slashdot is wrong to downmod any post as "flamebait" that identifies a particular political party
it's "Flamebait" if it is not connected to logic or evidence and blatantly meant to incite vitiriol
it's a "Troll" if it uses "in the know" language to mimic what an on-topic post might superficially look like, but in the end it lacks the same logical, supported choherent point that "Flamebait" lacks
parents post was neither! they mention specific, checkable points as comparison
I never intended to make a war with you...You simply were not making great arguments.
fine, glad we got that settled...it's true that you could think my arguments werent great & not be targeting me
Actually, I'm trying to figure out which party and candidate you think is going to go against the oligarchy. Certainly it isn't any of the.............
blah blah blah "they're all crooks, meh" and on it goes...
you missed my point, and it's relevent to what you're Actually, trying to figure out
**you're always choosing the lesser of two evils**
you always have to choose between a field of people who are NOT YOU...the best you can do, in ANY VOTING SITUATION (if its a fair election) is to VOTE FOR WHOEVER IS **CLOSEST** TO YOUR POLICIES
that's it...that's your answer...it's not complex so people discount it...but that's it
BY POLICY VOTES DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER...sure there are corporatists in the Dems. of course...but that doesn't mean their policies are at any less antipathy!!!
Obama was the best of the options...he's doing measurable better than any other Democrat cadidate or Republican (especially McCain with Palin VP???) would have done
That's all we're **ever** going to get...no one can ever represent you 100%
ugh...I don't want to sound cross but "usability" texts have a long way to go..."computing" isnt about the "computability function"...its' about a user task...if there is no user in the chain somewhere then it's pointless
"usability" is really "human/machine interaction" of a specific instance and context...most texts talk only about those instances of design questions in a context, not the *theory*...any book or "U/X" theory that doesn't start with a *cybernetics* or system science perspective is doomed to become tangled in language and abstractions
I used to teach Human/Computer Interaction as an Adjunct at Washington State University and none of the texts were fit to properly teach the course.
Ben Shneidermans "Designing the User Interface" and his "golden rules for interface design" is, IMHO much more "grown up" than the Krug text.
I'll admit, Krug has a few passages where I say, "Yes, every programmer ever needs to have this concept pounded into their cranium"....but again, that doesn't make it a good "bible" for interface design
honestly there is no one tome anyone can point to for studying computers...it's just machines following instructions...everything else is application of a type of instruction to a context with a user
cue controversy: there **will not be** a true overarching computer science theory until we get past Turing & the 'computability function'
how much one person can edit a discussion with mod points...
so, thanks...I appreciate your taking the time to engage with me...some points you should consider:
1. calling Sotomayor a "racist", for anyone who actually understands white privalidge & institutional racism & pretexts for colonialism, really is trolling
by any sane definition of racism, she is not racist...it's painfully obvious that GOP-tards were seizing any minutia they could to flip the charge on her. The whole notion is racist...of course she *could* be secretly racist...but all her decisions and public comments indicate otherwise....sort of like calling a pro-life person "pro-choice" because though against abortion, they support the pill and don't think the pill is abortion...
2. my post was about how THIS IS MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOLS FAULT. I definitely mentioned the Sotomayor trolling, but only to point out the (IMHO obvious) lunacy of calling Sotomayor "racist" but also agreeing with the Majority decision
3. stop making a war on me with your mod points from this point forward...I admit I make comments that could be modded down, but I am virtually always (attempting) to engage in direct clash and make a coherent point. You modded me down for political reasons and felt guilty
4. Green/"libertarian"/etc parties all just help maintain oligarchy. It's a false choice. Start understanding that in voting, you always "choose the lesser of two evils"...no one could possibly represent your decisions *perfectly* so it's always the 'best' of many options...ALWAYS.
