Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

damn_registrars's Journal: This time I don't mind the "redundant" mod 50

Journal by damn_registrars
I see the "Linux Sucks" video made the front page (a few days late) here on slashdot today. Along with many others, I chimed in that the trend of videos instead of text is fucking stupid (and honestly an insult to our intelligence). I was happy to see that many others made similar complaints over the matter.

Not that I expect it to make a difference, as people still seem to get jollies posting videos of themselves saying crap on youtube regardless, but it is good to see that I'm not alone on the matter. I'm just waiting now to see if this hack is running for office and got the shitty idea that way.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This time I don't mind the "redundant" mod

Comments Filter:
  • It saves time. I don't have to click on some idiotic link when I see that it goes to Youtube.

    • The issue isn't so much video as such, but rather the lack of editing.
      If going to the trouble of video, give me a script and some decent utilization of the form.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        And a transcript, or a link to a transcript.

      • If going to the trouble of video, give me a script and some decent utilization of the form.

        It seems as of late that many people use video to avoid editing, fact checking, and coherent thoughts (the format also brings the bonus of fulling occupying peoples' attention and wasting as much of their time as possible). With that in mind, it is hard to imagine why they would bother editing in general.

        The reason why I am irked that no transcript has been made available for this video in particular though is that from my understanding this was a conference presentation that he gave. More so it seems

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        The need for editing is there in both text and video. The problem is that people are using the wrong medium for their presentations. Videos are often the best way to present information, here's [youtube.com] one where a video is very effective, it impressed me. But if all you have is words, don't make a video!

        I always suspect that people making talking head videos are illiterate, or aliterate at the very least. And as Twain pointed out, someone who doesn't read has no advantage over someone who can't read.

        • I always suspect that people making talking head videos are illiterate, or aliterate at the very least. And as Twain pointed out, someone who doesn't read has no advantage over someone who can't read.

          There is undoubtedly no shortage of poorly read people posting their unsourced ideas via youtube. I will continue to argue though that part of the reason why they do that is not because they don't know what they are doing, or even that they are inherently lazy. I believe that for a lot of people video is the choice medium for this because it holds the full attention of the audience - preventing them from doing anything else useful at the same time - and because it is more useful for establishing mantras.

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            I believe that for a lot of people video is the choice medium for this because it holds the full attention of the audience - preventing them from doing anything else useful at the same time

            I don't doubt that there are people posting videos for that reason, but those people surely are not readers, as they would know that reading is a solitary thing but watching a video is not; people talk while watching videos, taking attention away from the video, but that doesn't happen when you're reading -- reading has

      • by gmhowell (26755)

        The issue isn't so much video as such, but rather the lack of editing.

        If going to the trouble of video, give me a script and some decent utilization of the form.

        I think you've hit on it here. Video can add something. I watch a ton of motorcycle repair videos precisely because the video adds to the text of the shop manual. But I find that often the five minute video is better than the 15, as the former has spend up redundant parts, eliminated pointless pauses, etc.

        • My stock review of any book/movie/play, irrespective of medium, is that it would have been twice as good if it was half as long.
          • My stock review of any book/movie/play, irrespective of medium, is that it would have been twice as good if it was half as long.

            But of course, if we are talking about a report of an investigation fueled by a conspiracy theory (itself fueled by nothing better than rumors) then the result should be at least 8 times longer than any investigation that was not fueled by bias, right?

            • One of the most impressive things about [pjmedia.com] "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi" [nytimes.com] is its detail. The long piece is divided into six chapters, from "Warning Signs" through "Bedlam" and "Aftermath." It is accompanied by dramatic photographs, maps, and schematic drawings. The internet version boasts various animated graphics. The essay practically screams: "Please consider me for a Pultizer!"
              I doubt that will happen, partly because the ink was not yet dry on the fish-wrap before its central contentions were authoritatively disputed, and partly because the abundance of detail is little more than an insubstantial smokescreen.

              Read the whole denunciation at PJ Media.
              I could get more value in less time from Dr. Effing Seuss than the Gray Lady, with or without Abramson. While I will defend your right to enjoy a kidney-load in the face, that's not how I roll, sir.

              • If I understand your point correctly, you are quoting a partisan source as somehow being qualified - in spite of doing no actual intelligence work themselves - to debunk the facts detailed in the investigation that is laid out in the NYTimes report. The problem here - same as it has been all along - is that you are insisting that the people who did an investigation somehow "did it all wrong" in spite of the complete and total absence of anything to support such an assertion.

