Seriously, Slashdot, how low will you go? This is a straight smear and as much as I dislike how Thiel has chosen to wield his power, this paints you pretty desperate.
So the men that watched "Sex and the City" didn't really like the show. "Sabotage" has a specific meaning that the article doesn't really support. A better title might have been "Men don't like women's TV."
Is this SJW nonsense? Based on the title I'd say it is. Apparently it was written by a none-too-bright guy who felt it was necessary to stand up for women by speaking poorly of his fellow men. The data doesn't even really support his claim... a much more plausible explanation is that men simply don't like certain shows that are aimed at women.
Why is it on Slashdot? Now, that's your question and I don't have an answer. However, it does give us an opportunity to take a look at the fact that yes, SJW BS is happening, and a good number of people are buying in. Just read the comments at the bottom of the main article... sure some of them are actually sane and reasonable, but a disturbing number are agreeing and making statements about men in general as a result of this BS article.
Here's the real question: why does the author feel the need to paint men in a bad light over this (non)issue despite the fact that he is a man? Answer me that one and we'll be getting somewhere.
So the men that watched "Sex and the City" didn't really like the show. "Sabotage" has a specific meaning that the article doesn't really support. A better title might have been "Men don't like women's TV."
Is this SJW nonsense? Based on the title I'd say it is. Apparently it was written by a none-too-bright guy who felt it was necessary to stand up for women by speaking poorly of his fellow men. The data doesn't even really support his claim... a much more plausible explanation is that men simply don't like certain shows that are aimed at women.
Why is it on Slashdot? Now, that's your question and I don't have an answer. However, it does give us an opportunity to take a look at the fact that yes, SJW BS is happening, and a good number of people are buying in. Just read the comments at the bottom of the main article... sure some of them are actually sane and reasonable, but a disturbing number are agreeing and making statements about men in general as a result of this BS article.
Here's the real question: why does the author feel the need to paint men in a bad light over this (non)issue despite the fact that he is a man? Answer me that one and we'll be getting somewhere.
Written in 1850, it details from a philosophical perspective the rise of law, its presumed purpose, and some strong arguments for indicators that the law has gone bad. Chronic, uneven application of the law is one of the perversions of law he discusses.
This kind of ID requirement for everything is exactly what the German Stasi became famous for. Soon, all you will have to do to ruin a man is revoke his official identification card.
Can anyone else come up with valid reasons why a non-criminal, non-terrorist would need to make an anonymous phone call?
Maybe because I live in a free country, or because I have First and Fourth Amendment rights, or because the government doesn't have a valid reason to snoop on me or anyone else. This isn't going to stop any terrorists--they will simply use alternate means of communication.
Sounds like a pretty good argument for taking the federal government out of education entirely.
Centralized mind control through propaganda; acculturation of our nation's youth to silence, oppression, and acquiescence to authority; normalization of the police state; blind nationalism through a fantastic daily "pledge." All of these things are strong counterarguments to the "fair and equal opportunity/better education for all " kind of rhetoric that comes out of Washington.
Seriously, think of the children. Think of all the misguided ideas their heads will be filled with. Think of the cultural values they will be taught to cherish and those they will be taught to revile. Think of the world they will grow up to accept or even create.
Whatever happened to civics class?
Teach your children well... and keep them far, far away from federally funded schools.
The article fails to discuss what it thinks "bad UI/UX design" is or to mention any specific open source projects that incorporate it.
I, too, disagree with the premise. However, I will go further and suggest that there is more than merely "anti-open source bias" at work here. The article is so shallow and so baseless that it seems designed to trick as many hapless Slashdotters as it can into accepting the premise without reading TFA--and little else.
This article propagates the idea that open-source UI is bad, despite presenting zero evidence to that effect. It has a cute and catchy title "Open Source Is Ugly" and then fails to address the basic points of that claim: what an ugly UI is and how open source fits that definition. Thus, the article is seemingly nothing more than astroturf. In this forum I am surprised more haven't called this out.