I don't begrudge a Green party voter, but they are still ruining our country. We're in the fight of our life against the Oligarchy...it's naive to think a hopeless, unelectable Green party vote will help end Oligarchy and the military industrial complex
Romney would have rolled over like a trained collie & done anything he was told. It's lunacy to assert otherwise. Obama is a legit President, not like Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush I & II and Clinton...Obama isn't perfect but he's not illuminati.
Obama stretches decisions bad for the Oligarchary out over time...he doesn't fire Sebelius when all the media heat is on it happens after...the Keystone XL pipeline is another example...
Net Neutrality isn't decided yet. I've seen alot of long well-thought out comments on this story but the FCC has no teeth & Obama likes to avoid using executive privilidge in the FCC.
As for voting...there is never a time you're not "voting for the lesser of two evils" from a systems perspective. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It's both...and you always are choosing a **representative** that could never possibly do exacty as you would want. It's always a best choice of many (usually two at the national scale...state/local is different at times)
I'm freaking about Net Neutrality, but I have been since 2006 (check my comments)...now more than ever people are aware of it & understand the implications
You can't just pick and choose...this whole thing is due to Michigan Law School's stupid, reductive points system...which Affirmative Action was never intended to be applied that way
Affirmative Action is not in any way a quota system & its proponents are consistent with that...except for a few places, with policies made by idiots, like Michigan Law School
This decision, on the larger scale, will help (republican) pols avoid equal rights requirements
Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot.
Michigan's Law School brought this whole thing on themselves by their Frat Boy interpretation of "affirmative action"
If you read the opinions, all the justices agree this ruling is for a narrow application of the concept of "affirmative action"
The Michigan Law School had a stupid, reductive, over-simplified method...
4.0 in undergrad? +1 clerk for a judge? +1
black.... +1
it's fucking ridiculous...anyone who knows anything about "affirmative action" knows that application by the Michigan Law School would be **bound** for a court challenge
Michigan's Law School practically set this up. It's almost a perfect "test case"....
I agree with "affirmative action"...Michigan's Law School brought this on themselves by how they chose to enact the policy.
Seriously...blacks and hispanics do suffer a racial bias that still exists...but Michigan's system was made as if it was intended to provoke this kind of decision.
No...she doesn't "want" that at all. Any cursory read of her decision, or...basic logic...would indicate to a thinking person that she made a proper legal opinion.
You realize 'your party' does the same thing. Hell they BRAG about it and how 'far ahead of the republicans' they are. If you think only one party is doing targeted demographics your dreaming.
yes but not quite...there's a difference in scale & depth of corruption
as to the "BRAG" you mention...I know what you mean...it's the dipshits from Chicago "startup" that were profiled several times in places like Time Magazines under headlines like "Obama's tech wizards" and bullshit like that...
if you look at it...the 2012 election vs 2008 the notion that his 2012 "tech wizards" somehow **outperformed** the 2008 strategy is absolutely silly...if anything they fucked him over by telling him to narrow his message...aka "target"...
the whole "Obama's 2012 tech wizards" narrative was *hype from a dumb startup*
Here's the secret to getting elected: focus on registering as many people as possible and then communicating with them about what's important to them in **all the ways humanly possible** without violating privacy
the Republicans will keep abusing these tools. Also, these tools make it easy to determine which people to fuck over because so many people will either fill-out their race or give-out enough data to make it obvious
fuck yeah!
also: it's more than just those jerk-offs you mention
it's like we have a huge asteroid that is a "planet killer" followed by dozens of smaller "city killer" sized ones headed *straight for earth*...we obv need to take out the first one but the job isn't over at that point
Hillary Clinton...wtf...I want to think that if she gets elected she wont be beholden to corporatists, but that's not her typical M.O.
there are many others...but Democrats will fall in line to a progressive agenda if either one brave person pushes the limits and is rewarded *or* someone like Hillary gets defeated by an Elizabeth Warren type
good comment...I came here to post a violent rebuttal to the notion that:
Social scientists will be able to understand and predict the interactions of people the way physicists understand and predict the interactions of objects
but then I saw your comment and realized that i'm not the only one who thinks this research is absolute shit...srsly..."just like physicists!"
