The truth doesn't need anyone 'standing behind it.' It is self evident. Individuals (or societies) who ignore it will end up chewed apart by it eventually. Whether the argument is made by 'anonymous' or 'john smith' is immaterial.
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one. The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users. Even meta moderation doesn't help much as these popular posts are then moderated back down using the same fallacies, resulting in a different position on the same false dichotomy.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous. If someone's position is the truth, there is nothing for him to worry about. The only reason someone might want to censor the truth is because a part of it clashes with his ideological/political/emotional position. This should be discouraged.
Anti-anonymous people just say stuff like this so they have an actual target to defame while they cry their crocodile tears of 'victimhood'. It doesn't matter who said what. It matters what was said. In free societies, a culture should be expected to separate the message from the presentation. The truth stands on its own.
They can do what they like with their site of course, but they're kidding themselves if they think this will bring better discourse. When it comes to controversial subjects, the term 'troll' is hurled as an ad hominem all too often, and this 'logic' is used by moderators as justifications to delete posts/ban users.
Ah, so fuck americans' complexity, right? Isn't that the typical, hypocritical eurocentric attitude about americans? Americans are the propaganda consuming idiot mouth breathers, not like the 'progressive', 'complex', 'intellectual', and 'sophisticated' euro cultures, right? Please, there's plenty of transnational trash to go around, and not all of it is white.
I'm sick of passive aggressive, panty waisted politicos (yes including US government) hiding behind that kind of sophistry to justify what's really just a powergrab (or stab) at another country. Their lack of balls in taking unilateral action when needed is what has created most of the problems in the last 50 years, passing the buck onto the subsequent generations. As a result, they've lost their constituents' respect, which is what created the apathy that is sapping the west dry of will. Either leave other countries alone, or declare war if they're truly threats. Enough of the middle road paddycake games that do little but grow the size of bureaucracies as they 'compromise' us all right off a social and fiscal cliff. Is country A a threat? declare war, and send them back to the stone age. It's not? Fine, close the bases and bring the troops home. All these invasive spy programs, attacks on liberty, and 'police actions' abroad are just examples of that weak-willed passive aggression. They cost money/lives/freedom and accomplish nothing.
since when do copyright holders care about things like first sale doctrine, right of ownership, or privacy of their customers? You can whine about lack of morality all you want, but these guys are no better than the most ardent richard stallman supporter. In fact, the latter at least has a legit argument for their stance: control over their hardware and property...real property, not fantasy control schemes.
We aren't all equally likely to be surveilled. I guess if you're a 9-5er who only goes to work and the grocery store, has a wife and kids, and watches the game on sunday, you don't have much to worry about. I'll bet 15% of the people who post here are or were on some kind of elevated watchlist at some point. A little paranoia is justified. Now someone like kim dotcom is definitely justified.
No, that is argumentum ad populum. I can't believe you said that it's rare for the wisdom of the masses to be wrong. Are you seriously joking? Individuals can be erudite and rational at times, some more than others, but put a bunch of people, smart or dumb, in a room, add some political commentary, and watch them devolve into 8yos. The mob is almost NEVER right.
Fox massages the ego of the neocon right, just as cnn and msnbc massage the egos of the left. By accident, it can turn out that one or the other admits more of the truth as they tow various party lines on various subjects, but it's purely by accident. If you still believe that you're getting better quality information from one or the other most of the time, it's YOUR emotional bias you need to check.
You mean like the Communist/Clinton News Network? or PutinToday? or Aljewsmustdieera? They're all biased shitpiles that have no integrity whatsoever. Good luck.
1. installation doesnt take much time at all. compared with the value of having direct access control of critical tools, this is a non issue.
2. most software is downloaded anyway. web or desktop, the site sells the application to the user. it's a wash.
3. webapps change their tos and featuresets all the damn time! at least with desktop applications, the user has the option of keeping the old binaries around (license be damned!) if they suit his purpose better than the less functional, more invasive current release.
4. with webapps, the days of the latest version being the best choice are gone, now that it doesnt have to compete with more functional previous releases. when an existing feature is determined to undermine the authors agenda, it's gone and the user has no recourse. see #3.
5. native applications have the distinction of greater trust because the user knows hes got control. web apps offer some access convenience, but they will only be considered reliable enough for ancilliary tasks. if gmail evaporates tomorrow, theres always some other provider ready to host my junkmail account. however, i would never want critical tools hosted online where the vendor controls access. thus i am willing to pay more for a locally stored and executed application than for a recurring 'subscription' for something that is quite literally always one step away from vaporware.
6. your in-app puchasing scenario assumes it was purchased in a shitty 'app store'. most desktop applications are an installation download followed by purchase of activation keys. there is no third party taking a cut.
