If the "overwhelming majority" of slashdot believed in total transparency at all times, then why was the post proclaiming that governments shouldn't have any secrets modded down to -1, while the post making a ridiculous strawman putting undercover cops on par with diplomatic cables was modded up to +5?
I mean, if there was the kind of groupthink that you accuse, it would be the other way around, right?
There have been a number of Wikileaks threads on Slashdot the past few weeks and the overwhelming majority of posts I've read have supported this notion that the goverment must be completely transparent at all times.
That's absolute bullshit. You're either hallucinating or being disingenuous. I'm not seeing where a substantial minority, let alone an "overwhelming majority" are saying that in these threads.
Did it ever occur to you that when people call for transparency, they are not talking about things like the identity of active undercover cops, or nuclear shipments? Because apart from a few outliers, they aren't.
Also, did it ever occur to you that even if everybody on slashdot held your fantasy beliefs, that hardly "most people"? Have you seen what the general public thinks of Assange and Wikileaks? By and large, the general public seem to be pretty critical.
If literally one person on Slashdot had posted that view today, they'd be well above the 0.00001% threshold.
Given that the population of Earth is nearly 7 billion people, one person on slashdot doesn't even come close to that number.
I think most people have been approaching this subject with very simplistic views that government secrets are always inherently bad.
I very much doubt that. I think that very few people (perhaps 0.00001%?) believe that. Taking one Anonymous Coward's comment as typical of "most people's" thinking is not a very sound approach.
Basically, I think you're hallucinating if you think that most people, even the most ardent Wikileaks supporters, think that government needs to have absolutely no secrets. In fact, even Assange himself publicly stated that governments need some secrets.
I think it might stem from some need of yours to feel superior to others. i.e: "I'm such a complex thinker, look at all these idiots with their simplistic black-and-white approach." Meanwhile, the ever-so-complex idea you praise ScentCone for is basically most people's baseline, and hardly needs to be mentioned.
Yeah, and the public outrage about that killed IBM.
Uh, what? When did that happen? There was no public outrage. It was mentioned in some niche circles over 50 years later. Certainly didn't damage the company in any way. Most people have no idea it ever happened.
You know, slashdot has come a long way. A few years ago, a story involving Russia and Linux would have "In Soviet Russia" as the first though seventh posts, and "Year of Linux on the Desktop" as the eighth through twelfth. I'm amazed we've gotten this far into the thread without such a reference. The thought didn't even cross my mind until you mentioned it.
That's what Mr. Balsam is doing - addressing the economic issues.
I don't think so. The economic issue is that you want your penis enlarged. Don't you?
As long as people want their penises larger, spam will continue, and efforts like this are just talking around the issue. The issue being that you want your penis enlarged.
You mean tough shit for the publisher as the end user doesn't buy more games from that publisher.
Tough shit for the publisher? They are laughing all the way to the bank on the proceeds of the game you just bought from them.
I haven't bought any more Wii games.
This proves my point entirely. You bought Wii games!!!! The reason that you bought Wii games is that you didn't get a demo to show how shit they are. Also, you bought a Wii based on hype, not realizing how shitty Wii games are.
So... one film defines all the rest? Regardless, Keanu was most likely instrumental in the film's success at the box-office, poor acting not withstanding. Without him, it might have been a cult hit, but not a blockbuster.
I'm more willing to download a demo or a game with limited features then I am just to plunk down some cash after only seeing only a handful of screen shots and no video.
But are you more likely to buy the game? I doubt that most people would. Somebody is excited about a game - downloads the demo, and it doesn't measure up to their excitement, so they don't purchase it.
Contrast with games that don't have a demo available - person gets excited about a game, can't download demo, so purchases game. Person is disappointed in game, but tough shit - their money is already spent. So they'll probably keep playing the game to try and get some 'value' out of the money they have spent.
Of course, most humans love to have their thinking done for them, so they just jump on one of the bandwagons and start taking potshots at the other one.