No. When the government is doing it, then it becomes a right to a resource that the person is entitled to. They will abuse it and rob the tax payer blind if they are allowed.
This is the most ass-backwards, head-up-your-ass argument...it's opposite to logic but it *sounds* so logical to people who don't think analytically
Take this **same philosophy** that you're accusing all people who receive assistance of having and apply it to your personal finances...
**ANYONE** who doesn't take advantage of all the government's programs for their benefit is an idiot, wasting resources
corporations spend **BILLIONS** to do just as you describe...maximizing their benefits
people don't want to be broke and poor...your whole logic is fallacious and it's obvious you're a closet Republican...just spouting the same tired bullshit
right...i get your point (another poster said the same)
what I mean is, today there are good people who see homeless out the car window just bumming around under a bridge and that's all...that gives the perception that *all* homeless people are that way by choice
when our cities were smaller homeless families couldn't hide...
but yeah, i agree that the will to care has to be there in the first place
the Internet broke the culture of willingness to pay for journalism
Right effect wrong cause...blame the business side. I saw this happen firsthand as a web editor in Colorado, but it's not "the internet" that broke...it was narrow-minded business people in the administration that refused to adapt their concept of ad revenue
It's a narrow, non-tech MBA-style business approach that did this
Slashdot Mirror
slashdot is wrong to downmod any post as "flamebait" that identifies a particular political party
it's "Flamebait" if it is not connected to logic or evidence and blatantly meant to incite vitiriol
it's a "Troll" if it uses "in the know" language to mimic what an on-topic post might superficially look like, but in the end it lacks the same logical, supported choherent point that "Flamebait" lacks
parents post was neither! they mention specific, checkable points as comparison
this kind of moderation is ruining slashdot
No. Obama is not a Neo-con...neo-cons criticize and oppose Obama at every point.
Also, other ways Obama is not a neo-con:
Obama is not anti-abortion
Obama is not in favor of teaching creationism in schools
Obama does not cut social services
Obama does not deny climate change & pollution
Obama does not shut down the government for no reason
Obama does not take away civil rights
Obama is virtually diametrically opposed to Neo-cons on every issue you can name
fine, glad we got that settled...it's true that you could think my arguments werent great & not be targeting me
blah blah blah "they're all crooks, meh" and on it goes...
you missed my point, and it's relevent to what you're Actually, trying to figure out
**you're always choosing the lesser of two evils**
you always have to choose between a field of people who are NOT YOU...the best you can do, in ANY VOTING SITUATION (if its a fair election) is to VOTE FOR WHOEVER IS **CLOSEST** TO YOUR POLICIES
that's it...that's your answer...it's not complex so people discount it...but that's it
BY POLICY VOTES DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER...sure there are corporatists in the Dems. of course...but that doesn't mean their policies are at any less antipathy!!!
Obama was the best of the options...he's doing measurable better than any other Democrat cadidate or Republican (especially McCain with Palin VP???) would have done
That's all we're **ever** going to get...no one can ever represent you 100%
ugh...I don't want to sound cross but "usability" texts have a long way to go..."computing" isnt about the "computability function"...its' about a user task...if there is no user in the chain somewhere then it's pointless
"usability" is really "human/machine interaction" of a specific instance and context...most texts talk only about those instances of design questions in a context, not the *theory*...any book or "U/X" theory that doesn't start with a *cybernetics* or system science perspective is doomed to become tangled in language and abstractions
I used to teach Human/Computer Interaction as an Adjunct at Washington State University and none of the texts were fit to properly teach the course.
Ben Shneidermans "Designing the User Interface" and his "golden rules for interface design" is, IMHO much more "grown up" than the Krug text.
