"Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition."

[...]

In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won the election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again in November 2004. Now Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.

Which one would you prefer? JonKatz or Roland Piquepaille?

Try for yourself - search for "roland" and "jonkatz" in the slashdot search. Read a few of their submissions.

Let's look at their general submission style:
Jon - Was into the culture-smacks-into-technology side of things. Did tend to sometimes distort (or completely mangle) the facts, but most stories seemed to cause some genuine discussion.

Roland - Seems to be the cut'n'paster of the century. Every story so far points to his website (Roland's Technology Trends) for "more info", which is normally a few paragraphs from another linked article, with filler such as "and as you can see from the next paragraph, it's very interesting".

Now, I wouldn't have a problem with this, but he sells advertising on his site. I can deal with google adwords (I suppose), but then I see a box on the side spouting:

Advertisers
Reach the tech crowd!
This blog focuses on new technologies and how they will affect our lives.

This is the place to reach all these technology-savvy readers and advertise your most innovative products or services.

So, Roland pretty much uses slashdot to drive people to his site. If all he did was link to the original site (the one his blog links to) in his slashdot submission I wouldn't mind. But linking back to your site to basically get your hits up? I don't like it. It feels wrong. If I want the latest technology trends, I look at gizmodo, or techdirt. I don't need people decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio at slashdot for their own gain. If his blog was full of insightful commentary and facts from several different places, all carefully put together to have some real value, then I wouldn't feel as cheated everytime I accidently click through.

To sum up? Three words:
Bring back JonKatz.

At least his submissions had some content.

Amongst all the other things I've been doing, I keep thinking about building an electric car. Battery technology is certainly heading in the right direction - a decent set of thundersky li-ion batteries are good for 12kWhr for a hundred and fifty kilos. 12kWhr, at an "average to crap" efficiency of 350Whr/mile gives 35 or so miles..... which is enough to get me to work and back every day on half a charge. It's a damn shame it'd cost me nearly six grand in batteries. That, and four or five thousand for a decent sized motor and controller. 12000 bucks is a whole lot of money to try and recoup in fuel savings.

But it *would* be cool. Maybe I'll scale down a bit and build an electric harley. That'd be a little more affordable. Then I can grow a beard and a pot belly, wear some black leather and tatts, and cruise silently up behind people and scare the bejeezus out of them. Oh, and I guess I'll have to have some skanky biker chicks too.

Me and my mid-life crisis, we're all set :-)

So, I get an email from my old boss from a few jobs (and years) back. The usual pleasantries, how's things , etc. Oh, and perhaps I could make another cutter speed sampling device? No-one there has any idea about how to make one, it seems.

Well, geez, I dunno. I mean, I'm flattered that he got in touch and all. But things went horribly wrong in that job after a while. Sure, the first few years were great. But then, there was this slow, inescapable slide downhill. I lost the work car. I ended up working 70 hour weeks sometimes. And then there was the very poor handling of two sexual harassment complaints.

I will point out that, for the record, both complainants when quizzed seperately by HR, did not want to take any action. I apologised to both of them a couple of days after each incident. And all parties were a little embarrassed by the whole thing, and were willing to just let it all go. It was my misunderstanding of the difference between "workplace acquaintance" and "friend" that got me in the awkward position. Trying to be friendly, hell, I got it wrong. I'm stuck with being socially retarded, I guess.

Looking at it now, I suppose that the HR manager was just lousy at being diplomatic. But the implications and conclusions that she made about the two complaints were quite shattering. The fact that it was three months after the second incident didn't help. So much for water under the bridge and all that. I suppose that was the end of the line for me. A few months after that, I realised that I didn't want to be there anymore and my heart just wasn't in it. Oh, it was all sad farewells and all that, but I was glad to go.

And now here I am, two years after I left. Trying to decide whether to help out a company that caused possibly one of the more stressful events in my life. There's the crux of the matter though. Individually I'd help any one of them, it's the dilbert-esque Company that I'd rather just say "Fuck you" to.

My thoughts so far are to :
(a) help them out, but to screw the Company for every last cent I can.
(b) help them out, out of the kindness of my heart, and a nominal consulting fee.
(c) tell them to go get fucked.

Let's face it, my life hasn't been ruined. Leaving that job was probably one of the best decisions I made - I've now got a job with twice the pay and half the hours and I enjoy it. But there's still a heap of bad memories there. I've re-read my work diary from around that period, and I'm obviously nowhere near as upset about it as I was then. Obviously I still haven't let go of it though.

I'm leaning for (b) - maybe I'll learn to let go and get some good Karma for the next life.

I posted something in reply to someone today about the captcha required for posting, and I thought it was rather good. An edited version follows :

From "The CmdrTaco unabridged SlashDot preachings" (second edition, p476):

"Those with Karma of 'Excellent' status can post without the use of the captcha - for yea, they have proved their faith, and suffered many hardships, and trials, and aggravations, and duplicate articles, bearing them all with rare good humour, and much insightful posting, with many a witty comment. And lo! Such is their wisdom that the Karma Bonus, that most hallowed of rewards, is bestowed upon them, so that their words are writ large above the mundane postings, and can continue to enrich and inspire even the lowliest Coward. Those who possess Excellent Karma truly have been justly rewarded, and may they forever bask in the glory of that which is the New Slashdot.

