This was a perfect opportunity for you to supply the definition...
Per the original Usenet definition, "trolling" was making a post with the intent of drawing a response, in the hopes of starting a flamewar. You are "trolling" for somebody to bite on your bait. Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted, only that it drew a response-- they fed off the energy of the flamewar, and didn't really care one way or the other-- they just wanted to fire.
So, yes, trolling by definition is not useful.
The definition has since rather mutated to cover anybody making obnoxious posts on the internet.
John Brunner made me curious as he is one of my favorite writers. The story however is from Fritz Leiber.
Oops!!
Shows I should never trust my memory, and should always look things up even if I think I know them. You're right, the John Brunner chess story was the novel "Squares of the City."
No. Have you not been paying attention? Citizens United is just a stupid description, it is more corporations united, and money has a louder voice in our oligarchy, that is by no means a democracy.
Although I'm not a great fan of the Citizens United ruling, that decision doesn't mean we're "not a democracy". It means that corporations (and more generally, people controlling money) are not restricted from using that money to promulgate their views, and hence direct public opinion.
But "democracy" doesn't mean "citizens voting intelligently." It merely means "citizens voting."
Technically we would not be a democracy, anyways. We are supposed to be a republic.
There are many varieties of democracy. The two are not exclusive; that's why it would be called a "democratic republic".
And there we have it - the TRUTH of the MATTER - TOO many people are willing - even eager - to sacrifice their rights in order to obtain 'protection' from the savages at the gate (actually, the savages that have already broken down the gate) who are dead-set on destroying our domestic freedoms.
Yep. However, like everything else, it's a trade off. Patrick Henry was very noble saying "give me liberty or give me death," but, in fact, if you're dead you don't have any liberty.
Had a few, and don't remember the exact quote - but - - - those that are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of 'safety' / 'security', will have, and deserve, neither ! ! !
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The fact that the system of checks and balances sometimes works ineffectively doesn't mean that the system of checks and balances doesn't work at all.
In fact, the courts do present a barrier to abuse of power on the part of executive agencies. Not a perfect system-- and the ability of agencies to withhold information what they are doing, for security reasons, is indeed a serious barrier to court oversight-- but nevertheless, it is not completely broken.
You would be better to direct your cynicism toward the people. A large portion of the population (very likely the majority of the population) wants greater surveillance of communications, and wants the agencies hunting terrorists to do so secretly: they want to catch and shut down the terrorists whatever it takes. This isn't a "failure" of democracy-- this is democracy. IF it's a failure, it's a failure of the restraints on democracy.
If you want to change that: figure out how to make people less scared. (Good luck with that.)
...you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science. And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
Have to disagree here. The mere fact that universities permit the Piper Harrons of the world , the Angry Social Sciences, the Feminist Studies organizations named "The Master Race" - e.g. La Raza along with permitting White men to be attacked in ways which are clearly incendiary, racists and advocating of genocide-
I don't consider any of these to be scientists, so I find this irrelevant to this discussion of whether scientists are aligned with the left, or if the left aligned with scientists.
... I myself used to believe 100% in the impending disaster of climate change. I believed it because I modestly deferred to experts and I am well aware I am unlikely at this stage in my life become a climate scientist and decide for myself. However, when I understood just exactly how intellectually corrupt and bankrupt universities were, how they had instantiated a mono-culture and that entire Ivy Leagues were little more than a cult. When i saw the "best and the brightest" spew out of their own mouths the most inane irrationalities , race and gender-based hatreds, all the while all but uncontradicted by everyone around them, when I saw how professors with minority opinions were literally driven from the university under threats of violence, violence clearly sanctioned by the administrations themselves... well, that opened the door for me that maybe climate science with it's hyperventilating pronouncements was *just more of the same*. Sorry but what I see coming out of the Ivy Leagues indicates to me that there are no adults left in academia, only temper tantrum totalitarians who can would and do lie at the drop of a hat , even about the most profound and important matters we face as a culture and as a species.
