A "troll" is indeed more applicable to someone who intentially tries to disrupt in a hostile manner,
Depends on how narrow your definition is.
Some disturb in apparently non-hostile manners, some just want attention. Your definition sounds more like flamebait, which is a distinct label around these parts.
Happy new year, may your trolls choke on chicken bones!
A "troll" is someone who intentioally takes the opposite view of yours for no reason than to play "devil's advocate" but in a somewhat hostile manner. The Soviet jokes are old and stale, yes. I wish that people who utter them would die horribly because THEY ARE NO LONGER FUNNY. But they are not trolls.
The Soviet Russia trolls take the opposite view of yours (i.e. that it is funny) for no reason than to play devil's advocate in a hostile manner.
And by replying to them, you are feeding the trolls. Do stop.
Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs prior to our invasion of Iraq. CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc all were in agreement.
And the U.N. inspectors? Right, they don't count! They were clearly fooled by Saddam's ninjas! Nor do the hundreds of thousands of protestors worldwide.
Sigh. Not everyone was fooled, don't pretend they were just to make yourself feel better for having been had.
My principal dispapointment with the movie was the Hulk looked dumb
Because he always looked so smart and sophisticated before?;-) I thought he looked big and green, which is fine, I was disapointed that he didn't kill a single person in that whole movie. He kills a couple of giant mutant dogs, and a few people die of their own follis in his presence, but the Hulk himself killed no one.
Hulk is supposed to be like an anthopomorphic natural disaster, causing material destruction and death wherever he turns up. But they had to tone it down to be kid-friendly, so they went out of their way to show us the soldiers coing out totally unharmed of the smashed tanks and whatnot.
Meh, at least it was fun to watch him wail on a tank.
Sigh. I'll say it again, since even when you spend a lot of time linking back to this here thread you can't seem to understand any of it: I saw a documentary on the decision process for the design of the next generation of fighter planes that had numerous of the interviewed people invoke the "looks weird" nature of one of the designs as a reasonable grounds to reject it.
Was that clear enough?
They also had a number of other people, and some of the same, talk about miscelaneous other points, such as the navy, marines and airforce all wanting different things... the navy being really fond of twin engines was one of them. This was a documentary, ya know, an hour long show with a bunch of interviews, and a voiceover narration, and graphics... I'm sure you've heaqrd of them. It can, in the course of a whole hour, have more than one signle thing put forward. The "looks weird" notion was a recurring theme, as I meant by "I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird." See, when I use the word "main" I meant here "expressing the chief predication in a complex sentence" Some dumbasses interpret "main" to mean "one and only, unique, sole and lonesome point", apparently. That's too bad, it's not hard to get to a dictionary, they really should try it some day.
And for some reason, someone assumed I was talking about another contestant agains the F22, since there was more than one (as inconceivable as that might seem to some of you). See, sometimes the real world has more than two factors in it at one time, I know this complexity can be taxing, but do try to cope. Anyway, he was wrong about the X23, I wasn't talking about that plane with the funky "hex" wings when I said the design looked weird, I meant the stout "big mouth" plane. Said plane was rejected for a more conventional-looking design.
Apparently, some people think I made up the fact that interviewed engineers and military personnel were cited in a televised documentary as saying that the unconvewntional look of a military plane design was a factor taken into consideration when it was rejected. I didn't make that up, no matter how much some people claim that people like that wold never say such a thing... I don't care that they assume that such individuals would never say something like that. Their assumption are in confict with the observed facts.
Strange seeing as how the consensus seems to have been that the YF-23 looked better than then F-22.
Irrelevant seeing as I was talking about the plans to have everyone use the X-32, which was scrapped in part because they didn't like the look of it, and in part because the navy wanted twin jet engines 'cause they luv their f-18 honnets so much, etc. It was a whole documentary ya know, not a 30s clip about how the only deciding factor was aesthetics. There were also engine requirements, and political connections of manufacturers, all that jazz.
Still, the "looks weird" objection came time and time again, more than any technical requirement, and it came from all types of people involved, technical people, budget people, even from people with lots of shiny medals.
No, I don't "suppose", I saw the interviews with the generals, the engineers, and for some reason, the PR people involved in the project.
rather than try to dig up classified information, or try to determine the objective criteria used in the decision(things like unrefueled range, weapons load, maintainability, cost, situation awareness aids, etc. ) that the producers
But you suppose that all those factors wern't explored in said documentary. They were. In the future, keep your uninformed suppositions to yourself.
Got to love how any military product has to have a PR photo ready first, results later. Research in any other field doesn't need consumer-electronics-level designers quite so early in the project. Something about that gives me the willies.
