My apologies for apparently underestimating your [fuzznutz's] age, but you really do write in a remarkably naive way. Perhaps your memory works in a funny way, whereas perhaps I have studied too much history?
So let me pose a question in your new framing: Exactly how were Nixon or Reagan held to account for their criminal activities?
I would say Reagan not at all, and many people even revere him to this day, though I would be unable to point at a single positive accomplishment that he earned primary credit for. Yes, Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency, but he was immediately pardoned. Actually I think that holding Nixon fully to account would have been America's last chance to roll back the imperial presidency. At the time it was sort of regarded as a joke that the president could claim anything he does is legal, but now the "unitary executive" is almost taken for granted by many politicians and judges, right up to the Supreme Court.
Not sure if your mention of Bernie was an ACK of a mention I made in this discussion, but I actually think we agree that he was the best candidate of this cycle. I think we probably disagree on the basis, however. Much as I admire his principles, I think he would have been able to do relatively little to advance them. The result would have been evolutionary change in a positive direction. In contrast, I cannot pretend to guess what principles Trump actually holds, though he has a long track record of vindictiveness and incompetence that should frighten any potential adversary or even the minor nuisances like me. The REAL threat of the Donald is the GOP party discipline behind him. I'm not too concerned about the angry losers or the mindless habitual voters who always vote R. I'm quite worried about the cold-blooded haters who have rallied around him.
Do you know how Cheny pulled Dubya's strings? Just a bit of patience. He would sit quietly through the meetings, but AFTER everyone else had left, then he would have a few final words with Dubya and, voila, the so-called decider did what Cheney wanted. We've already heard reports that Trump is basically the same way, parroting the last opinion he heard.
I think I am the OP you [fuzznutz] are referring to based on the subject line, but mostly I feel like you are demonstrating Nicholas Carr's thesis in The Shallows. Stretching hard to fit your comments to my recent comments...
On the opening topic, it doesn't matter what you want to call it as long as the executive branch treats it as law and the courts and Congress fail to make it stop. I'm inclined to approach things from a historical perspective, but seems unlikely to apply based on anything you've written so far. If you're my age, you might start with Iran Contra, but that's a while back. Hard to believe you could be too young to remember Dubya and Cheney. Your conception of party discipline in the Democratic Party is humorous, but obviously you don't remember Will Rogers. That also means it's unlikely you know much about REAL party discipline within the Bolsheviks, but there are a few differences from the modern so-called Republicans. Can't figure out what your point was supposed to be regarding Comey, nor imagine how it could have been related to anything I currently believe about Comey, so you must be projecting something from somewhere.
If you can't make things more coherent and actually relate your points to things I actually wrote, then I'll just flag the exchange as pointless and closed. Seen quite a number of those abortive dialogs recently--but that also fits within Carr's thesis. Apparently I'm becoming a weirdo because I can still concentrate long enough to read books... (Just passed a hundred for the year.)
A little bit confusing here, but I'm trying to separate out the parts from fuzznuts.
On one hand, I actually think we are in agreement on the theory of how the Constitution is supposed to work. On the other hand, I think your naivete is touching.
The theory and practice of government are always separated. There are so many examples I really don't know where to begin, but I think the best is probably Dubya's signing statements, even though they never achieved the infamy they deserved. As far as I know, none of them were ever successfully challenged, either by Congress or the courts. Dubya broke all the records for abuse of signing statements. The history is actually quite long and interesting, but it seems that signing statements only became one of the presidential policy tools when Reagan became president. Now they have a status that is almost like legislation...
As regards limiting Trump's possible executive orders, I think you [still fuzznuts] are pretty much deluded. The 4-4 Supreme Court won't override him, and will almost certainly rule in his favor after he appoints a 5th justice. The FBI is already in his pocket, even though Comey is one of those old-fashioned true Republicans. Congress? The House of so-called Representatives with such morons as McCaul and Goumert? The Senate? You think there are 40 Democratic Senators with sufficient balls to use the filibuster? I don't. I think the ONLY limit on the Donald will be his temperament, which is so bad he can't even be trusted with his own Twitter account.
Forgot one more prediction. I predict a serious lack of funny or insightful comments on Slashdot. Or does that even qualify as a prediction since it's just a description of the status quo?
I say it's a YUGELY sad story because freedom of speech is a good thing. Yes, Gawker pushed the line, but we if we are going to make errors about the lines around freedom of speech, we ABSOLUTELY should err on the side of MORE speech. We absolutely should NOT allow rich bastards to abuse the system because they can afford to hire lots of lawyers and support lots of lawsuits. Now to the predictions...