Your criticism seems to be aimed at "universities," and more specifically "The Ivy Leagues" (which you call out twice). But the keystone paper on the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature was written by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, when they were both at the General Circulation Research Section of the U.S. Weather Bureau. Neither one was with "the universities," much less "The Ivy Leagues."
So, I don't see why I should pay any attention to your criticism of universities, since it is not relevant. I stand by my original statement: The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed.
Of course not. The average thief would just purchase the hacked irises and fingerprints on the internets, where they are for sale by people who are professional at stealing irises and fingerprints. Just like today there are people professional at stealing credit card numbers, and different people who actually buy the stolen credit card numbers to use.
Go most certainly does have strict rules. You can only play one stone in a turn, for example; you can't play another stone until your opponent plays; and you're not allowed to just pick up all the stones that you don't like and throw them into the trash.
yes there are some basic rules describing player moves however just applying them doesn't play a good game.
Sure. In chess, too: it's easy to learn how to move the pieces. Moving the pieces to win a game is hard. Saying that "following the rules doesn't play a good game" is not a subset of saying "Go doesn't have strict rules."
When I was a kid having computers win at chess (Let alone go) was in the realm of "Will never happen at all, ever."
I hear that argument, but in fact, I can't ever remember anybody ever saying that computers would never be able to win at chess. To the contrary, it seems to be that people thought, back in the 60s, that sooner or later it would be a given that computers would beat humans.
In Star Trek, for example, the fact that Spock could the computer at chess was used as a diagnostic to show that the computer was compromised.
And John Brunner's short story "The 64-square Madhouse" comes to mind, about the first computer playing in the chess championship.
"Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science."
Why didn't scientists disassociate with this particular political leaning then? Couldn't the scientists imagine where things would wind up?
How do you propose to do that? Have the AAAS issue a statement "You are agreeing with us, so to show that we're not biased, we'll disagree with you, except for the part that we don't agree with them, either, but, oh, we do agree with you where you agree with us"? That is not a sound-bite that the media is going to headline.
Tell you what. Why doesn't the right show how it's done, by "disassociating" themselves with the creation science people. When they've done that, I'll watch how they do it, and that can be our model.
Scientists where I work are mostly left-leaning, and almost without exception the newest 1-2 generations are predominantly "progressive".
Ah, youngsters. I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years, when the stereotype was that scientists and engineers were right-leaning, and it was the left that was uniformly anti-science.
I blame the anti-science right. When there is a constant, unremitting attack from the right-- "it's a hoax!" "Climate FRAUD!" "put the scientists in JAIL!" "Climate science is a SCAM" "Scientists are only in it for the MONEY!" --not to mention "Evolution is the DEVIL'S TEACHING" -- it's hard not to end up getting the feeling that you're not wanted.
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
Yes, I agree with bondsbw-- you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science.
And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed. (That's the way science usually works: first the broad principles are understood, and then more and more details are filled in.) The science would be the same if the opposite political polarities had decided to be for and against it.
There are plenty of actual predictions that are actually published in actual referenceable sources.
I really don't see the point in citing an offhand comment made in a radio interview as a "prediction", when the person quoted has an actual bibliography of hundreds of real publications that can be referenced. (not to mention the point of misattributing a quote that's citing a guy informally recalling something another guy said in a conversation a decade earlier, and misremembering key details.)
"Your average desktop inkjet can produce images with a resolution of around 5,000 dots per inch. Laser printers, which use a fine powder called toner, can muster a resolution closer to 20,000 dots per inch. But this new technology can generate detailed images with an astonishing resolution of 127,000 dots crammed into a single square inch"
They are trying to compare "dots per inch with "dots crammed into a single square inch."
2,5400,000 nm / 200 nm = 127,000 nm DPI
If that had been what they said, that would be accurate. But they said per square inch.
From looking at the other stories, apparently the number of scientist dismissed (in the story here listed as "at least five") is nine. From http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/... :
"An EPA spokesman told CNN there are a total of 18 positions on this particular advisory board, and nine of those scientists were not renewed following the end of their three-year term."
It is true that if you visit France and appear to be a native English speaker, lots of people will pretend they don't speak it.
