I don't know if anyone else remembers Borland's EULA a few months ago granting them literally a pound of flesh from anyone who installed Turbo Pascal Builder.
I guess they've proven to MS that they are "their kinda people" with aggressive unethical tactics like that. And Rational are just cunts.
You can't tell it to paste text. You can't tell it to change the input limits on a control.
I know - that is why I find X so horribly quirky and clunky as apps fight to kludge functionality that should be standardised and provided by the window manager.
These exact attacs may not be possible, but anything owned by root on a desktop is almost certain to be vulnerable to some attack. Windows just admits that and provides a functional windowing system. That is why security should end at the desktop - because it can always be secured at the back-end, but the inter-application functionality cannot be added at the front end.
This has been known about for some time by Windows developers, and is really not a flaw; Microsoft are correct when they say this.
The mantra is Security ends at the desktop and this makes sense.
Imagine being logged in to X and there is an application running with root privileges, with a title that says "please don't use me to try and crack root". Well, that would immediately make your administrator uninstall that program. Shatter is talking about exactly this. The virus scanner runs as a superuser (fine, it needs to) but then the lazy coders implemented the user interface with root privileges too (never a good reason to do this).
They have essentially done what I said to start with - left a root owned process running as a window, and now people are acting surprised that it can be used as a local exploit. If Windows can be blamed for application developers writing such insecure software, you may as well blame them for making it possible for a user to leave his workstation logged in.
No matter how many unbiased professionally conducted surveys there are to show that Windoze is cheaper than Linux, it still doesn't change the fact that it is just clearly and obviously untrue.
I did, didn't I. It was hard typing all that in the space of 30 seconds, let me tell you. That is why I can be forgiven for not updating the changelog to add that V1.2 has some formatting improvements as suggested by Genii Consulting (getting it right the log(n)th time).
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only) V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation: This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting: This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.
I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
If someone says, for example, "please stop posting 'All your base' -jokes", don't respond with an 'All your base' -joke
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only) V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation: This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting: This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.
I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
If someone says, for example, "please stop posting 'All your base' -jokes", don't respond with an 'All your base' -joke
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only) V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation: This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting: This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.
I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
If someone says, for example, "please stop posting 'All your base' -jokes", don't respond with an 'All your base' -joke
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
Rarely. For me, that bastardisation of their name used to be acceptable because it was an amusing comment on one of their hacks. For 95 and 98 it was something people could knowingly relate to; it is no longer appropriate for 2k or XP, and the term has been overused, but it is still much more amusing than any of the other terms.
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only) V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation: This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting: This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.
I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
If someone says, for example, "please stop posting 'All your base' -jokes", don't respond with an 'All your base' -joke
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation: This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
Commenting: This section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
Groupthink moderation: You see a comment at +5 Insightful and yet discover it is a 'ghostsee link'. It may be appropriate here to post a simple reply warning people of this fact. Do not criticise the groupthink moderation else you will be modded down yourself. It will also cause delight for the troll who knows that your voice will be drowned out by being modded down, whilst his post is sitting comfortably at +5.
Check the facts: Much the same as with moderation. If the facts don't check out, ignore him; he is a troll. Don't point out it is made up, it is up to the moderators to remove noise from the strong signal of Slashdot. If it gets modded up, that is not your problem; the moderator needs guiding to this FAQ. If you cannot draw conclusive evidence either way, simply ask for sources - if he's a troll he'll not reply. If it's a genuine post and he can't come up with any then he is too stupid to discuss with. If he comes up with sources then proceed to post an equally well reasoned argument and continue the well constructed debates that makes Slashdot what it is.
What's in a name: Do not reply to somebody because they are famous. A vacuous response to Alan Cox will not get you recognised in the community. He will not reply with "Here's a crazy idea, why don't you help maintain the VM?" even if he is the real thing. You will look like a foolish fanboy, especially if it turns out it was a troll.
