That only hides the symptoms. The problem is Slashdot doing it in the first place - it demonstrates subservience to those who wish to monopolise and profit from our lives.
Your logic makes no sense. How do you become "inoculated" to what you don't experience?
The point is that I do experience it, so I know how shitty these sites are. If you don't experience it, you are inoculated, because you are getting a false impression of them.
Slashdot has gone to shit, although the Facebook stuff is only one factor. I used to visit Slashdot nearly every day. Now I visit slashdot less than once per month. The social media rubbish isn't the only factor, but it is a significant one.
If you're blocking all of that, then you continue to support Slashdot more than you should. If you dislike the advertising and social media stuff that Slashdot does so much that you need to block it, then why do you even visit the site?
To me, slashdot has become a last resort to visit when I am extremely bored. I find the social media stuff annoying, but not nearly as annoying as the sites that want to promote weight-loss programs or bogus dating sites. If you're blocking ads and visiting those sites, you're not seeing the true horror that's out there, and you are unconsciously supporting some horrifically selfish assholes.
Are you freaking kidding me? Kim Kardashian had a sex tape get "leaked" and went from being a nobody to being worth over $50 million. Do you honestly think that scandalous pictures have the power to destroy someone's career now?
Well, I guess if you want to have a career as a sex-object celebrity, and have millionaire celebrity parents supporting you, then that wouldn't hurt. But most people aren't in that position.
And if the majority of your acquaintances are running around shunning people because they wear the wrong color or sing off key, then it's your world that I question. Not mine. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure, I guess. But only among the infinitely small minded, and only on issues that don't really matter to anything, such as who is going to win the next episode of whatever flavor of the month reality show is on at the time.
In other words, it matters to a huge amount of people. More Americans care about reality TV shows and celebrity gossip than they do about government policy.
The younger generation grew up with more exposure to it, so it wasn't as big of a deal. The new youth is going to grow up with differing views of privacy than we had.
Exactly the same thing happened with "the youth" who grew up with the scandalous Television and Rock'n'Roll. Those people are in power now, yet not much has changed.
The "social media" is exactly like high-school cliques. You are kidding yourself if you think people who furthered their reputation via Facebook "friends" are going to be more egalitarian than those who grew up before the internet. Dirty politics will not suddenly disappear.
"goddamned Facebook and Twitter links" So Google gets a free pass?
No, Google+ can fuck off, too.
The difference is that nobody takes Google+ seriously, and t's never going to be in the position of Twitter or Facebook. I just didn't think it worth mentioning the loser of the trinity.
I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think reality TV is any sort of a baseline for how normal society and people think/operate.
That's exactly how "normal" people think/operate.
It's the tyranny of minute differences. You don't need to be on reality TV to see that people routinely judge each other on the most superficial bullshit.
Absolute bullshit. Just look at reality TV, the judgment just gets more and more trivial and insane. You can be a social pariah for wearing the wrong-colored dress, or for singing off-key.
I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think that the ubiquity of social media leads to less harsh judgment.
If you don't believe me, go back in time and ask your grandparents how they feel about gays getting married, couples living together out of wedlock, or any other activity that was once never talked about and is now common place.
I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.
You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.
Either that, or the next generation, having grown up around social media, will realize that everyone has drunken party pics or embarrassing costume party pics, or what have you and it will no longer be an issue.
What makes you think this is new? Your parents, and probably your grandparents had embarrassing pictures of them. That doesn't stop people judging them.
Just look at the "celebrity" media. People are eager to destroy supermodels who wear the wrong kind of bathing suit, or who have gained a couple of pounds. And the people who want to destroy them are the same people who look like fat slobs compared to the supermodel.
This will never be a non-issue. Human hypocrisy knows no bounds. Facebook photos which would otherwise be ignored will become scandalous once the subject steps into the spotlight.
Personally, I prefer to confront reality head-on. Hiding the bullshit just inoculates you to what's really happening.
Where's the incentive to support sites that don't engage in shitty practices, if you can make the shitty sites seem better by hiding what they actually do?
"Social Media" is basically designed to be click-bait. That's the only way they can recoup the investment money from the Venture Capitalists.
Sure, they might all start out being about "connecting and sharing with your friends" but then they hit critical mass and have to make some money. So they turn into whoring advertising machines. No longer are you just following your friends, but you're suckered into following companies, so you can win tickets to a Lady Gaga concert.
Now they complain about "clickjacking"?
Fuck "social media", and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.
Worst part, there will be an endless stream of authors clambering to be first in line to give up their copyrights in exchange for a chance at being published.
Except the author doesn't give up their copyright in any way when they publish through the iBookstore, or iTunes Store, or the App Store.
Don't let facts get in the way of your your delusions, though.
If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.
It's not like MegaUpload was some kind of charity... CEO seemed to be making money hand-over-fist. Just another side of the Machine, from my perspective.
I was referring to the "democracy," not Megaupload. If the OP thinks democracy is so farcial, then why the strident outrage about it being abused? Also, it was a joke.
