Again? Sorry -- if you can't pick it up the first two times you forfeit your right to have it re-explained to you (at least as far as my patience is concerned).
"Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you."
When you contradict yourself I'm not ignoring anything you've written, I'm going by the last thing said for want of a more coherent anchor. Also, it is your insistence that you're right on top of the "just plain wrong" situation that I find so unappealing. It's arrogant.
"Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997"..."
Why do you think you're so clever when you fail to parse simple sentences so frequently? Once again, you've missed the point. I'd explain it to you, but my charity quota has been filled for the day. Maybe tomorrow.
You, sir, are exactly what makes Slashdot amusing. Good luck in all your future endeavours!
"And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?"
No. Your powers of inferrence are not operating at full capacity. You just make yourself sound silly when you ignore great chunks of the thread.
"How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?"
Indeed -- tell that to the social and political critics who have used pseudonyms over the centuries. "Don't bother, fellas -- MKalus knows better!"
"Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991..."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You're basically just admitting that it's taken you more years to gain less wisdom. Good show. Keep acting like a newbie troll -- it's charming, and encourages open and frank discussion.
I'll ignore a majority of your foolishness, so we can agree what we disagree on.
"As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, SHOULD NOT be required to hide their identity." [ My Emphasis ]
Shouldn't, but do. Face reality.
You can fight a dysfunctional system while at the same time protecting yourself from its worst damages.
"My, I must have truly hurt you, considering the dripping sarcasm and self righthousness on your behalf... How insecure must one be to be so outwardly aggressive to another poster on a message board like slashdot...."
I've been on the Internet since 1996, and I still marvel that fools think accusing their interloculators of their own crimes in argument will somehow vindicate them. It's a cute ploy, but it's old and transparent.
"The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees."
Oh, I hadn't realized the focus was so narrow. Who decided that?
"Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself."
Now that's simply reduced to the point of the asburd. How many things how you "let" happen today? I've heard there were some deaths your city today -- how DARE you!
"You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?"
Oh, sure. And if drive around with seat-belt on I shouldn't die, because I'm a perfect driver. Do you see the breakdown in logic? Events beyond your control are not your responsibility, but you'd be foolhardy to ignore the potential jeopardy. Similarly, if I advise others to buckle up I am not advocating treating the roads as derby.
Your example would suggest that if I tell people to wear seat-belts I am somehow "letting" car accidents happen, by refusing to accept responsibility personally for stopping car accidents from ever happening.
Your analogy is crocked, and it smells like stale mint.
"No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do."
My attitude is, "Well, if you blog about secrets and don't make any attempt to shield yourself from discovery while blogging in a blogger-hostile environment, you're doing yourself a disservice."
"Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind."
That may one of the funniest, most self-aggrandizing notions I've ever read here. Kudos, Arrogor -- Lord of the Fearless Knowers!
"Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website."
Why would I want to know more about you? You sound like a bit of reactionary jackass.
I'm sorry I compared you to a teenager -- it's obviously a sensitive point. What I meant to say is, "Your arguments are emotional and fallacious -- kinda like an over-excited, big-headed teenager." So, it really should've been a SIMILE. Apologies.
I know you have the maturity to accept this olive branch with decorum and dignity. No doubt, your response will inspire us all.
Oh, okay -- I follow you now. I thought you were reacting against the concept of public writing in general, but I understand now that you were reacting against the concept of public hackneyed drivel.
No arguments there. What sucks does suck, after all.
"Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language."
Nor as a first, clearly. I'm not sure what you mean here, but I was speaking in response to your using American freedoms as an example. It seemed ethnocentric, but if you're not American I'm at a bit of a loss of why you'd use that as your reference. If you are American and I've misunderstood you altogether, I suggest taking the cotton out of your mouth when you speak.
"Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?"
You miss the point. It wasn't prescriptivism, it was a recommendation for common sense. IF someone is not safe to speak their mind, taking measures to avoid harassment is NOT equivalent to condoning that lack of freedom.
"If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me."
So, because you feel no need to make use of a pseudonym, are you suggesting that others be barred from the same?
Your mother may be dead, but the mothers of lots of people are not. You are not married, so you're not really qualified to have any perspective there, fair enough. The point is that whether or not you have sufficient life experience to see the value in obfuscation, you must have enough sense to recognize that your own experiences shouldn't set a universal standard.
"And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath."
If I sound angry to you, I suggest that your reading comprehension skills may be impaired. We're just having a little chat -- nice and friendly-like.
First of all, my country doesn't have a second ammendment. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't how you spell "amendment."
Also, just for the record, all of the embarrassing crap I've written *is* linked to my proper name. I am shameless, and believe my ranting is defensible.
However, it's a bit simplistic to ignore the value of pseudonyms. Haven't you ever wanted to write about/get feedback on something you wouldn't want your mother to read? Or you wife?
