instead letting a user blow $2k on a new laptop that they don't know in a week will be lower in price or that the same $2k would get twice the system the next week.
I believe if they lower the price within a few weeks (not sure the exact time frame) of buying your machine, they'll refund the difference.
No, you seemed to miss the point of that post. He said:
This was a GOOD bill, guys. You can tell because the Republicans voted AGAINST it.
That doesn't say anything about it being purely a Republican issue. It doesn't matter what position the ACLU takes on it - there are people who will still be against the bill because the Republicans were against it. The ACLU opposing the law does not somehow prevent Republicans from opposing it.
You also seem to be trying to use the ACLU to bolster your argument (see your other ACLU-related post too) that it is a bill treat ordinary bloggers as lobbyists. Just because the ACLU opposes the law, doesn't mean it's for that reason. They have probably looked very closely at it from a legal perspective, and found other good reasons to oppose it - without having to lie about the facts of the case.
I don't like the bill myself - but how can we have a decent discussion if the facts are reported wrong from the outset? The way it has been described on slashdot is dead wrong, and that is causing people to exaggerrate what the bill is actually about. If it were reported accurately and non-sensationally, I guess the stories wouldn't have attracted much interest.
No, because it wasn't. It was an observation about conservatives. I did not call them any names or make up anything. I didn't invoke Nazis or do any other Godwin-bothering acts.
Indeed. Your not getting paid $100,000 does not prevent you from speaking. Your having to register as a lobbyist does not prevent you from speaking. So, it's a law that would be questionable in its enforceability and effects, but there doesn't appear to be any censorship. Still, it seems kind of stupid for Democrats to support this - shouldn't it have been obvious how the lobbyists and fake GOP bloggers would have spun it against them?
Yes, I realized it was referring to the GOP. But I thought the use of the term was a meta-wink to neoliberalism. As in "inspired by," not the direct usage. RBTL.
But I do respect people who actually utilize their own brain cells, rather than spouting the venom of the weak.
So then, I guess you should be criticizing "Overly Critical Guy" for his uninformed argument and venomous ad hominems, while respecting the others here who have contributed their arguments without any venom (who knows if they are liberal or not).
I don't think it's liberals who have come on to this thread with the venomous attacks and lack of logic - just read the whole discussion thread for example. The only people who really seem to be getting politically divisive and away from factual argument are a few guys like "Overly Critical Guy." Generally, everyone else is pretty polite, down-to-earth, and well-reasoned.
Do you really want me to dig up links on forums and message boards for you?
Yes please. If that's the only argument that liberals have - which was the contention of the original poster - then it should be easy. You shouldn't have to do any digging if it is so common.
Few people are ever that rude in real life.
And it seems that few peolple are ever that rude on the internet, otherwise you'd have given me a couple of hundred links by now.
But it's not CmdrTavo's blog. If it were, CmdrTaco would write all the articles. It's obviousloy a news site combined with a discussion forum. It's so obvious, I really wonder why people are trying to apply the "blog" label to it, when that is completely unnecessary.
I hate to say it but only in the non-Democrat arena of "liberals" have I ever run into liberals who care to explain their position
And? 99.9% of liberals aren't Democrats. They aren't synonyms, you know. I'm not really sure what the Democratic party has to do with any of this, since nobody mentioned them until now.
I know many, many conservatives who are kneejerk reactionaries too but the Democrats have no logical arguments in place 95.6% of the time, all they do is call conservatives racist and Nazis.
Care to show some evidence for this? In my experience, liberals calling someone Nazis is very rare. That's more of an anarchist thing from what I've seen. Or a troll thing. I've seen arguments about how the Bush government has fascist tendencies, but it's very rare that someone is actually called a Nazi directly, and seriously. That's more of a stereotype used for parody. As for not having arguments, again, I think that's also a fallacy. You don't see many Rush Limbaughs or Bill O'Reillys or Pat Robertsons among liberals - usually you get a much better explanation of why they hold a position, even if it's not well thought through.
But compared to the right-wing, you just don't get this vitriolic, mindless denouncing.
I'm a libertarian full-heartedly, and I get called the same things because I believe in unrestricted capitalism.
