You, sir, don't know what you're talking about. I'm a reporter, and I routinely take AND publish pictures of people who do not want me to, including criminal suspects. If what you say is true, I'd be in jail; since I'm not, I contend that you ar full of it. I would, of course, apologize immediatly upon receipt of proof to the contrary. Links to reputable legal sites are accepted. And moderators... insightful? Looks more like uninformed to me...
There is no way they can stop me from putting a microphone near the speaker. Yeah, there would be some loss, but if you use good equipment, not a lot. And I can't see them outlawing speakers and microphones (tough you never know)
Try The Longest Journey . Beautiful graphics, interesting story, 2D adventure game. Unfortunately, it didn't sell well, so don't expect any sequels. It's more of an experience than a game, up there with Grim Fandango. Really, really worth a shot.
Where are there pictures?
on
LWCE Wrapup
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Anybody knows where can I find pictures of this expo? There's nothing on the site. I'm particularly curious to see Microsoft's booth...
Also we can look at the public's approval of Final Fantasy to see that people aren't really ready to accept CG as a replacement to real
Everybody I've talked to about FF was completely appreciative of the CG. They didn't like the story, and I can hardly blame them. I'd look at Shrek, Toy Story and others as proof that if a story is good, people is more than redy to give CG a shot. If the story sucks, tough, there's nothing to do.
I don't mean to be cold but... damages? What damages? She's already terminal, for God's sake. In fact, I have to wonder.. even if there is something wrong and she can alert her husband, what is he going to do? On the other hand, I'm assuming the requirements are not the poster's, but the husband's. Maybe he needs something cheap because he cannot afford the fancy equipment. Not everybody is insured.
Originally, Han Solo shot Greedo from under the table before Greedo had a chance to shoot. In the "new and improved" version, Greedo shoots first, inexplicably missing a sitting Han from about 3 feet (some bounty hunter!) and then gets whacked. Allegedly, that makes Han more of a good guy. In my book, that makes Han a slow fool, Greedo a lousy shot and George Lucas an idiot.
Wow... how do I explain this.... I didn't reject you claims because you were trolling. I did a pretty torough rebuttal (more than was warranted). Still, who am I kidding... I don't think you get the point. Plus, that post was genuinely funny:)
I agree to all of your points, but I don't think they apply here, since we ar looking at the "second of three" articles. Arguably, this is the part that includes the spammer's view, so it will seem biased that way. Had we read just the first part, maybe a lot of people would be happy about the antispammer slant (and, I'm sure, would not bother to demand that spammers be interviewed for a balanced story. Think about that).
To feed the troll or not to feed the troll... OK, I'll bite. Point by point:
You distorted what he said when you said the following: "The point is, you seem to believe the journalist has to do your thinking. That's not right. Our job is to present you the facts as unadulterated as possible, report what other people said, trying to preserve their point of view, and let YOU choose who to believe and what to make of the information. Anything else is the worst kind of manipulation, and I'm surprised any slashdotter would support that". That's not what he said. He said a journalist should present an unbiased view of both sides of the story rather than one. You've manipulated what he was advocating : you're insisting that he was advocating refuting everything the spammer said. Rather, he was advocating an interview which presented the spammers' quotes, an anti-spammers quotes, and then independent verification of the facts. You know, responsible journalism.
Now, at this point I should insert the original quote to which I was responding. The entire post was this:
This AP article has been making the rounds. It's rather shoddy journalism in that it takes the words of the spammers completely at face value. Seeing as how Rule #1 is "spammers lie" you can imagine how well this approach works. [google.com]
This is where I have to ask the obligatory: What are you smoking, and can I have some? Where, in this quote (which is not out of context, as it is the entire post), does he ask for an unbiased report or an interview that included the spammers' point of view? I know it is too much to expect you to read the article, but could you at least read the posts you are responding to? But then, you probably don't know.
Ad hominem. Worse, undeserved ad hominem. Not worthy of response. Moving on: Your argument to wait for Part III is weak. Part III is titled "Next -- PART III: Spam Countermeasures". The chances of this third section having an interview with the "spam stalker" is slim to none, and Slim just left town.
I never said "wait for the next". I said Read All Three. Yes, the third one is about countermeasures, and as we know, the second one is about the spammer's point of view. Logic would demand the first one was about, oh, the antispammers view? No, I guess it was more spammers. Just because we hate them and we all know journalists are scum anyway, right? We know this because the "stalker" has already had to angrily defend herself because she was not interviewed for the article.