Are *they* repressing institutions that require being answered with placard-waving, activist mission-statements and shouting? (Divorced and/or Mama's Boys don't bother answering that, you'll dent my theory.)
You sound like a teenager, you reactionary dander-pie. Drink a glass of lemonade and take a nap.
Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.
Er, I'm not quite sure what classic period of nationhood you're pining for. When were nations ever considered conduits of the wants and will of their people, except in jingoistic history lessons about post-revolutionary France and the rise of the modern republics?
Yes, the video editors of the world would just be tickled pink to know how easy it had become for any tit to create an entire day's worth of crap footage to sift through.
Slashdot Mirror
"Maybe you can enlighten me what I omitted."
Again? Sorry -- if you can't pick it up the first two times you forfeit your right to have it re-explained to you (at least as far as my patience is concerned).
"Now you're the one omitting my writing. I made it pretty clear that there are good circumstances where writing a pseudonym makes sense, but for the average person to have to be that paranoid is just plain wrong. If you don't see that I feel sorry for you."
When you contradict yourself I'm not ignoring anything you've written, I'm going by the last thing said for want of a more coherent anchor. Also, it is your insistence that you're right on top of the "just plain wrong" situation that I find so unappealing. It's arrogant.
"Ah, and once again only the Burger has a right to put up the bar "I am on the net since 1997"..."
Why do you think you're so clever when you fail to parse simple sentences so frequently? Once again, you've missed the point. I'd explain it to you, but my charity quota has been filled for the day. Maybe tomorrow.
You, sir, are exactly what makes Slashdot amusing. Good luck in all your future endeavours!
"And because it is that way we all have to live with it. No need (or reason) to change, is that what you are trying to imply with your "advice"?"
No. Your powers of inferrence are not operating at full capacity. You just make yourself sound silly when you ignore great chunks of the thread.
"How much credibility does my writing have if I don't even stand by it?"
Indeed -- tell that to the social and political critics who have used pseudonyms over the centuries. "Don't bother, fellas -- MKalus knows better!"
"Wow, 1996? Impressive, I have only used my computer to connect to the internet since around 1991..."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You're basically just admitting that it's taken you more years to gain less wisdom. Good show. Keep acting like a newbie troll -- it's charming, and encourages open and frank discussion.
I love you.
I'll ignore a majority of your foolishness, so we can agree what we disagree on. "As I wrote there are good reasons for people to use acronyms for example if they blow the whistle on their employer for damaging the environment or selling dangerous products, but beyond that, someone who has a personal blog, SHOULD NOT be required to hide their identity." [ My Emphasis ] Shouldn't, but do. Face reality.
You can fight a dysfunctional system while at the same time protecting yourself from its worst damages.
"My, I must have truly hurt you, considering the dripping sarcasm and self righthousness on your behalf... How insecure must one be to be so outwardly aggressive to another poster on a message board like slashdot...."
I've been on the Internet since 1996, and I still marvel that fools think accusing their interloculators of their own crimes in argument will somehow vindicate them. It's a cute ploy, but it's old and transparent.
Have a nice day.
Wow. You *almost* parsed that comment properly.
After such a good start (recognizing irony) you failed to understand it's direction (self-referential).
Keep workin' at it, champ.
"The reason I choose america was because this is what this is all about, how american companies treat their employees."
Oh, I hadn't realized the focus was so narrow. Who decided that?
"Yes it is. If I just let things happen I am as guilty as when I would have done it myself."
Now that's simply reduced to the point of the asburd. How many things how you "let" happen today? I've heard there were some deaths your city today -- how DARE you!
"You can't tell me that if you see someone drowning in a lake and just let it happen, you did not let him die?"
Oh, sure. And if drive around with seat-belt on I shouldn't die, because I'm a perfect driver. Do you see the breakdown in logic? Events beyond your control are not your responsibility, but you'd be foolhardy to ignore the potential jeopardy. Similarly, if I advise others to buckle up I am not advocating treating the roads as derby.
Your example would suggest that if I tell people to wear seat-belts I am somehow "letting" car accidents happen, by refusing to accept responsibility personally for stopping car accidents from ever happening.
Your analogy is crocked, and it smells like stale mint.
"No, but I am opposing your attitude of: "Well, if you have a blog, better have it under a pseudonym, because that's the only smart thing to do."
My attitude is, "Well, if you blog about secrets and don't make any attempt to shield yourself from discovery while blogging in a blogger-hostile environment, you're doing yourself a disservice."
"Maybe not, but I am do have a pretty good idea how I want to live my life which things I value, and the term "brutally honest" would come to mind."
That may one of the funniest, most self-aggrandizing notions I've ever read here. Kudos, Arrogor -- Lord of the Fearless Knowers!
"Well, if you look at my UID you'll realize that it has been around But here's a tip: google for my username, I pretty much use it for 99% of my public postings, and I am sure you can find out more about me, or just visit my website."
