Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 1) 245

That's stupid or disingenuous bullshit. Emoji makes an expressed thought harder to understand, while the HTML presentation coupled with a web browser makes it easier. It's exactly the opposite.

Smileys make it easier for the people who use them to express their thoughts. That is why they use it. And you know that too, at least based on your comment: "Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid. Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that."

So it's you who's disingenius here. Or, to put it bluntly, a complete hypocrite. Especially since your own grip on the English language appears to be tenuous at best, as demonstrated below.

I don't expect if I get a polite response, and since you appear to understand English,

Pity you can't write it :-D. Perhaps you should focus more on your own language skills rather than those of others.

Such as when displaying a short message, for example. They are typically displayed in system font sizes, which are usually non-trivial to change for the average user.

So now average user's convenience matters. Of course, they seem to be just fine with smileys since they keep using them... So perhaps it's you who finds changing font size non-trivial?

Why is everything HTML to you? Is that the only technology you "understand"?

HTML is cross-platform, allows embedding images, and is often used to render messages, so your "small-smiley" scenario could theoretically happen with it. Was that really too hard to figure out?

Never mind, rhetorical question. I see little reason to continue this, since it's obvious you have nothing besides playing(?) dumb to add. So long, and the next time you have trouble with technology simply ask for help, rather than coming up with a ridiculous tale about trying to protect "idiots" from too much convenience.

Comment Re:Instead of technical solutions (Score 2, Interesting) 195

The religion of Islam creates many terrorists.

As opposed to freedom fighters who blow people up in order to "liberate" them?

It's not the religion of Islam but the religion of violence - the idea that the ends justify the means - that creates terrorists. And violence is pretty much universally worshipped on Earth, in forms ranging all the way from ritualistic animal sacrifice to all-out war. Our future depends on if it's a true universal constant or a mere option that could potentially be unchosen before our luck runs out and we wipe ourselves out.

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 4, Insightful) 245

First, I am quite capable of retrieving the page content via telnet.

But did you? Y'know, to practice your skills?

Second, the page content was actually deliberately formatted to be interpreted with a web browser. A whole layer of material was added to the content specifically to make that convenient.

So your convenience matters, but other people should "exercise their language skills". How utterly unsurprising.

In what way am I using grammar or spelling to silence people? I am trying to encourage grammar and spelling, so that people can have a voice. You are trying to encourage people to engage in the digital equivalent of baby talk, so that they can never express a complex thought. You've got it completely backwards, fucko. You want to disempower. I want to empower.

Really? Because this is what you actually wrote: "Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid. Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that."

So tell me: if smileys enable "stupid people" (to use your elitist terminology) to express the thoughts they wish, which is the logical requirement for them to replace some other form of communication, such as written text, in what way would disabling them "empower" said people? All it does is make communication less convenient and thus less frequent. Of course, if that's your actual goal, your means make perfect sense.

If you insist on being a disingenuous douchebag, you can only talk meaningless shit.

I assure you, my dislike of your ideas and attitude is quite sincere. Also, perhaps you shouldn't call people "idiots" and expect a polite response. Douchebags exist to deal with shit, after all.

There's plenty of places where you're not allowed to zoom, yet where emoji can appear.

Such as? And in any case, if they can render modern fonts, which are vector graphics, making said smileys part of the font should actually solve this problem. Or at least let you read the HTML source, which you above imply you're capable of doing.

Seriously, everything you said was wrong. Why do you even bother?

Because malevolent bullcrap like yours is slowing down progress everywhere I look. If you want to communicate solely through six-page hand-bound letters written in calligraphed Oxford English, that is certainly your right. And if someone else chooses to use pornographic smileys to imply that getting a blowjob from a duck turned out to be a bad idea, that's theirs. But no - you insist on having a say on how they may or may not communicate, for their own good of course.

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says ... no (Score 1) 245

No, there are plenty of utter imbeciles who totally don't get sarcasm.

I get sarcasm perfectly well. Specifically, I get how it can be used as a cover against all criticism while in the process of repeating a lie often enough that it gets accepted as a part of the general culture of a community. MRA bullshit is like furry porn: it spreads and takes root anywhere it's left alone. But that comparison is unfair, since the most disgusting cartoon porn about imaginary creatures is ultimately not harming anyone, it's simply an eyesore, while your crap is directly and actively hindering humanity's efforts to rise above its past and seek a better tomorrow.

You creeps already shat on fedoras, the concept of equality, and any man who's actually been mistreated by a female to the extent of needing help (no, women not liking you is not mistreatment, it's your cue to take a long hard look at yourself), do you absolutely must soil Slashdot too?

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 4, Insightful) 245

You mean an idiot?

No. Why would you think I did? Apart as a rhetorical prelude to your following tirade, of course, but surely an expert communicator like you you could launch into one without having to twist other people's words into a springboard?

Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid.

And believing that you of course used a telnet client to read this discussion and post your message, since a "browser" makes the process easier, thus letting even you manage it? Or does it only apply to skills you already (mistakenly think you) are good at, thus completely coincidentally maximizing the chance that you have an unfair advantage in any interaction?

Grammar and spelling exist to faciliate efficient communication. Trying to use them as a barrier to silence people you dislike for whatever reason means you not only missed the mark, but somehow managed to get a bullseye on your own asshole. Though judging by your attitude, that's easier for you than most.

Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that.

Smileys are only relevant to written text, not spoken word. Furthermore, unless it's one specific emoji you're concerned about, it's "emojis shit", not "emoji shits".

Meanwhile, they're actually a really shitty way to communicate, because they are far more difficult to tell apart on a small screen than are words.