                I presume that - as before -
                • To your benefit, you have a better chance of getting your wish out of Washington - running the president out of the white house early without concern for the law

                  After the way the Affordable Care Act was breech-loaded up the backside, your shrill cries for the sanctity of the law remain among the purest forms of unintentional humor available on the tubey-nets. Those cries are only matched by your attempt to paint the NYTimes (Pravda on the Hudson) as somehow non-partisan. Bless your heart: you are truly a thing of beauty.

                  • If the Times' investigation was the partisan tool that you claim it to be, why did it not simply exonerate the administration completely? It most certainly did not do any such thing. If you took the time to actually read it - instead of drifting like a worn-out butterfly from one partisan spin site to another - you would realize that the Times was not particularly kind to the administration.

                    At this point I'm wondering if the GOP has already given up on winning the white house back in 2016 (regardless of
                    • If the Times' investigation was the partisan tool that you claim it to be, why did it not simply exonerate the administration completely?

                      The term is Limited Hangout [wikipedia.org]. But, then again, you probably think there isn't a smidgen of corruption at the VA, much less the IRS.

                    • If the Times' investigation was the partisan tool that you claim it to be, why did it not simply exonerate the administration completely?

                      The term is Limited Hangout

                      I knew I could count on you to come up with a conspiracy. Obviously, Obama the weather-controlling reptoid would dictate that to the Times, right?

                    • So you're saying the VA problems are the result of a bill that was dictated by the Heritage Foundation, combined with a non-al Qaeda terrorist attack?

                      Funny, that. I don't recall the VA problems forcing us to purchase products from giant for-profit companies that own Washington DC. I also don't recall the VA problems killing anyone intentionally or damaging any American installations abroad.

                      But go ahead... tell me how this is another grave offense that you are going to use to throw Obama out of th
                    • *golf clap*
                    • That is as reasonable of a connection between Benghazi and the VA as any. The only other common connection is that neither will lead to a successful impeachment effort - at least, not if you are concerned about the law.
                    • He really is worth more right where he's at, a sea anchor dragging Her Majesty down.
                    • That is a strange bit of backwardsness. Up to this point you've been more than willing to burn the entire world to drive Obama out of 1600 Pennsylvania an additional 10^-3000000 femtoseconds before the inauguration of whomever winds the 2016 election. Why are you suddenly willing to risk allowing him to see through his administration?
                    • I mean, for a sufficiently fabulous disaster (and what could exceed, well, this administration?) he could blow up himself, Her Majesty, the Democrat Party, and the whole, turd-munching, godforsaken Progressive Project. For comparison of just what a useless sack he he, see an actual warrior speaking [youtube.com]. It's just downright therapeutic.
                    • I mean, for a sufficiently fabulous disaster (and what could exceed, well, this administration?) he could blow up himself, Her Majesty, the Democrat Party, and the whole, turd-munching, godforsaken Progressive Project.

                      So if now your new ambition is to let him run out the course of his administration in the hopes that it will destroy the ever-so-slightly-less-conservative party from Washington entirely, why are you still so obsessed with Benghazi? If you want a final tour de force of failure, you should be just quietly sitting by and waiting for it to come on its own. Certainly, if you waste the administration's time with a trial that has no evidence to back it up to be meaningful, you are only giving them less opportu

                    • As I've stated before, the suspicion that men were left to die under fire is a level of turpitude that just cannot be tolerated. Politics happen; politicians are all guilty until conclusively proven innocent + several decades. I get that.
                      But if you think that a Commander-in-Chief, or even Her Majesty the prospective POTUS, can just hang men out to dry (and it's on THEM to disprove the suspicion) then you may just want to show up and vote, but ignore politics otherwise.
                    • As I've stated before, the suspicion that men were left to die under fire is a level of turpitude that just cannot be tolerated.

                      Except that there is no way to support or refute that suspicion, it is only a suspicion. In fact, the simple logistics of the matter - including but not limited to the timing, the distance of the event from where the POTUS was at that time, and the time it takes to get usable intelligence back from that area and deliver orders to it - pretty well ensures that your suspicion is a suspicion at the very best and more likely just an angry partisan witch hunt.

                      politicians are all guilty until conclusively proven innocent

                      First of all, the justice system does not work tha

                    • Why is it that only the POTUS - and particularly only a POTUS with a (D) after his or her name - is held to such a standard? You don't give a damn about the injustices connected to republican presidents.

                      I'm afraid you'll have to produce an example of a Republican President screwing up (e.g. Ronnie & the Beruit Marine barracks) and then just pissing in the public face to win an election. Your girl reached out to the far more manly Candy Crowley during the debate with Mitt Romney!
                      You just keep on shrilly defending that. It makes you look about as manly.

                    • I'm afraid you'll have to produce an example of a Republican President screwing up (e.g. Ronnie & the Beruit Marine barracks) and then just pissing in the public face to win an election.