I made it a point to establish I agree the "stalker" should have been included. However, I know for a fact there are plenty of good reasons for which she could have been excluded and they do not all involve evil conspiracies or lame jounalists. Some, yes, but not all. If you're a journalist, so is Michael Sims.
More ad hominem. If I were trolling, I'd take you task for this one; alas, trolling will remain your privilege for this thread (altough I reserve the right to do it for my own amusement in other ones);)
I'm not distorting what you said. I dare you to show me where I did. As for the other points, all I can say is: Until you have read all the story (all three parts of it) you cannot really argue wheter it is complete or not. My original exception to your point, however, was that you seemed to believe it was the reporter's job not to report the spammers' point of view, or at least alter it, since it was "obviously lies". Other than that, I'm sure we agree in several points. And yes, he should probably have quoted Karen Hoffmann.
"Parroting back what they said" is not an excuse, it's the right way to do things. If you gave me an interview, you'd have every right to expect your point of view to be accurately represented, and not only those parts that I agree with. An article and a "pure interview" (whatever that is) are no different. Unless you're doing an op-ed piece (which this clearly is not) your personal opinions or biases are not wanted in the article. Spammers are people. Yes, they are. And they have a right to voice their opinions as much as you or me. As amusing as it is to watch slashdotters ask for the death penalty for spammers, it doesn't change the fact that they have right, including the right of rebuttal. If you read the article, you should have noticed a little phrase, right under the byline, stating "second of three parts". That means there was a previous piece and there will be another. You just read the part, specifically, where spammers get their say and assume the article is biased. All I can say is, if you really love facts, get them straight. Read all three parts and then form an opinion. As for your last suggestion: You dont "quietly excise the quotes" if they turn out to be lies. Yo keep them in, because that's what the person said. If you have facts that show them to be lies, you alse publish them. "Altough John Doe claims they lose a lot of money, figures from NoSuchAgency show they actually make a bundle" works fine. The point is, you seem to believe the journalist has to do your thinking. That's not right. Our job is to present you the facts as unadulterated as possible, report what other people said, trying to preserve their point of view, and let YOU choose who to believe and what to make of the information. Anything else is the worst kind of manipulation, and I'm surprised any slashdotter would support that. I guess you'd also condone it if Time interviewed Linus about Linux on the desktop and then "quietly excised" what he said because, to them, he is obviously wrong/lying (I'm not saying he is. Work with me here). In short, we'll provide the facts, you do the thinking. That's the way it should be, and that's the way this article is written. There is a lot of bad journalism, but this is not it.
Re:a web-marketing company came to me...
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 2
No need for this. CEOs that read The Wall Street Journal already know spam is bad. That's why you rarely see a reputable offer via spam. Most of them are of the porn/penile enlarger variety or, even worse, the fraud variety. These people know they bug you. They don't care. They're in it for the 1 in 10000 users that's gullible enough to fall for their ruse. They know the other 9999 hates them, and they just don't care.
I've been a journalist for over 8 years. I see a lot of misconceptions in the two lines of your post. Maybe it's the TV's fault. Maybe you've grown used to think about Dan Rather or Barbara Walters as journalists. They're not. They're celebrities. A journalist walks his beat, watches, listens and reports the facts. Just the facts. I've interviewed murderers and rapists. I've also interviewed way more politicians than you'd ever care to meet. And when I come back to my desk and write the story, I simply report what they said. Nobody cares what I think about it; my job is to tell you what they said. So, taking their words at face value is NOT shoddy journalism. It's real journalism. You, the reader, should decide what to make of their words. Shoddy journalism would be to assume spammers lie, and mocking them, distorting what they said. It would be a lot more gratifying for antispammers, yes, but it would also be the worst kind of journalism: A distortion of the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I a copyright infringer, that you must place DRM an all content and monitor my internet usage?
Oh, wait, you're already doing that... nevermind...
You, sir, don't know what you're talking about.
I'm a reporter, and I routinely take AND publish pictures of people who do not want me to, including criminal suspects. If what you say is true, I'd be in jail; since I'm not, I contend that you ar full of it.
I would, of course, apologize immediatly upon receipt of proof to the contrary. Links to reputable legal sites are accepted.
And moderators... insightful? Looks more like uninformed to me...
There is no way they can stop me from putting a microphone near the speaker.
