I've heard many stories of people going back for degrees to get a certain kind of job, and then not being able to find what they were looking for. I think the best way to break in to a field is to jump into something close to what you want to do, but without heavy experience requirements, and then excel and move up.
A lot of what you learn in school is a waste of time, and can be learned faster on your own and on the job, by being close to the people doing actual work.
I'm behind on my Slashdot reading, but I wanted to offer you a supportive comment even if it isn't timely. You're right, the original poster only read the summary and got modded up for a stupid comment based on not RTFA.
That said, your comment contained more insult than explanation (yeah he didn't RFTA, but point out the discrepancy in his argument). The more inflammatory your message, the less likely it will be considered. I know, it's tempting to flame, and I do it myself now and then, but not nearly as much as I've used to. It's amazing how much better a response you get by just sticking to the argument and not attacking the person, even if it means ignoring insults thrown your way.
Using standard AA batteries is a better choice. Rechargables are good and cheap, and you can keep spare ones charged and ready to use. Using a specialized battery means you'll have to replace it when it wears out.
Re:The 360 is console done right, Wii is console .
on
Two Weeks with the Wii
·
· Score: 1
But like I said, it [achievements] works. I can't even explain why it's important but for some reason I feel it is, and I know others who do.
Yes, it's very popular. I've heard it described as "brilliant". Personally, it doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm actually annoyed when the game distracts me with it's "Achievement Unlocked" message. Mostly it's harmless though.
What really annoys me is how loud the DVD drive is when it's playing a game.
Not that I have a solution, I'd be out getting rich if I did.
So you're just a complainer with no solutions. If the frog knew he was being boiled alive he could just jump out of the water. We know we're being boiled alive but there's no easy "jump out of the water", hence the current subpar solutions.
This is the kicker. In order to be a moderator, you must have a positive karma, which means you must post comments that contribute to the slashdot groupthink.
That's just not true. It is not hard to have positive karma at all. It's really the posters who have contrarian opinions and insist on expressing them in very negative manner that get modded down. Personal attacks, vulgar words, etc. Sure, sometimes reasonable posts get modded down, but mostly it's just the assholes. That's why lots of people post anonymously to take swipes.
Do I not, on the contrary, have a duty to remove information which I know to be false or misleading by downmodding?
I would say no, you have no such duty, and are doing more harm than good. I would rather you mod a post that refutes it up, and in fact you see this often on Slashdot.
If the original wrong information was modded up, it means that others are thinking the same thing. It isn't better to suppress this thought. Rather, it's better to raise the question and then answer it.
Except despite your hyperbole, there's plenty of diverse and intelligent opinions to be found. Your Slashdot-groupthink bashing has become a meme itself. Yay recursion and meta!
There's plenty of criticisms of Wikipedia that only become apparent when you've had something to do with Wikipedia. A lot of them, though, wouldn't have been so bad if Wikipedia wasn't striving to be accurate.
Wikipedia is good because they try to maintain standards. It would not be the same success it is now without it.
Of course there will always be controversy over whether some article should have been deleted. However, on the whole, the site functions extremely well. I'd say the vast majority of articles being deleted are really by a self-interested party trying to advertise themselves for whatever reason.
And if your little page gets deleted? Host your own! If you feel like you need to be officially endorsed by Wikipedia, there's a good chance you shouldn't be.
Wikipedia is probably more a threat to Yahoo and even Google than anyone else.
There's an internet outside of Wikipedia. I use Google all the time to search it. I never start my search at Wikipedia, though I may throw in wiki as a keyword to get there. Wikipedia is not a threat to Google or even the Washington Post (do you go to Wikipedia for news?)
I wouldn't mind if Wik was commercialised.
That would really suck. It's nice that it is run by volunteers not bent on making a profit. I don't want advertisements when I read the site.
If Wikipedia ever went down, it would be like Google going down.
No way. The internet was and still is chock full of information that separate people and organizations maintain. I often use wiki as a first source (usually by attaching "wiki" to my Google search), but there are always alternative sources.