7. if your user goes through the trouble of uninstalling on a modern machine, your application functionality does not justify its size, or it engendered enough of a negative reaction to justify the effort of removal (not that it's hard). the webapp version wouldve been abandoned long before, its login cedentials forgotten by the user.. with prejudice.
frankly, im sick of running more and more of my workflow through a browser. webapps are slow, totally dependent on connectivity, and invasive to privacy. the fact their featuresets and my data's integrity are as flighty as the whims of the vendor's marketing dept does little to inspire confidence.
Maybe games sold this way should be required have customers sign lease contracts..because that's what they're really doing.. Offering the games as a 'sale' is, or should be considered, fraudulent. Then you could see how much you can overprice them when people truly realize they're not buying to own...
If you are making money hand over fist like I said, then what are you complaining about (besides your ego crying over the loss of total control)?
Enough false scarcity. If you can't make money you want, it's time to change your business model. The barons and their whore politicians they buy their fake scarcity from are far worse for society than pirates. It's not like these people aren't still making money hand over fist. If they weren't, piracy would've killed it off a long time ago.
Depending on its implications, it sounds like your "for the right guy" qualifier might be the problem. Maybe your corporate culture needs to learn to deal with people who aren't readily willing to be emotional tampons in order for your company to gain reliable access to more of that kind of intellect. Superbright people, rare as they are, rarely fit in those politically correct, passive aggressive, corporate drone square holes..
I wonder when this whole top heavy mess in washington will come crashing down.. They don't need to worry about 'terrorists', foreign or 'home grown'. Their own self destructive behavior will do them all in first...and drag the rest of us citizens down with them.
I know, how about you leftists quit reproducing so much, and quit demanding taxpayer funded support of dead end 3rd world countries? then there'd be less population growth. Quit trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't eat..
um.. leeching bandwidth? they paid for it! If I pay for X amount of bytes per month at a given speed, I should be able to use that any way I choose, up or down.. It's the responsibility of the isp to set their prices so that they don't lose their shirts, not the responsibility of the users to read their minds and use their bandwidth 'altruistically.' Artificial use-type caps are just a shitty way of bilking people.
Even electrical providers don't do this.. They just bill on the kWhr (and by power factor with commercial/industrial service). How you use that power is up to you.
This is a much better use of insects than eating them directly. Of course, you don't want livestock eating them exclusively, but as a supplement it's probably ok. Most birds eat some insects anyway.
Because anyone smart enough to run a supermarket knows that counterspace allocated for bugs will simply reduce his profits, not only for that counterspace, but for his entire store. People will go out of their way to avoid even SEEING bugs, nevermind eat them. That instinct exists for a reason.
Preachy bastard aren't you? To me, most vegetables taste extremely bitter. I have to coat them in crap, or overcook just to get them down without gagging. That kinda negates a lot of the nutritional value. I still do it because it helps digestion, but I doubt it's a net-win nutrition wise.
How about you eat what you want to eat, and others will eat what they want to eat? Deal?
Sorry, the problem runs deeper than that.. Humans evolved to forage for plantlife and hunt large game, and throughout that time, insects were pests, often distributing plagues, destroying foodstores, and, in general made life miserable. Seeing a big crushed spider underneath that bun is going to turn just about anyone off far more viscerally than watching a documentary on sausages. Also, anyone who is allergic to shellfish should probably avoid land based insects too.
Sure, some cultures eat insects, but it's usually a VERY short list, and these behaviors are the exceptions that evolved because there was low negative reenforcement when the behavior was tried (ie disease, deadly anaphylactic reaction etc).
Why is it that green types insist that people live like 3rd worlders do? It's such a heavily romanticized view of the lifestyle. Trust me, it fucking sucks having to live in the desert and eat insects in order to survive. The prevalence of this attitude makes me wonder if it's due to some propaganda meant to get people used to living in shit.
Many insects carry disease and extremely toxic venom, so it would make sense that humans learned to avoid them. The fact that most people prefer not to have them around their homes and in their food might suggest how prevalent this is. A large subset of the population also has an instinctive fear reaction to their presence, which I'll bet is genetic. Many are also allergic to their bites, feces, and even their discarded shells.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth doesn't need anyone 'standing behind it.' It is self evident. Individuals (or societies) who ignore it will end up chewed apart by it eventually. Whether the argument is made by 'anonymous' or 'john smith' is immaterial.
The problem with moderation systems is that they tend to support the populist view, which is not always the correct one. The premise is that posts will be moderated up for correctness and down for incorrectness, but this is not what happens, as the posts ending up at the top usually represent the prevailing ideological belief of the majority of users. Even meta moderation doesn't help much as these popular posts are then moderated back down using the same fallacies, resulting in a different position on the same false dichotomy.