This is the first and only relevant or even remotely intelligent point you've made in your own sad attempt to communicate. And if you insist on using a mobile device which lacks a zoom function yet supports less-used unicode characters, and use this device for the type of communication where it's critical to be able to tell a smiley from a frowney, it might actually make sense to ask people to take this into account when messaging you. But frankly, that sounds like a very specific corner case that has little if any relevant to designing technical standards for common use.

Emoji are stupid, and people who use them are stupid by extension. But we knew that, because if they weren't, they would have just written what they meant instead of using an ambiguous sad face fucking a duck.

And yet your message would had been improved by replacing most of its content with oral bestiality. At least then you could had blamed it on a computer virus rather than whatever is infecting your central nervous system, and even if you'd failed you'd come across as a mere pervert rather than an arrogant shithead who wants to make life more difficult to other people for the mere reason that you think it should be. It would also have provided more value to this discussion, or any discussion.

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 4, Insightful) 245

we moved on from hieroglyphs, we dont need to be going back to them

We moved on from hieroglyphs since writing by hand was so tedious anyone bothering could be assumed to be serious in unclear cases. Since writing and sending messages has moved on to an everyday form of personal communication, it also requires a concise way to express tone and emotion a non-professional writer can manage. And in practice that means some form of smileys, so we can as well optimize them.

Technology exists to serve people's needs, after all.

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 1) 255

And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:

No, it's based on the idea that women are unreliable, immoral and not really sapient and will thus throw their lover under the bus the second it seems profitable, even if the long-term results are negative.

The "logic" is incomprehensible because society has advanced to the point where saying the main premise out loud is frowned upon. But people can read between lines, so as long as sexism will exist in any form it will always resurface. Dehumanization and discrimination are the two sides of the same ugly thing, after all.

Comment Re:No, obviously (Score 1) 255

A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose?

Why wouldn't it? Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma. It's the violence that does, and as you yourself noted, fists are all you need for that.

Comment Re:I've had this as a plug-in. (Score 2) 175

I'm betting Google's own dancing monkeys will be as annoying as ever.

Do they need to be? They're no longer competing with a zillion other animations to be the most attention-grapping thing around. The evolutionary arms race is over, so the optimal ad is one that the user notices but isn't annoyed by - after all, developing and installing ad blockers is hard work which people aren't going to do without reason, and besides, who wants to have their brand associated with annoyance if that's not required to be noticed?

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Google has both the means and motive to turn online ads from an accursed scourge to reasonable suggestions you might be willing to take. Time will tell if they'll also have the wisdom to do so.

Comment Re:Waste Disposal (Score 1) 319

Bullshit. I think we're more likely to see a revolution with the current approach. For example, your willingness to destroy industries because you don't think their wages are high enough.

I agree that current approach will lead to ruin. I simply disagree on how to avoid it. Specifically, I'd enact an unconditional and irremovable citizen wage sufficient to live and function in modern society (food, home, water, electricity, car where it's necessary or public transit where it's sufficient, and Internet connection) and then repeal everything except safety regulations (and even those could be at least considerably eased after people got used to the fact that they can afford to say no). This would simultaneously kill industries that relied on exploiting desperate people, guarantee a level of domestic demand, allow pruning of bureaucracy on both public and private sectors and give companies total flexibility in hiring and firing without crushing anyone underfoot while at it.

Basically, ensure there's one armor-plated ox who can fight off the bears, and everyone will likely be better off.

Why do you think the Gilded Age proves your point? That period was the transition from former colonies to superpower. They must have been doing a lot of things right.

Right? That depends. Do you value superpower status more than not having lots of poverty? I don't, so I think Gilded Age sucked.

The classic "we didn't want those jobs anyway!" response. If they're paying someone to do something, then there's some value to it. I suggest letting it going on rather than burning another hole in the economy and society.

Just like there's an upper bound an employer is willing to pay to get job X done, there's also a lower bound to what dire consequences - such as what level of poverty - a potential employee is willing to suffer to avoid doing X. This means that a society where X gets done has some positive utility for the employer and negative utility for the employee compared to one where it won't. The total utility of doing X dips into negative if the upper bound is low, because the negative utility to the employee of doing the job has fixed components, for example wasting their limited time to do things they don't care about.

In other words, your desire to have a cheap Big Mac isn't more important than the pain of someone who just barely prefers flipping them to homelessness.

Comment Re:jobs? (Score 1) 319

hmmm what would you get if you had a scripted physics engine?

You get your average shooter or adventure game, where a mini-nuke will absolutely refuse to do any kind of damage against a perfectly ordinary-looking door. Or, more correctly, the door cannot react except for things it's specifically scripted to react to. By contrast, to a physics engine that door is not a door but a "damageable" and thus the nuke can tell it to suffer damage (or apply force with more advanced engines), as can a stick of dynamite or the player's foot.

Comment Re:Waste Disposal (Score 1) 319

It only "suggests" that if you ignore the obvious like widespread disincentives to employ people in the developed world.

Which were put in place to keep the developed world from falling into a general revolution. Which will simply start again if you remove them.

Or in other words, society made the problem in the first place in part by shutting down said industry. If they didn't do that, then not only would they have those workers, they'd have others employed to provide goods and services for those workers.

Right, so did that actually happen before those regulations were put in place? Why do you Lazy-Fairy fanbois keep ignoring history?

Furthermore, if an industry becomes unprofitable simply because they have to actually pay their employees a decent wage, it seems to me that it wasn't producing any value to begin with. Why should I have to subsidize it, either through food stamps for its employees or through amed might necessary to keep them from revolting out of despair?

Karl's version of Parkinson's Law: Work expands to exceed the time alloted it.