Just contradict whichever opinion is being stated? That's reasonable. Though it's a strategy rather than a universal response, so it's vulnerable to being taken out of context by dicks. Not that that matters, unless you write for a large audience or using your real name.
Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.
Not only that, but if people can go back and rewrite their words to sound more prefect, it encourages bad mental habits. Slashdot seems mostly free of the "social media is making you depressed" phenomena that have hit the news lately, and I suspect the inability to try to be perfect is a positive factor.
Not to mention how much nastier arguments can be when both people are constantly revising their comments to be more biting. Or am I projecting here?;)
Really? I find them to be sort of uninspired. Nothing's seriously wrong, but that off-center touchpad falsely detects a tap about twice a minute in the exact same spot. It's caused by the pad being in the same place as my palm. The keyboard layout is easy to mistype due to everything being so perfectly regular and square. A lot of key combinations are a real reach. The touchpad is kind of messed up for a gaming laptop, in that you can't tap while holding the arrow keys. You can enable this functionality, but only by setting the touchpad to insanely high sensitivity, which amps up the false click detection. The plastic flexes when I pick it up by a corner. Am I eventually going to damage some internal component?
It's pretty good, but it hasn't reached the pinacle yet.
You may have helped pay for the development, but publishing is a discretionary expense. Some agencies would say you can have it, but you need to pay for the manpower to get it into a publishable format. ($0.10 copying fee for a friendly and well-organized local government office, much much more for a query made by the FOIA which requires a lengthy search.)
I haven't actually heard of a super pricey information retrieval fee, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened.
So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?
It's not good enough to just say keep your mouth shut. What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?
LG phones are not. At least, the LG G4 had a nearly universal motherboard/CPU problem that caused phone death, and LG was extremely unhelpful with repairs. Going back in time, the LG Nexus 4 had a list of design problems as long as my arm, though if you were lucky enough to get a late iteration of the device, that may not have been a problem for you.
LG has not shown itself to be a trustworthy brand (to me personally), and even the three popular Chinese brands seem to produce a better product.
Android phones still have a better UI in many ways, but iOS will soon be finished copying all of Android's best features. When that happens (probably with the iPhone 8 and its soft buttons), there won't be much of a strong reason to prefer Android.
I'm speculating to some extent, but in many cases you don't actually WANT to see the pixels. You want to see a straight line where the pixels are actually jagged. You want to see smooth gradients, curves that curve, and circles that are the same thickness and smoothness at every angle.
Of course, this problem was mostly solved by anti-aliasing and hinting, but my point is that you need many more pixels than the eye can pick out.
And I'm less worried about all of them than those that attack the principle of free speech. Using the word "bigot" as a weapon, or even implying it, prevents free exchange of ideas. This falls under the umbrella of virtue-signalling, which is a more specific and useful term than "SJW".
There are plenty of people that smear others, both to win arguments and to show how righteous they are. To me, these people are the most toxic, because they are the wolf in sheep's clothing.
That's easily defeated using a timing attack (except measuring bandwidth instead of time). Unless they add random data to prevent that. Seems like a lot of trouble to accomplish something which would just get them in trouble.
If Mexico were trying to exterminate the US, it would be understandable that some Americans would think that way. Though not something that should be condoned, nor something that would actually be allowed to actually progress.
That might have made a lot of sense 60 years ago, but not today. You can't take a people's land because it wasn't historically theirs. It doesn't sound fair, but this is a problem without a solution. If you ejected the new residents, you would have to start by kicking most people out of North America.
Since you're enjoying painting similarities, perhaps you could tell us about the constant attempts by Mexico to demoralize, terrorize, and eventually destroy the United States?
Can't think of any? Israel/Palestine is NOTHING LIKE United States/Mexico.
Slashdot ate my longer comment, so I'll type the short version:
- The software is okay, but has some glaring problems. Still small enough, though. - The Nexus 4 and LG G4 had crippling problems that left me with a solid helping of contempt for those companies. (Funnily, both were made by LG, but Google signed off on the design so they are at fault as well.) - If I had to buy another phone, the brands I would look at are Huawei, OnePlus, and a distant third being Meizu or HTC.