I predict you think the notion of blind justice has become a sick joke. Regardless of where you are on the ideological spectra, I predict we would agree the American judicial system is badly broken, though we would probably point at different examples of the brokenness. I would be hard pressed to decide between Citizens United or Bush v Gore as the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime, while you might point at Roe v Wade or various other candidates. Maybe the long-term perspective will put the "legal" crushing of Gawker above all of them.
I am not going to predict the outcome of the election, but if Trump wins, I predict that his promise to strength libel law and thereby attack free speech is a sincere one. Unlike most of his other promises, this is one he can really deliver on, and I predict the Senate Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to stop him.
Still related to the First Amendment, but mostly in other parts of the Bill of Rights, I also predict that Trump should feel HIGHLY indebted to the FBI. In his gratitude, he may give them more access to YOUR email. Email privacy is like a contagious disease. If you and I are going to have email privacy, then we need to protect the privacy of Kevin Bacon, too, and all the people in between. At least in theory, right now the FBI has to go through all the bother and nuisance of showing probable cause and getting a warrant to look at any person's email. Now imagine the convenience of starting with any known criminal and thereby having permission to look at all of the email of his possible accomplices. Oh wait, now you have to get the email of the 2nd degree people, and in six degrees you have EVERYONE's email. So convenient.
Nobody expect the Email Inquisition.
(P.S. I'm paranoid. I think the NSA already has copies of all of my email, even including the spam in case it has secret messages to be discovered later. I still don't want the FBI to have parity.)
Read that book, and it does NOT mean what you obviously think it means. You're also wrong about everything else you wrote, but who's counting. Can't blame you for hiding as a coward. Anonymous cowards are perhaps the most cowardly of all?
Anyway, I only peeked because I was curious if I should thank you for undoing your mod. Guess not, though I almost feel like thanking you for helping to prove so many of my points..
Only one of the insightful comments that seemed remotely worthy of the mod. Another sad data point about the current state of Slashdot, though I suppose the lack of "funny" posts is intrinsically sadder? Not even a glimmer of wit on this target-rich topic?
Anyway, what I was looking for was any discussion of the credibility of the data from WikiLeaks. After looking at the so-called "insightful" comments, I did a number of keyword searches and came up completely dry. It certainly is possible that some of the WikiLeaks data is terrible for Hillary Clinton, but there is no time to check. On one hand, we know that the timing of these releases was decided by Assange and certainly appears to be intended to hurt her as much as possible, but on the other hand, at least he makes no pretense of checking any of it for accuracy. There was a period when WikiLeaks tried to prevent killing people, but I'm not sure they even make that much effort anymore.
One of the posts I noticed (one of the few sane ones) summarized his position as being underwhelmed, but I think that's an understatement. If there was some real substance here, then it should have been released a long time ago so the wheat could be separated from the chaff. The best reason to stall is because Assange himself suspects it's packed full of disinformation.
Yours is the first visible comment that I would classify as sane. Maybe my memory is shot, but I seem to remember rational political discussions not so many years ago, and in general Slashdot had more than most other venues. This time around, Slashdot is FAR crazier than average.
Right now I think there are two hypotheses: (1) Computer-induced insanity, and (2) Hacker attack.
The first hypotheses is based on my old suspicion that too much computer use could be bad for mental hygiene. Actually expressed that theory at least 30 years ago, but the evidence looks more and more clear. Perhaps mostly related to the propensity of people to believe what they want to believe, but now the "personalized" searches make it possible to get infinite amounts of evidence for any insane thing you like. However, my next book is The Shallows, which (per secondhand reports) is taking a different approach to the problem.
The second hypothesis would involve capture of dormant accounts, and Slashdot might have become a favored target precisely because of the technical bias. Great test site for state-sponsored hackers, and yes, I am thinking of the Russians in particular.
Perhaps Slashdot will recover after the election, but it's sad to see things in such a state.
Not clear that you [MachineShedFred] were talking to me. It seems more likely you are referencing some AC comment that I can't see. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll look more carefully at your comment, but I'm mostly unable to map your "you" reference to anything I wrote in the comment that seemed to proceed yours or even in any of my other recent comments.
(However I'm still somewhat confused because it seems that the message notification system thought your comment was related to mine. One of the Slashdot features I might like to fund would be "you" disambiguation, except that Slashdot has no such financial model.)
Glad to see you got your mod, but still saddened by the rest of the "conversation". Funny? Not that I noticed. Insightful? Perhaps, but only for rather shallow values of insight.
No mention of enthusiasm, but that's the actual key. The point of Twitter as the campaigns see it is to build up enthusiasm among your supporters, and in a tight election that enthusiasm might shift the turnout by a few percent and carry the election with it.
Turns out it's really hard to build enthusiasm with a TwitterBot, but much easier to disrupt your opponent's attempts to build enthusiasm. The result is chaotic TwitterBots run amok. Yet another triumph of the abuse of technology?