What's in a name revisited: Same as above. Nobody has ever got a shag on Slashdot by replying to a female, especially by pathetically defending 'her' against all attacks. Remember - 98% of Slashdot is male. 80% of the remainder do not comment. 80% of that remainder will not have a clearly identifiable female name. If you are talking to a female name, it is almost certain it is a male troll. And there is nothing more satisfying to troll than seeing a clueless 'slashrobot' trying to socialise with a woman they've never met based purely on gender. Especially when the gender is wrong.
Opinions: If their opinions are completely wacky and over the top, even if they agree with you, do not reply. They are almost certainly trolls and even if they weren't it should be clear that you will not have a rational argument.
Factual inaccuracies: If someone makes a host of simple mistakes, it is probably a troll and needs no correction. For example, if somebody is discussing the inner workings of the Linux virtual memory system and they refer to Linux 8.0, it is a fair guess that they know the difference between a kernel and a distribution. This means that the post is a troll; do NOT correct him, that is what he was after when he wrote it. Here is a list of things to look out for:
Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.
I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Ignoring the error pointed out by the other reply, there would be no reason that MS would want to change that name. Nobody is going to say "hey look, there's something called XWindows, let's installit on my windows PC because it might be useful".
Windows Backup on teh other hand sounds like the MS approved backup solution for Windows. Same goes for other products; note that they don't say to remove Windows, just to make it not sound like it is a part of Windows (hence Windows Backup becomes Backup for Windows)
Ignoring wanton disregard for apostrophes and capitalisation, your post has 8 spelling mistakes (I may have missed some) out of 102 words (or so my test editor tells me) giving you a fantastic 7.8% retardation quotient.
Maybe I should include grammar and see how it soars ever higher.
That post had nothing to do with the parent. You neither remarked on a fantastic 1000th post, nor helped me with daddy's secret. You, sir, are OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any moderator who doesn't give you a +1 Informative is gay. Hang on, you hate me. Now I'm more confused than when daddy introduced me to our little secret. I washed and I washed and I cut myself but I can't have relations with a woman. I hung around the docks to get abused by big sailors and I only feel normal when someone is hurting me and hurting me and I'm crying DADDY STOP! Can you help?
I was just wondering how long these sources have been available with these many eyes making bugs shallow and so forth? I'm assuming it's less than 1 hour, because as I keep being told, everyone in the open source community checks all source code thoroughly before installing it, which is something that can't be done with closed source.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess they've proven to MS that they are "their kinda people" with aggressive unethical tactics like that. And Rational are just cunts.
I know - that is why I find X so horribly quirky and clunky as apps fight to kludge functionality that should be standardised and provided by the window manager.
These exact attacs may not be possible, but anything owned by root on a desktop is almost certain to be vulnerable to some attack. Windows just admits that and provides a functional windowing system. That is why security should end at the desktop - because it can always be secured at the back-end, but the inter-application functionality cannot be added at the front end.
You're saying that MS are like the Borg ROFL!
The mantra is Security ends at the desktop and this makes sense.
Imagine being logged in to X and there is an application running with root privileges, with a title that says "please don't use me to try and crack root". Well, that would immediately make your administrator uninstall that program. Shatter is talking about exactly this. The virus scanner runs as a superuser (fine, it needs to) but then the lazy coders implemented the user interface with root privileges too (never a good reason to do this).
They have essentially done what I said to start with - left a root owned process running as a window, and now people are acting surprised that it can be used as a local exploit. If Windows can be blamed for application developers writing such insecure software, you may as well blame them for making it possible for a user to leave his workstation logged in.
No matter how many unbiased professionally conducted surveys there are to show that Windoze is cheaper than Linux, it still doesn't change the fact that it is just clearly and obviously untrue.
I did, didn't I. It was hard typing all that in the space of 30 seconds, let me tell you. That is why I can be forgiven for not updating the changelog to add that V1.2 has some formatting improvements as suggested by Genii Consulting (getting it right the log(n)th time).
