This has "BAD IDEA" written all over it. Google is going to tweak their ranking based on how many URL removal notices it has received? I smell both a new skill being marketed by SEOs, a new strategy employed by scummy companies to up their ranking, and just a total nightmare for anyone trying to compete with the big content boys. Start making real inroads in content delivery? Get hit by automated takedown notices brought by more-or-less acknowledged affiliates of big content, and watch your Google ranking drop. Maybe this will signal the recurrence of search engines like dogpile.
Oh wait - the original poster wasn't an AC. Now there's the possibility that dear speed_rrracer is so worried about Karma and has so little faith in his beliefs that he'd rather post as an AC than continue the discussion, or.... well, just another random AC. Fun times.
Because democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Just because a majority votes for it doesn't make it non-tyrannical, you shallow non-thinking twit.
I knew there was a reason why I'm not in the habit of responding to ACs. Tired memes, no substantive thinking and no capacity to read is about 90% of AC posts. Come on, give me at least ONE sentence that isn't based on some trite adage or sound bite with no legs.
Apologies - that was the scope of another post I wrote, and what I had in mind when I wrote the initial response here. The general tack is generally that the government has a monopoly on violence, and to counteract the abuse of that monopoly, we have the second amendment.
So yes, nothing to do with your argument that we're locked into near identical choices, due to the fact that we have two choices that need to appeal to very broad swathes of the US voting public.
You're a moron. If the US becomes a tyranny, it will be because a majority of the US voters want one. You don't need the second amendment to throw out the government in a properly working democracy. You only need it if you disagree with the results of the majority, and think that the current state of affairs entitles you to shoot those who you disagree with.
The fantasy that a democratically elected government will suddenly turn on you like a rabid animal is an utter fantasy that has zero precedent in history. For every example that you bring up, I will show you how it happened with the tacit approval of the power structure in the country, or because the government had been dissolved and replaced by an authoritarian regime - generally after a significant armed struggle took place. And no matter how few guns are in place before an armed struggle takes place, there's going to be a flood of weapons available during it.
In short, your second amendment will either be completely redundant (there's already a war going on, and the constitution is going to be ignored right and left), or should be unused (the ballot still works).
Private business can only hurt you with the blessing of government. Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.
Correction: private business can hurt you either with the blessing of government, or in the absence of government. Government, in a democracy (and yes, the US is a type of democracy), can hurt you for as long as people are voted in who hurt you.
The benefit of democracy isn't representation. The benefit is the bloodless revolution and changing of the guard that is possible every X years. The benefit of private business isn't that it is an optional relationship. It's that its power is checked by everyone making up the private business sector.
Even simpler solution: design your own answers. Yes, you'll get funny silences over the phone when you tell that the rep that you were born "On the moon", that the street you grew up on was "the yellow brick road", and that your mothers maiden name was Humpty Dumpty. The upshot is that no one can guess, the answers are meaningful to only you, there is only one answer (the fake, important name and place), and, because the answers are whatever you think they should be, applicable.
That's the point - you either decide beforehand how you account for systematic errors and potential faulty measurements, and discard data on both ends of the spectrum. You don't just say "I'm lopping off the bottom part, and now the data proves that another data set has a lower average."
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
1: It's not happening. 2: It's happening, but it's no big deal. 3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do. 4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive. 5: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, the alternative is worse, so let's just get on with it.
Alright - we're at step 2 of the denial process! Looks like we've made progress in the last.... 25 years or so. I hope step 3 won't take another 25 years.
AC hits it on the head. This is nothing but the age-old search for the perfect metric. Development processes ARE oriented towards quality - for arbitrary values of "quality". The problem is that quality software is like porn: you know it when you're looking at it, but you have no idea how it is exactly defined. Is it a lack of bugs? Sure, but that's definitely not the only aspect. Is it maintainability? Maybe - if the software needs to be around for the next 30 years. Is it readability? Dunno - machine code is pretty unreadable, yet there's quality machine code out there. Is it how long it took to develop, how flexible it is, how user friendly, how much power features are in it? Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Pick a metric - a boatload of metrics - and I will find you a large number of cases where the metric fails. Are we doomed? Kinda. Just like there's no silver bullet that solves all your development processes, there's no silver bullet when it comes to measuring the output of the process.