Thank you for your constructive contribution to the survival of Slashdot.
Or the opposite.
I regard the "conversational exchange" as pointless and closed, but lately that just seems to be the Slashdot way.
My memory might be playing tricks on me. After all it is getting harder and harder to remember when Slashdot wasn't a total waste of time. Should I gamble the search time on finding a "funny" or "insightful" post anywhere in this story's comments?
If I ever got a mod point, that comment might have gotten it. Seems to be a general shortage of good mod points these days, eh?
Extending your thought, I think you're giving too much credit to FAUX "news". I think most of the credit goes to Reagan's puppeteers. They gutted public education by creating a separate elite stream while converting most schools into pre-prison obedience training. At the same time, they "deregulated" news to allow for profits above public service, with the inevitable race to the bottom. Eyeballs-for-advertisers results in 24-hour disaster porn (like CNN, which so well serves the interests of such bad actors as terrorists) or investments in propaganda (like FAUX).
If Trump has any acumen, it was in harvesting the mess for BILLIONS of dollars worth of free publicity, which has carried him within sight of the White House on an amazing tide of hatred and nihilism. Elsewhere I noticed another unmoderated comment that feared for the future of our country...
My kingdom for a mod point? I guess my kingdom is this chair?
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Admirably brief. Doth the lady (or gentleman) protest too much? Looks like a Twitter-trained response to me.
Returning to your Comment Subject:
Re:why does anybody care?
My response is "Concision". Yes, Twitter is a cesspool on its best days, and much worse the rest of the time, but the quest for brevity brings a clarity to the mimes. There are a few gems there. Don't bet on finding any, mostly due to the TwitterBots of this selfsame story.
As usual, I try to see things in terms of solutions, and one solution that could add significant value to Twitter would be TwitterBot filtering. Search results should reduce the visibility of the accounts that behave like TwitterBots. Of course that's a tough call, but one option might be a way to report a Tweet as appearing to come from a TwitterBot. The obvious problem is that you need to prevent the TwitterBots from reporting non-robotic accounts... (I don't want to recurse infinitely, but my first thought is that you discount reports until AFTER the account has established a reputation as being a human being, using information that is not easily visible to TwitterBot herders.)
In spite of my verbosity I confess to significant experience with Twitter. I think the most recent gem of a meme might be the realization that the so-called Republican Party has given up on winning presidential elections by fair means. They will do literally ANYTHING to win. In 2000 that involved dragging the Supreme Court into the political battle, and this year it's the FBI. In Twitter form:
Only way to win the White House is by partisan cheating! Using SCOTUS in 2000 and FBI this time!
And the solution, a la Twitter:
Hey, Putie! Before you send me my new nonpartisan FBI director, can your goons handle these #BadMimes on Twitter?
True memes, you say?
As usual, disappointed by the lack of insight on Slashdot and even more disappointed by the lack of "funny" on this target-rich topic. Again, considering solutions, I think the editors need to reduce the flow of stories to match the reduced readership and Slashdot needs a better financial model to fix everything else.
(Are you still listening, whipslash? Or did you conclude that Slashdot isn't worth your valuable time?)
Do you think it might also help to increase the supply of favorable mod points?
Then again, I still think it is the financial model that matters most of all. Not all of them are like assholes, even though everyone has one, but I think Slashdot's stinks.
Lately it feels like looking for insight on Slashdot has become quite difficult, though I miss the humor more. I think that may be a problem with tempo. Not certain, but I speculate that the traffic volume is down, but the story tempo has remained unchanged. If that speculation is correct, then most stories fail to reach critical mass for discussion before they fall off the front page and effectively become invisible. Even worse, it would appear to be a negative feedback loop, in that less interesting discussions drives the traffic volume even lower.
Obvious suggestion is to reduce the number of featured stories to reflect the traffic volume, picking fewer stories of higher quality and keeping them visible and active for longer periods. However, the absence of a viable financial model also means it is unlikely whipslash et alia care that much...
Returning to the actual topic of this story, I have reached only three conclusions from many my experiences with Apple over the years:
1. Apple wants me to think THEIR way. Funny when you consider their old advertising slogan, but I respectfully decline.
2. Any sincere and honest discussion of Apple products must take place OUTSIDE of Apple's control.
3. It is exceedingly unlikely I will ever buy another Apple product of ANY sort.
Let me start by saying that my MacBook Pro is a nice machine and I've enjoyed using it. These days I'm actually spending more time with it than with any of my other machines. However, I've concluded that Apple wants my soul, too, and it's not for sale.
Today's Slashdot is probably unsuitable for more details. I'm especially disappointed by the lack of "funny" posts. Even the few that get the mod aren't. Notwithstanding, eh?