In Paris, maybe-- at least, that's the stereotype.
Get outside of Paris, though, and the French people are quite friendly and will be happy to speak with you in your bad French or in their pretty-good English or in whatever other language you both have in common.
"Individual end-users of Kodi boxes are unlikely to be affected by the Digital Economy Act as streaming is not covered by the act. Instead individuals and businesses who sell the full-loaded boxes are the main targets. "
The law itself only talks about the people doing the streaming (in the phrasing of the law, "infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public, if the person knows or has reason to believe that infringing copyright in the work.") However-- and this may be the key point-- the European Court of Justice has ruled that this includes selling the multimedia players which have pre-installed links to pirate websites.
An interesting story. Sorry you aren't interested in biological news, but nevertheless, it's an interesting story related to science and technology and appropriate to a news website
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease."
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease." This particular anthrax outbreak, however, was from anthrax dormant while frozen in permafrost.
Slashdot Mirror
This was a perfect opportunity for you to supply the definition...
Per the original Usenet definition, "trolling" was making a post with the intent of drawing a response, in the hopes of starting a flamewar. You are "trolling" for somebody to bite on your bait. Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted, only that it drew a response-- they fed off the energy of the flamewar, and didn't really care one way or the other-- they just wanted to fire.
So, yes, trolling by definition is not useful.
The definition has since rather mutated to cover anybody making obnoxious posts on the internet.
http://gizmodo.com/the-first-internet-troll-1652485292
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html
...
A Doctorate degree: You get a Calling
Well, if it's a doctor of divinity, that's accurate.
John Brunner made me curious as he is one of my favorite writers.
The story however is from Fritz Leiber.
Oops!!
Shows I should never trust my memory, and should always look things up even if I think I know them. You're right, the John Brunner chess story was the novel "Squares of the City."
I stand corrected. Fritz Leiber it is.
No. Have you not been paying attention? Citizens United is just a stupid description, it is more corporations united, and money has a louder voice in our oligarchy, that is by no means a democracy.
Although I'm not a great fan of the Citizens United ruling, that decision doesn't mean we're "not a democracy". It means that corporations (and more generally, people controlling money) are not restricted from using that money to promulgate their views, and hence direct public opinion.
But "democracy" doesn't mean "citizens voting intelligently." It merely means "citizens voting."
Technically we would not be a democracy, anyways. We are supposed to be a republic.
There are many varieties of democracy. The two are not exclusive; that's why it would be called a "democratic republic".
And there we have it - the TRUTH of the MATTER - TOO many people are willing - even eager - to sacrifice their rights in order to obtain 'protection' from the savages at the gate (actually, the savages that have already broken down the gate) who are dead-set on destroying our domestic freedoms.
Yep. However, like everything else, it's a trade off. Patrick Henry was very noble saying "give me liberty or give me death," but, in fact, if you're dead you don't have any liberty.
Had a few, and don't remember the exact quote - but - - - those that are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of 'safety' / 'security', will have, and deserve, neither ! ! !
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Ben Franklin.
(often misquoted. Reference: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... )
The fact that the system of checks and balances sometimes works ineffectively doesn't mean that the system of checks and balances doesn't work at all.
In fact, the courts do present a barrier to abuse of power on the part of executive agencies. Not a perfect system-- and the ability of agencies to withhold information what they are doing, for security reasons, is indeed a serious barrier to court oversight-- but nevertheless, it is not completely broken.
You would be better to direct your cynicism toward the people. A large portion of the population (very likely the majority of the population) wants greater surveillance of communications, and wants the agencies hunting terrorists to do so secretly: they want to catch and shut down the terrorists whatever it takes. This isn't a "failure" of democracy-- this is democracy. IF it's a failure, it's a failure of the restraints on democracy.
If you want to change that: figure out how to make people less scared. (Good luck with that.)
...you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science. And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
Have to disagree here. The mere fact that universities permit the Piper Harrons of the world , the Angry Social Sciences, the Feminist Studies organizations named "The Master Race" - e.g. La Raza along with permitting White men to be attacked in ways which are clearly incendiary, racists and advocating of genocide-
I don't consider any of these to be scientists, so I find this irrelevant to this discussion of whether scientists are aligned with the left, or if the left aligned with scientists.
