Oh great, this thread again. Seems like every time a cyber word is used, a cyber-bully rears their head, and cyber-comments about how cyber shouldn't be used all the time. This always just turns into cyber-rage.
I believe Billy Joel is writing a song about Slashdot 3.0 entitled "The day the comments died".
Seriously, where the fuck did they go?
I've just gone through my settings, increasing any values which might give me more comments, but it still doesn't seem right.
Anyone know what has to be done to get comments back?
Slashdot needs to pay more attention to how comments work, since that's literally their best service. I can get day to year old articles and summaries many other places.
Hrmmm, you've got a point, but I also want to be specific.
How's about...
Say it with me people, the food crisis is often a geopolitical problem, which can be solved via a change in trade restrictions, a change in subsidies, or a change in general business regulation. Sometimes it can be tied to a lack of security in other areas. After this, which accounts for most of the shortage, we then of course have economic problems, where in certain regions, various types of food are too expensive, due to either resource constraints, or efficiency constraints. Both of which can, in certain circumstances, be solved with technological solutions. However, this tends to be more associated with only a few types/categories/etc of food in any one region.
There. Fixed. I think that just rolls off the tongue.
I doubt that the distribution of geeks IQs is much different than that of most others. Unless you're saying geeks are defined by their IQ.
Most of the geeks I know, myself inclusive, have very average, maybe slightly upper end of average at most, IQs. However, we have the image of being smart, by being the kind of people who will argue anything to the death, be interested in obscure topics, having reasonable analytical skills, and by associating ourselves with that sort of stuff.
As for being above average. Not necessarily. I've got several friends who don't fit your definition, and are either on the low end of average, or are under average, yet most would describe them as geeks, merely for the over interest in certain topics they have.
Also IQ measures are fucking retarded.
Your definition is too rigid, back to the drawing board with you!
I remember teasing other kids that they didn't know various obscure Linux commands, teasing them about being able to do proper socks programming, teasing them about being unable to setup a botnet, etc. I also don't trust people with my machine, mainly because we used to have exploit wars, where if you left your console unlocked for even a second, someone would have loaded you up with a rootkit/trojan of some sort. I remember being so pissed off when a friend wouldn't give me the offsets and commands to edit Duke Nukem 3D in Debug, so that I could see the "titties".
In fact, I did this once to a kid, and left it on his system for a while. Then he pissed me off, so I formatted his hard drives. LOL, What a little cunt I was (or am?).
Though all of these skills came in really handy when I started working in IT as a programmer (without doing formal study), hell, I haven't run *nix in years, yet when something *nix/BSD related fucks up at work, I'm the one that gets the call.
It wasn't about the usefulness of the knowledge, it was about knowing something better than somebody else. Being the ultimate resource amongst friends. In this way, it is a lot like being a hipster. You want to know more than others about some obscure topic, you lord this knowledge over others, and your self image is tied heavily to this.
Sometimes this resulted in nerd anxiety (knowing you had to be right, and people were judging you on your knowledge), which resulted in learning to bluff, and often resulted in me learning less than I could have.
In the end, I still love kicking it nerdcore, and am a proponent of the nerd culture.
I do the same thing, but also I "Ignore" their requests. I find the few people who really want me to on there, will keep re-adding me.
For me however, I try to keep as few people on my list as possible, mainly to save my sanity.
I find that being constantly reminded of people I don't really know, or don't want to know, and what they're doing, pisses me off. Makes me more anxious about my life, and what I'm doing. So, I keep it to a bare minimum. Not sure what's actually happening psychologically, but I think it's me over representing how awesome their life is in my mind, and then comparing them to myself.
Would be interesting to know what anyone who's studied psychology and thought about this, thinks?
Can we stop this nonsense right here. We're an English centric community, which WikiLeaks is apart of. Is it surprising then, that most of the leaks, involve us? In these instances we've been behaving badly, and as such, they're mostly going to be negative.
Would you employ some sort of rating and quota system, such that we release 1 for every country, and go out of our way to balance it? What if we don't have access to material?
We're more interested in ourselves, and not our neighbours, because of this you're going to see more stuff about us. As it is, I'm always quite surprised how much WikiLeaks has actually leaked about non-English speaking countries.
Also, your signature is missing a closing bracket, unless it terminates due to reaching the end of the string. But that would still be sloppy pseudo coding.
