Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score 1) 555

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48635691) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate
GamerGate got more coverage than it deserved, considering that it was the shitty blog Zoe Quinn's limp-dicked ex wrote that brought the whole misbegotten thing to a head. You want to talk about the whole Faustian 69 deal game reviewers have with publishers? Fine. Call it GamerGate, however, and most people who would otherwise grant you a fair hearing will tune you right the fuck out. The brand is irredeemably tainted, and has been from its inception.

Comment: Re:All for poisioning the well (Score 1) 285

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48566751) Attached to: AdNauseam Browser Extension Quietly Clicks On Blocked Ads

Come on, Morgon. This is the internet. Did you really think you were going to change my mind when I've already stated somewhere in this this topic (if not to you) that I consider all third-party ads to be malware as a result of the abuses you describe as "punch the monkey shit"? Ten years ago, I would have said your stance was reasonable. Now, I say your stance is reasonable, but I no longer consider myself obligated to care. I've already made my decision, and that's to block all third-party ads.

The ad industry had their chance, and they blew it not only for themselves, but for those who depend on them to make money because nobody wants to pay for anything on the net when they already pay at least fifty bucks a month to their ISP. Instead of providing a legitimate public service, they tried to turn the Web into TV 2.0.

Comment: Re:All for poisioning the well (Score 1) 285

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48564699) Attached to: AdNauseam Browser Extension Quietly Clicks On Blocked Ads

AC is right. Instead of 'running ads', you are the ad.

The difference is that I'm up-front about it. If you were to punch up my site at starbreakerseries.com, it would be pretty damn obvious that the site exists to promote my fiction. My shit isn't cluttering up your reading experience at other sites. Facebook and Twitter aren't going to clutter your feeds with ads like "Angry wizard sex! Check it out at starbreakerseries.com!" If you're at my site in the first place, it's most likely because you already bought my book and want to see if the next one's out yet.

My site is a first-party ad for my own work. I don't see any hypocrisy in condemning third-party ads or sites that use them.

Comment: Re:All for poisioning the well (Score 2) 285

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48556021) Attached to: AdNauseam Browser Extension Quietly Clicks On Blocked Ads
Morgon, if my sites are getting that kind of traffic, then I'm probably selling a shitload of my books in the process. I'll just write off the hosting bills on my tax return, since the sites exist to promote me and my work. (Whether they're effective is another story.)

Comment: Re:All for poisioning the well (Score 1) 285

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48555107) Attached to: AdNauseam Browser Extension Quietly Clicks On Blocked Ads
Then you should get your eyes checked. I pay for my own crappy websites out of my own pocket. I don't burden others by imposing third-party ads on them. I have this magical thing called a "day job", because I realize that nobody on the net owes me a single goddamn thing.

Comment: Re: Isn't that click fraud? (Score 2, Interesting) 285

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48555081) Attached to: AdNauseam Browser Extension Quietly Clicks On Blocked Ads
I already paid to get on the internet. Comcast gets sixty bucks a month. In addition, I pay to host my own websites out of my own pocket. You aren't entitled to a revenue stream from your website. If the only way you can make money on the web is by pushing malware (which is what all third-party ads are) then you don't belong on the web and should GTFO.

Comment: Re:Joyent unfit to lead them? (Score 1) 254

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48532459) Attached to: Node.js Forked By Top Contributors

In addition using they/their in a singular fashion is considered to be improper use by many in grammar.

I've heard the same said about passive voice, and starting a novel by describing the weather. I'm not in the habit of following rules off cliffs. Until the prescriptivists who insist that singular they/their as a gender-neutral pronoun come up with a better alternative, they're welcome to kiss my fat New Yorker ass.

Comment: Re:Joyent unfit to lead them? (Score 1) 254

by Lilith's Heart-shape (#48530957) Attached to: Node.js Forked By Top Contributors

Because their logic is that if you use any gender specific pronouns you are, by default, misogynistic?

I thought their logic was that using the male pronoun for persons of unknown gender or in contexts where gender ought to be irrelevant is both unnecessary and sexist - even if it used to be standard usage. How hard is it to use they/their instead of he/his? I manage it easily enough.

Comment: Re:IceWM == frosty (Score 1) 30

I'm not quite hardcore enough for Xmonad, mainly because I don't feel like dealing with Haskell at the moment. However, I'm looking into AwesomeWM now that I finally took the plunge and switched from debian-based distros to Arch Linux, and I configured Openbox to maximize (within the margin) all non-dialogue windows and strip off the decor, which makes Openbox act enough like a tiler to work on a laptop screen.

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...