I'll admit, Krug has a few passages where I say, "Yes, every programmer ever needs to have this concept pounded into their cranium"....but again, that doesn't make it a good "bible" for interface design
honestly there is no one tome anyone can point to for studying computers...it's just machines following instructions...everything else is application of a type of instruction to a context with a user
cue controversy: there **will not be** a true overarching computer science theory until we get past Turing & the 'computability function'
**its all machines following instructions**
how much one person can edit a discussion with mod points...
so, thanks...I appreciate your taking the time to engage with me...some points you should consider:
1. calling Sotomayor a "racist", for anyone who actually understands white privalidge & institutional racism & pretexts for colonialism, really is trolling
by any sane definition of racism, she is not racist...it's painfully obvious that GOP-tards were seizing any minutia they could to flip the charge on her. The whole notion is racist...of course she *could* be secretly racist...but all her decisions and public comments indicate otherwise. ...sort of like calling a pro-life person "pro-choice" because though against abortion, they support the pill and don't think the pill is abortion...
2. my post was about how THIS IS MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOLS FAULT. I definitely mentioned the Sotomayor trolling, but only to point out the (IMHO obvious) lunacy of calling Sotomayor "racist" but also agreeing with the Majority decision
3. stop making a war on me with your mod points from this point forward...I admit I make comments that could be modded down, but I am virtually always (attempting) to engage in direct clash and make a coherent point. You modded me down for political reasons and felt guilty
4. Green/"libertarian"/etc parties all just help maintain oligarchy. It's a false choice. Start understanding that in voting, you always "choose the lesser of two evils"...no one could possibly represent your decisions *perfectly* so it's always the 'best' of many options...ALWAYS.
I don't begrudge a Green party voter, but they are still ruining our country. We're in the fight of our life against the Oligarchy...it's naive to think a hopeless, unelectable Green party vote will help end Oligarchy and the military industrial complex
no but he should have his people call me...they could use a guy like me i think
Romney would have rolled over like a trained collie & done anything he was told. It's lunacy to assert otherwise. Obama is a legit President, not like Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bush I & II and Clinton...Obama isn't perfect but he's not illuminati.
Obama stretches decisions bad for the Oligarchary out over time...he doesn't fire Sebelius when all the media heat is on it happens after...the Keystone XL pipeline is another example...
Net Neutrality isn't decided yet. I've seen alot of long well-thought out comments on this story but the FCC has no teeth & Obama likes to avoid using executive privilidge in the FCC.
As for voting...there is never a time you're not "voting for the lesser of two evils" from a systems perspective. Is the glass half-full or half-empty? It's both...and you always are choosing a **representative** that could never possibly do exacty as you would want. It's always a best choice of many (usually two at the national scale...state/local is different at times)
I'm freaking about Net Neutrality, but I have been since 2006 (check my comments)...now more than ever people are aware of it & understand the implications
Net Neutrality will win at the end of the day.
Selectively apply "Affirmative Action"
You can't just pick and choose...this whole thing is due to Michigan Law School's stupid, reductive points system...which Affirmative Action was never intended to be applied that way
Affirmative Action is not in any way a quota system & its proponents are consistent with that...except for a few places, with policies made by idiots, like Michigan Law School
This decision, on the larger scale, will help (republican) pols avoid equal rights requirements
The majority is wrong, it is NOT constitutional for a state to selectively enforce civil rights legislation.
Virginian can't choose which parts of the Civil Rights Act to follow...
Bartles is a GOP troll, and so is anyone who up-modded his comment.
Sotomayor is as much a "racist" as Bartles is a contributor to productive discussion
Parent comment is not "insightful" and the notion that it would be is *ruining Slashdot*
Anyone who thinks Sotomayor is a "racist" is a total idiot.
Michigan's Law School brought this whole thing on themselves by their Frat Boy interpretation of "affirmative action"
If you read the opinions, all the justices agree this ruling is for a narrow application of the concept of "affirmative action"
The Michigan Law School had a stupid, reductive, over-simplified method...