But to be serious, the tragedy here is that moderate supporters of democracy and humanism are attacked on both sides - from the corrupt abusers of power on one side, and the extremist brick-throwers on the other. We don't really want either to run society. Does anybody believe that if Anonymous had significant power, they would be any less corrupt than the military-industrial bull-boys?
I guess acting reasonably just isn't edgy enough to get any attention.
Because cameras have poor resolution, and showing the lecturer and slide in the same frame makes the slide illegible, while simultaneously making the lecturer's facial expressions and nuances also illegible?
Also, there are usually exposure problems given the limited dynamic range of cameras, so the slides typically end up being way over-exposed.
Because many websites require numbers as they think that adds security, and many sites limit the password length. Even/. limits it to 20 characters, last I checked.... so his password is probably just correcthorsebattery.
The xkcd comic in question doesn't specify any underscores, so "correcthorsebattery" is exactly what it recommends. The underscores were added by the slashdot commenter.
Also, sites requiring stupid things is exactly what the comic is commenting on. It's saying that narrow-minded password policy is actually weakening security. That's the whole point.
I can't think of a single site that does this. And I forget my passwords all the time. Every single site seems to generate a new 8 character random password, and email *that* to you, or a link where you can click and enter a new password.
Oh, there are plenty of them out there. I recently even came across a domain registrar a client was using, which submitted your username and password in plaintext in the URL of the page request while logging in.
I don't understand this complaint. At least you're getting quality films. Count yourself lucky. Most cinemas I know have a poor selection of crappy films.
Slashdot Mirror
Using http://userstyles.org/ it is easy to get rid of.
That only hides the symptoms. The problem is Slashdot doing it in the first place - it demonstrates subservience to those who wish to monopolise and profit from our lives.
You should see the magazines from Japan (especially the car magazines).
I agree. You just can't get decent vehicular tentacle rape magazines outside of Japan.
Your logic makes no sense. How do you become "inoculated" to what you don't experience?
The point is that I do experience it, so I know how shitty these sites are. If you don't experience it, you are inoculated, because you are getting a false impression of them.
Slashdot has gone to shit, although the Facebook stuff is only one factor. I used to visit Slashdot nearly every day. Now I visit slashdot less than once per month. The social media rubbish isn't the only factor, but it is a significant one.
If you're blocking all of that, then you continue to support Slashdot more than you should. If you dislike the advertising and social media stuff that Slashdot does so much that you need to block it, then why do you even visit the site?
To me, slashdot has become a last resort to visit when I am extremely bored. I find the social media stuff annoying, but not nearly as annoying as the sites that want to promote weight-loss programs or bogus dating sites. If you're blocking ads and visiting those sites, you're not seeing the true horror that's out there, and you are unconsciously supporting some horrifically selfish assholes.
Are you freaking kidding me? Kim Kardashian had a sex tape get "leaked" and went from being a nobody to being worth over $50 million. Do you honestly think that scandalous pictures have the power to destroy someone's career now?
Well, I guess if you want to have a career as a sex-object celebrity, and have millionaire celebrity parents supporting you, then that wouldn't hurt. But most people aren't in that position.
And if the majority of your acquaintances are running around shunning people because they wear the wrong color or sing off key, then it's your world that I question. Not mine. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure, I guess. But only among the infinitely small minded, and only on issues that don't really matter to anything, such as who is going to win the next episode of whatever flavor of the month reality show is on at the time.
In other words, it matters to a huge amount of people. More Americans care about reality TV shows and celebrity gossip than they do about government policy.
The younger generation grew up with more exposure to it, so it wasn't as big of a deal. The new youth is going to grow up with differing views of privacy than we had.
Exactly the same thing happened with "the youth" who grew up with the scandalous Television and Rock'n'Roll. Those people are in power now, yet not much has changed.
The "social media" is exactly like high-school cliques. You are kidding yourself if you think people who furthered their reputation via Facebook "friends" are going to be more egalitarian than those who grew up before the internet. Dirty politics will not suddenly disappear.
"goddamned Facebook and Twitter links" So Google gets a free pass?
No, Google+ can fuck off, too.
The difference is that nobody takes Google+ seriously, and t's never going to be in the position of Twitter or Facebook. I just didn't think it worth mentioning the loser of the trinity.
I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think reality TV is any sort of a baseline for how normal society and people think/operate.
That's exactly how "normal" people think/operate.
It's the tyranny of minute differences. You don't need to be on reality TV to see that people routinely judge each other on the most superficial bullshit.
Absolute bullshit. Just look at reality TV, the judgment just gets more and more trivial and insane. You can be a social pariah for wearing the wrong-colored dress, or for singing off-key.
I'm not sure what world you're living in, if you think that the ubiquity of social media leads to less harsh judgment.
If you don't believe me, go back in time and ask your grandparents how they feel about gays getting married, couples living together out of wedlock, or any other activity that was once never talked about and is now common place.
