Some nice photos, RUINED by you turning on the date/time feature of your camera! A shame.
If I go back again next week, I will keep your admonition in mind. I use my camera mostly for pictures of my two kids - having the date/time is usually quite helpful.
I was really disapointed at the church photos - the sun was setting, ambient light was all but gone. On the smallish preview window it looked like I got it, but when I loaded the pictures, I was horrified to see how blurry they came out.
Now, I like Karma as much as the next/.'er, but SHEESH! Who modded my joke as "Insightful?" Was the parent post modded "Interesting" because I misspelled cremate?
I was recently in FOSS Oklahoma. I found their cemetery. Apparently they bury, not creamate.:-)
If anyone is willing to mirror, my pictures (including the aforementioned FOSS CEMETERY) can be found under http://www.connelm.homelinux.com/foss/foss. htm
Flamebait: A Usenet posting or other message intended to trigger a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply.
I was not trying to do that but I am entitled to the opinion that the comparison of a technically difficult but useless thing to fine art is insulting to fine art, and essentially shows zero class when it comes to what some people think of as art.
Whether you were trying to do that or not, you seem to have incited a discussion thread that had on one side you claiming that a technically difficult feat cannot be art, and a whole lot of technical people on the other side rebuking your insulting assertion. Even now, you are maintaining an insulting tone ("zero class") rather than taking a moment to consider that your argument may in fact be (unintentionally) fallicious. To say that something of questionable artistic value is an insult to "fine art" by exisiting, seems absurd to me. (And apparently, only you were questioning the artistic value.)
Do you program? Is it that you can't appreciate artistic qualities of technical works?
If you don't like that, you're entitled to your opinion too - moderate/meta-moderate as you will - but don't you dare have the arrogance and audacity to tell me what my intentions are or were, let alone how I should think. Who made you my judge or keeper?
In this instance, a random value produced in slashcode indicated that I, on this SINGLE occasion, was to be the arbitrar of moderation for your single post.
Moderators are not at liberty to reply on this thread (or they'd undo their previous moderation.) Meta-moderators do. Moderators can reply to your personal journal, (if you have an entry there that allows responses.) I imagine the random moderator who initially gave you a negative moderation was more disturbed by your post than I, since it was marked "flamebait" and not "overrated."
I fail to see how I acted arrogantly or audaciously. I don't recall telling you what your intentions were, nor telling you what to think! Looking farther back in this thread, I see nothing of the sort.
I have found repeatedly that moderation on/. is not a reflection of the merits of the post, but rather a reflection of the popularity of the comment. For example criticise ease of use problems with say Linux or Thunderbird - regardless of the merits of the argument - and see if you don't get moderated right down 9 times out of 10. Its disgusting but I suppose its my fault for expecting more maturity out of some. What do you think the end result of that is? Inane posts increase, and critical thinking decreases.
I agree that moderation often reflects the popularity of the post. I have run afoul of the same problem frequently. The phenomenon seems even more exaggerated on politics.slashdot.org.
The initial purpose for moderation was to weed out outrageous trolls. Your post, indeed, does not fall into that category. But your stubborn refusal to respect others opinions, repeatedly asserting that your view is the only possible correct view (based perhaps on a fallicious argument or poor wording) is problematic. Again, your opinion seems to be that this technical feat has no artistic value; but your assertion is that it is insulting to fine art. That sir, it is not.
In the end, I found that someone's negative moderation of your post, was fair. It's just a one-time meta-moderation; I trust the randomness of slashdot meta-moderation will not align me personally with one of your posts again anytime soon.
Do I think that as a result of moderation and meta-moderation, inane posts will increase, and critical thinging will decrease? Perhaps. Politics.slashdot.org is good evidence toward that end. However, without moderation & meta-moderation, I'm sure we'd find the/. discussion threads utterly unbearable. Do you have a systemic improvement to suggest? Perhaps a moderation category of "-1: unpopular opinion" or "-1: fallacy"? Would that have changed the outcome here?
Occasionally, when meta-moderating, I run across a post that really catches my attention. Your post was one such post.
I almost meta-modd'ed it unfair automatically because it was clearly meant to be funny, yet was marked flamebait. Having read the entire thread it is clear to me this was much more than a poor attempt at humor.