I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird.
Yeah, plan your multi-billion dollar expenses on the sexiness of the machine boys, not on the functionality. I too get "the willies" thinking that people this infantile are sitting with their finger on the metaphorical nuclear button.
It's about risk taking. The major networks simply aren't willing to take risks.
The guy that OK'd Lost's very expensive pilot episode was sacked for it. And then the network made a fortune. As far as I know, they didn't hire him back.
Are we watching the SAME show? Bad acting? What? Bad plots? What??!?!
It's called a "troll", you get variations of the same comment in every single thread about a TV show, movie or game.
Formula to troll thread about X: "X is not good! People who like X are not smart!" with variations of "not good/smart" such as "sucks", "stupid", etc. Then, the people who react to this not-so-subtle attack provide the troll with much needed attention and a sense of accomplishment that they can only get from pissing people off whilst safely hidden behind a screen.
This concludes today's lesson of "Jerks and the things they do".
You click the Start button to "start" doing anything, including shutting down the system.
It requires you to think of "shutting down" as something that you start, rather than as stopping the damn thing, which is what you actually think until you're forced to wrap your mind around their insanity.
The apple and foot aren't much better, but they don't make you say things like "start shutting down".
Hell, I remember OS9, that was bad, it was in "special". I think it's the worse yet.
Slashdot Mirror
A "troll" is indeed more applicable to someone who intentially tries to disrupt in a hostile manner,
Depends on how narrow your definition is.
Some disturb in apparently non-hostile manners, some just want attention. Your definition sounds more like flamebait, which is a distinct label around these parts.
Happy new year, may your trolls choke on chicken bones!
firefox's current (1.0.7)
Nope: 1.5. Upgrade already, becauuuuse...
Try and find the rss link on the slashdot site.
It's right there at the end of the adress line.
A "troll" is someone who intentioally takes the opposite view of yours for no reason than to play "devil's advocate" but in a somewhat hostile manner. The Soviet jokes are old and stale, yes. I wish that people who utter them would die horribly because THEY ARE NO LONGER FUNNY. But they are not trolls.
The Soviet Russia trolls take the opposite view of yours (i.e. that it is funny) for no reason than to play devil's advocate in a hostile manner.
And by replying to them, you are feeding the trolls. Do stop.
Oh great, the salamander-men are pumping magma to destroy us upworlders and you say "excellent news!". Traitor!
Everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs prior to our invasion of Iraq. CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc all were in agreement.
And the U.N. inspectors? Right, they don't count! They were clearly fooled by Saddam's ninjas!
Nor do the hundreds of thousands of protestors worldwide.
Sigh. Not everyone was fooled, don't pretend they were just to make yourself feel better for having been had.
story is a myth. (I watch way too much Food Network...)
Adam and Jamie got a cooking show?
I believe spaghetti originated in Italy.
Marco Polo imported it from china.
Dear Kazakhstan and Iraq: The U.S. owns you, the U.S. runs you.
Dear Internet nerds: Same.
Dear U.N.: Suck it.
My principal dispapointment with the movie was the Hulk looked dumb
;-)
Because he always looked so smart and sophisticated before?
I thought he looked big and green, which is fine, I was disapointed that he didn't kill a single person in that whole movie. He kills a couple of giant mutant dogs, and a few people die of their own follis in his presence, but the Hulk himself killed no one.
Hulk is supposed to be like an anthopomorphic natural disaster, causing material destruction and death wherever he turns up. But they had to tone it down to be kid-friendly, so they went out of their way to show us the soldiers coing out totally unharmed of the smashed tanks and whatnot.
Meh, at least it was fun to watch him wail on a tank.
If you have two engines you have a backup
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Sigh.
I'll say it again, since even when you spend a lot of time linking back to this here thread you can't seem to understand any of it: I saw a documentary on the decision process for the design of the next generation of fighter planes that had numerous of the interviewed people invoke the "looks weird" nature of one of the designs as a reasonable grounds to reject it.
Was that clear enough?
They also had a number of other people, and some of the same, talk about miscelaneous other points, such as the navy, marines and airforce all wanting different things... the navy being really fond of twin engines was one of them. This was a documentary, ya know, an hour long show with a bunch of interviews, and a voiceover narration, and graphics... I'm sure you've heaqrd of them. It can, in the course of a whole hour, have more than one signle thing put forward. The "looks weird" notion was a recurring theme, as I meant by "I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird."
