't a crime. Everyone is agreed that equating it to a real rape is absolutely ridiculous, but keeping that mindset, wouldn't virtual killing be when your account is permanently disabled?
Because if you respawn, it's more like a virtual nap than a virtual death, IMHO. Especially if it's part of the game. The thing we're actually discussing here is behaviour outside of the parameters of the game.
If someone uses game avatars to, say, negotiate the price and drop off point of a drug deal, or to discuss the details of their conspiracy to commit investment fraud, the fact that game avatars were saying the words doesn't make the conspiracy any less of a crime.
It's the projection of real-world criminal behaviour through virtual presence that's interesting in this story, not the hysterics about the bad word "rape".
As an example, I probably won't ever read any replies to this post. I'll also probably email Taco a note thanking him for not breaking Slashdot just because one person wanted the ability to restrict the replies of people who disagree. 1- Bad words don't phase me, systematic harrasment is another matter.
2- Slashdot IS broken, I was asking for a fix.
3- Disagreeing != stalking;
If Troi's role in the last TNG movie taught us anything, it's that you can never learn mind-rape self defenseand get some mind-pepperspray.
Explain to me how one goes about blocking a user from replying to your posts on slashdot. I'm interrested to know how you think this can be done, because some loser spent a year stalking me on slashdot, posting scatological drivel in reply to my post in pretty much every thread I participated in (usually two days later, so no moderators would see his posts) and the best that Taco could offer me was to ignore him until he got tired of it.
If there were an effective mechanism to block trolls, the net would be a much better place. But this is a social problem that cannot be solved by a technological solution, therefore you need a real world mechanism (a law) to deal with these people. "Virtual rape" is sexual harassment, not rape, but "toughen up" is not a valid response to harassment, that amounts to saying that the harasser is in his right to be an ass, and that their victims are in the wrong for, well, for being victims of harassment. Whenever a position is that victims are at fault, then the position is wrong, it wasn't their idea, it's not their responsibility.
"I will beat you" and "you will lose your job/house" are both effective threats.
It ain't rape, but it ain't right.
Kudos.
there. that's fixed. You've just equated it to a denial of service attack and you think that fixes anything?
Popular Mechanics tested a bunch of CFL bulbs against incandescents It's not just him, those freakin things feel to me like someone is scraping the inside of my retina with a rusty spork.
And I followed your link, they tested against ONE incadescent, not "incadescents", you little misleader you.
If you believe coal salesmen when they tell you coal is clean energy, then I have a bridge to sell you.
According to the Canadian minister for Pretending To Care About The Environement, that's gonna reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
All my electricity comes from renewable energy (hydro), so his reasoning is pure, distilled bullshit, but he's gonna ban 'em!
I wonder how many shares of the fluo bulb manufacturers he bought beforehand...
The yellow oily stuff they put on movie popcorn is quite close to butter?
Can't get anymore northern than that.
iTunes sold one BILLION songs; Stop repeating that RIAA FUD.
Just what was the point of that? He's not a holligan, he's a good tudent punished for doing his schoolwork according to the teacher's instructions.
His grades are relevant here, because a C student might have censored themselves rather than fall for the teacher's bait.
HOWEVER, they're including out of habit, because it lets their readers judge the people involve. Grade A student: Good person. Drop out candidate? Scum of the earth.