For certainly, it is a New Slashdot - The crapflooding hath been lowered a significant amount, and for this, there was much rejoicing. And great was the wailing and the gnashing of teeth of the crapflooders, for they were forced to take their childlike pursuits elsewhere, leaving the hallowed moderators free to perform their sacred duty without the incessant selection of the -1, troll."

Hmm. Perhaps I should redo the whole FAQ in a King-James style.

I was born in America.
But I am not an American.

I still love the U.S.A.
I love southern hospitality. I love giant fireworks and novelty shops right next to a state border.
I love New York (once you get used to the smell). I love the fact that one of it's strongest symbol is French-made.
I love the space program: It's not unique, but it's got style.
I love Harley Davidson bikes, though I usually ride japanese bikes: They're more practical.
And I love Walt Disney and his buddies, and I love Hollywood. I also hate Hollywood, but that's life for you.

I'm pondering the possible motivations of the trolls.

I see them daily (around slashdot, fark, IMDB, any open forum really), so I pay attention to the patterns. Some of them remind me of a former collegue of mine who amazed me with his sheer stupidity (he once argued with me that the queen of England was not wealthy, his main point being that when she dies someone else will inherit all the money... I'm always amazed that people can be that daft). He was also short, and quite repulsive. Basically, he was the office troll, as he both looked and acted the part.

It's irrational, ugly behaviour. He simply was arguing for the sake of arguing, and since he was being made a fool by the very basis of his argument, he was getting angrier, and therefore more passionatly irrational. I simply waited him out. A man that obtuse couldn't last long at any workplace, and I only had to tolerate him for a few weeks before he was fired. But on the internet, there are no bosses to ween out the idiots, and no shortage of supply on trolls of all kinds.

Of course, such a vast pool of idiots cannot be homogenous. Trolls simply bait, and pick on those who bite. Flamebaiting trolls, for instance, are attempting to get insulted. I'm not sure exactly why they want to be insulted, maybe they are masochists, maybe they get a thrill out of pissing people off while safely away, who cares. The point is that they add to the noise, and the noise should be reduced.

Now, let's consider a message. How would we moderate it? Let's assume the following reply:

You cocksucking faggot. I want to rape your mom and make you suck my cock.

This should be moderated as

• troll
• flamebait
• offtopic
• and redundant.

If it is above 0, it is also Overrated.

This, of course, poses a problem. Because such a post can only be modded down to -1, and we have more moderation choices than can be applied to this one post, guilty of all of them.

What I'm wondering is if it's possible to have a quick, easy to use system that would take all of that into account.
Perhaps a more democratic system where it would be possible to label a post without expending points, on top of the current points-based moderation layer.
Flags that could be set once per user, that did not directly influence a post's score, but that kept a record of the number, or percentage, of the different labels.

The "overrated" mod as first mod.

I've been getting lots of those recenty, and I've been told it is because the metamoderations never review the "overrated/underrated" mod. So people with a sad agenda (personnal grudge or ideological mindlessness, insuficient data to tell) get to keep doing it without being stopped by an already established filter.
I speak my mind, and therefore I've watched my enemies list grow. But the low lives that lurk on slashdot have found a perticularly cowardly way of attacking people now it seems.
I got to admit: It is somewhat annoying.

It's just another way for petty loosers to make other people's lives just that little bit more incovenienced I supposed.

Like that "fan" (stalker) of mine that goes to post uninspired replies detailing bodily functions to post I've made a couple days prior (presumably to avoid getting modded down while the thread is still read by people with mod points, the sneaky coward). I wonder how someone becomes so pathetic... to have a life so empty that you actually spend time harassing strangers, karma-whoring to have mod points and that lil' +1 so people will see your sad attempts at getting attention through crude, mindless profanity.

I understand thugs: getting hit makes you want to hit others. But I have no way to relate to this kind of behaviour. It's so... small.

Main Entry: irrational
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

Where there's no emotion, there's no motive for violence. -- Spock, "Dagger of the Mind", stardate 2715.1

We are all irrational.

From time to time, our emotions take over and our reason takes a step back. Anger, fear, pride, or any of the host of emotions we experience might override reason and make us behave in reprehensible ways.

But does it have to be this way?
If our understanding of our squishy bits was more advanced, and we could take away emotions to let reason reign, should we do it?
Would it be something that would make us better, usher in a true age of reason? Or would it be a bane, reducing us to logical automatons?

Is fun worth all the suffering that comes with it? Is the human condition so noble, or are we fooling ourselves because we can't bare the horror that a different truth would bring?

If we could create a person without emotions, a true Man of reason, would it be unethical to do so, or would it be irrational not to?

http://wxgeek.livejournal.com :this is where my -real- journal is. thanks, kids.

It is VERY obvious.

Yeah, do it soon or we'll change it for ya :)

Change it.

ObviousGuy is my new hero. And now I'm his friend!

Entirely too easy of a password to guess.

Got it on me first try!