In the end, what people care about is "does it do what we need it to do?", and that's all that anyone is going to remember. Unless, of course, it's review time, and then the only thing that matters is "the metric".
True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up. However, your claim is not for proof, but to the motivation of Wikileaks under circumstances that make it impossible for them to disprove your claim.
I'd say your claim is actually worse than Wikileaks'. At least with all the shenanigans that have been going on, a DDoS attack is about the most benign thing to happen to them. Probably not a government, but most likely some Antileaks-type organization. Yours, on the other hand, is a simple attempt to smear Wikileaks and Assange as media whores by employing an argument that is best likened to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug...
on
Wikileaks DDoSed Again
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, let's take your comment at face value, and assume that claiming a DDoS is happening is a good way to get back into the limelight. Is there ever a time for Wikileaks when claiming a DDoS is happening is actually not a good way to get extra publicity?
They release data and get DDoSed - they can claim they are to be silenced. They have been quiet for a while and get DDoSed - they have something to talk about.
Those are pretty much the only relevant situations I can think about. In short, every possible DDoS situation can be spun as beneficial publicity for Wikileaks. This means that your approach is utterly useless in determining whether the DDoS is real. Now, do you have some actual proof that the DDoS is fake, outside of your personal dislike of Assange?
True - to some extent. Conservative and liberal are words that have been changed to almost mean anything, and can not really be pinned down to a simple definition. However, just as ridiculous as it is to label conservatives as statists for merely wanting to preserve the good ol' times, it is just as ridiculous to label liberals as statists for wanting to exert some control over the chaos that is human relationships. The main reason for my comment was just to demonstrate that purely from a dictionary perspective, statism is something that applies to conservatives more than to liberals.
In short, if mods were paying attention, my post would be sitting at -1, Troll. Then again, the parent would be sitting there as well.
You do understand that by definition, a conservative wants to be keep things the same (static), and that liberals want to change things (dynamic)?
We need to find the next Einstein or Tesla to think up solutions to global warming, not the next Mao or Lenin.
Since you seem more keen on applying labels to people than to actually understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, I doubt you'd be able to tell the next Einstein from the next Mao.
Because all contradictory evidence has been appropriated into the model in such a way that it is impossible to cite any weather pattern or trend that contradicts it.
I suspect you were modded into oblivion because you don't understand the difference between climate and weather, data and anecdote, and continuously refining a model to fit new data and making shit up.
There's an awful lot of writing by the folks who founded them that's got a hell of a Eugenics slant.
[Citation Needed], twit. Seriously, what's up with people just making shit up? Not only making shit up, but also blatantly ignoring everything that runs counter their made up shit, including some very basic world history?
That's because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Apparently, a far left-leaning liberal bias, to boot. And before you complain about how tired the meme is, I wish it wasn't so damn accurate.
There is nothing in your parent's post that was false. The only inflammatory part was the "idiot Republicans" part: there are too many idiot Democrats to have that moniker be specific to Republicans.
Your complaint about the moderation system is nothing but a deflective whine about bias that says more about your lack of substantive objections than about the actual state of Slashdot's moderation system.
More importantly the original revival of the Olympics was just part of the whole Eugenics craze of that era in history
Actually, the modern Olympics were revived as the supra-national competition specifically for the "normals". Check out what the jobs of the first winners were. The fact that professional athletes now compete in the Olympics is an outgrowth of nationalism, where some countries couldn't bear losing in sports they considered "theirs" (Hi, US basketball team).
Yes, over THREE years he shaved a bit under 2 seconds off of his best time. She lopped over 5 seconds off of her best time in about a year. And Phelps was swimming at a world record level before he broke it.
Sheesh, pay attention people. If you want to discuss what is and what isn't possible in sports, make sure you know what you're talking about.
It's ok to make gains of a few seconds during the teenage years. It's unheard of to make gains of many (5-7, depending on who you ask) seconds in a year. Specifically, she was wholly adequate in the major event she participated in last year. There is no technique, no training that improves speed that much. The issue with her speed in the last 50 was that she beat the time of the men's Gold Medal winner in that lap, and was even in the last 100. At that level, that doesn't happen.