No, that makes it more like a tech news site that focuses heavily on discussion. If it were your blog, you'd be able to post your own topics. And really, the fact of the massive weighting towards comments compared to the articles puts it outside the blog realm. A blog is really more focused on the articles and the main topic of the blog, on the first-person voice - with maybe some commentary.
Since that was the original definition of it. Now, there is some leeway, but stretching the definition of "blog" to mean any site where people comment or news is reported, is ridiculous.
Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog.
No, Engadget and Boing Boing aren't blogs. I don't know about TechCrunch, seeing as I have never used the site.
Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.
What makes the wikipedia definition the definitive one? I don't agree with it. It's also an extremely vague definition. Slashdot also fits many other categories. It's a fairly subjective thing, but the distributed, multi-user discussion format of slashdot puts it far away from the typical blog. And miles away from the original definition.
Anyway, my comment was in response to someone calling me a blogger. how does posting a comment to slashdot make me a blogger?
Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.
That's ridiculous. Is a newspaper website a blog because it has time-based articles?
Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.
Yes, slashdot has blog-like features. But the main purpose of slashdot is not the journals, and almost nobody comes to slashdot to read the journals. They come here for news and discussion - primarily discussion.
I think the real intersting question in all of this is why are so many people like yourself so desperate to stretch the definition of "blog" to cover every fucking website under the sun, until the term loses all meaning? Why do you want to do this? Wouldn't it be better to have a more nuanced way of describing websites, so we can communicate the differences, rather than lumping everything with user-generated content under the blog umbrella?
It seems that everybody wants to call their site a blog, just out of trendiness and conformity, and to get on the "blogrolls" or whatever shitty hype they are pushing, even if their site isn't primarily a blog. Hell, even politicians and corporations are doing it, to try and cash in on the trend, relabeling their promotional sites as blogs.
Notice the front page with posts? Notice the time based nature of those posts, in a rolling format? Notice how the "discussion forum" you mention is is called "comments".
yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.
These are all part of the core definition of the term blog.
No, the defining characteristic of a blog is that it is personal and that it is a log of the websites you have visited. Neither of those core aspects apply in any meaningful way to slashdot. Notice how there are a bunch of different people submitting stories, it is not just focused around one person? Notice how it is about news and discussion, not a personal take on the world?
If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.
Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? And slashdot is a hybrid. People come here primarily for the discussion forum, but it is also a tech news site. But it definitely does not fit the definition of a blog. It doesn't matter if it started as Taco's blog, because that is not what it is today. That's like saying the USA is a colony of England, because it started as a colony of England.
What it is today is a tech news/discussion forum. Notice how it has used the tag line "News for nerds, stuff that matters" and not "CmdrTaco's personal journal"?
"Apache scale SMP OR cluster" is likely to get more informative results than "Apache IIS comparison".
I don't know what alternatives there are for other platforms, but DEVONagent has advanced search features, like boolean operations and plug-ins for various specialty search engines. It can also do deep-scanning searches (following links) and is good at filtering out junk. I find the NEAR operator is immensely useful for day-to-day searches, finding terms that are closely related - but rejecting terms that simply appear on the same page in different contexts, while not requiring them to be in an exact sequence like using quotes would.
I find the best source of information about a product is the manufacturer's website. Or just ask a salesperson in a distributor's showroom. They'd never give me bad advice, would they? You're not going to rely on some random "third party" on the internet, are you?
At the risk of repeating myself, slashdot is noty a blog, it is a discussion forum. A very different beat. Some people certainly seem to have a strange definition of "blog" if they include slashdot under that definition.
In fact, this is becoming a web epidemic. It seems that everything is called a blog these days, and the word has lost all meaning.
Why do liberals use the word "neo?" Is that supposed to be insulting or something? I've never understood it.
Huh? Why don't you look it up, if you don't understand the term? It's a generic adjective that means new and different.
All kinds of people use it, not just liberals. In fact, some of the biggest supporters of the Republicans and Bush government call themselves neoconservatives. I'm not sure why you consider it an insult - why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?
Can anyone explain why there are _any_ limits on political speech?
This is about money, not speech. You can say anything you want. But you can't get paid for doing anything you want. I think speech should be free - you don't need money to speak. If receiving money changes what you will say - then what's that all about? it's amazing how many people confuse money and speech, although I suspect the confusion is deliberate in many cases.