Maybe if they didn't have such bad customer service, they wouldn't be bleeding customers.
(Every single LG G4 dies, from what I've been told by service people--the CPU or motherboard is severely defective. When I tried to get them to repair it, they tried to charge me more than the full value of the phone. That was clearly intended to make me buy a new phone. I did, but definitely not a phone made by LG.)
Is copyright considered an IP law? Because if it's not, software development doesn't need IP law. You don't need a patent to stop someone from ripping off your project.
Thank you for the link. However, it's not clear whether that law merely covers pretending to be someone's SO, or covers other types of trickery, such as when a woman falsely tells a date she's single or a man says he's two inches taller than he really is. I think we can agree that if I lie about my height, it does not remove consent.
Secondly, I don't think your example about boxing holds up. Being punched in the face is not an active action--it is passive. The only way someone actively participates in getting punched in the face is by forcefully slamming their head into someone's hand, and in that case, they surely consented by their action.
I'll say it again. Sex is not a contract. Hugging is not a contract. Helping someone carry a box is not a contract. Sitting down on a chair is not a contract.
I think there should be laws to cover this sort of situation. It would still not be rape--it's more like theft of services or failure to perform one's end of an agreement. (She fully consented, but it was part of a larger agreement, and that larger agreement was fraudulent, not the sex.)
Thanks for the correction. I'm all in favor of facts. However, it looks like that's a state law, and I'm not clear what the law actually says. Pretending to be someone's lover is way at one end of the spectrum (like having sex with a sleeping person), since they don't know they're having sex with you. At the other end, a someone says they're single but they really aren't, or that they're 2 cm taller than they really are. That article does not actually describe what type of deception would be considered rape.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
You didn't answer the question. Besides, sex is not a contract. Sex is an action. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "fraudulent sex".
There's been some sort of growth change as of late (I blame the hormones-infested meat the industry pushes into supermarkets). During the last two decades, I'll be darned if I can reliably tell whether that hot chick I see on the street is 24 or 14.
That's true, but it's not the same thing as pedophilia. Our society has the bad habit of treating someone exactly the same whether they sleep with a kid or a 17 year-old. Media is partly to blame, because "child" is a highly inflammatory term in the context of sexuality, so they overuse that term. The result now is that someone with a healthy brain who is attracted to young adults can end up being treated the same as someone with an abnormal brain (who is attracted to children). Our collective enjoyment of outrage is removing the nuance and shades of gray from life.
> That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system.
No, if there are proper mechanisms for the justice system to be adjusted, by definition that's part of the system. (I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's how the system was meant to function.) When lawyers decide to hold their punches, that's not part of the system. If I'm ever accused of a serious crime, I want my lawyer to do everything he can to make me look good and the prosecution look bad! If he doesn't, he's not doing his job. A lawyer's job isn't to be sweet. It's to follow the truth, obey the law, obey the current professional ethical guidelines, and to win the case. Otherwise justice isn't being served (according to the rules at the time).
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
That's quite a simplification. How about the fact that if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system? Our system is adversarial. Both sides are in a fight. Neither side of the American justice system is actually responsible for finding the truth. If one side holds their punches (doesn't do everything they can according to the legal standards at the time), it's a loss for justice. It's not an attorney's job to decide which tactics she is or is not willing to use. If she doesn't fight as hard as she can according to the standards at the time, she is perverting the justice system.
It's not the US that has better QA, it's the importer. If the item isn't purely generic (if it has a brand), nobody wants to bring a shoddy product into the market and tank their own business. If it's generic, then the global marketplace means it's very, very hard to get good quality from any source.
Slashdot Mirror
Just contradict whichever opinion is being stated? That's reasonable. Though it's a strategy rather than a universal response, so it's vulnerable to being taken out of context by dicks. Not that that matters, unless you write for a large audience or using your real name.
Not being able to edit posts is a feature. Being able to rewrite the history of a conversation is Orwellian.