See, when I use the word "main" I meant here "expressing the chief predication in a complex sentence"
Some dumbasses interpret "main" to mean "one and only, unique, sole and lonesome point", apparently. That's too bad, it's not hard to get to a dictionary, they really should try it some day.
And for some reason, someone assumed I was talking about another contestant agains the F22, since there was more than one (as inconceivable as that might seem to some of you). See, sometimes the real world has more than two factors in it at one time, I know this complexity can be taxing, but do try to cope.
Anyway, he was wrong about the X23, I wasn't talking about that plane with the funky "hex" wings when I said the design looked weird, I meant the stout "big mouth" plane. Said plane was rejected for a more conventional-looking design.
Apparently, some people think I made up the fact that interviewed engineers and military personnel were cited in a televised documentary as saying that the unconvewntional look of a military plane design was a factor taken into consideration when it was rejected. I didn't make that up, no matter how much some people claim that people like that wold never say such a thing... I don't care that they assume that such individuals would never say something like that. Their assumption are in confict with the observed facts.
Strange seeing as how the consensus seems to have been that the YF-23 looked better than then F-22.
Irrelevant seeing as I was talking about the plans to have everyone use the X-32, which was scrapped in part because they didn't like the look of it, and in part because the navy wanted twin jet engines 'cause they luv their f-18 honnets so much, etc.
It was a whole documentary ya know, not a 30s clip about how the only deciding factor was aesthetics. There were also engine requirements, and political connections of manufacturers, all that jazz.
Still, the "looks weird" objection came time and time again, more than any technical requirement, and it came from all types of people involved, technical people, budget people, even from people with lots of shiny medals.
You don't suppose
No, I don't "suppose", I saw the interviews with the generals, the engineers, and for some reason, the PR people involved in the project.
rather than try to dig up classified information, or try to determine the objective criteria used in the decision(things like unrefueled range, weapons load, maintainability, cost, situation awareness aids, etc. ) that the producers
But you suppose that all those factors wern't explored in said documentary. They were.
In the future, keep your uninformed suppositions to yourself.
That's not helping! They'll just want to fiddle with it more, the pervs.
Got to love how any military product has to have a PR photo ready first, results later. Research in any other field doesn't need consumer-electronics-level designers quite so early in the project. Something about that gives me the willies.
I was watching a documentary on the race to build the next generation fighter jet, and time and time again, the main argument in favor of the X22 was that the other design looked weird.
Yeah, plan your multi-billion dollar expenses on the sexiness of the machine boys, not on the functionality. I too get "the willies" thinking that people this infantile are sitting with their finger on the metaphorical nuclear button.
The shape of the glass is irrelevant.
You'll never find the answer at the bottom.
But hopefully, by the time you get to the bottom, you forgot why you started that drink...
It's about risk taking. The major networks simply aren't willing to take risks.
The guy that OK'd Lost's very expensive pilot episode was sacked for it.
And then the network made a fortune. As far as I know, they didn't hire him back.
Lost and 24 are both missing
;-)
Maybe you should look at last year's list. Apparently you haven't caught on to the "year's best" concept yet
Are we watching the SAME show? Bad acting? What? Bad plots? What??!?!
It's called a "troll", you get variations of the same comment in every single thread about a TV show, movie or game.
Formula to troll thread about X: "X is not good! People who like X are not smart!" with variations of "not good/smart" such as "sucks", "stupid", etc.
Then, the people who react to this not-so-subtle attack provide the troll with much needed attention and a sense of accomplishment that they can only get from pissing people off whilst safely hidden behind a screen.
This concludes today's lesson of "Jerks and the things they do".
You click the Start button to "start" doing anything, including shutting down the system.
It requires you to think of "shutting down" as something that you start, rather than as stopping the damn thing, which is what you actually think until you're forced to wrap your mind around their insanity.
The apple and foot aren't much better, but they don't make you say things like "start shutting down".
Hell, I remember OS9, that was bad, it was in "special". I think it's the worse yet.
ILife? A...ummm...well, a way of living?
iLife is not a programm, jackass.
Its a suite wich includes iTunes (hmmm... maybe, a way to listen to tunes?), iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, which couldn't be more clear.
But it makes sense if you think about it.
Maybe if you think about it drunk.
Yeah, using the GPS puts us all at the will of the Pentagon for our navigation needs, but creating an alternative is expensive
Freedom ain't free.
Like SF? Start reading Heinlein.
;- )
SF standing for "space fuckfests" here, I gather?
I just don't bother to find out what I'm listening to and go buy it.
I find out and I check if they have a show in town in the foreseeable future.
P2P mp3s and live shows... I like it better than radio DJs and DRMd CDs.