The Web was a fine place before there were advertisements on the Web.
If you ever wanted to put a site up on the Web, then you always knew that visitors to your site could read it through a browser capable of parsing its content and displaying it however the visitor wanted to view it. The Web has been like this since the very beginning--it was designed that way.
Crying over it is like crying over gravity. This is the reality we live in. Deal with it.
Ad-supported "content" is never as good as the information disseminated by ordinary folks who are posting on the Web for personal and non-monetary edification. Anything that is worth being said without ad revenue attached is just more worth listening to. If you need the ad revenue to make your posts worth it, perhaps you are posting for the wrong reason.
Disclaimer: I use Adblock Plus and I have for nearly a decade now.
Facebook is a despicable company that doesn't have even a basic level of respect for its users. This has been readily apparent to anyone who has been willing to look for the better part of a decade. You want to be a part of that? Go right ahead. Just don't act all indignant when they arbitrarily lock your account or sell the data they have on you to corporations or the government.
Furthermore, likening Facebook to a public square is just silly. Public squares don't fight for your clicks by targeting you with advertisements. Public squares won't track every move you make on the Internet after you leave. And, most relevant of all, public squares are places where it's perfectly acceptable to remain anonymous through the use of any pseudonym you can dream up.
I say let Facebook do whatever they want. The more egregious the abuse, the more likely another clueless user will wake up and boycott that shit.
I've been dual homepaging Slashdot and Soylent for the last few months. The stories over at Soylent tend to be more on-topic, and the story selection process is completely transparent.
I encourage you (and everyone else) to continue to give Soylent a chance. As far as I can tell the community is 100% Slashdot refugees. If Slashdotters continue to jump over, which seems to be the trend, we just might get a good portion of our community back together free of our evil corporate overlords. And I, for one, welcome that outcome.
The problem is that SWAT is prevalent enough that punks like the guy in the article can even pull this kind of prank.
SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime. It is ridiculous: picture an 8-man armored squad busting in on a teenager smoking weed in his parent's basement. There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force.
I don't have a solution to this. Politicians appear to consider the issue a career-danger to themselves to address; seemingly nobody is moving anywhere fast to rectify this trend. However, it has clearly become a problem.
The problem is that SWAT is prevalent enough that punks like the guy in the article can even pull this kind of prank.
SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime. It is ridiculous: picture an 8-man armored squad busting in on a teenager smoking weed in his parent's basement. There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force.
I don't have a solution to this. Politicians appear to consider the issue a career-danger to themselves to address; seemingly nobody is moving anywhere fast to rectify this trend. However, it has clearly become a problem.
You seem to have missed the word "covert" in the GP post.
His point was that government simply cannot encourage secure communication among its citizenry and also expect to have covert access to all of that communication. Secure communication and dragnet surveillance are mutually exclusive concepts for the government's purposes. Unfortunately, our overlords have chosen to attempt to limit the security of our communication in order to realize their goal of capturing all our base in their dragnets.
I've been convinced for some time now that Jesse Jackson and his ilk do not truly represent the people they claim to stand for. Their position on this issue makes absolutely no sense.
The only feasible explanation I can imagine is that they are abusing the trust of the gullible in an attempt bring the force of public opinion down against Title II designation for broadband.
Title II seems the sanest answer available for our current situation, as we have seen it succeed at reigning in other natural monopolies for 80 years at this point. Why this push didn't come 15 years ago is a mystery to me.
Aside: the fact that this is part of the conversation all of a sudden means that the man behind the propaganda curtain is now actively trying to influence *your* thoughts on the issue. Watch carefully to see how they paint this across the media.
It seems obvious to me that public education in this country is about quashing free thought and breeding compliance. Critical thinking, of course, runs counter to this goal.
This is a political and economic travesty, and one of the most important issues facing the nation today. End federal funding for schooling and this gets much better in short order.