I don't need to go back in time. I regularly speak to my 91-year-old grandmother, who is absolutely fine with all of that.
You have a revisionist view of history. It's not like being gay or rebellious is a new thing, our grandparents were once young and did these things, too.
Either that, or the next generation, having grown up around social media, will realize that everyone has drunken party pics or embarrassing costume party pics, or what have you and it will no longer be an issue.
What makes you think this is new? Your parents, and probably your grandparents had embarrassing pictures of them. That doesn't stop people judging them.
Just look at the "celebrity" media. People are eager to destroy supermodels who wear the wrong kind of bathing suit, or who have gained a couple of pounds. And the people who want to destroy them are the same people who look like fat slobs compared to the supermodel.
This will never be a non-issue. Human hypocrisy knows no bounds. Facebook photos which would otherwise be ignored will become scandalous once the subject steps into the spotlight.
Personally, I prefer to confront reality head-on. Hiding the bullshit just inoculates you to what's really happening.
Where's the incentive to support sites that don't engage in shitty practices, if you can make the shitty sites seem better by hiding what they actually do?
The irony is thick with this one.
"Social Media" is basically designed to be click-bait. That's the only way they can recoup the investment money from the Venture Capitalists.
Sure, they might all start out being about "connecting and sharing with your friends" but then they hit critical mass and have to make some money. So they turn into whoring advertising machines. No longer are you just following your friends, but you're suckered into following companies, so you can win tickets to a Lady Gaga concert.
Now they complain about "clickjacking"?
Fuck "social media", and fuck Slashdot for putting goddamned Facebook and Twitter links under every fucking post.
Worst part, there will be an endless stream of authors clambering to be first in line to give up their copyrights in exchange for a chance at being published.
Except the author doesn't give up their copyright in any way when they publish through the iBookstore, or iTunes Store, or the App Store.
Don't let facts get in the way of your your delusions, though.
If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.
It's not like MegaUpload was some kind of charity ... CEO seemed to be making money hand-over-fist. Just another side of the Machine, from my perspective.
I was referring to the "democracy," not Megaupload. If the OP thinks democracy is so farcial, then why the strident outrage about it being abused? Also, it was a joke.
But to be serious, the tragedy here is that moderate supporters of democracy and humanism are attacked on both sides - from the corrupt abusers of power on one side, and the extremist brick-throwers on the other. We don't really want either to run society. Does anybody believe that if Anonymous had significant power, they would be any less corrupt than the military-industrial bull-boys?
I guess acting reasonably just isn't edgy enough to get any attention.
Do not stand for this flagrant abuse of our farcical democracy!
If it's farcical, then surely abuse of it isn't a big deal? Kind of like making fun of a clown.
We can help them along by electing a President with both principles and testicles: Ron Paul.
What makes you think electing Ron Paul will change anything? Do you think that the entrenched powers will simply let him walk in and change things?
I would also just like to add to that the U.S. makes 42% of its own oil.
The US actually makes 0% of its own oil. Oil is dug up, it's a natural resource that is refined, not something that's "made."
Because cameras have poor resolution, and showing the lecturer and slide in the same frame makes the slide illegible, while simultaneously making the lecturer's facial expressions and nuances also illegible?
Also, there are usually exposure problems given the limited dynamic range of cameras, so the slides typically end up being way over-exposed.
A "zune", in brown, that squirts? What complete and utter retard thought that would work?
Steve Ballmer? He's the one who coined 'squirts,' after all.
Because many websites require numbers as they think that adds security, and many sites limit the password length. Even /. limits it to 20 characters, last I checked.... so his password is probably just correcthorsebattery.
The xkcd comic in question doesn't specify any underscores, so "correcthorsebattery" is exactly what it recommends. The underscores were added by the slashdot commenter.
Also, sites requiring stupid things is exactly what the comic is commenting on. It's saying that narrow-minded password policy is actually weakening security. That's the whole point.
Some sites require capitalization and at least 1 number and limit password length to 12 characters.
Well, they should fix their fucking websites, then. That has no bearing on the correctness of the theory presented.
I am actually laughing out loud, being a dedicated HP 12c and 15c owner myself. Since LOL no longer conveys it, I felt like typing it out.
If you hold it upside-down, it says "boobs."
Yeah but there are no numbers in that and underscore may not be accepted on some sites.
Why does a password have to include numbers?
Also it's more than 12 characters.
Why does a password have to be less than 12 characters?
I can't think of a single site that does this. And I forget my passwords all the time. Every single site seems to generate a new 8 character random password, and email *that* to you, or a link where you can click and enter a new password.
Oh, there are plenty of them out there. I recently even came across a domain registrar a client was using, which submitted your username and password in plaintext in the URL of the page request while logging in.
That's not because the developers of mailman were idiots. It's because they assumed that the users were not idiots,
Uh, doesn't that make the developers of mailman idiots? How stupid would you have to be to make such an assumption about users?
I don't understand this complaint. At least you're getting quality films. Count yourself lucky. Most cinemas I know have a poor selection of crappy films.