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only)
V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
- Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
- Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
- Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
- What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
- If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
- ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
- What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
- Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
CommentingThis section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
- Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
- Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
- O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
- Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
- GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Appendix A: General posting guidelines by AC
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only)
V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
- Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
- Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
- Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
- What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
- If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
- ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
- What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
- Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
CommentingThis section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
- Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
- Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
- O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
- Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
- GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Appendix A: General posting guidelines by AC
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
No Turnips
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only)
V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
- Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
- Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
- Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
- What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
- If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
- ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
- What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
- Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
CommentingThis section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
- Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
- Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
- O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
- Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
- GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Appendix A: General posting guidelines by AC
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
V1.1 - Added Appendix-A for general posting guidelines suggested by AC (almost verbatim, minor html changes only)
V1.0b - First revision
Introduction:
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation :
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
- Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
- Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
- Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
- What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
- If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
- ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
- What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
- Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
CommentingThis section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
- Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
- Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
- O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
- Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
- GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Appendix A: General posting guidelines by AC
You are not funny if you post these "jokes":
Don't post Microsoft bashing comments on stories that have nothing to do with Microsoft. Also, if you talk about Microsoft, write Microsoft or MS, not Micro$oft, M$, MicroShit, MicroShaft, MickeySoft of any variation of these.
Learn the difference between its/it's, there/they're/their, effect/affect, your/you're and ridiculous/rediculous. Just by learning those five groups, you'll be able to avoid 90% of the annoying Slashdot typos.
Unfortunately it will have to be credited to AC as you appear to have forgotten to log in.
This was the work of Kevin Klerck and has been reported on internationally. To repeat it is fine, but at least send out propz to Klerck.
Greetings Slashdot. I have noticed that trolls on Slashdot are having too easy a time recently, with the most random gibberish getting modded up and many child comments (bites) attached to it. This recent trouble can only realistically be due to an influx of newbies, so I have composed this FAQ to bring newbies up to speed and recognise trolls for the scum that they are.
On clichés:
I have deliberately elected to avoid the greatest cliché of FAQs, by not actually answering any questions, frequently asked or otherwise. Instead this will be an informative guide.
The FAQ:
Moderation
This section gives guidelines on when to/when NOT to moderate.
- Groupthink moderation: When deciding whether to moderate a post, take no cues from existing moderations. It is well known in the trolling (often referred to as 'trollerizing') community that the first moderation is critical; if somebody spots you as a troll, all subsequent moderations are likely to be troll. If, however, the first moderator mistakenly thinks it is insightful, then the rest of the moderators will think it is insightful too. Avoid this mentality and ignore current moderations entirely. Judge a post solely on its merits, ignoring what others think.
- Follow the links: Related to the point above, a comment with links (often purporting to be a mirror or further information) will often get moderated very highly. It seems the mentality is that the comment has informative looking links, and is moderated as insightful, so it must be insightful, right? Wrong. All it takes is one moderator to assume it is legitimate and moderate it up, the rest of the moderators then partake in groupthink moderation. You will not. Click on all the links and read the linked articles. If they are informative, mod them up. If they are 'ghostsee links' (a horrific image of a distended anus) then mod them as trolls. If you do not wish to follow the links, then don't moderate the post. Simple.
- Check the facts: If a post produces a mass of information, be it figures, quotes or whatever, check his sources! It may be that the figures are made up off the top of his twisted head; if no sources are offered and Google doesn't turn up anything, the chances are that it is made up. Scientists wouldn't believe a paper with no cited references. Follow the rules that should be becoming clear: if the information checks out and is informative, mod him up. If it totally doesn't check out and seems to be made up, mod him down. When in doubt? Don't moderate. And remember the golden rule - other people's moderations are no guide to veracity. Avoid groupthink moderation.
