At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice.
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice.
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
Don't even try to tell me this site isn't dedicated to facebook news for conservatives.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
Don't even try to tell me this site isn't dedicated to facebook news for conservatives.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar; doing so, you will find precisely 2 facebook stories from this week; 2 / 3 != 1 per day.
For last week, 5, except 3 of the 5 aren't actually about facebook directly - 2 / 7 != 1 per day, either.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence. Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own or STFU (or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
For example, by typing "facebook" into/.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence.
Just because you disagree with something does not automatically make it "outrageous".
Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own
Here's a source for you [slashdot.org]. Just keep scrolling back through the old front page stories and count 'em up. You have access to the same data I am citing, you are just choosing not to look at it.
or STFU
Wow, how very kind you are.
(or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
You are the one who is throwing labels on statements you disagree with. If you choose not to read the front page, I cannot change your choice for you.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Do you even know what site you are looking at, or are
Naw, I think it's about the indirect "Facebook Placement" that's starting to creep in that is bugging people. Let's try a few titles:
Well, IMO, those people are kinda dumb.
Facebook is a 'big fish' when it comes to many, many internet related issues, so of course they get mentioned. Complaining about facebook's presence in internet-related articles is akin to bitching about the press mentioning GM or Ford in automotive related stories, or Apple when talking about smartphones - they're the big dogs; of course they're going to be in focus. It in no way is any sort of indication of a "pro-[insert company here]" slant or preference, it's a
We just had a chance to ask Steve Wozniak, the actual person, any questions we wanted. And he responded. Here. We have articles about the Mars rovers and actual scientists who are working on them respond. We have some highly intelligent debate that illuminate issues deeply.
Yes, there is a lot of crap and the gems seem fewer and fewer... but you are absolutely correct. He/she/it needs to provide proof for their claims.
The Woz QA was largely a one off though wasn't it? When was the last time we got to ask questions of anyone of his calibre?
I agree regarding science articles, they're one of the few areas where Slashdot still does well, but computing articles? politics? They're just full of bollocks now.
I suppose it's possibly because both computing and politics are rife with fanboys, whereas science is less polluted by these sorts of mindless drones, but certainly the level of computing discussion has grossly declined. It'
Granted, the chance to ask famous (not because they are famous but because they are interesting) people interesting questions is rather rare but certainly not a one off. John Carmack is another interesting person who used to post here. I still remember his response to an OpenGL vs DirectX debate. How can you argue with a man whose fortunes were made working directly with such topics? Of course, all answers should be viewed with skepticism.
I do agree with you about the computing and political topics. Even wo
Presumably you'd have to rely on things like number of citations for comments if you were going to try something like that fully automated.
But I honestly think the only way to really do it would be to manually go through and calculate the ratio of demonstrably correct posts modded to +5, to subjective posts modded to +5, to demonstrably wrong posts modded to +5 or something like that.
Even then it's still not going to be easy and will still not exactly be entirely scientific. You'd also need a decent sample
You kind of missed the point of my offer. The most you could use a script for is to pull all +4 comments and higher... but a human still needs to evaluate them... and humans seem to change their evaluations based on the time of month and how much coffee they had this morning.
Hm. Perhaps we could do a Slashdot style moderation system on all of those comments and have everyone moderate them: +1 insightful, -1 fallacious (fellatious shills) logic, +1 coherent, etc. Perhaps the gems could be sorted that way?
Turn off your ad block, then count the anti-Obama ads that show up on the slashdot front page.
All I ever see are ads for IBM, barracuda, and Intel. Can't say I've ever seen any political ads on/. (maybe back during the early primaries), and I don't use adblock. Methinks you're the victim of targeted advertising, Mr. Swing-State.
I get the same thing. Mostly hardware ads. I think he's a 'victim' of targeted advertising. IOW, flies are drawn to shit. Obviously these advertisers know an easy to manipulate a moron when they see one.
Regardless... You're still a fool to think that 'ideology' in advertising is anything more than a tactic to separate you from your money. It just convinces me that you are the one trolling/flaming, trying to draw a crowd, with your 'conservative' nonsense. It deserves nothing but ridicule.