                      Exactly how do you define "pissing in the public face to win an election"? Considering the previous POTUS was the king of photo ops - and even went so far as to blame his worst photo op on the navy sailors whose ship he used for it - I can't see how you can possibly consider anything that President Lawnchair has done to be more disrespectful than what his immediate predecessor did.

                      But go on. Enlighten us as to the great evil.

                    • Exactly how do you define "pissing in the public face to win an election"?

                      Letting men die in combat, then lying about it to win an election.

                    • Letting men die in combat, then lying about it to win an election.

                      That would, indeed, be a terrible thing to have happen. However there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing happened - and for that matter even the notion of the men in Benghazi having died in something reasonably described as "combat" is debatable.

                      But since you said earlier that you believe the accused is obligated to prove innocence (provided, of course, that they have the dreaded fourth letter after their name), you won't allow that to hinder your aspirations, will you?

                    • All of the evidence know points to the conclusion that #OccupyResoluteDesk is a liar, with the corollary that the opposite of anything he's spewing at the moment is true.
                    • I would be interested in what evidence you have in mind to support that argument, but I won't hold my breath for you to provide any.
                    • Only the last five years.
                    • Only the last five years.

                      That is so vague as to be meaningless. Certainly you aren't so deeply partisan to believe that every single word from his mouth, ever, was a lie, are you?

                    • I don't think that's necessarily a partisan stance. I would say it's a fair review of his general mendacity, however.
                    • Really? I'm not aware of anyone who is not deeply conservative who would dare suggest that everything Obama has said as POTUS is a lie. Yet you seem to be happily suggesting exactly that. I do not deny being far more liberal than any politician who is currently serving as an elected democrat in Washington, yet I am willing to acknowledge that previous republican presidents have indeed said truthful things while in office.

                      Similarly I am not aware of any moderates who would take such an extreme stance
                    • Statement of faith? This is supposed to be Obama's "Year of Action [wsj.com]". The man's either a tremendous Harry Frankfurt [amazon.com] fan, compulsively mendacious, or, well, you supply the theory then.
                    • Are you a Wall St Journal subscriber? The Karl Rove editorial there that you linked to is paywalled. I did find a non-paywalled source that actually describes the "year of action" initiative [whitehouse.gov]. If we look through it we see it has mostly
                      • Memorandum bits
                      • Things that are marked "to do"
                      • Voluntary programs or bits where the POTUS asked other people to "look into this"

                      If you are looking for sweeping socialist reforms, you definitely won't find them here.

                    • My company supplies a WSJ subscription.

                      If you are looking for sweeping socialist reforms, you definitely won't find them here.

                      See, now, that's the joke: these ARE the socialist reforms you were looking for, in all their ragged glory! This IS what you get! It's all a giant, godforsaken con! Smoke 'em if you got a ration of 'em. :-)

                    • My company supplies a WSJ subscription.

                      Well, that's awfully nice of them. You can then read a conservative spin job of the aims that I actually linked to. I presume you read plenty of the former and likely none of the latter. As I cannot access the former I can only imagine how disconnected they are.

                      these ARE the socialist reforms you were looking for, in all their ragged glory

                      Except that they are not socialist and arguably are not even reforms. You might know that if you were to follow the link I provided instead of just the commentary in the link that you provided.

                      That said, you have wandered way, way, off topi

                    • Socialist, Socialist, Socialist: the way of Socialism is the way of Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or Detroit. Own it.
                    • There you go, trying to inject your opinion in the place of actual facts again. Just because "socialist" equates in your mind to "evil failure machine" does not make it so for the rest of the world. I suppose I ought to praise you for not including Nazi Germany in your list, but that is not exactly an accomplishment.

                      And a friendly reminder - this thread was not about your complete lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts of socialism, communism, or any leftist thinking. This thread was a
                    • by gmhowell (26755)

                      Exactly how do you define "pissing in the public face to win an election"?

                      Letting men die in combat, then lying about it to win an election.

                      Oh, c'mon, politicians have been doing that since before Romulus and Remus decided to found a quaint little mediterannean town.

                    • Fair enough. We need to pare down the number of threads, in any case.
                    • I mean, sure: you can mention David & Uriah the Hittite. The distinctions being that David was a king, and paid dearly for his malfeasance.
    • Being as youtube seems to be the preferred tool of cult leaders, politicians, and cult leaders who want to become powerful politicians, I generally don't click on youtube links either. Hence if someone has a non-religious, non-political message, I would appreciate if they would be kind enough to share it as text rather than wasting my time with a youtube video. Failing to acknowledge the fact that most technically savvy people can read much faster than a youtube talk is frankly insulting to their intellig

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...