For sites that want to foster honest discussion, I say strip away the moderation and 'reputation' systems, and leave it anonymous. If someone's position is the truth, there is nothing for him to worry about. The only reason someone might want to censor the truth is because a part of it clashes with his ideological/political/emotional position. This should be discouraged.
Anti-anonymous people just say stuff like this so they have an actual target to defame while they cry their crocodile tears of 'victimhood'. It doesn't matter who said what. It matters what was said. In free societies, a culture should be expected to separate the message from the presentation. The truth stands on its own.
They can do what they like with their site of course, but they're kidding themselves if they think this will bring better discourse. When it comes to controversial subjects, the term 'troll' is hurled as an ad hominem all too often, and this 'logic' is used by moderators as justifications to delete posts/ban users.
Ah, so fuck americans' complexity, right? Isn't that the typical, hypocritical eurocentric attitude about americans? Americans are the propaganda consuming idiot mouth breathers, not like the 'progressive', 'complex', 'intellectual', and 'sophisticated' euro cultures, right? Please, there's plenty of transnational trash to go around, and not all of it is white.
I'm sick of passive aggressive, panty waisted politicos (yes including US government) hiding behind that kind of sophistry to justify what's really just a powergrab (or stab) at another country. Their lack of balls in taking unilateral action when needed is what has created most of the problems in the last 50 years, passing the buck onto the subsequent generations. As a result, they've lost their constituents' respect, which is what created the apathy that is sapping the west dry of will. Either leave other countries alone, or declare war if they're truly threats. Enough of the middle road paddycake games that do little but grow the size of bureaucracies as they 'compromise' us all right off a social and fiscal cliff. Is country A a threat? declare war, and send them back to the stone age. It's not? Fine, close the bases and bring the troops home. All these invasive spy programs, attacks on liberty, and 'police actions' abroad are just examples of that weak-willed passive aggression. They cost money/lives/freedom and accomplish nothing.
since when do copyright holders care about things like first sale doctrine, right of ownership, or privacy of their customers? You can whine about lack of morality all you want, but these guys are no better than the most ardent richard stallman supporter. In fact, the latter at least has a legit argument for their stance: control over their hardware and property...real property, not fantasy control schemes.
We aren't all equally likely to be surveilled. I guess if you're a 9-5er who only goes to work and the grocery store, has a wife and kids, and watches the game on sunday, you don't have much to worry about. I'll bet 15% of the people who post here are or were on some kind of elevated watchlist at some point. A little paranoia is justified. Now someone like kim dotcom is definitely justified.
No, that is argumentum ad populum. I can't believe you said that it's rare for the wisdom of the masses to be wrong. Are you seriously joking? Individuals can be erudite and rational at times, some more than others, but put a bunch of people, smart or dumb, in a room, add some political commentary, and watch them devolve into 8yos. The mob is almost NEVER right.
Fox massages the ego of the neocon right, just as cnn and msnbc massage the egos of the left. By accident, it can turn out that one or the other admits more of the truth as they tow various party lines on various subjects, but it's purely by accident. If you still believe that you're getting better quality information from one or the other most of the time, it's YOUR emotional bias you need to check.
You mean like the Communist/Clinton News Network? or PutinToday? or Aljewsmustdieera? They're all biased shitpiles that have no integrity whatsoever. Good luck.
1. installation doesnt take much time at all. compared with the value of having direct access control of critical tools, this is a non issue.
2. most software is downloaded anyway. web or desktop, the site sells the application to the user. it's a wash.
3. webapps change their tos and featuresets all the damn time! at least with desktop applications, the user has the option of keeping the old binaries around (license be damned!) if they suit his purpose better than the less functional, more invasive current release.
4. with webapps, the days of the latest version being the best choice are gone, now that it doesnt have to compete with more functional previous releases. when an existing feature is determined to undermine the authors agenda, it's gone and the user has no recourse. see #3.
5. native applications have the distinction of greater trust because the user knows hes got control. web apps offer some access convenience, but they will only be considered reliable enough for ancilliary tasks. if gmail evaporates tomorrow, theres always some other provider ready to host my junkmail account. however, i would never want critical tools hosted online where the vendor controls access. thus i am willing to pay more for a locally stored and executed application than for a recurring 'subscription' for something that is quite literally always one step away from vaporware.
6. your in-app puchasing scenario assumes it was purchased in a shitty 'app store'. most desktop applications are an installation download followed by purchase of activation keys. there is no third party taking a cut.