From your examples: Want to find the meaning of leet? Google keywords: glossary leet. Similar results for all the other topics you name.
Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is useful resource, but saying stuff like "the web would become almost unusable" is huge overstatement.
Except that top CEO pay isn't based on merit. It's a good ol' boy club. Do you really think the qualifications for a CEO are so amazingly high that they are worth hundreds of millions? And then when they fail, they're given golden parachutes?
If you started your own company, you deserve the riches. CEOs are just a bunch of thieves taking huge amounts of money off the top of public corporations.
Sure, Linux takes more steps to prevent this, but still.
No, it doesn't. Nothing in Linux prevents you from downloading a random binary and running it. The fact that it won't take over as root is meaningless, since all the privileges need for a botnet (or to steal your bank password) are already available as a normal user.
Your main point is right on. Linux is only more secure because it is more obscure. I would hope, though, that if Linux did become as popular as Windows that the community would have come up with better solutions by now.
This is a good example of why wikis do not make for good conversation places. Slashdot has it right. Once you make a comment it should not be edited. Wikipedia should really move to an environment dedicated to holding conversations.
The problem is they have a shiny hammer and see nails everywhere.
And given his position, he should also lead by example, and not lavish himself with billionaire toys at retirement. No head of a public company should be getting $100 million in pay. It's just an insane good ol' boy club.
Another article that this happens a lot with is the "Muhammad" article. No muslim will let *any* historical artwork depicting Muhummad on that page as its against their religion.
I think that sucks, but at least the page links to depictions, so they haven't totally whimped out.
And why are people always actively destroying their own credit, revenu and business in search for some unattainable monopoly?
Many companies only start making money when they turn into bastards. First they build something valuable upon goodwill, and then actually turn it into profit by abusing that goodwill.
The argument is sound, even if the particular example of Fox News is biased to the Slashdot audience. All sources have bias, and the original poster never said that CNN wasn't. I think the statement "It's a good idea, but why limit it to Wikipedia, it should just be built into the browser itself." makes this pretty clear.
I've seen plenty of reasonable comments discussing the pros and cons of a charitable foundation with a built-in expire time (an interesting and newsworth idea). In fact, yours was the first comment I ran across that was modded up and was a one-sided, emotional attack. If anybody is projecting, it's you.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard many stories of people going back for degrees to get a certain kind of job, and then not being able to find what they were looking for. I think the best way to break in to a field is to jump into something close to what you want to do, but without heavy experience requirements, and then excel and move up.
A lot of what you learn in school is a waste of time, and can be learned faster on your own and on the job, by being close to the people doing actual work.
And maybe a very smart child could turn the question around and ask you to write a machine-checkable, formal proof off the top of your head.
Nobody thought of Apple and music players together before the iPod.
I'm behind on my Slashdot reading, but I wanted to offer you a supportive comment even if it isn't timely. You're right, the original poster only read the summary and got modded up for a stupid comment based on not RTFA.
That said, your comment contained more insult than explanation (yeah he didn't RFTA, but point out the discrepancy in his argument). The more inflammatory your message, the less likely it will be considered. I know, it's tempting to flame, and I do it myself now and then, but not nearly as much as I've used to. It's amazing how much better a response you get by just sticking to the argument and not attacking the person, even if it means ignoring insults thrown your way.
Using standard AA batteries is a better choice. Rechargables are good and cheap, and you can keep spare ones charged and ready to use. Using a specialized battery means you'll have to replace it when it wears out.
Yes, it's very popular. I've heard it described as "brilliant". Personally, it doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm actually annoyed when the game distracts me with it's "Achievement Unlocked" message. Mostly it's harmless though.
What really annoys me is how loud the DVD drive is when it's playing a game.
So you're just a complainer with no solutions. If the frog knew he was being boiled alive he could just jump out of the water. We know we're being boiled alive but there's no easy "jump out of the water", hence the current subpar solutions.