I believe that while it's small initially, they're looking at scaling it up, such that there will be a LOT of different users (organizations), which are trusted.
This then allows them to "safely" disseminate the raw information to the various parties, as opposed to having to filter and censor it like WikiLeaks does.
You're obviously talking about something you don't understand. My guess is you model these people in your mind as evil villains, hatching plans, stroking kittens in their laps, and doing all sorts of dastardly deeds.
They're not.
These are very large, very complicated "systems" of people, with various incentives, and different ideas on how things should work. The result of everyones ideas, biases, actions, result in the system we have.
If you investigated most of the people you find fault with, you'd find they did not act deceptively, they did not break any laws, they merely acted in a way which in hindsight was bad, but given the context was entirely rational.
You didn't. This is a hatchet job on Assange and WikiLeaks reputation by the NYT.
Funnily enough, when seeing things like this, which are extreme propaganda, you feel like it must have come from government direction. Then, you see NYT saying they want to start a WikiLeaks service.
What leaker would feel safe leaking to the NYT who has repeatedly shown bias, and possibly collusion with government.
Slashdot Mirror
Grammar Nazi's, are! Worse than, real nazis!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I dunno. I know a lot of abbos, and they don't do much. Can't really see them putting down the ol' goon bag, and making a sun dial.
Thank you, Mr. Electricity Company, for helping my neuron's fire!
This just in. MIT's Statistics program balloons to an all time record high of 15 enrolled students!
Oh great, this thread again. Seems like every time a cyber word is used, a cyber-bully rears their head, and cyber-comments about how cyber shouldn't be used all the time. This always just turns into cyber-rage.
Stop cyber-hatin', and start cyber-lovin'!
I believe Billy Joel is writing a song about Slashdot 3.0 entitled "The day the comments died".
Seriously, where the fuck did they go?
I've just gone through my settings, increasing any values which might give me more comments, but it still doesn't seem right.
Anyone know what has to be done to get comments back?
Slashdot needs to pay more attention to how comments work, since that's literally their best service. I can get day to year old articles and summaries many other places.
Sorry. I just have a seething hatred of bovines.
LOL Yea. Which is weird, cuz I speel good n everyfink.
Bash.org archiving reliable reporting sources since Wednesday February 02, @12:16AM.
Such as ...
Cthon98's expose on gullibility and technological literacy
erno's scandal on the misappropriated resources
CRCError's report on the abuses of power
DragonflyBlade21's critique on the human condition
... and of course entertainment news...
JonJonB's review of Harry Potter
It sure does, yet correlation is not causation. While you might have reasonable analytical skills, you may get quite bad (relatively) IQ scores.
Either way, my point stands.
Hrmmm, you've got a point, but I also want to be specific.
How's about...
Say it with me people, the food crisis is often a geopolitical problem, which can be solved via a change in trade restrictions, a change in subsidies, or a change in general business regulation. Sometimes it can be tied to a lack of security in other areas. After this, which accounts for most of the shortage, we then of course have economic problems, where in certain regions, various types of food are too expensive, due to either resource constraints, or efficiency constraints. Both of which can, in certain circumstances, be solved with technological solutions. However, this tends to be more associated with only a few types/categories/etc of food in any one region.
There. Fixed. I think that just rolls off the tongue.
Sure. But you're producing a solution for the extreme future, without resolving a solution for the current problem.
Also, if we can't solve the political / economical problem, then we sure as hell can't solve the future problem of extreme scarcity.
Say it with me people, the "food crisis" is a political (and to a lesser extent, economical) problem, not a scientific problem.
You can throw a fuck load of science behind it, and it's unlikely to help as many as you think it will.
However, I do like this research, and would love to eat that kind of meat. Finally we could rid ourselves of the scourge that is... the cow.
Or to put it another way... the cow belongs in a museum!
Codswallop and bulls wool!
I doubt that the distribution of geeks IQs is much different than that of most others. Unless you're saying geeks are defined by their IQ.
Most of the geeks I know, myself inclusive, have very average, maybe slightly upper end of average at most, IQs. However, we have the image of being smart, by being the kind of people who will argue anything to the death, be interested in obscure topics, having reasonable analytical skills, and by associating ourselves with that sort of stuff.