You have a band in your wagon? That's awesome! Can I come along? I hope it's Daft Punk.
Firstly, a DDOS doesn't send any message apart from "somebody is trying to shut down your website." By its very nature, a DDOS does not send any other message - it could be happening for any number of reasons.
Secondly, they are easily ignored. DDOS attacks happen all the time, and they are usually ignored by everybody apart from the technical staff who have to deal with them. They almost never make the headlines.
The different buildings was an exaggeration, but if the game has no support for any kind of split-screen, then multiple systems and multiple copies of the game are necessary.
No they aren't. There are games where you take turns to play. There are games where you all play at once on a non-split screen.
Split-screen is not the only way to play multiplayer games on a single system.
So, no actual examples, and no reasoning as to why this particular article should be disregarded. Again, if you have the facts to challenge the veracity of the article, then provide them. Otherwise, "I don't like Salon, so this mustn't be true" does not stand up as an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't really see any actual content, just a page of adverts and lists and links.
Ah, good. My Ad Installer 3000 worked perfectly! Thanks, slashdot. Muahahaha!
P.S:
If the "overwhelming majority" of slashdot believed in total transparency at all times, then why was the post proclaiming that governments shouldn't have any secrets modded down to -1, while the post making a ridiculous strawman putting undercover cops on par with diplomatic cables was modded up to +5?
I mean, if there was the kind of groupthink that you accuse, it would be the other way around, right?
There have been a number of Wikileaks threads on Slashdot the past few weeks and the overwhelming majority of posts I've read have supported this notion that the goverment must be completely transparent at all times.
That's absolute bullshit. You're either hallucinating or being disingenuous. I'm not seeing where a substantial minority, let alone an "overwhelming majority" are saying that in these threads.
Did it ever occur to you that when people call for transparency, they are not talking about things like the identity of active undercover cops, or nuclear shipments? Because apart from a few outliers, they aren't.
Also, did it ever occur to you that even if everybody on slashdot held your fantasy beliefs, that hardly "most people"? Have you seen what the general public thinks of Assange and Wikileaks? By and large, the general public seem to be pretty critical.
If literally one person on Slashdot had posted that view today, they'd be well above the 0.00001% threshold.
Given that the population of Earth is nearly 7 billion people, one person on slashdot doesn't even come close to that number.
I think most people have been approaching this subject with very simplistic views that government secrets are always inherently bad.
I very much doubt that. I think that very few people (perhaps 0.00001%?) believe that. Taking one Anonymous Coward's comment as typical of "most people's" thinking is not a very sound approach.
Basically, I think you're hallucinating if you think that most people, even the most ardent Wikileaks supporters, think that government needs to have absolutely no secrets. In fact, even Assange himself publicly stated that governments need some secrets.
I think it might stem from some need of yours to feel superior to others. i.e: "I'm such a complex thinker, look at all these idiots with their simplistic black-and-white approach." Meanwhile, the ever-so-complex idea you praise ScentCone for is basically most people's baseline, and hardly needs to be mentioned.
They stopped the stories with the tone of "technology is human evolution, revolution with peace is invented"
Those were always hilarious. Wired was like the MAD Magazine of tech journals back in those days.
No, I think vgerclover and yourself are the whoosh victims.
The dark joke in my post is in what wasn't written - i.e: the "Everybody wins!" bit, which references the victims of the Holocaust by omission.
Yeah, and the public outrage about that killed IBM.
Uh, what? When did that happen? There was no public outrage. It was mentioned in some niche circles over 50 years later. Certainly didn't damage the company in any way. Most people have no idea it ever happened.
I smell a "In Soviet Russia" joke coming ....
You know, slashdot has come a long way. A few years ago, a story involving Russia and Linux would have "In Soviet Russia" as the first though seventh posts, and "Year of Linux on the Desktop" as the eighth through twelfth. I'm amazed we've gotten this far into the thread without such a reference. The thought didn't even cross my mind until you mentioned it.