Technical accomplishments most certainly can be a form of art; I don't think anyone is asking *you* to appreciate it. But your flippant dismisal of even the posibilty of someone else apreciating it is just wrong.
-1 Flamebait: Fair.
(I meta-moderate more than I moderate. I like to think I give careful consideration to moderations as well.)
Additionally, I was struck by the opening line "Psychologists at the University of Bath have found..." implying that they surfed through a ton of data and yanked out only the unusual statistical anomalities, completely disregarding established scientific method!
Anyone can back-fit any popular theory for an irrellevant statistical anomality.
The actual artical does little to disuade that concern for me.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics {sorry, I forget whom I'm quoting.}
It had me as "matching" the Green party candidate. But since that is a vote for Bush, I modified it to only show viable candidates. In both cases, Bush matched my concerns the least of any candidate.
I'm surprised my preferences matched even 12% of the current administration's proposed platform. Apparently the survey bases the match on what the candidate *says* as opposed to past performance.
----
This matching utility was actually quite amusing. The questions wording seemed to be derived from headlines, where they take a party platform and rework a statement into a question - not the best way to get to the root of the issue IMHO.
----
I suppose when they do this in 2008, I'll be matched perfectly with NY Senator Hillary Clinton (unless Kerry somehow wins this time.)
I wonder what Bill will have to say about that! A million or so geeks "matching" themselves to his wife/first female US president?:-)
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info 2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%) Click here for info 3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (12%) Click here for info
That is a very good point. I don't know how many years old this article was; perhaps it *was* talking about earthquakes and I (in my fuddled logic) incorrectly extended that to also encompass volcanoes. At Mt. St. Helens, the two seem to be intertwined. I have no idea if that is true for all volcanoes.
Some years ago, I read an article in Science News describing a theory that the Earth's core rotates at a slightly different speed than the crust (much like atmosphere rotates at a different speed.) The article went on to postulate that earthquakes and volcanoes were caused by small (small compared to Mt. Everest) mountains on the core that abrade against different low-hanging areas of the crust. Those scientists were having quite some difficulty determining the period of rotation, IIRC.
Interesting idea. I don't know if anyone followed up on that research.
Anyhow, just because they aren't on the same plate, doesn't necessarily mean there is no correlation.
Kerry didn't wage a non-stop media campaign against the American public. The Bush administration did bombard the public with fallicious statements (and still does.)
Hmmmm. Your point is that my word "only" needlessly weakens my statement. Perhaps.
My point *is* that the ancillary arguments do not stand up to reason; the 9/11 panic was (& is) just smokescreen.
Youa assert that invading Iraq was also about the fact that America had been hit - I disagree. A nuclear response would have better addressed the insult of the attack on American soil. Doing so would have sent a much clearer message.
So there's oil, and then there's also the strategic placement of the country, and a desire to replace Hussein with somebody more friendly (which unfortunately entails pissing off a whole new group in the Middle East), and the blind 9/11 terrified patriotic fervor of which the chickenhawks took advantage.
Oil was the reason for 'desert storm' if you recall anything about life in the USA in the 1990s.
Oil is the reason that country is a desirable strategic place.
Oil was the reason Hussein was considered unfriendly.
Blind fervor was the smokescreen used.
I still maintain that oil was the only reason to invade Iraq.
Seeing how the grandparent comment is being modded, apperently I was too succinct. <tinfoilhat> That, or paid GOP cronies have created an astonishing number of astoturfing/. accounts, long enough to garner moderator points. </tinfoilhat>
Few American voters are angry that we went to war in Iraq. They are angry that it is not as successful as they hoped it would be. WMDs were only justification for the war to other countries. We went to war in Iraq for one simple reason: we were losing face.
Bullshit.
If it were about saving face, it would have been *one* nu-ku-lar missile.
What I know about the word resumé is that the American English word had the single accented E for two reasons. One was to convey the word's French origin, the other was to assist people in pronouncing it correctly (rez-ooh-MAY, not RAY-zoo-MAY.) Particularly in the NY region in the 1980s, the only acceptable spelling of it was resumé.
Starting somewhere around MS Word '95, that started getting "auto-corrected" to résumé. Microsoft (or whomever it bought the dictionary from) adopted the correct French spelling (of a different word that it originated from) as the correct spelling. The incorrect spelling "correction" was so pervasive that now "résumé" is included in most dictionaries as the prefered variant.