That's just not true. It is not hard to have positive karma at all. It's really the posters who have contrarian opinions and insist on expressing them in very negative manner that get modded down. Personal attacks, vulgar words, etc. Sure, sometimes reasonable posts get modded down, but mostly it's just the assholes. That's why lots of people post anonymously to take swipes.
I would say no, you have no such duty, and are doing more harm than good. I would rather you mod a post that refutes it up, and in fact you see this often on Slashdot.
If the original wrong information was modded up, it means that others are thinking the same thing. It isn't better to suppress this thought. Rather, it's better to raise the question and then answer it.
Except despite your hyperbole, there's plenty of diverse and intelligent opinions to be found. Your Slashdot-groupthink bashing has become a meme itself. Yay recursion and meta!
Wikipedia is good because they try to maintain standards. It would not be the same success it is now without it.
Of course there will always be controversy over whether some article should have been deleted. However, on the whole, the site functions extremely well. I'd say the vast majority of articles being deleted are really by a self-interested party trying to advertise themselves for whatever reason.
And if your little page gets deleted? Host your own! If you feel like you need to be officially endorsed by Wikipedia, there's a good chance you shouldn't be.
There's an internet outside of Wikipedia. I use Google all the time to search it. I never start my search at Wikipedia, though I may throw in wiki as a keyword to get there. Wikipedia is not a threat to Google or even the Washington Post (do you go to Wikipedia for news?)
That would really suck. It's nice that it is run by volunteers not bent on making a profit. I don't want advertisements when I read the site.
No way. The internet was and still is chock full of information that separate people and organizations maintain. I often use wiki as a first source (usually by attaching "wiki" to my Google search), but there are always alternative sources.
From your examples: Want to find the meaning of leet? Google keywords: glossary leet. Similar results for all the other topics you name.
Don't get me wrong, Wikipedia is useful resource, but saying stuff like "the web would become almost unusable" is huge overstatement.
I really don't understand your point. How would you have phrased the grandparent's post?
Except that top CEO pay isn't based on merit. It's a good ol' boy club. Do you really think the qualifications for a CEO are so amazingly high that they are worth hundreds of millions? And then when they fail, they're given golden parachutes?
If you started your own company, you deserve the riches. CEOs are just a bunch of thieves taking huge amounts of money off the top of public corporations.
Botnet operators aren't trolls. And your admonishments don't matter to either.
No, it doesn't. Nothing in Linux prevents you from downloading a random binary and running it. The fact that it won't take over as root is meaningless, since all the privileges need for a botnet (or to steal your bank password) are already available as a normal user.
Your main point is right on. Linux is only more secure because it is more obscure. I would hope, though, that if Linux did become as popular as Windows that the community would have come up with better solutions by now.
You were modded funny, but I would have gone with "petty & unethical".
This is a good example of why wikis do not make for good conversation places. Slashdot has it right. Once you make a comment it should not be edited. Wikipedia should really move to an environment dedicated to holding conversations.
The problem is they have a shiny hammer and see nails everywhere.
And given his position, he should also lead by example, and not lavish himself with billionaire toys at retirement. No head of a public company should be getting $100 million in pay. It's just an insane good ol' boy club.
I think that sucks, but at least the page links to depictions, so they haven't totally whimped out.
Many companies only start making money when they turn into bastards. First they build something valuable upon goodwill, and then actually turn it into profit by abusing that goodwill.
The argument is sound, even if the particular example of Fox News is biased to the Slashdot audience. All sources have bias, and the original poster never said that CNN wasn't. I think the statement "It's a good idea, but why limit it to Wikipedia, it should just be built into the browser itself." makes this pretty clear.
The painting would have your copyright, not the list itself.
I've seen plenty of reasonable comments discussing the pros and cons of a charitable foundation with a built-in expire time (an interesting and newsworth idea). In fact, yours was the first comment I ran across that was modded up and was a one-sided, emotional attack. If anybody is projecting, it's you.