As for being above average. Not necessarily. I've got several friends who don't fit your definition, and are either on the low end of average, or are under average, yet most would describe them as geeks, merely for the over interest in certain topics they have.
Also IQ measures are fucking retarded.
Your definition is too rigid, back to the drawing board with you!
I remember teasing other kids that they didn't know various obscure Linux commands, teasing them about being able to do proper socks programming, teasing them about being unable to setup a botnet, etc. I also don't trust people with my machine, mainly because we used to have exploit wars, where if you left your console unlocked for even a second, someone would have loaded you up with a rootkit/trojan of some sort. I remember being so pissed off when a friend wouldn't give me the offsets and commands to edit Duke Nukem 3D in Debug, so that I could see the "titties".
In fact, I did this once to a kid, and left it on his system for a while. Then he pissed me off, so I formatted his hard drives. LOL, What a little cunt I was (or am?).
Though all of these skills came in really handy when I started working in IT as a programmer (without doing formal study), hell, I haven't run *nix in years, yet when something *nix/BSD related fucks up at work, I'm the one that gets the call.
It wasn't about the usefulness of the knowledge, it was about knowing something better than somebody else. Being the ultimate resource amongst friends. In this way, it is a lot like being a hipster. You want to know more than others about some obscure topic, you lord this knowledge over others, and your self image is tied heavily to this.
Sometimes this resulted in nerd anxiety (knowing you had to be right, and people were judging you on your knowledge), which resulted in learning to bluff, and often resulted in me learning less than I could have.
In the end, I still love kicking it nerdcore, and am a proponent of the nerd culture.
Tell me more about this RopeCon you speak of. I am a level 47 Paladin and am interested in exploring the northern lands.
The whole server?
Yeah, I did that. It's not enough.
I do the same thing, but also I "Ignore" their requests. I find the few people who really want me to on there, will keep re-adding me.
For me however, I try to keep as few people on my list as possible, mainly to save my sanity.
I find that being constantly reminded of people I don't really know, or don't want to know, and what they're doing, pisses me off. Makes me more anxious about my life, and what I'm doing. So, I keep it to a bare minimum. Not sure what's actually happening psychologically, but I think it's me over representing how awesome their life is in my mind, and then comparing them to myself.
Would be interesting to know what anyone who's studied psychology and thought about this, thinks?
Can we stop this nonsense right here. We're an English centric community, which WikiLeaks is apart of. Is it surprising then, that most of the leaks, involve us? In these instances we've been behaving badly, and as such, they're mostly going to be negative.
Would you employ some sort of rating and quota system, such that we release 1 for every country, and go out of our way to balance it? What if we don't have access to material?
We're more interested in ourselves, and not our neighbours, because of this you're going to see more stuff about us. As it is, I'm always quite surprised how much WikiLeaks has actually leaked about non-English speaking countries.
Also, your signature is missing a closing bracket, unless it terminates due to reaching the end of the string. But that would still be sloppy pseudo coding.
I believe that while it's small initially, they're looking at scaling it up, such that there will be a LOT of different users (organizations), which are trusted.
This then allows them to "safely" disseminate the raw information to the various parties, as opposed to having to filter and censor it like WikiLeaks does.
Please. Stop.
You're obviously talking about something you don't understand. My guess is you model these people in your mind as evil villains, hatching plans, stroking kittens in their laps, and doing all sorts of dastardly deeds.
They're not.
These are very large, very complicated "systems" of people, with various incentives, and different ideas on how things should work. The result of everyones ideas, biases, actions, result in the system we have.
If you investigated most of the people you find fault with, you'd find they did not act deceptively, they did not break any laws, they merely acted in a way which in hindsight was bad, but given the context was entirely rational.
You didn't. This is a hatchet job on Assange and WikiLeaks reputation by the NYT.
Funnily enough, when seeing things like this, which are extreme propaganda, you feel like it must have come from government direction. Then, you see NYT saying they want to start a WikiLeaks service.
What leaker would feel safe leaking to the NYT who has repeatedly shown bias, and possibly collusion with government.
I know masochists like pain, but I think most would find it punishment enough just being in Scotland.
They'd enter it for a second, reach their pain threshold, and immediately start screaming their safe word.
WOW. If only I could have a cohesive thought.
That first line is fragemetned as!