Your comparison with Bolt is just as ignorant. Bolt was known to be the man to beat. The only question was how much he was going to shave off of the World Record. He had regularly won at top-flight competitions before his triumph in the Olympics. A much better comparison would be that there was some unknown woman in the 200 meter race who was faster than Bolt in the last 25 and even with him in the last 50.
That doesn't happen. Finally, in the vast majority of precedents, the athletes were found to have doped. And those who weren't caught labored under that suspicion until the end of their career.
She doped. Just like Barry Bonds doesn't need to fail a drug test for me to know that he doped, she doesn't either.
Anybody who says that they can measure public sentiment with automated tools is selling snake oil. The semantic web is a million miles away from being here, and no amount of handwaving about the fact that they have a number negates the fact that the number is junk. Pure, total junk.
You couldn't be more wrong. Arbitration is a god-send for companies. Why? Because they can fuck individuals over $100, $1000 or even $9999 at a time, and only a small fraction of the users will actually make it to arbitration and win it. Class-action lawsuit means that a few individuals can say "We weren't the only ones fucked by $Company, and are requesting that this lawsuit is for everyone who was also fucked over."
In short, arbitration means that a company can fuck over millions, and only worry about paying out a few hundred cases tops. It makes fucking your customers an actual viable business strategy, with a positive ROI. And that's the only thing that matters to a company.
I'm far more confident that crowdsourcing abitration will provide a useful benefit to consumers than any of the broken legal processes for suing companies we have now.
The entire point of arbitration is that it cannot be large-scale, and it cannot be crowdsourced.
Slashdot Mirror
This has "BAD IDEA" written all over it. Google is going to tweak their ranking based on how many URL removal notices it has received? I smell both a new skill being marketed by SEOs, a new strategy employed by scummy companies to up their ranking, and just a total nightmare for anyone trying to compete with the big content boys. Start making real inroads in content delivery? Get hit by automated takedown notices brought by more-or-less acknowledged affiliates of big content, and watch your Google ranking drop. Maybe this will signal the recurrence of search engines like dogpile.
Oh wait - the original poster wasn't an AC. Now there's the possibility that dear speed_rrracer is so worried about Karma and has so little faith in his beliefs that he'd rather post as an AC than continue the discussion, or.... well, just another random AC. Fun times.
Because democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Just because a majority votes for it doesn't make it non-tyrannical, you shallow non-thinking twit.
I knew there was a reason why I'm not in the habit of responding to ACs. Tired memes, no substantive thinking and no capacity to read is about 90% of AC posts. Come on, give me at least ONE sentence that isn't based on some trite adage or sound bite with no legs.
Apologies - that was the scope of another post I wrote, and what I had in mind when I wrote the initial response here. The general tack is generally that the government has a monopoly on violence, and to counteract the abuse of that monopoly, we have the second amendment.
So yes, nothing to do with your argument that we're locked into near identical choices, due to the fact that we have two choices that need to appeal to very broad swathes of the US voting public.
Which has all to do with voter education, and nothing with the usefulness of the second amendment.
You're a moron. If the US becomes a tyranny, it will be because a majority of the US voters want one. You don't need the second amendment to throw out the government in a properly working democracy. You only need it if you disagree with the results of the majority, and think that the current state of affairs entitles you to shoot those who you disagree with.
The fantasy that a democratically elected government will suddenly turn on you like a rabid animal is an utter fantasy that has zero precedent in history. For every example that you bring up, I will show you how it happened with the tacit approval of the power structure in the country, or because the government had been dissolved and replaced by an authoritarian regime - generally after a significant armed struggle took place. And no matter how few guns are in place before an armed struggle takes place, there's going to be a flood of weapons available during it.
In short, your second amendment will either be completely redundant (there's already a war going on, and the constitution is going to be ignored right and left), or should be unused (the ballot still works).
Private business can only hurt you with the blessing of government. Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.
Correction: private business can hurt you either with the blessing of government, or in the absence of government. Government, in a democracy (and yes, the US is a type of democracy), can hurt you for as long as people are voted in who hurt you.