Video is a format which perhaps will make it easier for content creators to quickly throw something up onto he web. Most of the time, however, that's just what it will be: throw up. Crafting a quality video requires a significant time investment as well as skills and tools that your content creators likely will not have.
Furthermore, for the end user (an employee at your company that requires training) video will be less than ideal because it is a poor format for learning and reference:
- you cannot consume video at your own pace, only at the pace of the creator
- you cannot scan the contents
- you cannot easily jump to a particular section of content
- referring back to the video to find information is an infuriating chore
I would suggest that your desire to make the training wiki video-based is misguided. A text based step by step with diagrams and bulleted lists is a cleaner, better, more user-friendly format for training and documentation.
Actually my ultimate fear in this scenario has nothing to do with what I can "force people to listen to" as you put it. It has everything to do with what Facebook might decide we shouldn't hear.
And, who knows, maybe Facebook actually is capable and willing to implementing a sane, thoughtful moderation system. I just don't have faith that they ever will.
OTOH, I wouldn't doubt for a second that they prioritized items in your newsfeed based on who paid them advertising dollars. And in the same vein, I wouldn't doubt if they used a fancy new "moderation" system to simply block content they didn't want their users to see.
Call me cynical, but I just don't see Facebook adopting a sane moderation system, like for example anything that approximates slashcode.
Their equivalent of "moderation" would better resemble censorship. They would simply hide the thoughts and comments they don't think you would like. Of course, it would be for your own good...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, Slashdot, how low will you go? This is a straight smear and as much as I dislike how Thiel has chosen to wield his power, this paints you pretty desperate.
So the men that watched "Sex and the City" didn't really like the show. "Sabotage" has a specific meaning that the article doesn't really support. A better title might have been "Men don't like women's TV."
Is this SJW nonsense? Based on the title I'd say it is. Apparently it was written by a none-too-bright guy who felt it was necessary to stand up for women by speaking poorly of his fellow men. The data doesn't even really support his claim... a much more plausible explanation is that men simply don't like certain shows that are aimed at women.
Why is it on Slashdot? Now, that's your question and I don't have an answer. However, it does give us an opportunity to take a look at the fact that yes, SJW BS is happening, and a good number of people are buying in. Just read the comments at the bottom of the main article... sure some of them are actually sane and reasonable, but a disturbing number are agreeing and making statements about men in general as a result of this BS article.
Here's the real question: why does the author feel the need to paint men in a bad light over this (non)issue despite the fact that he is a man? Answer me that one and we'll be getting somewhere.
So the men that watched "Sex and the City" didn't really like the show. "Sabotage" has a specific meaning that the article doesn't really support. A better title might have been "Men don't like women's TV." Is this SJW nonsense? Based on the title I'd say it is. Apparently it was written by a none-too-bright guy who felt it was necessary to stand up for women by speaking poorly of his fellow men. The data doesn't even really support his claim... a much more plausible explanation is that men simply don't like certain shows that are aimed at women. Why is it on Slashdot? Now, that's your question and I don't have an answer. However, it does give us an opportunity to take a look at the fact that yes, SJW BS is happening, and a good number of people are buying in. Just read the comments at the bottom of the main article... sure some of them are actually sane and reasonable, but a disturbing number are agreeing and making statements about men in general as a result of this BS article. Here's the real question: why does the author feel the need to paint men in a bad light over this (non)issue despite the fact that he is a man? Answer me that one and we'll be getting somewhere.
Amen. See Frederic Bastiat's "The Law:" http://bastiat.org/en/the_law....
Written in 1850, it details from a philosophical perspective the rise of law, its presumed purpose, and some strong arguments for indicators that the law has gone bad. Chronic, uneven application of the law is one of the perversions of law he discusses.
But I read webinterface, and we all know web "programmers" are not known for their efficient products.
...because every "programmer" that touches web technologies only produces shitty, barely functioning code.
...and those that don't touch web technologies never, ever produce code that is anything less than perfect.