That's funny, I thought it was a reference to neoliberals. Why is it that you only associate the "neo" prefix with Nazis, when it is used in many other contexts, and has its own meaning? I think it probably says more about you than the post you are responding to.
Slashdot Mirror
There are four states of being in the cannabis society - cool, groovy, hip and square.
I believe if they lower the price within a few weeks (not sure the exact time frame) of buying your machine, they'll refund the difference.
That doesn't say anything about it being purely a Republican issue. It doesn't matter what position the ACLU takes on it - there are people who will still be against the bill because the Republicans were against it. The ACLU opposing the law does not somehow prevent Republicans from opposing it.
You also seem to be trying to use the ACLU to bolster your argument (see your other ACLU-related post too) that it is a bill treat ordinary bloggers as lobbyists. Just because the ACLU opposes the law, doesn't mean it's for that reason. They have probably looked very closely at it from a legal perspective, and found other good reasons to oppose it - without having to lie about the facts of the case.
I don't like the bill myself - but how can we have a decent discussion if the facts are reported wrong from the outset? The way it has been described on slashdot is dead wrong, and that is causing people to exaggerrate what the bill is actually about. If it were reported accurately and non-sensationally, I guess the stories wouldn't have attracted much interest.
No, because it wasn't. It was an observation about conservatives. I did not call them any names or make up anything. I didn't invoke Nazis or do any other Godwin-bothering acts.
Indeed. Your not getting paid $100,000 does not prevent you from speaking. Your having to register as a lobbyist does not prevent you from speaking. So, it's a law that would be questionable in its enforceability and effects, but there doesn't appear to be any censorship. Still, it seems kind of stupid for Democrats to support this - shouldn't it have been obvious how the lobbyists and fake GOP bloggers would have spun it against them?
Yes, I realized it was referring to the GOP. But I thought the use of the term was a meta-wink to neoliberalism. As in "inspired by," not the direct usage. RBTL.
So then, I guess you should be criticizing "Overly Critical Guy" for his uninformed argument and venomous ad hominems, while respecting the others here who have contributed their arguments without any venom (who knows if they are liberal or not).
I don't think it's liberals who have come on to this thread with the venomous attacks and lack of logic - just read the whole discussion thread for example. The only people who really seem to be getting politically divisive and away from factual argument are a few guys like "Overly Critical Guy." Generally, everyone else is pretty polite, down-to-earth, and well-reasoned.
Why?
Do you really want me to dig up links on forums and message boards for you?Yes please. If that's the only argument that liberals have - which was the contention of the original poster - then it should be easy. You shouldn't have to do any digging if it is so common.
Few people are ever that rude in real life.And it seems that few peolple are ever that rude on the internet, otherwise you'd have given me a couple of hundred links by now.
But it's not CmdrTavo's blog. If it were, CmdrTaco would write all the articles. It's obviousloy a news site combined with a discussion forum. It's so obvious, I really wonder why people are trying to apply the "blog" label to it, when that is completely unnecessary.
And? 99.9% of liberals aren't Democrats. They aren't synonyms, you know. I'm not really sure what the Democratic party has to do with any of this, since nobody mentioned them until now.
I know many, many conservatives who are kneejerk reactionaries too but the Democrats have no logical arguments in place 95.6% of the time, all they do is call conservatives racist and Nazis.Care to show some evidence for this? In my experience, liberals calling someone Nazis is very rare. That's more of an anarchist thing from what I've seen. Or a troll thing. I've seen arguments about how the Bush government has fascist tendencies, but it's very rare that someone is actually called a Nazi directly, and seriously. That's more of a stereotype used for parody. As for not having arguments, again, I think that's also a fallacy. You don't see many Rush Limbaughs or Bill O'Reillys or Pat Robertsons among liberals - usually you get a much better explanation of why they hold a position, even if it's not well thought through.
But compared to the right-wing, you just don't get this vitriolic, mindless denouncing.
I'm a libertarian full-heartedly, and I get called the same things because I believe in unrestricted capitalism.Can you link to some examples?
No, that makes it more like a tech news site that focuses heavily on discussion. If it were your blog, you'd be able to post your own topics. And really, the fact of the massive weighting towards comments compared to the articles puts it outside the blog realm. A blog is really more focused on the articles and the main topic of the blog, on the first-person voice - with maybe some commentary.