The benefit of democracy isn't representation. The benefit is the bloodless revolution and changing of the guard that is possible every X years. The benefit of private business isn't that it is an optional relationship. It's that its power is checked by everyone making up the private business sector.
Even simpler solution: design your own answers. Yes, you'll get funny silences over the phone when you tell that the rep that you were born "On the moon", that the street you grew up on was "the yellow brick road", and that your mothers maiden name was Humpty Dumpty. The upshot is that no one can guess, the answers are meaningful to only you, there is only one answer (the fake, important name and place), and, because the answers are whatever you think they should be, applicable.
That's the point - you either decide beforehand how you account for systematic errors and potential faulty measurements, and discard data on both ends of the spectrum. You don't just say "I'm lopping off the bottom part, and now the data proves that another data set has a lower average."
I love it.... "Take the 1936 Texas below normal temperature out of the mix and there goes your 0.2F record making difference with July 2012." Of course, if you randomly take out data points you don't like, you're going to get the result you're looking for. Not to mention that their entire post focuses on the fact that not all states all linearly increased in temperatures, which betrays a complete lack of understanding of how temperatures are come about.
The 5 stages of denial:
1: It's not happening.
2: It's happening, but it's no big deal.
3: It's happening, it's a big deal, but there's nothing we can do.
4: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, but it's too expensive.
5: It's happening, it's a big deal, this is what we can do, the alternative is worse, so let's just get on with it.
Alright - we're at step 2 of the denial process! Looks like we've made progress in the last.... 25 years or so. I hope step 3 won't take another 25 years.
AC hits it on the head. This is nothing but the age-old search for the perfect metric. Development processes ARE oriented towards quality - for arbitrary values of "quality". The problem is that quality software is like porn: you know it when you're looking at it, but you have no idea how it is exactly defined. Is it a lack of bugs? Sure, but that's definitely not the only aspect. Is it maintainability? Maybe - if the software needs to be around for the next 30 years. Is it readability? Dunno - machine code is pretty unreadable, yet there's quality machine code out there. Is it how long it took to develop, how flexible it is, how user friendly, how much power features are in it? Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Pick a metric - a boatload of metrics - and I will find you a large number of cases where the metric fails. Are we doomed? Kinda. Just like there's no silver bullet that solves all your development processes, there's no silver bullet when it comes to measuring the output of the process.
In the end, what people care about is "does it do what we need it to do?", and that's all that anyone is going to remember. Unless, of course, it's review time, and then the only thing that matters is "the metric".
Yep, we're doomed.
True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up. However, your claim is not for proof, but to the motivation of Wikileaks under circumstances that make it impossible for them to disprove your claim.
I'd say your claim is actually worse than Wikileaks'. At least with all the shenanigans that have been going on, a DDoS attack is about the most benign thing to happen to them. Probably not a government, but most likely some Antileaks-type organization. Yours, on the other hand, is a simple attempt to smear Wikileaks and Assange as media whores by employing an argument that is best likened to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Well, let's take your comment at face value, and assume that claiming a DDoS is happening is a good way to get back into the limelight. Is there ever a time for Wikileaks when claiming a DDoS is happening is actually not a good way to get extra publicity?
They release data and get DDoSed - they can claim they are to be silenced.
They have been quiet for a while and get DDoSed - they have something to talk about.
Those are pretty much the only relevant situations I can think about. In short, every possible DDoS situation can be spun as beneficial publicity for Wikileaks. This means that your approach is utterly useless in determining whether the DDoS is real. Now, do you have some actual proof that the DDoS is fake, outside of your personal dislike of Assange?
True - to some extent. Conservative and liberal are words that have been changed to almost mean anything, and can not really be pinned down to a simple definition. However, just as ridiculous as it is to label conservatives as statists for merely wanting to preserve the good ol' times, it is just as ridiculous to label liberals as statists for wanting to exert some control over the chaos that is human relationships. The main reason for my comment was just to demonstrate that purely from a dictionary perspective, statism is something that applies to conservatives more than to liberals.
In short, if mods were paying attention, my post would be sitting at -1, Troll. Then again, the parent would be sitting there as well.