7. if your user goes through the trouble of uninstalling on a modern machine, your application functionality does not justify its size, or it engendered enough of a negative reaction to justify the effort of removal (not that it's hard). the webapp version wouldve been abandoned long before, its login cedentials forgotten by the user.. with prejudice.
frankly, im sick of running more and more of my workflow through a browser. webapps are slow, totally dependent on connectivity, and invasive to privacy. the fact their featuresets and my data's integrity are as flighty as the whims of the vendor's marketing dept does little to inspire confidence.
Maybe games sold this way should be required have customers sign lease contracts..because that's what they're really doing.. Offering the games as a 'sale' is, or should be considered, fraudulent. Then you could see how much you can overprice them when people truly realize they're not buying to own...
If you are making money hand over fist like I said, then what are you complaining about (besides your ego crying over the loss of total control)?
Enough false scarcity. If you can't make money you want, it's time to change your business model. The barons and their whore politicians they buy their fake scarcity from are far worse for society than pirates. It's not like these people aren't still making money hand over fist. If they weren't, piracy would've killed it off a long time ago.
Neither of these are new. We've always had hurricanes and hot weather, going back before the industrial age..
fine.. run your own site, or go somewhere else.
Depending on its implications, it sounds like your "for the right guy" qualifier might be the problem. Maybe your corporate culture needs to learn to deal with people who aren't readily willing to be emotional tampons in order for your company to gain reliable access to more of that kind of intellect. Superbright people, rare as they are, rarely fit in those politically correct, passive aggressive, corporate drone square holes..
I wonder when this whole top heavy mess in washington will come crashing down.. They don't need to worry about 'terrorists', foreign or 'home grown'. Their own self destructive behavior will do them all in first...and drag the rest of us citizens down with them.
No, there'll just be a ton of 'intellectual' property liens on it instead that'll drive up the price..
I know, how about you leftists quit reproducing so much, and quit demanding taxpayer funded support of dead end 3rd world countries? then there'd be less population growth. Quit trying to tell me what I should and shouldn't eat..
If they're putting msg in these fake meat and veggie burgers, I'm staying away.. that shit gives me horrid headaches, along with many other additives.
..and if they have the same smarmy, arrogant attitude as yourself and the rest of the PETAtards, I won't worry about what they'll think of me.
um.. leeching bandwidth? they paid for it! If I pay for X amount of bytes per month at a given speed, I should be able to use that any way I choose, up or down.. It's the responsibility of the isp to set their prices so that they don't lose their shirts, not the responsibility of the users to read their minds and use their bandwidth 'altruistically.' Artificial use-type caps are just a shitty way of bilking people.
Even electrical providers don't do this.. They just bill on the kWhr (and by power factor with commercial/industrial service). How you use that power is up to you.
This is a much better use of insects than eating them directly. Of course, you don't want livestock eating them exclusively, but as a supplement it's probably ok. Most birds eat some insects anyway.
Because anyone smart enough to run a supermarket knows that counterspace allocated for bugs will simply reduce his profits, not only for that counterspace, but for his entire store. People will go out of their way to avoid even SEEING bugs, nevermind eat them. That instinct exists for a reason.
Preachy bastard aren't you? To me, most vegetables taste extremely bitter. I have to coat them in crap, or overcook just to get them down without gagging. That kinda negates a lot of the nutritional value. I still do it because it helps digestion, but I doubt it's a net-win nutrition wise.
How about you eat what you want to eat, and others will eat what they want to eat? Deal?
Sorry, the problem runs deeper than that.. Humans evolved to forage for plantlife and hunt large game, and throughout that time, insects were pests, often distributing plagues, destroying foodstores, and, in general made life miserable. Seeing a big crushed spider underneath that bun is going to turn just about anyone off far more viscerally than watching a documentary on sausages. Also, anyone who is allergic to shellfish should probably avoid land based insects too.
Sure, some cultures eat insects, but it's usually a VERY short list, and these behaviors are the exceptions that evolved because there was low negative reenforcement when the behavior was tried (ie disease, deadly anaphylactic reaction etc).
Why is it that green types insist that people live like 3rd worlders do? It's such a heavily romanticized view of the lifestyle. Trust me, it fucking sucks having to live in the desert and eat insects in order to survive. The prevalence of this attitude makes me wonder if it's due to some propaganda meant to get people used to living in shit.
Many insects carry disease and extremely toxic venom, so it would make sense that humans learned to avoid them. The fact that most people prefer not to have them around their homes and in their food might suggest how prevalent this is. A large subset of the population also has an instinctive fear reaction to their presence, which I'll bet is genetic. Many are also allergic to their bites, feces, and even their discarded shells.