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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Uhm, this place is peer reviewed... (Score 1) 138

by omfgnosis (#48680561) Attached to: Does Journal Peer Review Miss Best and Brightest?

Do they, necessarily? I've suggested that it is understandable but evidently imperfect—the evidence being the consequence that good non-incumbent content is often unseen. In fact, Slashdot's entire moderation approach reinforces that consequence.

I'm not saying Slashdot should abandon its approach, I'm not even saying that it doesn't work somewhat well. But it has a cost and that cost is much higher for a large community with a large volume of user-generated content. And I think that is worth discussing.

I'm trying to provide some insight into the rough edges of Slashdot's management of user-generated content. If you aren't interested in discussing those rough edges (and so far you have not done so at all), I'm not sure what you are trying to do. Game the incumbent advantage by getting your comment close to another one with a higher mod score? Doesn't that just underscore the problem?

Comment: Re:Uhm, this place is peer reviewed... (Score 4, Interesting) 138

by omfgnosis (#48657815) Attached to: Does Journal Peer Review Miss Best and Brightest?

And some of the most interesting, insightful, informative and funny comments go on forever underrated, and mostly unseen. This is caused in part by an understandable but evidently imperfect bias in Slashdot's design, where incumbent posts (posted earliest, posted by trusted users) are given greater visibility.

Like peer review in journals, it is possible that mostly-positive solutions can have negative consequences as well.

Comment: Re:The answer. (Score 1) 239

by omfgnosis (#48656929) Attached to: Anonymous Claims They Will Release "The Interview" Themselves

For fuck's sake really? You're shitting all over people who work hard to make ends meet because they're talking about current events to the extent anyone has bothered to inform them? Because, what, they aren't as astute as you think you are with all your disposable income and taste in booze? As if that even makes any kind of sense.

Maybe if you weren't such a tiny, miserable, elitist prick you'd take some time to politely engage your kith, maybe even educate them, hell maybe even yourself. Instead you're bragging to Internet strangers about how much better you are than the shithole you obviously never *really* escaped.

Comment: Re:Taxpayer's Dilemma (Score 2) 213

by omfgnosis (#48495301) Attached to: Game Theory Analysis Shows How Evolution Favors Cooperation's Collapse

The cause of your crumbling infrastructure in the US is largely people not paying taxes.

This is a more than just a little overstated and misleading (and I am taking the assumption that you are talking about tax policy allowing such; if you're talking about illegal tax dodging, you're off your nut). US infrastructure is in the state it is because of a confluence of gross mismanagement (often intentional); incredibly effective self-destructive propaganda; and a culture of punitiveness, resentment and retaliation; at least as much as it's caused by budget shortfalls. And the whole thing is a dog chasing its own tail, constantly producing reinforcing incentives.

As much as I wish there were budget for the infrastructure and services we actually accept as a society, throwing more money into it will only preserve the services and infrastructure that are functioning and uncontroversial. Which is a terrifyingly small subset, and doesn't even speak to services and infrastructure we have so far rejected.

I'd love to be proven wrong by some miraculous arrival of leadership we don't deserve (or making better of some inevitable disaster, but I couldn't even finish writing that with a straight face), but I'd go so far as to say that the US and all its factors and conditions are basically unmanageable, with nowhere left to go but decline.

Comment: Re:Why is this story on the front page? (Score 3, Insightful) 834

by omfgnosis (#48360337) Attached to: How To End Online Harassment

You think rape and death threats are about hurt feelings. You obviously have never been a victim of such threats.

If you don't want to read about the social aspects of technology, you have a perfectly reasonable alternative to whining about it: scroll past it. Some of us actually take it seriously when proposals are made to reduce or eliminate the most egregious forms of online harassment, and want to have a real discussion. Go play with your toys, or whatever.

Comment: Re:Liberals are Egoistical Maniacs (Score 1) 330

by omfgnosis (#48300419) Attached to: Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology

That's fairness.

Hardly. That's revenge. They're not actually the same thing.

However, life isn't that black and white so while its fairly obvious who murders the unborn its not always obvious who murders the others. Death penalty is a simple solution.

So you are saying, unequivocally, that you accept institutional murder of innocent people. Not very "pro life".

Once all those who want no criminals to die have to support all those living criminals via their own money and no one else, they will reach a point that they either can't afford to support them or they will change their mind.

Wait, now it's about money? Not fairness or justice or morality? By the way. In any justice system with a hint of protection for the wrongly accused, it costs more to kill a prisoner than not to.

Comment: Re:are conservatives just showing more reaction? (Score 1) 330

by omfgnosis (#48300385) Attached to: Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology

You quoted the whole thing, so it's unclear: are you saying that the reason for the oligarchy is because of the numerous points I made about political realities? Or because I closed with a paragraph indicating that the government has a role in providing for basic regulations that allow us to live our lives in safety with confidence?

If you mean the former, that is the system the founders designed. It's in many, many ways a flawed design. If you mean the latter, I'd like to know how the examples of regulations I provided lead to an oligarchy.

In either case, just to clarify, we do live in a republic. All that means is we don't have a monarch.

Comment: Re:Liberals are Egoistical Maniacs (Score 1) 330

by omfgnosis (#48298131) Attached to: Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology

This is a good question. I want to say that first, because this topic is so often devoid of good questions.

There are a variety of ways the "pro life" movement places itself in this corner: insistence on a "right to life", little regard for the wrongful killing of post-natal innocents, little regard for other ways innocent children are abused or suffer. In a way, I'm repeating myself, but because I think I've mostly already addressed this. There is only one case of killing that most "pro life" people care about: that of a fetus. They typically care about few other harms than killing, even though many can ruin lives just the same.

The alternative position you raise is also one without much distinction. Scarcely anyone will claim that it is morally justified to kill innocent people. That kind of rationalization is either done by altering the definition of innocence and guilt, or by arithmetical sleight of hand. In any case, assignment of guilt and innocence has proved extremely problematic, especially in cases of institutional killing such as I mentioned. In order to really defend those types of killings, one must either place undue trust on the prevailing actors or simply accept that "pro life" is not absolute.

Because your alternative has little distinction, it essentially forces the conversation become the dreaded debate over the definition of "human life", but while accepting that certain classes of humans are incapable of being moral agents in any way—and therefore by definition "innocent". While I agree that a fetus cannot be assigned "guilt" by any reasonable assessment, I think the other debate—over how to define "human life"—is morally pointless. It's an excuse to produce a permanent impasse.

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...