... I myself used to believe 100% in the impending disaster of climate change. I believed it because I modestly deferred to experts and I am well aware I am unlikely at this stage in my life become a climate scientist and decide for myself. However, when I understood just exactly how intellectually corrupt and bankrupt universities were, how they had instantiated a mono-culture and that entire Ivy Leagues were little more than a cult. When i saw the "best and the brightest" spew out of their own mouths the most inane irrationalities , race and gender-based hatreds, all the while all but uncontradicted by everyone around them, when I saw how professors with minority opinions were literally driven from the university under threats of violence, violence clearly sanctioned by the administrations themselves... well, that opened the door for me that maybe climate science with it's hyperventilating pronouncements was *just more of the same*. Sorry but what I see coming out of the Ivy Leagues indicates to me that there are no adults left in academia, only temper tantrum totalitarians who can would and do lie at the drop of a hat , even about the most profound and important matters we face as a culture and as a species.
Your criticism seems to be aimed at "universities," and more specifically "The Ivy Leagues" (which you call out twice). But the keystone paper on the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature was written by Manabe and Wetherald in 1967, when they were both at the General Circulation Research Section of the U.S. Weather Bureau. Neither one was with "the universities," much less "The Ivy Leagues."
So, I don't see why I should pay any attention to your criticism of universities, since it is not relevant. I stand by my original statement: The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed.
"It's Technically and Ethically Complex"
You could say the same about living.
Of course not. The average thief would just purchase the hacked irises and fingerprints on the internets, where they are for sale by people who are professional at stealing irises and fingerprints. Just like today there are people professional at stealing credit card numbers, and different people who actually buy the stolen credit card numbers to use.
Wow, I didn't think anybody still remembered "Game of Life".
...Go have no strict rules,
Go most certainly does have strict rules. You can only play one stone in a turn, for example; you can't play another stone until your opponent plays; and you're not allowed to just pick up all the stones that you don't like and throw them into the trash.
yes there are some basic rules describing player moves however just applying them doesn't play a good game.
Sure. In chess, too: it's easy to learn how to move the pieces. Moving the pieces to win a game is hard. Saying that "following the rules doesn't play a good game" is not a subset of saying "Go doesn't have strict rules."
Yikes talking about moving the goalposts.
When I was a kid having computers win at chess (Let alone go) was in the realm of "Will never happen at all, ever."
I hear that argument, but in fact, I can't ever remember anybody ever saying that computers would never be able to win at chess. To the contrary, it seems to be that people thought, back in the 60s, that sooner or later it would be a given that computers would beat humans.
In Star Trek, for example, the fact that Spock could the computer at chess was used as a diagnostic to show that the computer was compromised.
And John Brunner's short story "The 64-square Madhouse" comes to mind, about the first computer playing in the chess championship.
"Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science."
Why didn't scientists disassociate with this particular political leaning then? Couldn't the scientists imagine where things would wind up?
How do you propose to do that? Have the AAAS issue a statement "You are agreeing with us, so to show that we're not biased, we'll disagree with you, except for the part that we don't agree with them, either, but, oh, we do agree with you where you agree with us"? That is not a sound-bite that the media is going to headline.
Tell you what. Why doesn't the right show how it's done, by "disassociating" themselves with the creation science people. When they've done that, I'll watch how they do it, and that can be our model.
Scientists where I work are mostly left-leaning, and almost without exception the newest 1-2 generations are predominantly "progressive".
Ah, youngsters. I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years, when the stereotype was that scientists and engineers were right-leaning, and it was the left that was uniformly anti-science.
I blame the anti-science right. When there is a constant, unremitting attack from the right-- "it's a hoax!" "Climate FRAUD!" "put the scientists in JAIL!" "Climate science is a SCAM" "Scientists are only in it for the MONEY!" --not to mention "Evolution is the DEVIL'S TEACHING" -- it's hard not to end up getting the feeling that you're not wanted.