Well, I'm looking for experienced fnord handlers, and so far we are considering Asians and Maoris.
The Wikipedia definition you linked to actually disqualifies slashdot, engadget and Boing Boing:
A blog is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal styleOutside of users' personal journals, the main pages of these sites are not written in journal style.
Since that was the original definition of it. Now, there is some leeway, but stretching the definition of "blog" to mean any site where people comment or news is reported, is ridiculous.
Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog.No, Engadget and Boing Boing aren't blogs. I don't know about TechCrunch, seeing as I have never used the site.
Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.What makes the wikipedia definition the definitive one? I don't agree with it. It's also an extremely vague definition. Slashdot also fits many other categories. It's a fairly subjective thing, but the distributed, multi-user discussion format of slashdot puts it far away from the typical blog. And miles away from the original definition.
Anyway, my comment was in response to someone calling me a blogger. how does posting a comment to slashdot make me a blogger?
Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.That's ridiculous. Is a newspaper website a blog because it has time-based articles?
Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.Yes, slashdot has blog-like features. But the main purpose of slashdot is not the journals, and almost nobody comes to slashdot to read the journals. They come here for news and discussion - primarily discussion.
I think the real intersting question in all of this is why are so many people like yourself so desperate to stretch the definition of "blog" to cover every fucking website under the sun, until the term loses all meaning? Why do you want to do this? Wouldn't it be better to have a more nuanced way of describing websites, so we can communicate the differences, rather than lumping everything with user-generated content under the blog umbrella?
It seems that everybody wants to call their site a blog, just out of trendiness and conformity, and to get on the "blogrolls" or whatever shitty hype they are pushing, even if their site isn't primarily a blog. Hell, even politicians and corporations are doing it, to try and cash in on the trend, relabeling their promotional sites as blogs.
yeah, so what? Those features are typical of a news site with a discussion forum.
These are all part of the core definition of the term blog.No, the defining characteristic of a blog is that it is personal and that it is a log of the websites you have visited. Neither of those core aspects apply in any meaningful way to slashdot. Notice how there are a bunch of different people submitting stories, it is not just focused around one person? Notice how it is about news and discussion, not a personal take on the world?
If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles? And slashdot is a hybrid. People come here primarily for the discussion forum, but it is also a tech news site. But it definitely does not fit the definition of a blog. It doesn't matter if it started as Taco's blog, because that is not what it is today. That's like saying the USA is a colony of England, because it started as a colony of England.
What it is today is a tech news/discussion forum. Notice how it has used the tag line "News for nerds, stuff that matters" and not "CmdrTaco's personal journal"?
I don't know what alternatives there are for other platforms, but DEVONagent has advanced search features, like boolean operations and plug-ins for various specialty search engines. It can also do deep-scanning searches (following links) and is good at filtering out junk. I find the NEAR operator is immensely useful for day-to-day searches, finding terms that are closely related - but rejecting terms that simply appear on the same page in different contexts, while not requiring them to be in an exact sequence like using quotes would.
So, how do I set up the tests to evaluate the best race?
I find the best source of information about a product is the manufacturer's website. Or just ask a salesperson in a distributor's showroom. They'd never give me bad advice, would they? You're not going to rely on some random "third party" on the internet, are you?
In fact, this is becoming a web epidemic. It seems that everything is called a blog these days, and the word has lost all meaning.
No, slashdot is a discussion forum, not a blog.
Huh? Why don't you look it up, if you don't understand the term? It's a generic adjective that means new and different.
All kinds of people use it, not just liberals. In fact, some of the biggest supporters of the Republicans and Bush government call themselves neoconservatives. I'm not sure why you consider it an insult - why do you think the lead character in The Matrix was named Neo?
That's why I said "in the tradition of Voltaire" and not "in the words of Voltaire," nor did I quote the phrase.
This is about money, not speech. You can say anything you want. But you can't get paid for doing anything you want. I think speech should be free - you don't need money to speak. If receiving money changes what you will say - then what's that all about? it's amazing how many people confuse money and speech, although I suspect the confusion is deliberate in many cases.
That's funny, I thought it was a reference to neoliberals. Why is it that you only associate the "neo" prefix with Nazis, when it is used in many other contexts, and has its own meaning? I think it probably says more about you than the post you are responding to.