I've concluded that today's Apple demands you think THEIR way. Kind of funny when you consider their old sales pitch, but I was always suspicious. Maybe it isn't Apple's fault? The rules of the game basically require American companies to become evil to succeed, and the degree of evil has become a minor concern. However, the assault on how I think is over my personal limits.
It started with the voice dictation. It seemed better than the other systems I was using, so I started doing more of my dictation on the Mac. However, it wasn't perfect, so I tried to get help and even offer suggestions on how to improve it. However, there seemed to be something funny about the help resources under Apple's direct control.
For example, the people in the stores were extremely enthusiastic, even fanatically and religiously enthusiastic, about Apple's products, but none of their advice or suggestions actually turned out to be helpful. Finally concluded they were hired for their highly positive attitudes, not for their technical knowledge.
I had higher hopes for the official forums, what Apple describes as "discussions". Soon noticed a funny pattern. Every question received a rapid response, but the responses were always mindless boilerplates. My questions included everything in the boilerplate because it had been easy to find the boilerplate answers and I had already tried them. It was obvious that the people posting the responses had not even read my question, but apparently they were motivated to act that way by Apple's point-based incentive system. Commenting about the irrelevance of the responses simply triggers censorship for not thinking the way Apple wants you to think. Sad.
I have reached only three conclusions from my experiences in those "discussions" on Apple's website.
1. Apple wants me to think THEIR way. I respectfully decline. 2. Any sincere and honest discussion of Apple products must take place OUTSIDE of Apple's control. 3. It is exceedingly unlikely I will ever buy another Apple product of ANY sort.
I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If they can't attack your legal system directly, then they'll try a flank attack via transnational trade treaties. In the particular example of this article, they have extra leverage because the Internet itself is so international.
What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand?
Do I need to be more explicit about why I believe you are not worth more of my time? The truth would require rudeness, and I'm not even campaigning to be president.
Certainly, but they had help. Not surprised at this point, but somehow still disappointed to find no mention of "Microsoft", "liability", or even "blame" (beyond the titular question).
If there were liability for the customers' harm, then the makers would design and implement hardware and software with more concern about security and abuse. Not saying Microsoft invented the idea of avoiding responsibility (and actually unable to think of anything that Microsoft actually did invent), but they perfected it. Thereby Microsoft became rich and successful and the model for other companies. Latest reports are pointing the fingers at Chinese manufacturers, but they just sold what the customers wanted, secure in the legal protection of "You can't sue us no matter how much harm our devices cause."
Oh well. Pointless to spend more thought or time on Slashdot these days, especially in speculating on possible improvements. This article will disappear in a few hours, but maybe I missed something "funny"... Okay, found the only post with a funny mod, and it wasn't. Not surprised.
Yes, you have convinced me you are fanatical and willing to repeat yourself. I could extend my responses, but there was no evidence of anything recognizable as sincerity or curiosity, so you have also convinced me that would be a waste of time and keystrokes. Or perhaps I should apologize for writing at a level that is too difficult for you?
I regard this discussion as pointless and closed. Feel free to repeat yourself some more.
Gawdamn the backspace bug on Slashdot! Just lost a carefully prepared reply that had taken several minutes (and quite a bit of energy) to write. *sigh*
Anyway, I'll reduce it to "Why does anyone hate Hillary?"
Your sig looks familiar, so maybe you can just remind me of an earlier reply, but I still don't get it.
My first degree included sociology and I studied quite a bit about polling. I even followed up with math before switching to computer science for my second degree. So I'm telling you [tbannist] to stop projecting your ignorance or bias.
Short summary: It is quite easy to deliver any poll results you are being paid for. LOTS of ways to rig the results, but the more "scientific" pollsters play games with framing and even priming in contrast to the older and cruder techniques of manipulating the questions and possible answers.
It is even easier to produce a poll that produces garbage. For example, serious polling has to involve pre-polling to test the questions.
The hardest thing is to produce an honest poll that gives you meaningful insight into any deep issue. REALLY hard to keep the pollsters' mindsets and prejudices out of the results before you try to figure out what the results really mean.
I think the money went to his head a long while ago and it became a boring business. I think he lost his sense of humor, too, but he's getting ideas from around the Web and he has hired a couple of editors to pick the ones he illustrates for his strip. Nothing that feels like his originality there.
As regards Trump, I think it was a head fake. If Trump wins, he gets to say "I told you so" and if Trump loses he'll claim credit and say "If I hadn't scared, you then Trump could have won."
