There does seem to be a lot of 'blog posts as news' at the moment.
This actually makes sense, if you consider how most Slashdotters seem to feel towards the mainstream media (they don't seem to be too fond of it) and everything "open source" (media included). If the/. editors support "grassroots media", it makes perfect sense that they would consider blogs as news sources to be equal with "real" ones.
In a way, you've actually answered your own question, stating that "My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior." You seem to believe that we are not part of nature, as we cannot be a part of something that's been given to us. I don't exactly agree with this view -- specifically, the part about the world being given to us. It would seem to me that we were born into it. It existed before we did.
On one hand, humans are a part of nature. They eat, sleep, move and do other "natural" things. On the other hand, however, humans have a greater power to transform nature than any other animal does. This power is the thing that would (according to some philosophers) set us apart from animals. We create unnatural things. Any change we create could be seen as damage -- but then again, there's lots of animals (and bugs and birds) that cause damage to nature. But the damaged caused by animals will still be natural even if there's lots of it. The damage we cause is unnatural because we cause it. It has our "fingerprints" (metaphorically speaking, of course) all over it. It's unnatural because you cannot really find the garbage we create in nature. And it's also a lot harder to turn it back into "nature".
The main weakness of the Zeitgeist seems to be that it takes the word out of context, meaning that in many cases, it gets the meaning of the word plain wrong (see the example of 'feminazi' from the article). They would probably run into the same problem with 'slashdotting'. If someone uses the term 'slashdotted' in relation to a company's product, then does it have a negative or positive meaning (or connotation)? Will they really understand what the bloggers are saying?
FTA: "Preliminary evaluation shows that using animations as a part of their study resource enhances performance on questions requiring data interpretation followed by hypothesis building in the cellular context by almost 30%," says Dr. Lue.
Meaning that it is only expected to improve perfomace on some specific questions in a specific field. Way to extrapolate, Roland.
It is absurd that it takes less time and money to design and build an unmanned vehicle to explore mars, launch the vehicle, and complete the mission, than it does to design and build a rendering engine which passes Acid2
Our experience in building space vehicles: 50 years. Experience in building HTML rendering engines: ~15 years.
All the reviews I've read have pointed out that IE7's interface is way nicer than that of Firefox -- even in first betas. The default theme that comes with Firefox looks awfully outdated. Now, you may say that it doesn't matter because hey, there's all these themes and extensions you can install, but the truth is, not many people use themes (even the most popular ones only have at most a hundred thousand downloads) it will take an ordinary person only one look at IE7 before they dump Firefox. I'm very sorry to tell you this but all the technical things don't even matter -- what matters is that from what I've heard and read, IE7 is much easier to use than Firefox and it will be the way to go for the majority of Internet users.
hose people at the City Hall (or bar, or restaurant, or whatever fictional place people need to "get outside and go to") wouldn't be able to tell you about the current situation on definition of planets, or the state of affairs in Israel/Lebanon. Those people are too busy superficially socializing and killing brain cells to drown out the idea that there's something more to life than what other people's preconceived notions are.
I think you're wrong. You're wrong in thinking that these (that is, the state of affairs in Israel/Lebanon, or the current situation on definition of planets) are the things that are important. They might seem important today, but in two years, the current Israel-Lebanon conflict will be all but forgotten and the debate on whether Pluto should meet the definition or a planet or not will probably have found a solution. It could also happen that a satisfactory definition of a planet will never be found, but in that case, the reasons for this will go way beyond the current debate. What's happening now is never what's really important. There's always more to things than their state at some given moment in time.
Another victory like this, and you'll be done with.
Netcraft confirms it: NetBSD is dying
on
The Future of NetBSD
·
· Score: -1, Troll
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying
Yet another
crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD
accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the
latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this
news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray,
as fittingly exemplified by
failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin
to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are
looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market
share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having
lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD
are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in
ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on
Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users
of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore
there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of
FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled
OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick
and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will
be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could
save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
You ignored the whole section of quotes showing that people in peer-reviewed studies do survive HIV.
No. I ignored the whole movie (as I couldn't have watched it on such a short notice), only reading a couple of reviews for it. In the context of this discussion, this should be enough. These reviews (both positive and negative) provided me enough information to determine what kind of a documentary it is.
When a person ignores arguments as a way of making a "rebuttal", I start to wonder if they have a vested interest.
When a person starts talking about "vested interests" as a way of making a rebuttal, I know he's a crackpot.
Slashdot Mirror
There does seem to be a lot of 'blog posts as news' at the moment.
/. editors support "grassroots media", it makes perfect sense that they would consider blogs as news sources to be equal with "real" ones.
This actually makes sense, if you consider how most Slashdotters seem to feel towards the mainstream media (they don't seem to be too fond of it) and everything "open source" (media included). If the
In other words, DailyKos fails it (again).