4.0 in undergrad? +1
clerk for a judge? +1
black.... +1
it's fucking ridiculous...anyone who knows anything about "affirmative action" knows that application by the Michigan Law School would be **bound** for a court challenge
Michigan's Law School practically set this up. It's almost a perfect "test case"....
Yes.
I agree with "affirmative action"...Michigan's Law School brought this on themselves by how they chose to enact the policy.
Seriously...blacks and hispanics do suffer a racial bias that still exists...but Michigan's system was made as if it was intended to provoke this kind of decision.
Michigan's Law School used the absolute dumbest interpretation of "Affirmative Action" which precipitated this whole mess.
"Affirmative Action" does not mean your Law School has to use a "point system" where points are awarded for characteristics.
1 point if you were a clerk for a judge
1 point if you are black
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE THIS
No...she doesn't "want" that at all. Any cursory read of her decision, or...basic logic...would indicate to a thinking person that she made a proper legal opinion.
yes but not quite...there's a difference in scale & depth of corruption
as to the "BRAG" you mention...I know what you mean...it's the dipshits from Chicago "startup" that were profiled several times in places like Time Magazines under headlines like "Obama's tech wizards" and bullshit like that...
if you look at it...the 2012 election vs 2008 the notion that his 2012 "tech wizards" somehow **outperformed** the 2008 strategy is absolutely silly...if anything they fucked him over by telling him to narrow his message...aka "target"...
the whole "Obama's 2012 tech wizards" narrative was *hype from a dumb startup*
Here's the secret to getting elected: focus on registering as many people as possible and then communicating with them about what's important to them in **all the ways humanly possible** without violating privacy
it's really that simple
fuck yeah!
also: it's more than just those jerk-offs you mention
it's like we have a huge asteroid that is a "planet killer" followed by dozens of smaller "city killer" sized ones headed *straight for earth*...we obv need to take out the first one but the job isn't over at that point
Hillary Clinton...wtf...I want to think that if she gets elected she wont be beholden to corporatists, but that's not her typical M.O.
there are many others...but Democrats will fall in line to a progressive agenda if either one brave person pushes the limits and is rewarded *or* someone like Hillary gets defeated by an Elizabeth Warren type
good comment...I came here to post a violent rebuttal to the notion that:
but then I saw your comment and realized that i'm not the only one who thinks this research is absolute shit ...srsly..."just like physicists!"
You're a Republican because you *choose* to forfeit analytical thought and parrot the GOP line in all your communication.
You **dont engage in actual discussion of an issue** you spout the GOP line and then TROLL
You're a troll, Republican, and you're fooling yourself if you think you have any tenable position
This is not "innovation" or a new "tech frontier"
This is reductive design, with the human usage of the tech as almost an afterthought
Anyone who spends any budget money on this shit is a total idiot
will talk about how Obama is such a "wimp" for not invading the Arctic Circle immediately.
This is the most ass-backwards, head-up-your-ass argument...it's opposite to logic but it *sounds* so logical to people who don't think analytically
Take this **same philosophy** that you're accusing all people who receive assistance of having and apply it to your personal finances...
**ANYONE** who doesn't take advantage of all the government's programs for their benefit is an idiot, wasting resources
corporations spend **BILLIONS** to do just as you describe...maximizing their benefits
people don't want to be broke and poor...your whole logic is fallacious and it's obvious you're a closet Republican...just spouting the same tired bullshit
holy crap man...google it yourself...
right...i get your point (another poster said the same)
what I mean is, today there are good people who see homeless out the car window just bumming around under a bridge and that's all...that gives the perception that *all* homeless people are that way by choice
when our cities were smaller homeless families couldn't hide...
but yeah, i agree that the will to care has to be there in the first place
thanks for the link!
and yes, I see your point about SF today...
Right effect wrong cause...blame the business side. I saw this happen firsthand as a web editor in Colorado, but it's not "the internet" that broke...it was narrow-minded business people in the administration that refused to adapt their concept of ad revenue
It's a narrow, non-tech MBA-style business approach that did this