Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Coincidence? (Score 2, Interesting) 156

by rush22 (#27440297) Attached to: Asperger Syndrome Tied To Low Cortisol Levels
Picture a journalist in his or her natural habitat: in an office in front of Facebook. The journalist sees a possible story (on their screen). Their natural curiosity means they want to know the story behind "robs567 says: Actually, I can't be a 'fag.' I am a female web designer, and I do not beat my kids. Despite what you granola-eating hippies say, spanking is good and, unlike typical libtards, I have the citation right here. Have some reality with your stfu." Immediately the journalist is on move, and an investigation is begun; the journalist moves their computer mouse. Where has a curious editorial on a blog lead them? To news! However, this bit of news has been taken by one 'New Scientist'. They are not deterred, for within the article are what journalists call "key words." And it's these key words that they use to get the scoop! Employing both Google and their marketing department, the journalist combines these "key words" until a news story is created. A breaking news story is obviously better than an old stuffy one, so they use an old journalistic technique: called "sort by date." Eventually, the journalist finds "cortisol" and "autism" and "2008," and presto: breaking news!

Comment: Re:lessons from Usenet (Score 2, Interesting) 471

by rush22 (#22709652) Attached to: The Battle For Wikipedia's Soul
Of course it reminds one of Usenet battles in the 90's -- the way I see it Wikipedia isn't Web 2.0, it's Usenet 2.0. It's even the same types of people, or even the same *actual* people, involved. Wikipedia might as well put "alt." in front of the article names. Then call it like it is: E-battles of words and caustic wit to see which seasoned Usenet flamewarrior ultimately wins the right to be the controlling administrator for the article (though for the less controversial articles you could use a simple popularity contest.)

... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"

Working...