November 10: The Florida machine recount is completed. Unofficial results, gathered by the Associated Press, give Bush a lead of only 327 votes out of nearly 6 million cast.
327 votes. 0.002% of the population of Florida. Machine-counted. With hanging/dimpled/pregnant chad problems that could sway the vote either way. This is simply not a fair result, no matter what side you're on. I'd ask for a hand-recount too, if I was up for president, and a significant number of votes may have been lost to machine counting.
I don't know what conspiracy you think was taking place before the Supreme Court saved us all, but there's also a completely reasonable explanation. But hey - spell it out for me and provide some sources. I'm not above changing my mind if there's ample evidence.
Not referring to any particular recount, actually. I just think that every single ballot in Florida should have been recounted. It was far too important a vote to leave any question as to the results.
Not asking for a full recount? Gore's mistake. Not forcing a full recount? The nation's mistake.
Because the results of that election had been disputed and disputed again, and the Supreme Court finally making a decision before there was a clear winner.
That's why (a minority of) "the slashdot crowd" would say that about that particular election.
And if the Supremes had decided for Gore, there would be a faction on the right claiming the exact same thing. I personally think a full recount should have been done for Florida - counting hanging chads and any other situation where voter intent was clear - before declaring a winner. It would reduce "stolen election!" charges by an order of magnitude for the 2000 election.
Sorry, you meant I have to learn to write - I put an "economic" where I should have had a "financial".
Al Gore did not "invent" the internet, but it is neither a joke, nor sad. He never claimed to. That is what I meant when people here will not appreciate it. The only joke is people who still claim that he claimed to invent the internet.
Not wanting to get into an evolutionary discussion: I merely wanted to give a good example of a myth that would get you flamed on/. I suppose the Gore/Internet one above would have sufficed though.
I said nothing about predicting the past. The prediction was that fossils would be found that matched certain configurations - found after the prediction was made. Just because the "experiment" was done before the results were looked at does not invalidate that experiment. It's like mixing oil and water, then asking someone what they think the result will be. The experiment was performed in the past, and theory predicts that when the results are looked at, you'll see a certain result (oil and water separated).
The rest just seemed to be a rant about lefties and liberals, which really has no bearing on this conversation. But I'd caution you against generalizing - while you may see the 1% of "lefties and liberals" that mod you down, you seem to ignore the other 99% that either skip past your posts, or even take the time to reply (as so many have, looking at your comment history)
Oh man youv'e hit terminal lefty sanctimoniousness in only 2 posts congrats... I am not taking you seriously
Maybe I'm being "sanctimonious" again, but if you start out with an ad hominem, you'll put people on the defensive and encourage flames. Look - if you want me (or anyone else) to take your arguments seriously, you'll have to return the favour.
You demand in the classic manner of the arrogant left that I don't provide evidence that I should find you the numbers
We both have the right to ask for evidence and sources to claims that haven't been verified. If you need me to provide evidence for one of my points - go ahead and ask.
If you want posts and examples for my position just read this thread.
Okay - let's take this one, where you claim that Clinton was the only good economic result out of four dem presidents. You don't point to any evidence of this. Now - neither do your detractors, but all that does is make them just as bad at arguing as you, and leaving you both feeling as if you weren't taken seriously. You are both coming at this discussion from different points of view, and it is absolutely necessary to explain that view to each other in order for meaningful communication to take place.
I've read through more of your posts, and they're full of sarcasm. The problem is, you're not in a conservative echo chamber either. You can't make a joke about Al Gore inventing the internet without expecting people to jump on it and tell you he was misquoted. If you're going to post here, you have to cut the sarcasm and stick to facts, because any humour or snark you're trying to inject is going to be lost on the audience.
I dont recall mentioning a stand on the 2nd law, I just said that Darwinian evolution is incomplete. I hadn't read your posts when I mentioned this - It's just one big beef of mine, and serves as a good example of dishonest argument. I don't want to get into an evolutionary discussion here, but if you can come up with a good alternative to evolutionary theory that explains the evidence better - and explain it well...not only will you find an appreciative audience here, you'll probably win a Nobel prize.
BTW - evolutionary theory has made predictions. Dinosaurs with feathers and fish with lungs, for instance - including the approximate age of the rocks they're found in. (I know there are counterarguments to this out there - but the idea that evolution "doesn't make predictions" is simply false).
I stand by my assertion that people here are open, but you do have to be civilized about it. Having read through your other posts, I can tell you your tone is the problem. The sheer contempt you display for "liberals" and "lefties" automatically turns people off and makes them want to flame you.