YHBT. You've managed to take seriously something that was obviously meant as a satirical piece.
Not that yours added anything to the discussion...
Obviously, you didn't RTFA, because had you read it, you'd have noticed that it's a goddamn Wired article. I don't think even Slashdot could /. Wired.
Heh.
Aren't we a part of nature?
In a way, you've actually answered your own question, stating that "My personal view is that we need to be good stewards of the Earth we are given, therefore if we are causing damage then we need to adjust our behavior." You seem to believe that we are not part of nature, as we cannot be a part of something that's been given to us. I don't exactly agree with this view -- specifically, the part about the world being given to us. It would seem to me that we were born into it. It existed before we did.
On one hand, humans are a part of nature. They eat, sleep, move and do other "natural" things. On the other hand, however, humans have a greater power to transform nature than any other animal does. This power is the thing that would (according to some philosophers) set us apart from animals. We create unnatural things. Any change we create could be seen as damage -- but then again, there's lots of animals (and bugs and birds) that cause damage to nature. But the damaged caused by animals will still be natural even if there's lots of it. The damage we cause is unnatural because we cause it. It has our "fingerprints" (metaphorically speaking, of course) all over it. It's unnatural because you cannot really find the garbage we create in nature. And it's also a lot harder to turn it back into "nature".
I do not see any one nation or leader that can motivate human kind into action to reduce CO2
I fear that this might take a *real* Environazi to accomplish... And no, I don't think there could be any justification for this.
Are you saying that you understand it?
The main weakness of the Zeitgeist seems to be that it takes the word out of context, meaning that in many cases, it gets the meaning of the word plain wrong (see the example of 'feminazi' from the article). They would probably run into the same problem with 'slashdotting'. If someone uses the term 'slashdotted' in relation to a company's product, then does it have a negative or positive meaning (or connotation)? Will they really understand what the bloggers are saying?
Just doin' my best to keep the discussion on topic.
The 5% are the ones that are unaware that their "b0xen" have been hijacked and are being used for crapflooding /.
...note that this is about Orkut, not search results.
5% of Slashdot users create 95% of the content.
FTA: "Preliminary evaluation shows that using animations as a part of their study resource enhances performance on questions requiring data interpretation followed by hypothesis building in the cellular context by almost 30%," says Dr. Lue.
Meaning that it is only expected to improve perfomace on some specific questions in a specific field. Way to extrapolate, Roland.
It is absurd that it takes less time and money to design and build an unmanned vehicle to explore mars, launch the vehicle, and complete the mission, than it does to design and build a rendering engine which passes Acid2
Our experience in building space vehicles: 50 years.
Experience in building HTML rendering engines: ~15 years.
All the reviews I've read have pointed out that IE7's interface is way nicer than that of Firefox -- even in first betas. The default theme that comes with Firefox looks awfully outdated. Now, you may say that it doesn't matter because hey, there's all these themes and extensions you can install, but the truth is, not many people use themes (even the most popular ones only have at most a hundred thousand downloads) it will take an ordinary person only one look at IE7 before they dump Firefox. I'm very sorry to tell you this but all the technical things don't even matter -- what matters is that from what I've heard and read, IE7 is much easier to use than Firefox and it will be the way to go for the majority of Internet users.
hose people at the City Hall (or bar, or restaurant, or whatever fictional place people need to "get outside and go to") wouldn't be able to tell you about the current situation on definition of planets, or the state of affairs in Israel/Lebanon. Those people are too busy superficially socializing and killing brain cells to drown out the idea that there's something more to life than what other people's preconceived notions are.
I think you're wrong. You're wrong in thinking that these (that is, the state of affairs in Israel/Lebanon, or the current situation on definition of planets) are the things that are important. They might seem important today, but in two years, the current Israel-Lebanon conflict will be all but forgotten and the debate on whether Pluto should meet the definition or a planet or not will probably have found a solution. It could also happen that a satisfactory definition of a planet will never be found, but in that case, the reasons for this will go way beyond the current debate. What's happening now is never what's really important. There's always more to things than their state at some given moment in time.
You've never played Nuclear War, have you?
Another victory like this, and you'll be done with.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when recently IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dead
You might also want to take a look at this.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=porn
No. I ignored the whole movie (as I couldn't have watched it on such a short notice), only reading a couple of reviews for it. In the context of this discussion, this should be enough. These reviews (both positive and negative) provided me enough information to determine what kind of a documentary it is.
When a person ignores arguments as a way of making a "rebuttal", I start to wonder if they have a vested interest.
When a person starts talking about "vested interests" as a way of making a rebuttal, I know he's a crackpot.
Dr. Freud recommends cocaine as morphine relief.