They have an "email the on-duty editor" link for the subscribers. They also had an (experimental) text box you could type short messages (like "dupe!")in and send them to the editor, but it only lasted for a couple of days, probably because of abuse (even though i never actually did this, i certainly felt tempted to post random garbage to it).
Oh, and they have changed a thing or two. The user page has changed a bit and the light mode front page has been crippled a bit (no more direct link to your user page, no more barrels of ultra squirrels).
[fft] - Fast Food Technology?
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I find it kind of ironic that while Slashdotters are bashing fast food companies like McDonalds, they're praising what i would call "fast food technology". Yeah, it looks good on the outside and is tasty as shit, but if you look inside it, then both Macs are pretty much the same -- both are turning people into fat and lazy. And they're both effectively killing businesses that don't conform to their agressive monopolistic policies. They're both doing their best to destroy diversity in their respective markets (just like big car companies like GM and Ford have already done). Is this really what hackers want?
I think this tool is really cool. I wonder if it could be used in other areas, like, say, automated cooking. The program would read a recipe from a cook book, and then turn it into a set of commands -- stir(), bake_at_200C(), liquify()* etc. It'd make it much easier for a beginner (or a computer programmer) to cook tasty meals. You could call it the F[tt].
* to feed disabled people like Terri Schiavo with tasty stuff instead of chicken broth.
First of all, although it is a nice hack, it's hardly a breakthrough. I don't even think you can call these robots 'evolving', for they don't "evolve" any new kinds of behaviour -- they just keep on coming up with new combinations of old ones. The code behind this behaviour, however, doesn't change.
Honestly, sir, i wasn't even trying to be funny. Of course i'm flattered that you found my silly (and utterly moronic; i fully expected it to be modded down, but the mods seem to have been on crack again) flame to be humorous. I promise to try harder the next time.
OMG HE MADE TEH AL GORE FUNNY!!1eleven
on
The Next Net
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Seriously, mate, this joke is so old it's about time it was put out of its misery (as it's no longer funny) and bury it under three miles of solid rock (otherwise, the stench would be unbearable).
No, it's not. It's a perfectly natural reaction to the growing popularity of political blogs. They saw the potential in blogging and they saw possible danger in it. And now they want to regulate it (so that, say, one political party couldn't secretly fund a blog slinging mud at their opponents). There's nothing suprising there -- except for maybe the harshness of the proposed regulations.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. (Joke)
Languages such as Latin have strict guidelines that most words seem to follow while English has so many exceptions it's not even funny.
Latin is also quite dead as well. Apart from some neologisms added every now and then, it doesn't really evolve. The strict(er) rules are at least partly a result of this; on the other hand, the language doesn't evolve exactly because of these strict rules. I guess the same applies for Sanskrit as well.
English, in contrast, is a live language, constantly evolving, constantly being influenced by other languages (something the French seem to fear). With all this happening, it's no wonder there's so many different versions of English being spoken, so many exceptions to the rules of the Queen's English. Currently, it's still one single language with many dialects, but it might soon reach a point where these dialects will be recognized as different languages of their own right, with different grammars.
You're missing the facts that a) it's a search tool, not a place to get free ebooks, and b) the books the article is linking to are copyrighted works (the work in question, say "Romeo and Juliet", itself might be in the public domain, but the one they digitized was a new edition)
f I'm reading this correctly, that Google is placing the text of copyrighted works into a freely searchable and viewable database
You are only half-correct. While they the database is freely searchable, you can't (fully) view the texts of copyrighted works -- you are only given access to a few pages of a given book.
Just because they managed to attach a negative label to the opposite side, it doesn't make them more right. It does make the opposition less popular, though.
And, contrary to your belief, the cause does not have to be important (or even valid) and the terror does not need to be extreme or widespread for the actions to be terroristic.
I never said this.
Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.
I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?
But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."
As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist."
I wouldn't say that it's getting childish. This whole thread's been childish ever since the second post or so. Yes, i'm aware that it (ie the post calling Hatch a "copyright terrorist") was an analogy, and i don't think it's a good one. One of the reasons for this being that, given that the word "terrorism" obviously* doesn't have a good definition (unlike Monte-Carlo, seahorse, or neuron), it's hard to say what a "copyright terrorist" is analogous to. Meaning that it misses the point of making an analogy, ie making things more clear or easier to understand. While "copyright terrorist" is definitely good propaganda-wise, invoking certain feelings in people reading/hearing it, it doesn't really describe what Hatch is doing. "State terrorism" might strike a bit closer to home, but i'd refrain from using that as well.
Aargh. Wrong button. That's the second time i've said this (ie "IAWTP") today.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously.
No, i'm not. See, i just called this thing we're doing here a 'game' -- meaning that i don't take it seriously at all.
Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
In that case, i suggest you ask for a refund on that book, as it's a shitty one. Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).
Note that none of this means that i agree with him.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and they have changed a thing or two. The user page has changed a bit and the light mode front page has been crippled a bit (no more direct link to your user page, no more barrels of ultra squirrels).
I find it kind of ironic that while Slashdotters are bashing fast food companies like McDonalds, they're praising what i would call "fast food technology". Yeah, it looks good on the outside and is tasty as shit, but if you look inside it, then both Macs are pretty much the same -- both are turning people into fat and lazy. And they're both effectively killing businesses that don't conform to their agressive monopolistic policies. They're both doing their best to destroy diversity in their respective markets (just like big car companies like GM and Ford have already done). Is this really what hackers want?
* to feed disabled people like Terri Schiavo with tasty stuff instead of chicken broth.
First of all, although it is a nice hack, it's hardly a breakthrough. I don't even think you can call these robots 'evolving', for they don't "evolve" any new kinds of behaviour -- they just keep on coming up with new combinations of old ones. The code behind this behaviour, however, doesn't change.
Honestly, sir, i wasn't even trying to be funny. Of course i'm flattered that you found my silly (and utterly moronic; i fully expected it to be modded down, but the mods seem to have been on crack again) flame to be humorous. I promise to try harder the next time.
Seriously, mate, this joke is so old it's about time it was put out of its misery (as it's no longer funny) and bury it under three miles of solid rock (otherwise, the stench would be unbearable).
Just doing my best to make your Slashdot experience a pleasant one :7
If you know that what you're about to say is stupid and redundant, then why the hell do you still have to open your mouth and say it?
No, it's not. It's a perfectly natural reaction to the growing popularity of political blogs. They saw the potential in blogging and they saw possible danger in it. And now they want to regulate it (so that, say, one political party couldn't secretly fund a blog slinging mud at their opponents). There's nothing suprising there -- except for maybe the harshness of the proposed regulations.
They do buy (or steal) Microsoft software, so the answer is probably either "Yes" or "They don't have to, as long as they keep buying MS's products."
The Beatles have ripped off every single band after them. That's about as Conservative as anyone can get.
Languages such as Latin have strict guidelines that most words seem to follow while English has so many exceptions it's not even funny.
Latin is also quite dead as well. Apart from some neologisms added every now and then, it doesn't really evolve. The strict(er) rules are at least partly a result of this; on the other hand, the language doesn't evolve exactly because of these strict rules. I guess the same applies for Sanskrit as well.
English, in contrast, is a live language, constantly evolving, constantly being influenced by other languages (something the French seem to fear). With all this happening, it's no wonder there's so many different versions of English being spoken, so many exceptions to the rules of the Queen's English. Currently, it's still one single language with many dialects, but it might soon reach a point where these dialects will be recognized as different languages of their own right, with different grammars.
Why would you want to do that?
What's up with these quotation marks? Are you being ironic, and if, then why? English is a real language, you know...
You're missing the facts that a) it's a search tool, not a place to get free ebooks, and b) the books the article is linking to are copyrighted works (the work in question, say "Romeo and Juliet", itself might be in the public domain, but the one they digitized was a new edition)
You are only half-correct. While they the database is freely searchable, you can't (fully) view the texts of copyrighted works -- you are only given access to a few pages of a given book.
No. I ridiculed it a) for fun, and b) because i think calling Hatch a "terrorist" is silly.
Just because they managed to attach a negative label to the opposite side, it doesn't make them more right. It does make the opposition less popular, though.
I never said this.
Actual loss of money/liberty seemingly randomly is occurring for those suspected of copryight infringement. Those that are trying to lock down IP are doing so by purposefully using fear as a tool.
I find this hard to belive. What happened to due process?
But there is a group that is "attacking" a supposed enemy with broad strokes, often hitting innocent bystanders, and purposefully employing fear as a tactic. You may have a different implication of "terrorist," but it appears that this fits easily into the definition of "terrorist."
As long as they aren't defenceless, as long as these people can use the law (in general) to defend themselves against the law (this particular one), i wouldn't call it "terrorist."
* Take this whole thread, for example.
Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
That's the second time today i have said.
No, i'm not. See, i just called this thing we're doing here a 'game' -- meaning that i don't take it seriously at all.
Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
In that case, i suggest you ask for a refund on that book, as it's a shitty one. Contrary to the popular belief, not everyone you don't like is a terrorist (or a fascist/communist/$evilincarnateoftheday).
Note that none of this means that i agree with him.
It will hurt the person calling him one: if you overuse the word in this way, other people will stop taking you seriously.
Nowhere did i say that i agree with everything this man stands for. I just said that he's not a terrorist.