...sounds like somebody is jealous that we get paid just as much to play with all the fun stuff.
"Papers, please!"
This kind of ID requirement for everything is exactly what the German Stasi became famous for. Soon, all you will have to do to ruin a man is revoke his official identification card.
Can anyone else come up with valid reasons why a non-criminal, non-terrorist would need to make an anonymous phone call?
Maybe because I live in a free country, or because I have First and Fourth Amendment rights, or because the government doesn't have a valid reason to snoop on me or anyone else. This isn't going to stop any terrorists--they will simply use alternate means of communication.
Way to listen to the userbase and make us feel at home again! Many thanks and keep up the good work!
Sounds like a pretty good argument for taking the federal government out of education entirely.
Centralized mind control through propaganda; acculturation of our nation's youth to silence, oppression, and acquiescence to authority; normalization of the police state; blind nationalism through a fantastic daily "pledge." All of these things are strong counterarguments to the "fair and equal opportunity/better education for all " kind of rhetoric that comes out of Washington.
Seriously, think of the children. Think of all the misguided ideas their heads will be filled with. Think of the cultural values they will be taught to cherish and those they will be taught to revile. Think of the world they will grow up to accept or even create.
Whatever happened to civics class?
Teach your children well... and keep them far, far away from federally funded schools.
The article fails to discuss what it thinks "bad UI/UX design" is or to mention any specific open source projects that incorporate it.
I, too, disagree with the premise. However, I will go further and suggest that there is more than merely "anti-open source bias" at work here. The article is so shallow and so baseless that it seems designed to trick as many hapless Slashdotters as it can into accepting the premise without reading TFA--and little else.
This article propagates the idea that open-source UI is bad, despite presenting zero evidence to that effect. It has a cute and catchy title "Open Source Is Ugly" and then fails to address the basic points of that claim: what an ugly UI is and how open source fits that definition. Thus, the article is seemingly nothing more than astroturf. In this forum I am surprised more haven't called this out.
As near as I can tell: (FBI) and (Join UK) Against (Forces Against Spread of Dridex Banking Malware) ...not that it makes much sense even so.
Normally the headlines are easily readable, if not always completely accurate.
Is someone trying to be cute with that absurdly convoluted headline?
It is impossible to parse at first glance and difficult after several times.
I have come to expect better from the editors here...
The Web was a fine place before there were advertisements on the Web.
If you ever wanted to put a site up on the Web, then you always knew that visitors to your site could read it through a browser capable of parsing its content and displaying it however the visitor wanted to view it. The Web has been like this since the very beginning--it was designed that way.
Crying over it is like crying over gravity. This is the reality we live in. Deal with it.
Ad-supported "content" is never as good as the information disseminated by ordinary folks who are posting on the Web for personal and non-monetary edification. Anything that is worth being said without ad revenue attached is just more worth listening to. If you need the ad revenue to make your posts worth it, perhaps you are posting for the wrong reason.
Disclaimer: I use Adblock Plus and I have for nearly a decade now.
Who the fuck cares about Facebook?
Facebook is a despicable company that doesn't have even a basic level of respect for its users. This has been readily apparent to anyone who has been willing to look for the better part of a decade. You want to be a part of that? Go right ahead. Just don't act all indignant when they arbitrarily lock your account or sell the data they have on you to corporations or the government.
Furthermore, likening Facebook to a public square is just silly. Public squares don't fight for your clicks by targeting you with advertisements. Public squares won't track every move you make on the Internet after you leave. And, most relevant of all, public squares are places where it's perfectly acceptable to remain anonymous through the use of any pseudonym you can dream up.
I say let Facebook do whatever they want. The more egregious the abuse, the more likely another clueless user will wake up and boycott that shit.
I've been dual homepaging Slashdot and Soylent for the last few months. The stories over at Soylent tend to be more on-topic, and the story selection process is completely transparent.