Believing that making money is the most important thing in the world, and Trumps [*] any other moral consideration IS an ideology, it's just that as a conservative/right wing loon you can't see it.
HAHAHAHA.. me.. 'conservative'!.... OH murrrrrderrr!... That's a good one... The idea of 'morality' in business... That's even better... You're killing me here... FOX has all of you people completely wrapped around their little finger real good. Speaking of which, pull the other one. Your mental handicaps are quite the spectacle. A great start to a new day.... Thanks, you guys! Keep it coming.
Get yourself an education, and watch more Animal Planet. You might actually learn something.
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Indeed. I first noticed this syndrome with MUDs back in the day. Imms would come or go; changes to gameplay would be made, and players would inevitably pine for the golden days that never really were.
Imagine my shock when I found out this applied to every facet of life.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
If you think that's all it is, you have not been paying attention. Informed, well-reasoned disagreements are part of what made/. what it is, or was perhaps. Sadly, those have been largely supplanted by ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements. So yeah, even though it's to be expected as more and more of the retards find their way here, it is still lamentable. Wading through the dross, to get to something interesting/insightful/informative, grows more wearisome with each passing week, it seems.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
If you think that's all it is, you have not been paying attention. Informed, well-reasoned disagreements are part of what made/. what it is, or was perhaps. Sadly, those have been largely supplanted by ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements. So yeah, even though it's to be expected as more and more of the retards find their way here, it is still lamentable. Wading through the dross, to get to something interesting/insightful/informative, grows more wearisome with each passing week, it seems.
Again, I've heard this argument many, many times over the past decade of following Slashdot, and not a soul, yourself included, has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever of any deviation from the norm.
If you honestly believe "ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements" are a new concept to Slashdot (or even humanity in general), I propose that perhaps you are the one who hasn't been paying enough attention.
Well if you want evidence, then to me one example is how infrequently some of Slashdot's finest members post now. Go look at Carmack's account, or Woz's (though Woz's may be skewed by his recent special Q&A now) and compare to historic trends for them.
Honestly, you only have to look at the accounts of some of most historically interesting and insightful people to see they've long left. Pretending the evidence isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't.
Sure Slashdot has always had 'tard arguments, but the proble
If you think that's all it is, you have not been paying attention. Informed, well-reasoned disagreements are part of what made/. what it is, or was perhaps. Sadly, those have been largely supplanted by ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements.
Nah. The same crap has been going on about as long as I've been perusing Slashdot (well over a decade). And for about the same amount of time people have been bitching about it and claiming it heralds the imminent demise of the site.
I agree the site has been declining reddit and mashable have been really up to date faster. I used to say I don't be leave it until it's on slashdot. Not anymore half the time slashdot misses the stories for stupid blog post. The site has hanging while taco was hear now not that much anymore.
[A computer is] like an Old Testament god, with a lot of rules and no mercy.
-- Joseph Campbell
Interesting navel gazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Re:Interesting navel gazing (Score:5, Interesting)
At least he recognizes that the site was in decline when it was sold. Some might criticize him for not doubling down and putting himself back in to it, but he made his choice. Welcome to the new slashdot - facebook news for conservatives.
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Re:Interesting navel gazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Go ahead, don't just make claims like that. Back them up with actual links. I want you to show me a consistent, frequent pattern of what you have just stated.
No, you have to show that this is the case. You have yet to do so.
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar; doing so, you will find precisely 2 facebook stories from this week; 2 / 3 != 1 per day.
For last week, 5, except 3 of the 5 aren't actually about facebook directly - 2 / 7 != 1 per day, either.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since ... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence. Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own or STFU (or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, by typing "facebook" into /.'s built in search bar
That was your first mistake, you assumed that for some reason the search bar on slashdot would work. That thing hasn't worked right since ... well possibly ever. It misses far more than it gets right.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims and failing to back said claims with evidence.
Just because you disagree with something does not automatically make it "outrageous".