Not only that, but if people can go back and rewrite their words to sound more prefect, it encourages bad mental habits. Slashdot seems mostly free of the "social media is making you depressed" phenomena that have hit the news lately, and I suspect the inability to try to be perfect is a positive factor.
Not to mention how much nastier arguments can be when both people are constantly revising their comments to be more biting. Or am I projecting here? ;)
Assassinations are always secret.
Try telling that to Alexander Litvinenko!
To clarify what hackwrench wrote, the researchers only changed the information. They did not add new information.
Really? I find them to be sort of uninspired. Nothing's seriously wrong, but that off-center touchpad falsely detects a tap about twice a minute in the exact same spot. It's caused by the pad being in the same place as my palm. The keyboard layout is easy to mistype due to everything being so perfectly regular and square. A lot of key combinations are a real reach. The touchpad is kind of messed up for a gaming laptop, in that you can't tap while holding the arrow keys. You can enable this functionality, but only by setting the touchpad to insanely high sensitivity, which amps up the false click detection. The plastic flexes when I pick it up by a corner. Am I eventually going to damage some internal component?
It's pretty good, but it hasn't reached the pinacle yet.
You may have helped pay for the development, but publishing is a discretionary expense. Some agencies would say you can have it, but you need to pay for the manpower to get it into a publishable format. ($0.10 copying fee for a friendly and well-organized local government office, much much more for a query made by the FOIA which requires a lengthy search.)
I haven't actually heard of a super pricey information retrieval fee, but I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened.
So what do you propose instead? Keep in mind that blaming the accused (before evidence or judgement is given) is basically as wrong as blaming the accuser. How do you express skepticism or withhold judgement in a way you see as correct?
It's not good enough to just say keep your mouth shut. What's the right thing to say when one of your friends states that either the accuser or the accused has done Horrible Things?
LG phones are not. At least, the LG G4 had a nearly universal motherboard/CPU problem that caused phone death, and LG was extremely unhelpful with repairs. Going back in time, the LG Nexus 4 had a list of design problems as long as my arm, though if you were lucky enough to get a late iteration of the device, that may not have been a problem for you.
LG has not shown itself to be a trustworthy brand (to me personally), and even the three popular Chinese brands seem to produce a better product.
Android phones still have a better UI in many ways, but iOS will soon be finished copying all of Android's best features. When that happens (probably with the iPhone 8 and its soft buttons), there won't be much of a strong reason to prefer Android.
I'm speculating to some extent, but in many cases you don't actually WANT to see the pixels. You want to see a straight line where the pixels are actually jagged. You want to see smooth gradients, curves that curve, and circles that are the same thickness and smoothness at every angle.
Of course, this problem was mostly solved by anti-aliasing and hinting, but my point is that you need many more pixels than the eye can pick out.
And I'm less worried about all of them than those that attack the principle of free speech. Using the word "bigot" as a weapon, or even implying it, prevents free exchange of ideas. This falls under the umbrella of virtue-signalling, which is a more specific and useful term than "SJW".
There are plenty of people that smear others, both to win arguments and to show how righteous they are. To me, these people are the most toxic, because they are the wolf in sheep's clothing.
That's easily defeated using a timing attack (except measuring bandwidth instead of time). Unless they add random data to prevent that. Seems like a lot of trouble to accomplish something which would just get them in trouble.
If Mexico were trying to exterminate the US, it would be understandable that some Americans would think that way. Though not something that should be condoned, nor something that would actually be allowed to actually progress.
That might have made a lot of sense 60 years ago, but not today. You can't take a people's land because it wasn't historically theirs. It doesn't sound fair, but this is a problem without a solution. If you ejected the new residents, you would have to start by kicking most people out of North America.
Since you're enjoying painting similarities, perhaps you could tell us about the constant attempts by Mexico to demoralize, terrorize, and eventually destroy the United States?
Can't think of any? Israel/Palestine is NOTHING LIKE United States/Mexico.
Slashdot ate my longer comment, so I'll type the short version:
- The software is okay, but has some glaring problems. Still small enough, though.