I still can't understand the rabid hatred of Hillary (except for the misogynists), though their viciousness has finally got me to like her a little bit in spite of the lawyer thing. I started neutral towards Trump, but now I think he's a pathological liar and I definitely hate liars. Probably a sociopath, too, but there are plenty of them running apparently successful businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies for apparently underestimating your [fuzznutz's] age, but you really do write in a remarkably naive way. Perhaps your memory works in a funny way, whereas perhaps I have studied too much history?
So let me pose a question in your new framing: Exactly how were Nixon or Reagan held to account for their criminal activities?
I would say Reagan not at all, and many people even revere him to this day, though I would be unable to point at a single positive accomplishment that he earned primary credit for. Yes, Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency, but he was immediately pardoned. Actually I think that holding Nixon fully to account would have been America's last chance to roll back the imperial presidency. At the time it was sort of regarded as a joke that the president could claim anything he does is legal, but now the "unitary executive" is almost taken for granted by many politicians and judges, right up to the Supreme Court.
Not sure if your mention of Bernie was an ACK of a mention I made in this discussion, but I actually think we agree that he was the best candidate of this cycle. I think we probably disagree on the basis, however. Much as I admire his principles, I think he would have been able to do relatively little to advance them. The result would have been evolutionary change in a positive direction. In contrast, I cannot pretend to guess what principles Trump actually holds, though he has a long track record of vindictiveness and incompetence that should frighten any potential adversary or even the minor nuisances like me. The REAL threat of the Donald is the GOP party discipline behind him. I'm not too concerned about the angry losers or the mindless habitual voters who always vote R. I'm quite worried about the cold-blooded haters who have rallied around him.
Do you know how Cheny pulled Dubya's strings? Just a bit of patience. He would sit quietly through the meetings, but AFTER everyone else had left, then he would have a few final words with Dubya and, voila, the so-called decider did what Cheney wanted. We've already heard reports that Trump is basically the same way, parroting the last opinion he heard.
ZZ
I think I am the OP you [fuzznutz] are referring to based on the subject line, but mostly I feel like you are demonstrating Nicholas Carr's thesis in The Shallows . Stretching hard to fit your comments to my recent comments...
On the opening topic, it doesn't matter what you want to call it as long as the executive branch treats it as law and the courts and Congress fail to make it stop. I'm inclined to approach things from a historical perspective, but seems unlikely to apply based on anything you've written so far. If you're my age, you might start with Iran Contra, but that's a while back. Hard to believe you could be too young to remember Dubya and Cheney. Your conception of party discipline in the Democratic Party is humorous, but obviously you don't remember Will Rogers. That also means it's unlikely you know much about REAL party discipline within the Bolsheviks, but there are a few differences from the modern so-called Republicans. Can't figure out what your point was supposed to be regarding Comey, nor imagine how it could have been related to anything I currently believe about Comey, so you must be projecting something from somewhere.
If you can't make things more coherent and actually relate your points to things I actually wrote, then I'll just flag the exchange as pointless and closed. Seen quite a number of those abortive dialogs recently--but that also fits within Carr's thesis. Apparently I'm becoming a weirdo because I can still concentrate long enough to read books... (Just passed a hundred for the year.)
A little bit confusing here, but I'm trying to separate out the parts from fuzznuts.
On one hand, I actually think we are in agreement on the theory of how the Constitution is supposed to work. On the other hand, I think your naivete is touching.
The theory and practice of government are always separated. There are so many examples I really don't know where to begin, but I think the best is probably Dubya's signing statements, even though they never achieved the infamy they deserved. As far as I know, none of them were ever successfully challenged, either by Congress or the courts. Dubya broke all the records for abuse of signing statements. The history is actually quite long and interesting, but it seems that signing statements only became one of the presidential policy tools when Reagan became president. Now they have a status that is almost like legislation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As regards limiting Trump's possible executive orders, I think you [still fuzznuts] are pretty much deluded. The 4-4 Supreme Court won't override him, and will almost certainly rule in his favor after he appoints a 5th justice. The FBI is already in his pocket, even though Comey is one of those old-fashioned true Republicans. Congress? The House of so-called Representatives with such morons as McCaul and Goumert? The Senate? You think there are 40 Democratic Senators with sufficient balls to use the filibuster? I don't. I think the ONLY limit on the Donald will be his temperament, which is so bad he can't even be trusted with his own Twitter account.
Forgot one more prediction. I predict a serious lack of funny or insightful comments on Slashdot. Or does that even qualify as a prediction since it's just a description of the status quo?
I say it's a YUGELY sad story because freedom of speech is a good thing. Yes, Gawker pushed the line, but we if we are going to make errors about the lines around freedom of speech, we ABSOLUTELY should err on the side of MORE speech. We absolutely should NOT allow rich bastards to abuse the system because they can afford to hire lots of lawyers and support lots of lawsuits. Now to the predictions...