Just recognize where you're posting and you'll be fine. This isn't redstate or freerepublic - it's/., which - as you've noticed - has a number of "liberal" members. Many of them are working from different worldviews as you, so you may need to back up a bit and explain why you think the way you do - even points you may take as granted. If you are impolite about your points (see "LOL - You people slay me"), or don't back them up, you're ripe for criticism.
If you post about "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" on an evolution thread, you will be flamed. This is because 90% of us here have heard that "point" debunked about 50 times, and you should know better.
I mean, look at your post:
Well argued = making points and using facts that people here are willing to acknolege.
Less than polite = Something anyone beloved here has done thats not quite kosher
Gotten Wrong or Misrepresented = Things which are not to be spoken of
It's quite obvious you're not taking me seriously. You distort my meaning and you don't link to a single thread to back up your claims.
If you have a point, make it cogently. Don't just say "it's been proven that the Iraq war saved more lives than it cost" - it hasn't been proven to me. Find the numbers and tell me how you reached that conclusion. If you're not willing to provide me a path to logically reach the same conclusion as you are already at, what reason do I have to take your claim at face value?
I've seen plenty of intelligently-argued discussions here. From your post though, I'd say it's your tone that keeps you shut out of those.
If youre centrist, libertarian or just non Ideological I would suggest growing a thick skin and understanding that the more you demonstrate that there is more to the world than the slashbots comprehend the more they will hate you for it.
I seldom see a well-argued, politely-stated point modded as a troll, or not taken seriously. Don't be surprised when people are less-than-polite about points which you've gotten wrong or misrepresented though./. is pretty rare in that people's opinions actually can be swayed and there's room for actual discourse - not just flaming. Pay no attention to the trolls - there are real people here who don't mind opening themselves up to other points of view.
Weird - worked in preview for me - but now it doesn't.
I like the choices, but the writeups are horrible.
on
Time-Tested Gaming
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1) Nethack Page Title: @ versus the evil %. In Nethack, a % is food. It's not evil. The character they were looking for is & (demon).
2) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night The writeup is all about how you're no longer stuck going through linear levels - how now there are items to find, and you can backtrack and unlock previously-locked areas.
Apparently this author's never heard of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest - released in 1988 - with all of these features.
Indie is just short form for "Independent". Just saying - don't give indie developers more credit than they're worth. There are a lot of hacks out there who don't happen to work for major corporations.
It seems to me that if you're transporting all the equipment necessary to start a moon colony, filling it all with the initial air is a drop in the ocean of cost. Once you've filled the structure with air, biological processes can take over to convert oxygen to CO2 and back again.
What the hell is with these comments? There's a comment about not using IDEs, and then a billion after it complaining that you "don't need emacs", "don't need vi", "don't need notepad".
Of &$*%ing course you don't need that! What you do need is an editor. It doesn't matter which one - it can be edlin if that's your fancy.
People should be free to choose their own devel environment, not taught it. Posters complain about having to learn emacs in a programming class - how long do you think it takes to learn the ins and outs of a freaking IDE?
Let people work with any environment they want - especially beginners. If you're building in notepad and someone else is using Word and saving as text, at least you've got that basic idea that the IDE is not the language. If all of the programming you've ever seen has been through one interface and one interface only, then you will - even subconsciously - have a ton of false assumptions about how it is that programming actually works, and you will be less prepared for moving to a different environment.
Basically, monoculture == bad. Especially for something as ubiquitous and simple as a text editor.
Single celled life ruled the world far longer than the multicelluar life and complex single-celled structures we have today.
I'd just like to add to that and say that there's no reason to assume that life began at the single cell.
I can certainly imagine earlier life that had no protective cell around it and basically just had to bump into the right molecules at random in order to reproduce.
You're a moron - read the thread and see the number of Republicans who are truly concerned about the way the country is going.
And *never* assume that Democrats are incapable of the same thing - that paves the way for the same assholes who took over the Republican party to do the same to the Dems 10 years from now.
The differences is between moving a physical ballot box, and changing an abstract concept stored on a hard drive. Mass changes are easier to make, and harder to trace.
Paper is inherently more secure - and at the very least one will notice when something's "off".
Slashdot Mirror
From a 2000 election timeline at CNN:
November 10: The Florida machine recount is completed. Unofficial results, gathered by the Associated Press, give Bush a lead of only 327 votes out of nearly 6 million cast.
327 votes. 0.002% of the population of Florida. Machine-counted. With hanging/dimpled/pregnant chad problems that could sway the vote either way. This is simply not a fair result, no matter what side you're on. I'd ask for a hand-recount too, if I was up for president, and a significant number of votes may have been lost to machine counting.
I don't know what conspiracy you think was taking place before the Supreme Court saved us all, but there's also a completely reasonable explanation. But hey - spell it out for me and provide some sources. I'm not above changing my mind if there's ample evidence.