I encourage you (and everyone else) to continue to give Soylent a chance. As far as I can tell the community is 100% Slashdot refugees. If Slashdotters continue to jump over, which seems to be the trend, we just might get a good portion of our community back together free of our evil corporate overlords. And I, for one, welcome that outcome.
The problem is that SWAT is prevalent enough that punks like the guy in the article can even pull this kind of prank.
SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime. It is ridiculous: picture an 8-man armored squad busting in on a teenager smoking weed in his parent's basement. There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force.
I don't have a solution to this. Politicians appear to consider the issue a career-danger to themselves to address; seemingly nobody is moving anywhere fast to rectify this trend. However, it has clearly become a problem.
The problem is that SWAT is prevalent enough that punks like the guy in the article can even pull this kind of prank. SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes. There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime. It is ridiculous: picture an 8-man armored squad busting in on a teenager smoking weed in his parent's basement. There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force. I don't have a solution to this. Politicians appear to consider the issue a career-danger to themselves to address; seemingly nobody is moving anywhere fast to rectify this trend. However, it has clearly become a problem.
You seem to have missed the word "covert" in the GP post.
His point was that government simply cannot encourage secure communication among its citizenry and also expect to have covert access to all of that communication. Secure communication and dragnet surveillance are mutually exclusive concepts for the government's purposes. Unfortunately, our overlords have chosen to attempt to limit the security of our communication in order to realize their goal of capturing all our base in their dragnets.
Those paper dollars in my hand have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism and currency by fiat are distinct concepts.
Capitalism has been dead in the west for many, many decades now. Currency by fiat is one of the things that killed it.
I've been convinced for some time now that Jesse Jackson and his ilk do not truly represent the people they claim to stand for. Their position on this issue makes absolutely no sense.
The only feasible explanation I can imagine is that they are abusing the trust of the gullible in an attempt bring the force of public opinion down against Title II designation for broadband.
Title II seems the sanest answer available for our current situation, as we have seen it succeed at reigning in other natural monopolies for 80 years at this point. Why this push didn't come 15 years ago is a mystery to me.
Aside: the fact that this is part of the conversation all of a sudden means that the man behind the propaganda curtain is now actively trying to influence *your* thoughts on the issue. Watch carefully to see how they paint this across the media.
It seems obvious to me that public education in this country is about quashing free thought and breeding compliance. Critical thinking, of course, runs counter to this goal. This is a political and economic travesty, and one of the most important issues facing the nation today. End federal funding for schooling and this gets much better in short order.
Video is a format which perhaps will make it easier for content creators to quickly throw something up onto he web. Most of the time, however, that's just what it will be: throw up. Crafting a quality video requires a significant time investment as well as skills and tools that your content creators likely will not have. Furthermore, for the end user (an employee at your company that requires training) video will be less than ideal because it is a poor format for learning and reference: - you cannot consume video at your own pace, only at the pace of the creator - you cannot scan the contents - you cannot easily jump to a particular section of content - referring back to the video to find information is an infuriating chore I would suggest that your desire to make the training wiki video-based is misguided. A text based step by step with diagrams and bulleted lists is a cleaner, better, more user-friendly format for training and documentation.
Actually my ultimate fear in this scenario has nothing to do with what I can "force people to listen to" as you put it. It has everything to do with what Facebook might decide we shouldn't hear.
And, who knows, maybe Facebook actually is capable and willing to implementing a sane, thoughtful moderation system. I just don't have faith that they ever will.
OTOH, I wouldn't doubt for a second that they prioritized items in your newsfeed based on who paid them advertising dollars. And in the same vein, I wouldn't doubt if they used a fancy new "moderation" system to simply block content they didn't want their users to see.
Call me cynical, but I just don't see Facebook adopting a sane moderation system, like for example anything that approximates slashcode.
Their equivalent of "moderation" would better resemble censorship. They would simply hide the thoughts and comments they don't think you would like. Of course, it would be for your own good...