I predict you think the notion of blind justice has become a sick joke. Regardless of where you are on the ideological spectra, I predict we would agree the American judicial system is badly broken, though we would probably point at different examples of the brokenness. I would be hard pressed to decide between Citizens United or Bush v Gore as the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime, while you might point at Roe v Wade or various other candidates. Maybe the long-term perspective will put the "legal" crushing of Gawker above all of them.
I am not going to predict the outcome of the election, but if Trump wins, I predict that his promise to strength libel law and thereby attack free speech is a sincere one. Unlike most of his other promises, this is one he can really deliver on, and I predict the Senate Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to stop him.
Still related to the First Amendment, but mostly in other parts of the Bill of Rights, I also predict that Trump should feel HIGHLY indebted to the FBI. In his gratitude, he may give them more access to YOUR email. Email privacy is like a contagious disease. If you and I are going to have email privacy, then we need to protect the privacy of Kevin Bacon, too, and all the people in between. At least in theory, right now the FBI has to go through all the bother and nuisance of showing probable cause and getting a warrant to look at any person's email. Now imagine the convenience of starting with any known criminal and thereby having permission to look at all of the email of his possible accomplices. Oh wait, now you have to get the email of the 2nd degree people, and in six degrees you have EVERYONE's email. So convenient.
Nobody expect the Email Inquisition.
(P.S. I'm paranoid. I think the NSA already has copies of all of my email, even including the spam in case it has secret messages to be discovered later. I still don't want the FBI to have parity.)
Read that book, and it does NOT mean what you obviously think it means. You're also wrong about everything else you wrote, but who's counting. Can't blame you for hiding as a coward. Anonymous cowards are perhaps the most cowardly of all?
Anyway, I only peeked because I was curious if I should thank you for undoing your mod. Guess not, though I almost feel like thanking you for helping to prove so many of my points..
Only one of the insightful comments that seemed remotely worthy of the mod. Another sad data point about the current state of Slashdot, though I suppose the lack of "funny" posts is intrinsically sadder? Not even a glimmer of wit on this target-rich topic?
Anyway, what I was looking for was any discussion of the credibility of the data from WikiLeaks. After looking at the so-called "insightful" comments, I did a number of keyword searches and came up completely dry. It certainly is possible that some of the WikiLeaks data is terrible for Hillary Clinton, but there is no time to check. On one hand, we know that the timing of these releases was decided by Assange and certainly appears to be intended to hurt her as much as possible, but on the other hand, at least he makes no pretense of checking any of it for accuracy. There was a period when WikiLeaks tried to prevent killing people, but I'm not sure they even make that much effort anymore.
One of the posts I noticed (one of the few sane ones) summarized his position as being underwhelmed, but I think that's an understatement. If there was some real substance here, then it should have been released a long time ago so the wheat could be separated from the chaff. The best reason to stall is because Assange himself suspects it's packed full of disinformation.
Yours is the first visible comment that I would classify as sane. Maybe my memory is shot, but I seem to remember rational political discussions not so many years ago, and in general Slashdot had more than most other venues. This time around, Slashdot is FAR crazier than average.
Right now I think there are two hypotheses: (1) Computer-induced insanity, and (2) Hacker attack.
The first hypotheses is based on my old suspicion that too much computer use could be bad for mental hygiene. Actually expressed that theory at least 30 years ago, but the evidence looks more and more clear. Perhaps mostly related to the propensity of people to believe what they want to believe, but now the "personalized" searches make it possible to get infinite amounts of evidence for any insane thing you like. However, my next book is The Shallows , which (per secondhand reports) is taking a different approach to the problem.
The second hypothesis would involve capture of dormant accounts, and Slashdot might have become a favored target precisely because of the technical bias. Great test site for state-sponsored hackers, and yes, I am thinking of the Russians in particular.
Perhaps Slashdot will recover after the election, but it's sad to see things in such a state.
Not clear that you [MachineShedFred] were talking to me. It seems more likely you are referencing some AC comment that I can't see. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll look more carefully at your comment, but I'm mostly unable to map your "you" reference to anything I wrote in the comment that seemed to proceed yours or even in any of my other recent comments.
(However I'm still somewhat confused because it seems that the message notification system thought your comment was related to mine. One of the Slashdot features I might like to fund would be "you" disambiguation, except that Slashdot has no such financial model.)
Glad to see you got your mod, but still saddened by the rest of the "conversation". Funny? Not that I noticed. Insightful? Perhaps, but only for rather shallow values of insight.
No mention of enthusiasm, but that's the actual key. The point of Twitter as the campaigns see it is to build up enthusiasm among your supporters, and in a tight election that enthusiasm might shift the turnout by a few percent and carry the election with it.