- What's in a name: Do not moderate people up based on their name. There are two facets to this:
- If somebody writes a shit comment, it deserves modding down. Just because Alan Cox happened to write it makes it no more insightful than if 'Peg Troll' wrote it. Do not moderate up famous people.
- ...And it probably isn't them. Does $famousPerson even post on Slashdot? Are you sure that's how they spell their name? Does the name say 'Alan Cox' or 'by Alan Cox'? The latter of the two is very hard to spot in context. Check their UID - then check their posting history. Check that they are who they say they are. Even if they are, you should generally not moderate them based on their fame unless it is because they are commenting on an area in which they have specialist knowledge.
- What's in a name revisited: Do not moderate them up because they are female. Firstly, they are almost certainly men pretending to be females exploiting this weakness that I am now advising you of. Secondly, even if they are female, even if they would like you because you modded them up, moderation is ANONYMOUS. Remember, moderate up the quality of the post and trolls are scuppered from the start.
- Opinions: Feel free to moderate up personal opinions - just don't do it solely because they agree with your point of view. If it is well argued, eloquent, mod it up. If it is badly argued, a stereotype taken to extremes, mod it down. If it takes things too far but happens to agree with your point of view, it is likely a troll looking for your kneejerk mod. Even if it's not, it doesn't deserve modding up as it takes things too far.
CommentingThis section gives guidelines on when to and when not to reply to a comment. This will cover several of the points made in the moderation section.
- Linux 8 - as discussed, there is nobody on Slashdot who doesn't know the difference between the kernel and Redhat.
- Lunix - nobody posts this accidentally. Yes, we all know that there is a different OS called Lunix and you pointing it out is not clever - the troll will be even more happy with this than a plain correction.
- O(log n) - if someone gets the big-o expression for an algorithm or process wrong, think how that came to be. They made it up off the top of their head. People can have opinions on many things, but they cannot be of the opinion that the TSP is O(n log n) - it is just wrong. The only exception is if somebody tentatively suggests that they vaguely remember that it might be O(...) but they aren't sure.
- Dijkstra - this man was a genius, but even he could not invent as many algorithms as trolls attribute to him.
- GPL - Anybody asserting that their lawyers told them X about the GPL where you know X to be wrong. If this man had really consulted lawyers, do you think that the lawyers would get wrong that which you got right?
That was just a sample - I hope to come up with a more definitive list sometime in the near future.I hope that helped, any contributions will be gladly received as a reply to this comment. One last rule:
Never EVAR start a comment with "I know you're a troll but..." This is trolling gold dust. Nothing is better than somebody saying that they are too smart to be fooled by you and then writing a 1000 word point-by-point rebuttal.
Windows Backup on teh other hand sounds like the MS approved backup solution for Windows. Same goes for other products; note that they don't say to remove Windows, just to make it not sound like it is a part of Windows (hence Windows Backup becomes Backup for Windows)
Nasty cough there. Do you need cough syrup? Rubbed chest?
Misleading title - the genes haven't made the jump anywhere. They just happen to be planted in the same place.
Maybe I should include grammar and see how it soars ever higher.
Move along.
That post had nothing to do with the parent. You neither remarked on a fantastic 1000th post, nor helped me with daddy's secret. You, sir, are OFFTOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any moderator who doesn't give you a +1 Informative is gay. Hang on, you hate me. Now I'm more confused than when daddy introduced me to our little secret. I washed and I washed and I cut myself but I can't have relations with a woman. I hung around the docks to get abused by big sailors and I only feel normal when someone is hurting me and hurting me and I'm crying DADDY STOP! Can you help?
Spam is nasty it costs me moeny to download TEH END
I was just wondering how long these sources have been available with these many eyes making bugs shallow and so forth? I'm assuming it's less than 1 hour, because as I keep being told, everyone in the open source community checks all source code thoroughly before installing it, which is something that can't be done with closed source.
The DC sniper should have targeted indians too. Stealing our fucking jobs and women.