I still wish slashcode would give SOME warning when previewing the message with the checkbox "Post Anonymous" checked.
It's a fair enough rule; its a nuance that I run into myself every year or two. [Arghhh, I can't belive I forgot again!]
I know that each time I've made that mistake, it has been because I saw blantant abuse, and was posting an anonymous comment gloating about reverting that abuse. {sigh}
But perhaps a nine year old who posts to/. is a little more advanced than his peers! Perhaps all the tech-camp attendees themselves are far beyond the average nine year old.
It sounds like you are a very smart student. I wish you great success.
I cannot remember the last time I had control of copies of music I performed.
When I pay for a score (at outrageous prices!) and then perform that music in a public place, do I own the copyright to that performance? What if I didn't have to pay rent (say, for a wedding) is it still *my* performance? What if it is a one-time duet?
I am routinely warned against having *my* performances accessible on *my* web site, due to outrageous overzealous copyright law.
Personally, I'd like to release all my personal performances, especially after having paid the exorbitant sheet music prices, often for composers dead a long long long time ago.
The music industry is just fucked. My hobby is a serious legal vulnerability for me these days...due to the **AA fucking up the current laws.
I don't recall saying that flowcharting would harm anyone, I do recall saying it was inappropriate for this particular target audience.
Yes, I am wrapped up in the implementation of a large project, and yes I was venting on you (sorry) because of a stupid project manager who likes flow charts. Part of the reason I thought you were "attacking" was due to your application of the straw-man technique...where my comments were suddenly exaggerated into the notion that knowledge could somehow harm someone.
Politicians like to add the word "children" to just about anything when they want to persuade the general public that their pet project needs more funding. I was talking more realistically about the article topic: a talk to children.
Yes, I have some deep-seated hate for certain tools I am too often required to use. Why yes, Power Point is on my list, almost as high as Outlook.:-)
My opinion about the propriety of flow charts is still different than yours. Perhaps a conclusion that could be drawn would be "some people think introducing flowcharting principles would be helpful." I can agree with that; I'm jut not one of those people.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Magic kits are a lot of fun. Coordination, timing...all that.
2) "Operation" was another great game.
3) "Jenga" is a more recent favorite (even though it's ancient, I first saw it only in the last 10-15 years.)
4) Playing cards (and maybe a couple rule books) are great if you ever are having gender-gap communication problems.
Why not? http://sshwindows.sourceforge.net/ Just because 99.99% of ssh servers out there aren't windows doesn't mean it's not possible.
If I go back again next week, I will keep your admonition in mind. I use my camera mostly for pictures of my two kids - having the date/time is usually quite helpful.
I was really disapointed at the church photos - the sun was setting, ambient light was all but gone. On the smallish preview window it looked like I got it, but when I loaded the pictures, I was horrified to see how blurry they came out.
I was recently in the small town of FOSS Oklahoma. I found their cemetery. Apparently they bury, not cremate.
OK,
A coralcached link to the FOSS CEMETERY pictures is:
http://www.connelm.homelinux.com.nyud.net:8090/fo
Now,
I like Karma as much as the next
It's OK to mod this one as Funny, m'kaaay?
How embarrassing. I fixed the various broken links.
Please do *NOT* mod parent post up! If someone mirrors it, mod that up instead.
(I wish I could remember the URL for generic mirroring...I read a post for one quite recently.)
I was recently in FOSS Oklahoma. I found their cemetery. Apparently they bury, not creamate. :-)
. htm
If anyone is willing to mirror, my pictures (including the aforementioned FOSS CEMETERY) can be found under
http://www.connelm.homelinux.com/foss/foss
Whether you were trying to do that or not, you seem to have incited a discussion thread that had on one side you claiming that a technically difficult feat cannot be art, and a whole lot of technical people on the other side rebuking your insulting assertion. Even now, you are maintaining an insulting tone ("zero class") rather than taking a moment to consider that your argument may in fact be (unintentionally) fallicious. To say that something of questionable artistic value is an insult to "fine art" by exisiting, seems absurd to me. (And apparently, only you were questioning the artistic value.)