Don't like the source I cite? Provide your own
Here's a source for you [slashdot.org]. Just keep scrolling back through the old front page stories and count 'em up. You have access to the same data I am citing, you are just choosing not to look at it.
or STFU
Wow, how very kind you are.
(or get seen as the nonsensical troll you're currently coming off as).
You are the one who is throwing labels on statements you disagree with. If you choose not to read the front page, I cannot change your choice for you.
Sadly, disproving the aforementioned theory probably took far less time than damn_registrars spent positing it.
Although it appears you don't understand the concept of a theory, either. Please hand in your geek card on your way out the door.
It appears you don't know the difference between literary and scientific definition.
Do you even know what site you are looking at, or are
Re:about facebook directly (Score:2, Troll)
Naw, I think it's about the indirect "Facebook Placement" that's starting to creep in that is bugging people. Let's try a few titles:
Why Are We So Rude Online? - and of all of "Online", we get: "For example, a study found that browsing Facebook tends to lower people's self control."
What Happened To Diaspora, the Facebook Killer? It's Complicated
How Noah Kagan Got Fired From Facebook and Lost $100 Million
WTFM: Write the Freaking Manual - and of all "tech giants" we get "Google (Go), Twitter (Bootstrap), Face
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, I think it's about the indirect "Facebook Placement" that's starting to creep in that is bugging people. Let's try a few titles:
Well, IMO, those people are kinda dumb.
Facebook is a 'big fish' when it comes to many, many internet related issues, so of course they get mentioned. Complaining about facebook's presence in internet-related articles is akin to bitching about the press mentioning GM or Ford in automotive related stories, or Apple when talking about smartphones - they're the big dogs; of course they're going to be in focus. It in no way is any sort of indication of a "pro-[insert company here]" slant or preference, it's a
Re:Interesting navel gazing (Score:5, Insightful)
We just had a chance to ask Steve Wozniak, the actual person, any questions we wanted. And he responded. Here. We have articles about the Mars rovers and actual scientists who are working on them respond. We have some highly intelligent debate that illuminate issues deeply.
Yes, there is a lot of crap and the gems seem fewer and fewer... but you are absolutely correct. He/she/it needs to provide proof for their claims.
Re: (Score:2)
The Woz QA was largely a one off though wasn't it? When was the last time we got to ask questions of anyone of his calibre?
I agree regarding science articles, they're one of the few areas where Slashdot still does well, but computing articles? politics? They're just full of bollocks now.
I suppose it's possibly because both computing and politics are rife with fanboys, whereas science is less polluted by these sorts of mindless drones, but certainly the level of computing discussion has grossly declined. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, the chance to ask famous (not because they are famous but because they are interesting) people interesting questions is rather rare but certainly not a one off. John Carmack is another interesting person who used to post here. I still remember his response to an OpenGL vs DirectX debate. How can you argue with a man whose fortunes were made working directly with such topics? Of course, all answers should be viewed with skepticism.
I do agree with you about the computing and political topics. Even wo
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably you'd have to rely on things like number of citations for comments if you were going to try something like that fully automated.
But I honestly think the only way to really do it would be to manually go through and calculate the ratio of demonstrably correct posts modded to +5, to subjective posts modded to +5, to demonstrably wrong posts modded to +5 or something like that.
Even then it's still not going to be easy and will still not exactly be entirely scientific. You'd also need a decent sample
Re: (Score:2)
You kind of missed the point of my offer. The most you could use a script for is to pull all +4 comments and higher... but a human still needs to evaluate them... and humans seem to change their evaluations based on the time of month and how much coffee they had this morning.
Hm. Perhaps we could do a Slashdot style moderation system on all of those comments and have everyone moderate them: +1 insightful, -1 fallacious (fellatious shills) logic, +1 coherent, etc. Perhaps the gems could be sorted that way?
We
Re: (Score:1)
Man, you are such a goof. There is no 'liberal/conservative' in the advertising business.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you are such a goof. There is no 'liberal/conservative' in the advertising business.