- The Nexus 4 and LG G4 had crippling problems that left me with a solid helping of contempt for those companies. (Funnily, both were made by LG, but Google signed off on the design so they are at fault as well.)
- If I had to buy another phone, the brands I would look at are Huawei, OnePlus, and a distant third being Meizu or HTC.
Is 2% alcohol bacteriostatic? Because it's damn sure not antimicrobial.
Maybe if they didn't have such bad customer service, they wouldn't be bleeding customers.
(Every single LG G4 dies, from what I've been told by service people--the CPU or motherboard is severely defective. When I tried to get them to repair it, they tried to charge me more than the full value of the phone. That was clearly intended to make me buy a new phone. I did, but definitely not a phone made by LG.)
Is copyright considered an IP law? Because if it's not, software development doesn't need IP law. You don't need a patent to stop someone from ripping off your project.
Thank you for the link. However, it's not clear whether that law merely covers pretending to be someone's SO, or covers other types of trickery, such as when a woman falsely tells a date she's single or a man says he's two inches taller than he really is. I think we can agree that if I lie about my height, it does not remove consent.
Secondly, I don't think your example about boxing holds up. Being punched in the face is not an active action--it is passive. The only way someone actively participates in getting punched in the face is by forcefully slamming their head into someone's hand, and in that case, they surely consented by their action.
I'll say it again. Sex is not a contract. Hugging is not a contract. Helping someone carry a box is not a contract. Sitting down on a chair is not a contract.
I think there should be laws to cover this sort of situation. It would still not be rape--it's more like theft of services or failure to perform one's end of an agreement. (She fully consented, but it was part of a larger agreement, and that larger agreement was fraudulent, not the sex.)
Thanks for the correction. I'm all in favor of facts. However, it looks like that's a state law, and I'm not clear what the law actually says. Pretending to be someone's lover is way at one end of the spectrum (like having sex with a sleeping person), since they don't know they're having sex with you. At the other end, a someone says they're single but they really aren't, or that they're 2 cm taller than they really are. That article does not actually describe what type of deception would be considered rape.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
You didn't answer the question. Besides, sex is not a contract. Sex is an action. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "fraudulent sex".
There's been some sort of growth change as of late (I blame the hormones-infested meat the industry pushes into supermarkets). During the last two decades, I'll be darned if I can reliably tell whether that hot chick I see on the street is 24 or 14.
That's true, but it's not the same thing as pedophilia. Our society has the bad habit of treating someone exactly the same whether they sleep with a kid or a 17 year-old. Media is partly to blame, because "child" is a highly inflammatory term in the context of sexuality, so they overuse that term. The result now is that someone with a healthy brain who is attracted to young adults can end up being treated the same as someone with an abnormal brain (who is attracted to children). Our collective enjoyment of outrage is removing the nuance and shades of gray from life.
> That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system.
No, if there are proper mechanisms for the justice system to be adjusted, by definition that's part of the system. (I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's how the system was meant to function.) When lawyers decide to hold their punches, that's not part of the system. If I'm ever accused of a serious crime, I want my lawyer to do everything he can to make me look good and the prosecution look bad! If he doesn't, he's not doing his job. A lawyer's job isn't to be sweet. It's to follow the truth, obey the law, obey the current professional ethical guidelines, and to win the case. Otherwise justice isn't being served (according to the rules at the time).
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
That's quite a simplification. How about the fact that if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system? Our system is adversarial. Both sides are in a fight. Neither side of the American justice system is actually responsible for finding the truth. If one side holds their punches (doesn't do everything they can according to the legal standards at the time), it's a loss for justice. It's not an attorney's job to decide which tactics she is or is not willing to use. If she doesn't fight as hard as she can according to the standards at the time, she is perverting the justice system.
It's not the US that has better QA, it's the importer. If the item isn't purely generic (if it has a brand), nobody wants to bring a shoddy product into the market and tank their own business. If it's generic, then the global marketplace means it's very, very hard to get good quality from any source.