Yeah, there would be some loss, but if you use good equipment, not a lot. And I can't see them outlawing speakers and microphones (tough you never know)
I wish I had mod points. You really deserve a +5, Funny.
Keep up the good work >:)
...for Star Trek XI: The Tribbles Strike Back.
>I offered to get my mom, a lawyer, a copy of XP (snip)
Man... OK, so she's a lawyer and she might deserve it, but she's also you mom... have some respect, will you?
Try The Longest Journey . Beautiful graphics, interesting story, 2D adventure game. Unfortunately, it didn't sell well, so don't expect any sequels. It's more of an experience than a game, up there with Grim Fandango.
Really, really worth a shot.
Anybody knows where can I find pictures of this expo? There's nothing on the site. I'm particularly curious to see Microsoft's booth...
Might be they are not christians?
*flamebait*
Because, of course, only christians have ethics?
*end flamebait*
...when I read these comments, the quote at the bottom of the page was:
... Although I don't know WHY!!"
"All of a sudden, I want to THROW OVER my promising ACTING CAREER, grow a LONG BLACK BEARD and wear a BASEBALL HAT!!
Also we can look at the public's approval of Final Fantasy to see that people aren't really ready to accept CG as a replacement to real
Everybody I've talked to about FF was completely appreciative of the CG. They didn't like the story, and I can hardly blame them.
I'd look at Shrek, Toy Story and others as proof that if a story is good, people is more than redy to give CG a shot. If the story sucks, tough, there's nothing to do.
Marketing guys would call it "100% of the focus group" ;)
I don't mean to be cold but... damages? What damages? She's already terminal, for God's sake. In fact, I have to wonder.. even if there is something wrong and she can alert her husband, what is he going to do?
On the other hand, I'm assuming the requirements are not the poster's, but the husband's. Maybe he needs something cheap because he cannot afford the fancy equipment. Not everybody is insured.
Get cable.
Seriously. Last night I spent over half an hour watching the Playboy channel before realizing it was actually Cinemax.
Don't short change your city. SLC also got a lot of press for the Winter Olympics.
*ducks*
Originally, Han Solo shot Greedo from under the table before Greedo had a chance to shoot.
In the "new and improved" version, Greedo shoots first, inexplicably missing a sitting Han from about 3 feet (some bounty hunter!) and then gets whacked. Allegedly, that makes Han more of a good guy. In my book, that makes Han a slow fool, Greedo a lousy shot and George Lucas an idiot.
Cool, I can undestand that. ;)
Now, you never told me if I can have some of what you were smoking
(I'm kidding, not flaming)
Wow... how do I explain this.... :)
I didn't reject you claims because you were trolling. I did a pretty torough rebuttal (more than was warranted).
Still, who am I kidding... I don't think you get the point.
Plus, that post was genuinely funny
I agree to all of your points, but I don't think they apply here, since we ar looking at the "second of three" articles. Arguably, this is the part that includes the spammer's view, so it will seem biased that way. Had we read just the first part, maybe a lot of people would be happy about the antispammer slant (and, I'm sure, would not bother to demand that spammers be interviewed for a balanced story. Think about that).
To feed the troll or not to feed the troll... OK, I'll bite. Point by point:
:
;)
You distorted what he said when you said the following
"The point is, you seem to believe the journalist has to do your thinking. That's not right. Our job is to present you the facts as unadulterated as possible, report what other people said, trying to preserve their point of view, and let YOU choose who to believe and what to make of the information. Anything else is the worst kind of manipulation, and I'm surprised any slashdotter would support that".
That's not what he said. He said a journalist should present an unbiased view of both sides of the story rather than one. You've manipulated what he was advocating : you're insisting that he was advocating refuting everything the spammer said. Rather, he was advocating an interview which presented the spammers' quotes, an anti-spammers quotes, and then independent verification of the facts. You know, responsible journalism.
Now, at this point I should insert the original quote to which I was responding. The entire post was this:
This AP article has been making the rounds. It's rather shoddy journalism in that it takes the words of the spammers completely at face value. Seeing as how Rule #1 is "spammers lie" you can imagine how well this approach works. [google.com]
This is where I have to ask the obligatory: What are you smoking, and can I have some? Where, in this quote (which is not out of context, as it is the entire post), does he ask for an unbiased report or an interview that included the spammers' point of view?
I know it is too much to expect you to read the article, but could you at least read the posts you are responding to?
But then, you probably don't know.