You do understand that by definition, a conservative wants to be keep things the same (static), and that liberals want to change things (dynamic)?
We need to find the next Einstein or Tesla to think up solutions to global warming, not the next Mao or Lenin.
Since you seem more keen on applying labels to people than to actually understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, I doubt you'd be able to tell the next Einstein from the next Mao.
Because all contradictory evidence has been appropriated into the model in such a way that it is impossible to cite any weather pattern or trend that contradicts it.
I suspect you were modded into oblivion because you don't understand the difference between climate and weather, data and anecdote, and continuously refining a model to fit new data and making shit up.
And that's just from one sentence.
There's an awful lot of writing by the folks who founded them that's got a hell of a Eugenics slant.
[Citation Needed], twit. Seriously, what's up with people just making shit up? Not only making shit up, but also blatantly ignoring everything that runs counter their made up shit, including some very basic world history?
That's because reality has a well-known liberal bias. Apparently, a far left-leaning liberal bias, to boot. And before you complain about how tired the meme is, I wish it wasn't so damn accurate.
There is nothing in your parent's post that was false. The only inflammatory part was the "idiot Republicans" part: there are too many idiot Democrats to have that moniker be specific to Republicans.
Your complaint about the moderation system is nothing but a deflective whine about bias that says more about your lack of substantive objections than about the actual state of Slashdot's moderation system.
and there's no Olympics for the "normals",
More importantly the original revival of the Olympics was just part of the whole Eugenics craze of that era in history
Actually, the modern Olympics were revived as the supra-national competition specifically for the "normals". Check out what the jobs of the first winners were. The fact that professional athletes now compete in the Olympics is an outgrowth of nationalism, where some countries couldn't bear losing in sports they considered "theirs" (Hi, US basketball team).
So go shove your revisionist history.
Yes, over THREE years he shaved a bit under 2 seconds off of his best time. She lopped over 5 seconds off of her best time in about a year. And Phelps was swimming at a world record level before he broke it.
Sheesh, pay attention people. If you want to discuss what is and what isn't possible in sports, make sure you know what you're talking about.
It's ok to make gains of a few seconds during the teenage years. It's unheard of to make gains of many (5-7, depending on who you ask) seconds in a year. Specifically, she was wholly adequate in the major event she participated in last year. There is no technique, no training that improves speed that much. The issue with her speed in the last 50 was that she beat the time of the men's Gold Medal winner in that lap, and was even in the last 100. At that level, that doesn't happen.
Your comparison with Bolt is just as ignorant. Bolt was known to be the man to beat. The only question was how much he was going to shave off of the World Record. He had regularly won at top-flight competitions before his triumph in the Olympics. A much better comparison would be that there was some unknown woman in the 200 meter race who was faster than Bolt in the last 25 and even with him in the last 50.
That doesn't happen. Finally, in the vast majority of precedents, the athletes were found to have doped. And those who weren't caught labored under that suspicion until the end of their career.
She doped. Just like Barry Bonds doesn't need to fail a drug test for me to know that he doped, she doesn't either.
Anybody who says that they can measure public sentiment with automated tools is selling snake oil. The semantic web is a million miles away from being here, and no amount of handwaving about the fact that they have a number negates the fact that the number is junk. Pure, total junk.
And when was the last time 10 million customers went to arbitration for something like that? Never. Not even 1% of 10 million. Maybe a few hundred.
Arbitration is a total win for companies.
You couldn't be more wrong. Arbitration is a god-send for companies. Why? Because they can fuck individuals over $100, $1000 or even $9999 at a time, and only a small fraction of the users will actually make it to arbitration and win it. Class-action lawsuit means that a few individuals can say "We weren't the only ones fucked by $Company, and are requesting that this lawsuit is for everyone who was also fucked over."
In short, arbitration means that a company can fuck over millions, and only worry about paying out a few hundred cases tops. It makes fucking your customers an actual viable business strategy, with a positive ROI. And that's the only thing that matters to a company.
I'm far more confident that crowdsourcing abitration will provide a useful benefit to consumers than any of the broken legal processes for suing companies we have now.
The entire point of arbitration is that it cannot be large-scale, and it cannot be crowdsourced.