Do you program? Is it that you can't appreciate artistic qualities of technical works?
In this instance, a random value produced in slashcode indicated that I, on this SINGLE occasion, was to be the arbitrar of moderation for your single post.
Moderators are not at liberty to reply on this thread (or they'd undo their previous moderation.) Meta-moderators do. Moderators can reply to your personal journal, (if you have an entry there that allows responses.) I imagine the random moderator who initially gave you a negative moderation was more disturbed by your post than I, since it was marked "flamebait" and not "overrated."
I fail to see how I acted arrogantly or audaciously. I don't recall telling you what your intentions were, nor telling you what to think! Looking farther back in this thread, I see nothing of the sort.
I agree that moderation often reflects the popularity of the post. I have run afoul of the same problem frequently. The phenomenon seems even more exaggerated on politics.slashdot.org.
The initial purpose for moderation was to weed out outrageous trolls. Your post, indeed, does not fall into that category. But your stubborn refusal to respect others opinions, repeatedly asserting that your view is the only possible correct view (based perhaps on a fallicious argument or poor wording) is problematic. Again, your opinion seems to be that this technical feat has no artistic value; but your assertion is that it is insulting to fine art. That sir, it is not.
In the end, I found that someone's negative moderation of your post, was fair. It's just a one-time meta-moderation; I trust the randomness of slashdot meta-moderation will not align me personally with one of your posts again anytime soon.
Do I think that as a result of moderation and meta-moderation, inane posts will increase, and critical thinging will decrease? Perhaps. Politics.slashdot.org is good evidence toward that end. However, without moderation & meta-moderation, I'm sure we'd find the
Occasionally, when meta-moderating, I run across a post that really catches my attention. Your post was one such post.
I almost meta-modd'ed it unfair automatically because it was clearly meant to be funny, yet was marked flamebait. Having read the entire thread it is clear to me this was much more than a poor attempt at humor.
Technical accomplishments most certainly can be a form of art; I don't think anyone is asking *you* to appreciate it. But your flippant dismisal of even the posibilty of someone else apreciating it is just wrong.
-1 Flamebait: Fair.
(I meta-moderate more than I moderate. I like to think I give careful consideration to moderations as well.)
I agree completely.
Additionally, I was struck by the opening line "Psychologists at the University of Bath have found..." implying that they surfed through a ton of data and yanked out only the unusual statistical anomalities, completely disregarding established scientific method!
Anyone can back-fit any popular theory for an irrellevant statistical anomality.
The actual artical does little to disuade that concern for me.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics {sorry, I forget whom I'm quoting.}
It had me as "matching" the Green party candidate. But since that is a vote for Bush, I modified it to only show viable candidates. In both cases, Bush matched my concerns the least of any candidate.
:-)
I'm surprised my preferences matched even 12% of the current administration's proposed platform. Apparently the survey bases the match on what the candidate *says* as opposed to past performance.
----
This matching utility was actually quite amusing. The questions wording seemed to be derived from headlines, where they take a party platform and rework a statement into a question - not the best way to get to the root of the issue IMHO.
----
I suppose when they do this in 2008, I'll be matched perfectly with NY Senator Hillary Clinton (unless Kerry somehow wins this time.)
I wonder what Bill will have to say about that! A million or so geeks "matching" themselves to his wife/first female US president?
My results:
Your Results:
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (12%) Click here for info
YMMV
That is a very good point. I don't know how many years old this article was; perhaps it *was* talking about earthquakes and I (in my fuddled logic) incorrectly extended that to also encompass volcanoes. At Mt. St. Helens, the two seem to be intertwined. I have no idea if that is true for all volcanoes.
Some years ago, I read an article in Science News describing a theory that the Earth's core rotates at a slightly different speed than the crust (much like atmosphere rotates at a different speed.) The article went on to postulate that earthquakes and volcanoes were caused by small (small compared to Mt. Everest) mountains on the core that abrade against different low-hanging areas of the crust. Those scientists were having quite some difficulty determining the period of rotation, IIRC.
Interesting idea. I don't know if anyone followed up on that research.
Anyhow, just because they aren't on the same plate, doesn't necessarily mean there is no correlation.
Watching their animation, it looks like 2352-2362 will push a lot of it into the Pacific Ocean.