Why would I want to know more about you? You sound like a bit of reactionary jackass.
I'm sorry I compared you to a teenager -- it's obviously a sensitive point. What I meant to say is, "Your arguments are emotional and fallacious -- kinda like an over-excited, big-headed teenager." So, it really should've been a SIMILE. Apologies.
I know you have the maturity to accept this olive branch with decorum and dignity. No doubt, your response will inspire us all.
Oh, okay -- I follow you now. I thought you were reacting against the concept of public writing in general, but I understand now that you were reacting against the concept of public hackneyed drivel.
No arguments there. What sucks does suck, after all.
"Too bad for your country. Mine, btw, does not have english as an official language."
Nor as a first, clearly. I'm not sure what you mean here, but I was speaking in response to your using American freedoms as an example. It seemed ethnocentric, but if you're not American I'm at a bit of a loss of why you'd use that as your reference. If you are American and I've misunderstood you altogether, I suggest taking the cotton out of your mouth when you speak.
"Good for you, so why are you now all of the sudden tell everybody to hide their identity?"
You miss the point. It wasn't prescriptivism, it was a recommendation for common sense. IF someone is not safe to speak their mind, taking measures to avoid harassment is NOT equivalent to condoning that lack of freedom.
"If I had either I still wouldn't care. They either accept me for who I am or they don't. Unlike a Teenager I don't really need someone elses approval to be me."
So, because you feel no need to make use of a pseudonym, are you suggesting that others be barred from the same?
Your mother may be dead, but the mothers of lots of people are not. You are not married, so you're not really qualified to have any perspective there, fair enough. The point is that whether or not you have sufficient life experience to see the value in obfuscation, you must have enough sense to recognize that your own experiences shouldn't set a universal standard.
"And you sound like someone with anger managment issues. Take a Valium and deep breath."
If I sound angry to you, I suggest that your reading comprehension skills may be impaired. We're just having a little chat -- nice and friendly-like.
Are you a Quaker?
First of all, my country doesn't have a second ammendment. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't how you spell "amendment."
Also, just for the record, all of the embarrassing crap I've written *is* linked to my proper name. I am shameless, and believe my ranting is defensible.
However, it's a bit simplistic to ignore the value of pseudonyms. Haven't you ever wanted to write about/get feedback on something you wouldn't want your mother to read? Or you wife?
Are *they* repressing institutions that require being answered with placard-waving, activist mission-statements and shouting? (Divorced and/or Mama's Boys don't bother answering that, you'll dent my theory.)
You sound like a teenager, you reactionary dander-pie. Drink a glass of lemonade and take a nap.
Oh. Maybe I misunderstood you.
It just seemed to me that your comment was crying out between the lines, "I feel small, and I resent extroverts."
Reading between the lines is an obscure art, however.
Better tuck in your shirt.
Your insecurity is showing.
People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.
People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.
People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.
That's exactly what I told the FBI, but they ate my baby anyhow.
FBI: "You're a Terrorist."
Me: "No, I just have a smutty blog."
FBI: "Is that Arabic?"
Me: "I'm sorry?"
FBI: "Take him away. We're blowing up Alderan, baby."
1) Titan looks like a nice place for life to grow up. We're hoping to meet friends.
2) If we do meet friends, we're hoping they're sirens. I call the redhead.
Gazbo is so stinkin' right it ain't funny.
Read the act more carefully. Back-ups of any and all digital media for personal use is absolutely covered.
I blogged about this on August 20th. How slow is /.? I thought this was a *news* site.
Topical: Another reason it rocks to be boreal.
Feh. I don't shed any tears over frustrated tech supportists anymore, because they still suck even when conditions are ideal. Read more.
Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.
...Weirdo.
Er, I'm not quite sure what classic period of nationhood you're pining for. When were nations ever considered conduits of the wants and will of their people, except in jingoistic history lessons about post-revolutionary France and the rise of the modern republics?
The title should read VFX, not SFX, because we're dealing with VISUAL effects here. Dagnabit.
The use of the term "fourfold" itself nails the headline as coming from the BBC.
A more North American slant would have been something pithier like "lots mucher."
Its evident that traffic of those Russian online news services that cover Mideast events completely and effectively will be increasing further.
Now that's the kind of quality writing I turn to Pravda for. Rock on, you incoherent alarmist bastards!
Yes, the video editors of the world would just be tickled pink to know how easy it had become for any tit to create an entire day's worth of crap footage to sift through.
This is just a blatent copyright violation.
I smell a DMCA suit -- somebody go wake up Rusty's lawyers and throw some clothes on them: it's time for court. Fight of the decade!
"In this corna: benevolent dictator of community-edited superblog Kuro5hin, Rusty rex! In this corna! the gay robots from Slashdot!"
Mmmm....cereal.