Turns out it's really hard to build enthusiasm with a TwitterBot, but much easier to disrupt your opponent's attempts to build enthusiasm. The result is chaotic TwitterBots run amok. Yet another triumph of the abuse of technology?
Thank you for your constructive contribution to the survival of Slashdot.
Or the opposite.
I regard the "conversational exchange" as pointless and closed, but lately that just seems to be the Slashdot way.
My memory might be playing tricks on me. After all it is getting harder and harder to remember when Slashdot wasn't a total waste of time. Should I gamble the search time on finding a "funny" or "insightful" post anywhere in this story's comments?
If I ever got a mod point, that comment might have gotten it. Seems to be a general shortage of good mod points these days, eh?
Extending your thought, I think you're giving too much credit to FAUX "news". I think most of the credit goes to Reagan's puppeteers. They gutted public education by creating a separate elite stream while converting most schools into pre-prison obedience training. At the same time, they "deregulated" news to allow for profits above public service, with the inevitable race to the bottom. Eyeballs-for-advertisers results in 24-hour disaster porn (like CNN, which so well serves the interests of such bad actors as terrorists) or investments in propaganda (like FAUX).
If Trump has any acumen, it was in harvesting the mess for BILLIONS of dollars worth of free publicity, which has carried him within sight of the White House on an amazing tide of hatred and nihilism. Elsewhere I noticed another unmoderated comment that feared for the future of our country...
My kingdom for a mod point? I guess my kingdom is this chair?
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Admirably brief. Doth the lady (or gentleman) protest too much? Looks like a Twitter-trained response to me.
Returning to your Comment Subject:
Re:why does anybody care?
My response is "Concision". Yes, Twitter is a cesspool on its best days, and much worse the rest of the time, but the quest for brevity brings a clarity to the mimes. There are a few gems there. Don't bet on finding any, mostly due to the TwitterBots of this selfsame story.
As usual, I try to see things in terms of solutions, and one solution that could add significant value to Twitter would be TwitterBot filtering. Search results should reduce the visibility of the accounts that behave like TwitterBots. Of course that's a tough call, but one option might be a way to report a Tweet as appearing to come from a TwitterBot. The obvious problem is that you need to prevent the TwitterBots from reporting non-robotic accounts... (I don't want to recurse infinitely, but my first thought is that you discount reports until AFTER the account has established a reputation as being a human being, using information that is not easily visible to TwitterBot herders.)
In spite of my verbosity I confess to significant experience with Twitter. I think the most recent gem of a meme might be the realization that the so-called Republican Party has given up on winning presidential elections by fair means. They will do literally ANYTHING to win. In 2000 that involved dragging the Supreme Court into the political battle, and this year it's the FBI. In Twitter form:
Only way to win the White House is by partisan cheating!
Using SCOTUS in 2000 and FBI this time!
And the solution, a la Twitter:
Hey, Putie! Before you send me my new nonpartisan FBI director, can your goons handle these #BadMimes on Twitter?
True memes, you say?
As usual, disappointed by the lack of insight on Slashdot and even more disappointed by the lack of "funny" on this target-rich topic. Again, considering solutions, I think the editors need to reduce the flow of stories to match the reduced readership and Slashdot needs a better financial model to fix everything else.
(Are you still listening, whipslash? Or did you conclude that Slashdot isn't worth your valuable time?)
Do you think it might also help to increase the supply of favorable mod points?
Then again, I still think it is the financial model that matters most of all. Not all of them are like assholes, even though everyone has one, but I think Slashdot's stinks.
Lately it feels like looking for insight on Slashdot has become quite difficult, though I miss the humor more. I think that may be a problem with tempo. Not certain, but I speculate that the traffic volume is down, but the story tempo has remained unchanged. If that speculation is correct, then most stories fail to reach critical mass for discussion before they fall off the front page and effectively become invisible. Even worse, it would appear to be a negative feedback loop, in that less interesting discussions drives the traffic volume even lower.
Obvious suggestion is to reduce the number of featured stories to reflect the traffic volume, picking fewer stories of higher quality and keeping them visible and active for longer periods. However, the absence of a viable financial model also means it is unlikely whipslash et alia care that much...
Returning to the actual topic of this story, I have reached only three conclusions from many my experiences with Apple over the years:
Let me start by saying that my MacBook Pro is a nice machine and I've enjoyed using it. These days I'm actually spending more time with it than with any of my other machines. However, I've concluded that Apple wants my soul, too, and it's not for sale.
Today's Slashdot is probably unsuitable for more details. I'm especially disappointed by the lack of "funny" posts. Even the few that get the mod aren't. Notwithstanding, eh?
I've concluded that today's Apple demands you think THEIR way. Kind of funny when you consider their old sales pitch, but I was always suspicious. Maybe it isn't Apple's fault? The rules of the game basically require American companies to become evil to succeed, and the degree of evil has become a minor concern. However, the assault on how I think is over my personal limits.