Animation
(I positioned my mouse uner the 700 year mark, that jumped to 350 years into the simulation on my screen)
U.S. Plans targeted Draft for Computer Personnel
So while the wheels are turning putting things into place, the house votes this issue away.
What's to stop them from reintroducing it (or a similar bill) immediately *after* the election?
If our politicans routinely acted ethically, I wouldn't be worried, but right now I'm looking for my tin-foil hat!
So will they remove all limits on Rainbow Trout now? :-)
That would be nice...
Kerry didn't wage a non-stop media campaign against the American public. The Bush administration did bombard the public with fallicious statements (and still does.)
My point *is* that the ancillary arguments do not stand up to reason; the 9/11 panic was (& is) just smokescreen.
Youa assert that invading Iraq was also about the fact that America had been hit - I disagree. A nuclear response would have better addressed the insult of the attack on American soil. Doing so would have sent a much clearer message.
Oil was the reason for 'desert storm' if you recall anything about life in the USA in the 1990s.
Oil is the reason that country is a desirable strategic place.
Oil was the reason Hussein was considered unfriendly.
Blind fervor was the smokescreen used.
I still maintain that oil was the only reason to invade Iraq.
Seeing how the grandparent comment is being modded, apperently I was too succinct. <tinfoilhat> That, or paid GOP cronies have created an astonishing number of astoturfing
Bullshit.
If it were about saving face, it would have been *one* nu-ku-lar missile.
It was about oil. Only.
What I know about the word resumé is that the American English word had the single accented E for two reasons. One was to convey the word's French origin, the other was to assist people in pronouncing it correctly (rez-ooh-MAY, not RAY-zoo-MAY.) Particularly in the NY region in the 1980s, the only acceptable spelling of it was resumé.
Starting somewhere around MS Word '95, that started getting "auto-corrected" to résumé. Microsoft (or whomever it bought the dictionary from) adopted the correct French spelling (of a different word that it originated from) as the correct spelling. The incorrect spelling "correction" was so pervasive that now "résumé" is included in most dictionaries as the prefered variant.
I still wish slashcode would give SOME warning when previewing the message with the checkbox "Post Anonymous" checked.
It's a fair enough rule; its a nuance that I run into myself every year or two. [Arghhh, I can't belive I forgot again!]
I know that each time I've made that mistake, it has been because I saw blantant abuse, and was posting an anonymous comment gloating about reverting that abuse. {sigh}
Fair enough.
/. is a little more advanced than his peers! Perhaps all the tech-camp attendees themselves are far beyond the average nine year old.
But perhaps a nine year old who posts to
It sounds like you are a very smart student. I wish you great success.
I cannot remember the last time I had control of copies of music I performed.
When I pay for a score (at outrageous prices!) and then perform that music in a public place, do I own the copyright to that performance? What if I didn't have to pay rent (say, for a wedding) is it still *my* performance? What if it is a one-time duet?
I am routinely warned against having *my* performances accessible on *my* web site, due to outrageous overzealous copyright law.
Personally, I'd like to release all my personal performances, especially after having paid the exorbitant sheet music prices, often for composers dead a long long long time ago.
The music industry is just fucked. My hobby is a serious legal vulnerability for me these days...due to the **AA fucking up the current laws.
Who am I supposed to patronize and promote again?
Amen. Words really can't describe my gratitude for dyndns.org.
Thank you for your courteous response.
:-)
I don't recall saying that flowcharting would harm anyone, I do recall saying it was inappropriate for this particular target audience.
Yes, I am wrapped up in the implementation of a large project, and yes I was venting on you (sorry) because of a stupid project manager who likes flow charts. Part of the reason I thought you were "attacking" was due to your application of the straw-man technique...where my comments were suddenly exaggerated into the notion that knowledge could somehow harm someone.
Politicians like to add the word "children" to just about anything when they want to persuade the general public that their pet project needs more funding. I was talking more realistically about the article topic: a talk to children.
Yes, I have some deep-seated hate for certain tools I am too often required to use. Why yes, Power Point is on my list, almost as high as Outlook.
My opinion about the propriety of flow charts is still different than yours. Perhaps a conclusion that could be drawn would be "some people think introducing flowcharting principles would be helpful." I can agree with that; I'm jut not one of those people.