Ad hominem. Worse, undeserved ad hominem. Not worthy of response. Moving on:
Your argument to wait for Part III is weak. Part III is titled "Next -- PART III: Spam Countermeasures". The chances of this third section having an interview with the "spam stalker" is slim to none, and Slim just left town.
I never said "wait for the next". I said Read All Three. Yes, the third one is about countermeasures, and as we know, the second one is about the spammer's point of view. Logic would demand the first one was about, oh, the antispammers view? No, I guess it was more spammers. Just because we hate them and we all know journalists are scum anyway, right?
We know this because the "stalker" has already had to angrily defend herself because she was not interviewed for the article.
I made it a point to establish I agree the "stalker" should have been included. However, I know for a fact there are plenty of good reasons for which she could have been excluded and they do not all involve evil conspiracies or lame jounalists. Some, yes, but not all.
If you're a journalist, so is Michael Sims.
More ad hominem. If I were trolling, I'd take you task for this one; alas, trolling will remain your privilege for this thread (altough I reserve the right to do it for my own amusement in other ones)
I'm not distorting what you said. I dare you to show me where I did.
As for the other points, all I can say is: Until you have read all the story (all three parts of it) you cannot really argue wheter it is complete or not.
My original exception to your point, however, was that you seemed to believe it was the reporter's job not to report the spammers' point of view, or at least alter it, since it was "obviously lies". Other than that, I'm sure we agree in several points. And yes, he should probably have quoted Karen Hoffmann.
"Parroting back what they said" is not an excuse, it's the right way to do things. If you gave me an interview, you'd have every right to expect your point of view to be accurately represented, and not only those parts that I agree with. An article and a "pure interview" (whatever that is) are no different. Unless you're doing an op-ed piece (which this clearly is not) your personal opinions or biases are not wanted in the article.
Spammers are people. Yes, they are. And they have a right to voice their opinions as much as you or me. As amusing as it is to watch slashdotters ask for the death penalty for spammers, it doesn't change the fact that they have right, including the right of rebuttal.
If you read the article, you should have noticed a little phrase, right under the byline, stating "second of three parts". That means there was a previous piece and there will be another. You just read the part, specifically, where spammers get their say and assume the article is biased. All I can say is, if you really love facts, get them straight. Read all three parts and then form an opinion.
As for your last suggestion: You dont "quietly excise the quotes" if they turn out to be lies. Yo keep them in, because that's what the person said. If you have facts that show them to be lies, you alse publish them. "Altough John Doe claims they lose a lot of money, figures from NoSuchAgency show they actually make a bundle" works fine.
The point is, you seem to believe the journalist has to do your thinking. That's not right. Our job is to present you the facts as unadulterated as possible, report what other people said, trying to preserve their point of view, and let YOU choose who to believe and what to make of the information. Anything else is the worst kind of manipulation, and I'm surprised any slashdotter would support that. I guess you'd also condone it if Time interviewed Linus about Linux on the desktop and then "quietly excised" what he said because, to them, he is obviously wrong/lying (I'm not saying he is. Work with me here).
In short, we'll provide the facts, you do the thinking. That's the way it should be, and that's the way this article is written. There is a lot of bad journalism, but this is not it.
No need for this.
CEOs that read The Wall Street Journal already know spam is bad. That's why you rarely see a reputable offer via spam. Most of them are of the porn/penile enlarger variety or, even worse, the fraud variety.
These people know they bug you. They don't care. They're in it for the 1 in 10000 users that's gullible enough to fall for their ruse. They know the other 9999 hates them, and they just don't care.
I've been a journalist for over 8 years. I see a lot of misconceptions in the two lines of your post.
Maybe it's the TV's fault. Maybe you've grown used to think about Dan Rather or Barbara Walters as journalists. They're not. They're celebrities. A journalist walks his beat, watches, listens and reports the facts. Just the facts.
I've interviewed murderers and rapists. I've also interviewed way more politicians than you'd ever care to meet. And when I come back to my desk and write the story, I simply report what they said. Nobody cares what I think about it; my job is to tell you what they said.
So, taking their words at face value is NOT shoddy journalism. It's real journalism. You, the reader, should decide what to make of their words.
Shoddy journalism would be to assume spammers lie, and mocking them, distorting what they said. It would be a lot more gratifying for antispammers, yes, but it would also be the worst kind of journalism: A distortion of the truth.
Our FOUR weapons are...