Not referring to any particular recount, actually. I just think that every single ballot in Florida should have been recounted. It was far too important a vote to leave any question as to the results.
Not asking for a full recount? Gore's mistake. Not forcing a full recount? The nation's mistake.
Yeah - it was much more fair to have the Supreme Court stop the recount than let it continue.
If you cared about more than simply winning, you'd be angry too (see? I can make baseless assuptions about you too!)
Because the results of that election had been disputed and disputed again, and the Supreme Court finally making a decision before there was a clear winner.
That's why (a minority of) "the slashdot crowd" would say that about that particular election.
And if the Supremes had decided for Gore, there would be a faction on the right claiming the exact same thing. I personally think a full recount should have been done for Florida - counting hanging chads and any other situation where voter intent was clear - before declaring a winner. It would reduce "stolen election!" charges by an order of magnitude for the 2000 election.
Just a quick reply:
/. I suppose the Gore/Internet one above would have sufficed though.
Sorry, you meant I have to learn to write - I put an "economic" where I should have had a "financial".
Al Gore did not "invent" the internet, but it is neither a joke, nor sad. He never claimed to. That is what I meant when people here will not appreciate it. The only joke is people who still claim that he claimed to invent the internet.
Not wanting to get into an evolutionary discussion: I merely wanted to give a good example of a myth that would get you flamed on
I said nothing about predicting the past. The prediction was that fossils would be found that matched certain configurations - found after the prediction was made. Just because the "experiment" was done before the results were looked at does not invalidate that experiment. It's like mixing oil and water, then asking someone what they think the result will be. The experiment was performed in the past, and theory predicts that when the results are looked at, you'll see a certain result (oil and water separated).
The rest just seemed to be a rant about lefties and liberals, which really has no bearing on this conversation. But I'd caution you against generalizing - while you may see the 1% of "lefties and liberals" that mod you down, you seem to ignore the other 99% that either skip past your posts, or even take the time to reply (as so many have, looking at your comment history)
Oh man youv'e hit terminal lefty sanctimoniousness in only 2 posts congrats ... I am not taking you seriously
Maybe I'm being "sanctimonious" again, but if you start out with an ad hominem, you'll put people on the defensive and encourage flames. Look - if you want me (or anyone else) to take your arguments seriously, you'll have to return the favour.
You demand in the classic manner of the arrogant left that I don't provide evidence that I should find you the numbers
We both have the right to ask for evidence and sources to claims that haven't been verified. If you need me to provide evidence for one of my points - go ahead and ask.
If you want posts and examples for my position just read this thread.
Okay - let's take this one, where you claim that Clinton was the only good economic result out of four dem presidents. You don't point to any evidence of this. Now - neither do your detractors, but all that does is make them just as bad at arguing as you, and leaving you both feeling as if you weren't taken seriously. You are both coming at this discussion from different points of view, and it is absolutely necessary to explain that view to each other in order for meaningful communication to take place.
I've read through more of your posts, and they're full of sarcasm. The problem is, you're not in a conservative echo chamber either. You can't make a joke about Al Gore inventing the internet without expecting people to jump on it and tell you he was misquoted. If you're going to post here, you have to cut the sarcasm and stick to facts, because any humour or snark you're trying to inject is going to be lost on the audience.
I dont recall mentioning a stand on the 2nd law, I just said that Darwinian evolution is incomplete.
I hadn't read your posts when I mentioned this - It's just one big beef of mine, and serves as a good example of dishonest argument. I don't want to get into an evolutionary discussion here, but if you can come up with a good alternative to evolutionary theory that explains the evidence better - and explain it well...not only will you find an appreciative audience here, you'll probably win a Nobel prize.
BTW - evolutionary theory has made predictions. Dinosaurs with feathers and fish with lungs, for instance - including the approximate age of the rocks they're found in. (I know there are counterarguments to this out there - but the idea that evolution "doesn't make predictions" is simply false).
I stand by my assertion that people here are open, but you do have to be civilized about it. Having read through your other posts, I can tell you your tone is the problem. The sheer contempt you display for "liberals" and "lefties" automatically turns people off and makes them want to flame you.
Just recognize where you're posting and you'll be fine. This isn't redstate or freerepublic - it's /., which - as you've noticed - has a number of "liberal" members. Many of them are working from different worldviews as you, so you may need to back up a bit and explain why you think the way you do - even points you may take as granted. If you are impolite about your points (see "LOL - You people slay me"), or don't back them up, you're ripe for criticism.
If you post about "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" on an evolution thread, you will be flamed. This is because 90% of us here have heard that "point" debunked about 50 times, and you should know better.