Turn off your ad block, then count the anti-Obama ads that show up on the slashdot front page.
Then, go troll someone else. You weren't interesting the last time you trolled me.
Re: (Score:1)
So what if there's anti Obama ads in there? It's business, not ideology that keeps this site afloat. Get over it, you dweeb.
Re: (Score:1)
Turn off your ad block, then count the anti-Obama ads that show up on the slashdot front page.
All I ever see are ads for IBM, barracuda, and Intel. Can't say I've ever seen any political ads on /. (maybe back during the early primaries), and I don't use adblock. Methinks you're the victim of targeted advertising, Mr. Swing-State.
Re: (Score:1)
I get the same thing. Mostly hardware ads. I think he's a 'victim' of targeted advertising. IOW, flies are drawn to shit. Obviously these advertisers know an easy to manipulate a moron when they see one.
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks you're the victim of targeted advertising, Mr. Swing-State.
The only states less likely to swing than the one I live in are Texas and Illinois - and not by much. So no, I am not in a swing state.
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless... You're still a fool to think that 'ideology' in advertising is anything more than a tactic to separate you from your money. It just convinces me that you are the one trolling/flaming, trying to draw a crowd, with your 'conservative' nonsense. It deserves nothing but ridicule.
Re: (Score:2)
[*] pun intended
Re: (Score:1)
HAHAHAHA.. me.. 'conservative'!.... OH murrrrrderrr!... That's a good one... The idea of 'morality' in business... That's even better... You're killing me here... FOX has all of you people completely wrapped around their little finger real good. Speaking of which, pull the other one. Your mental handicaps are quite the spectacle. A great start to a new day.... Thanks, you guys! Keep it coming.
Get yourself an education, and watch more Animal Planet. You might actually learn something.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we have to actually have an inteligent argument to make our case.
Priceless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The behavior would be astonishing, if I weren't as well versed in human nature.
Indeed. I first noticed this syndrome with MUDs back in the day. Imms would come or go; changes to gameplay would be made, and players would inevitably pine for the golden days that never really were.
Imagine my shock when I found out this applied to every facet of life.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
If you think that's all it is, you have not been paying attention. Informed, well-reasoned disagreements are part of what made /. what it is, or was perhaps. Sadly, those have been largely supplanted by ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements. So yeah, even though it's to be expected as more and more of the retards find their way here, it is still lamentable. Wading through the dross, to get to something interesting/insightful/informative, grows more wearisome with each passing week, it seems.
Re:Interesting navel gazing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, I've been seeing that strawman pop up here pretty much daily for the last decade: "Oh, there's a bunch of posters with whom I disagree, Slashdot is falling apart, becoming a haven for the [insert group you don't like]!
If you think that's all it is, you have not been paying attention. Informed, well-reasoned disagreements are part of what made /. what it is, or was perhaps. Sadly, those have been largely supplanted by ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements. So yeah, even though it's to be expected as more and more of the retards find their way here, it is still lamentable. Wading through the dross, to get to something interesting/insightful/informative, grows more wearisome with each passing week, it seems.
Again, I've heard this argument many, many times over the past decade of following Slashdot, and not a soul, yourself included, has been able to provide any evidence whatsoever of any deviation from the norm.
If you honestly believe "ill-informed and logically flawed disagreements" are a new concept to Slashdot (or even humanity in general), I propose that perhaps you are the one who hasn't been paying enough attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you want evidence, then to me one example is how infrequently some of Slashdot's finest members post now. Go look at Carmack's account, or Woz's (though Woz's may be skewed by his recent special Q&A now) and compare to historic trends for them.
Honestly, you only have to look at the accounts of some of most historically interesting and insightful people to see they've long left. Pretending the evidence isn't there, doesn't mean it isn't.
Sure Slashdot has always had 'tard arguments, but the proble
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. The same crap has been going on about as long as I've been perusing Slashdot (well over a decade). And for about the same amount of time people have been bitching about it and claiming it heralds the imminent demise of the site.
The reality is this: Slas
Re: (Score:1)