It started with the voice dictation. It seemed better than the other systems I was using, so I started doing more of my dictation on the Mac. However, it wasn't perfect, so I tried to get help and even offer suggestions on how to improve it. However, there seemed to be something funny about the help resources under Apple's direct control.
For example, the people in the stores were extremely enthusiastic, even fanatically and religiously enthusiastic, about Apple's products, but none of their advice or suggestions actually turned out to be helpful. Finally concluded they were hired for their highly positive attitudes, not for their technical knowledge.
I had higher hopes for the official forums, what Apple describes as "discussions". Soon noticed a funny pattern. Every question received a rapid response, but the responses were always mindless boilerplates. My questions included everything in the boilerplate because it had been easy to find the boilerplate answers and I had already tried them. It was obvious that the people posting the responses had not even read my question, but apparently they were motivated to act that way by Apple's point-based incentive system. Commenting about the irrelevance of the responses simply triggers censorship for not thinking the way Apple wants you to think. Sad.
I have reached only three conclusions from my experiences in those "discussions" on Apple's website.
1. Apple wants me to think THEIR way. I respectfully decline.
2. Any sincere and honest discussion of Apple products must take place OUTSIDE of Apple's control.
3. It is exceedingly unlikely I will ever buy another Apple product of ANY sort.
I hope you're right, but I doubt it. If they can't attack your legal system directly, then they'll try a flank attack via transnational trade treaties. In the particular example of this article, they have extra leverage because the Internet itself is so international.
What part of "pointless and closed" are you unable to understand?
What part of "pointless and closed" were you unable to understand?
Do I need to be more explicit about why I believe you are not worth more of my time? The truth would require rudeness, and I'm not even campaigning to be president.
The people that did it.
Certainly, but they had help. Not surprised at this point, but somehow still disappointed to find no mention of "Microsoft", "liability", or even "blame" (beyond the titular question).
If there were liability for the customers' harm, then the makers would design and implement hardware and software with more concern about security and abuse. Not saying Microsoft invented the idea of avoiding responsibility (and actually unable to think of anything that Microsoft actually did invent), but they perfected it. Thereby Microsoft became rich and successful and the model for other companies. Latest reports are pointing the fingers at Chinese manufacturers, but they just sold what the customers wanted, secure in the legal protection of "You can't sue us no matter how much harm our devices cause."
Oh well. Pointless to spend more thought or time on Slashdot these days, especially in speculating on possible improvements. This article will disappear in a few hours, but maybe I missed something "funny"... Okay, found the only post with a funny mod, and it wasn't. Not surprised.
Yes, you have convinced me you are fanatical and willing to repeat yourself. I could extend my responses, but there was no evidence of anything recognizable as sincerity or curiosity, so you have also convinced me that would be a waste of time and keystrokes. Or perhaps I should apologize for writing at a level that is too difficult for you?
I regard this discussion as pointless and closed. Feel free to repeat yourself some more.
Gawdamn the backspace bug on Slashdot! Just lost a carefully prepared reply that had taken several minutes (and quite a bit of energy) to write. *sigh*
Anyway, I'll reduce it to "Why does anyone hate Hillary?"
Your sig looks familiar, so maybe you can just remind me of an earlier reply, but I still don't get it.
My first degree included sociology and I studied quite a bit about polling. I even followed up with math before switching to computer science for my second degree. So I'm telling you [tbannist] to stop projecting your ignorance or bias.
Short summary: It is quite easy to deliver any poll results you are being paid for. LOTS of ways to rig the results, but the more "scientific" pollsters play games with framing and even priming in contrast to the older and cruder techniques of manipulating the questions and possible answers.
It is even easier to produce a poll that produces garbage. For example, serious polling has to involve pre-polling to test the questions.
The hardest thing is to produce an honest poll that gives you meaningful insight into any deep issue. REALLY hard to keep the pollsters' mindsets and prejudices out of the results before you try to figure out what the results really mean.
I think the money went to his head a long while ago and it became a boring business. I think he lost his sense of humor, too, but he's getting ideas from around the Web and he has hired a couple of editors to pick the ones he illustrates for his strip. Nothing that feels like his originality there.
As regards Trump, I think it was a head fake. If Trump wins, he gets to say "I told you so" and if Trump loses he'll claim credit and say "If I hadn't scared, you then Trump could have won."
I still can't understand the rabid hatred of Hillary (except for the misogynists), though their viciousness has finally got me to like her a little bit in spite of the lawyer thing. I started neutral towards Trump, but now I think he's a pathological liar and I definitely hate liars. Probably a sociopath, too, but there are plenty of them running apparently successful businesses.