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
Yes, I agree with bondsbw-- you have this backwards. Climate science didn't "align itself with a particular political leaning". It's exactly the reverse: a particular political leaning aligned itself with climate science.
And, more notably, a particular political leaning aligned itself against climate science.
The overall conclusions of climate science have been known since way before the issue got politicized. The science hasn't changed-- it's gotten more detailed, but it hasn't changed. (That's the way science usually works: first the broad principles are understood, and then more and more details are filled in.) The science would be the same if the opposite political polarities had decided to be for and against it.
... I see that /. has now added a link to that earlier /. story to the summary.
There are plenty of actual predictions that are actually published in actual referenceable sources.
I really don't see the point in citing an offhand comment made in a radio interview as a "prediction", when the person quoted has an actual bibliography of hundreds of real publications that can be referenced.
(not to mention the point of misattributing a quote that's citing a guy informally recalling something another guy said in a conversation a decade earlier, and misremembering key details.)
what about this one? https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
They ARE NOT mixing things up.
Yes they are.
The article:
"Your average desktop inkjet can produce images with a resolution of around 5,000 dots per inch. Laser printers, which use a fine powder called toner, can muster a resolution closer to 20,000 dots per inch. But this new technology can generate detailed images with an astonishing resolution of 127,000 dots crammed into a single square inch"
They are trying to compare "dots per inch with "dots crammed into a single square inch."
2,5400,000 nm / 200 nm = 127,000 nm DPI
If that had been what they said, that would be accurate. But they said per square inch.
They seem to be comparing dots per inch with dots per square inch, but I think what they really did is leave out the "square" in the comparison.
If they mean 5000 dots per square inch for a inkjet printer, that's 71 dots per inch.
For comparison, "127,000 dots per square inch" comes to ... 356 dots per inch.
From looking at the other stories, apparently the number of scientist dismissed (in the story here listed as "at least five") is nine.
From http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/... :
"An EPA spokesman told CNN there are a total of 18 positions on this particular advisory board, and nine of those scientists were not renewed following the end of their three-year term."
Other sources reporting the story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/08/epa-michigan-state-professor/101429388/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/epa-boots-at-least-5-scientists-off-board-may-favor-replacements-from-industry/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-board/
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-epa-just-got-rid-of-a-bunch-of-scientists-on-its-top-review-board-vgtrn
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/05/08/EPA-dismisses-five-members-of-scientific-review-board/6031494254095/
It is true that if you visit France and appear to be a native English speaker, lots of people will pretend they don't speak it.
In Paris, maybe-- at least, that's the stereotype.
Get outside of Paris, though, and the French people are quite friendly and will be happy to speak with you in your bad French or in their pretty-good English or in whatever other language you both have in common.
...TWO: Watching a copyrighted work on a stream without paying gets you ten years in prison.
No. The people sending the streaming are liable. This particular law doesn't cover people receiving a stream.
The Independent article is little ambiguous. Check out the techradar article http://www.techradar.com/news/... :
"Individual end-users of Kodi boxes are unlikely to be affected by the Digital Economy Act as streaming is not covered by the act. Instead individuals and businesses who sell the full-loaded boxes are the main targets. "
The law itself only talks about the people doing the streaming (in the phrasing of the law, "infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public, if the person knows or has reason to believe that infringing copyright in the work.") However-- and this may be the key point-- the European Court of Justice has ruled that this includes selling the multimedia players which have pre-installed links to pirate websites.
"More idiotic click-bait (Score:5, Informative)"
Should have been moderated -1, stupid.
An interesting story. Sorry you aren't interested in biological news, but nevertheless, it's an interesting story related to science and technology and appropriate to a news website
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease."
Anthrax isn't a "dormant disease." This particular anthrax outbreak, however, was from anthrax dormant while frozen in permafrost.
Little different than digging in mines, exploring caves. Or archaeology digs. Or deep sea exploring.
It just sounds "cool" because --- you know --- ice!
Well, ice is literally cool.
That does make a difference.