If the Russian government moves to F/OSS, that will be good for F/OSS, just like IBM making F/OSS an integral part of its business plan has been.
Just like the Nazis using IBM machines to run concentration camps and track the Holocaust's progress was good for IBM. Everybody wins!
So, that's 20 faster?
There seems to be a whole industry oriented around people not doing any work and not getting paid for it.
Well, that seems the logical outcome of not doing any work.
That's what Mr. Balsam is doing - addressing the economic issues.
I don't think so. The economic issue is that you want your penis enlarged. Don't you?
As long as people want their penises larger, spam will continue, and efforts like this are just talking around the issue. The issue being that you want your penis enlarged.
Wouldn't the first Xmas post have been approximately 12 days ago?
You mean tough shit for the publisher as the end user doesn't buy more games from that publisher.
Tough shit for the publisher? They are laughing all the way to the bank on the proceeds of the game you just bought from them.
I haven't bought any more Wii games.
This proves my point entirely. You bought Wii games!!!! The reason that you bought Wii games is that you didn't get a demo to show how shit they are. Also, you bought a Wii based on hype, not realizing how shitty Wii games are.
I buy a *lot* of indie games.
Then you are pretty obviously not a typical game consumer, so your experience is not really relevant to the argument.
So... one film defines all the rest? Regardless, Keanu was most likely instrumental in the film's success at the box-office, poor acting not withstanding. Without him, it might have been a cult hit, but not a blockbuster.
Care to tell me what warrants a multi million wage for some actor?
That they can pull millions of people to a movie that would otherwise be a flop?
I'm more willing to download a demo or a game with limited features then I am just to plunk down some cash after only seeing only a handful of screen shots and no video.
But are you more likely to buy the game? I doubt that most people would. Somebody is excited about a game - downloads the demo, and it doesn't measure up to their excitement, so they don't purchase it.
Contrast with games that don't have a demo available - person gets excited about a game, can't download demo, so purchases game. Person is disappointed in game, but tough shit - their money is already spent. So they'll probably keep playing the game to try and get some 'value' out of the money they have spent.
Well, first of all, the attacks of 2009 [wikipedia.org] should have been WAY more of a concern, since they not only hit the US but the US media
But those weren't related to a hot-topic US media story like Wikileaks.
Also, it's not only the US where the current DDoSs are being reported at length.
Again, easily explained. The rest of the world tends to repeat the US media. The US media does not tend to repeat the rest of the world.
Of course, most humans love to have their thinking done for them, so they just jump on one of the bandwagons and start taking potshots at the other one.
You have a band in your wagon? That's awesome! Can I come along? I hope it's Daft Punk.
A DDOS sends a message that can't be ignored.
Firstly, a DDOS doesn't send any message apart from "somebody is trying to shut down your website." By its very nature, a DDOS does not send any other message - it could be happening for any number of reasons.
Secondly, they are easily ignored. DDOS attacks happen all the time, and they are usually ignored by everybody apart from the technical staff who have to deal with them. They almost never make the headlines.
Then the question should rather be, why did those Anonymous attacks get so much coverage?
I thought that should be pretty obvious: Wikileaks and the attacks on Mastercard and Visa are more directly related to American concerns.
By other 8 year olds?
No, by other poopers and booger-eaters.
The different buildings was an exaggeration, but if the game has no support for any kind of split-screen, then multiple systems and multiple copies of the game are necessary.
No they aren't. There are games where you take turns to play. There are games where you all play at once on a non-split screen.
Split-screen is not the only way to play multiplayer games on a single system.
So, no actual examples, and no reasoning as to why this particular article should be disregarded. Again, if you have the facts to challenge the veracity of the article, then provide them. Otherwise, "I don't like Salon, so this mustn't be true" does not stand up as an argument.