I mean, look at your post:
Well argued = making points and using facts that people here are willing to acknolege.
Less than polite = Something anyone beloved here has done thats not quite kosher
Gotten Wrong or Misrepresented = Things which are not to be spoken of
It's quite obvious you're not taking me seriously. You distort my meaning and you don't link to a single thread to back up your claims.
If you have a point, make it cogently. Don't just say "it's been proven that the Iraq war saved more lives than it cost" - it hasn't been proven to me. Find the numbers and tell me how you reached that conclusion. If you're not willing to provide me a path to logically reach the same conclusion as you are already at, what reason do I have to take your claim at face value?
I've seen plenty of intelligently-argued discussions here. From your post though, I'd say it's your tone that keeps you shut out of those.
If youre centrist, libertarian or just non Ideological I would suggest growing a thick skin and understanding that the more you demonstrate that there is more to the world than the slashbots comprehend the more they will hate you for it.
/. is pretty rare in that people's opinions actually can be swayed and there's room for actual discourse - not just flaming. Pay no attention to the trolls - there are real people here who don't mind opening themselves up to other points of view.
I seldom see a well-argued, politely-stated point modded as a troll, or not taken seriously. Don't be surprised when people are less-than-polite about points which you've gotten wrong or misrepresented though.
Weird - worked in preview for me - but now it doesn't.
1) Nethack Page Title: @ versus the evil %.
In Nethack, a % is food. It's not evil. The character they were looking for is & (demon).
2) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
The writeup is all about how you're no longer stuck going through linear levels - how now there are items to find, and you can backtrack and unlock previously-locked areas.
Apparently this author's never heard of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest - released in 1988 - with all of these features.
Indie is just short form for "Independent". Just saying - don't give indie developers more credit than they're worth. There are a lot of hacks out there who don't happen to work for major corporations.
It seems to me that if you're transporting all the equipment necessary to start a moon colony, filling it all with the initial air is a drop in the ocean of cost. Once you've filled the structure with air, biological processes can take over to convert oxygen to CO2 and back again.
Yeah, because commercial studios *never* have hits that are just some cheap knockoff of an existing game.
What the hell is with these comments? There's a comment about not using IDEs, and then a billion after it complaining that you "don't need emacs", "don't need vi", "don't need notepad".
Of &$*%ing course you don't need that! What you do need is an editor. It doesn't matter which one - it can be edlin if that's your fancy.
People should be free to choose their own devel environment, not taught it. Posters complain about having to learn emacs in a programming class - how long do you think it takes to learn the ins and outs of a freaking IDE?
Let people work with any environment they want - especially beginners. If you're building in notepad and someone else is using Word and saving as text, at least you've got that basic idea that the IDE is not the language. If all of the programming you've ever seen has been through one interface and one interface only, then you will - even subconsciously - have a ton of false assumptions about how it is that programming actually works, and you will be less prepared for moving to a different environment.
Basically, monoculture == bad. Especially for something as ubiquitous and simple as a text editor.
Single celled life ruled the world far longer than the multicelluar life and complex single-celled structures we have today.
I'd just like to add to that and say that there's no reason to assume that life began at the single cell.
I can certainly imagine earlier life that had no protective cell around it and basically just had to bump into the right molecules at random in order to reproduce.
"Meta" is greek for "after".
It's a stupid, stupid pun.
Please stand by while the Slashbot army prepares for correctional action against you.
For better or worse, I think your comment suggest that he is a leader.
Going after the spammers just doesn't seem to work any more though.
Yeah - let's go after 99% of the people who *use* computers instead - no problems there!
As long as we're tossing around wild theories, why not just a remote control with the numbers 1-100 on it? Press the button, the demo starts there.
You're a moron - read the thread and see the number of Republicans who are truly concerned about the way the country is going.
And *never* assume that Democrats are incapable of the same thing - that paves the way for the same assholes who took over the Republican party to do the same to the Dems 10 years from now.
"Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter..."
Just bear in mind he's a stock analyst. You know they're *never* wrong.
Now if Google would only apply all those smarts to something not evil.
How about creating a search engine light years ahead of anyone else, and then continually improving it?
Offering advertisements that are actually related to what someone is searching for?
What exactly is evil about what they're doing?
You complain about your Flamebait rating, but you certainly deserved since I'm calling you a cockknocker with no idea what you're talking about.
Not the moderator in question, but I'd wager it was "-1, Making Light of a Serious Issue While Not Adding Anything To The Discussion".
The differences is between moving a physical ballot box, and changing an abstract concept stored on a hard drive. Mass changes are easier to make, and harder to trace.
Paper is inherently more secure - and at the very least one will notice when something's "off".