Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not being shitty would be a good start (Score 1) 65

Personally, I use twitter as a concise newsfeed of tech, infosec, and events by following people I'm interested in (eg thegrugq, landley, and briankrebs). The 144 character limit means I get a snippet of things, and (if there's a link) I can choose if I want more info. I even get a smattering of humor by following parody/humor accounts (eg BobRossGameDev, BoredElonMusk, and CommitStrip).

Sure, just like any other social media site, there's shitty parts. That's what happens when you allow the masses to generate content. But you know what's awesome about Twitter? You only see stuff from accounts that you follow. You can mute/block accounts that you never want to see. The content is 100% up to you...dislike a content type or source, and you can easily remove it from your feed.

I've used Twitter heavily for the past three years. I'd gladly pay a low ($1-$5) monthly amount to use it, especially if paying would remove stuff like promoted tweets (which I currently kill with an adblocker).

I agree, tweeting about buying socks is pointless, just like a facebook status update about buying socks is pointless, or a tumblr post about buying socks is pointless. The medium of communication has zero to do with the pointlessness of any given content.

The vast majority of the info I get from Twitter is more along the lines of "High-severity bug in OpenSSL allows attackers to decrypt HTTPS traffic --> link" and "Titan Souls is great example of picking small target audience and making a perfect experience for them. Great example for new devs." than it is about who is taking a shit or buying undergarments.

Twitter may not have any value for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

Comment Re:Remove casing from a Wallmart clock - get invit (Score 1) 621

Why did I bother? Because facts should be sourced.

Why did I bring these particular facts in the first place? Because I was pointing out that anyone can say "This particular number is bigger than the number you're talking about" (as you did with the IRA deaths vs Islamic terrorists comment)...but that doesn't necessarily make it relevant. I even said as much in my comment.

Suicides aren't necessarily directly related to terrorism related deaths, although they do share the rather significant similar factor of death.

In this case, I'm also obliquely making the point that depression and suicide are a significantly bigger problem than terrorism (if a US citizen dies, they've got a 0.00061% chance it's from terrorism...and a 1.58% chance it's from suicide), and we in America are kinda idiots to ignore this.

Regardless of the motives of the kid who took apart the clock, regardless of whether or not it was random chance or a precisely calculated media blitz by someone trying to grab the spotlight...the fact remains that a kid got arrested because he had a box full of wires that may or may not have looked like a thing that actually kills or injurs less than 0.00071% of all humans, worldwide...and meanwhile, we've got depressed kids (and adults!) in every single school in our nation.

tl;dr version: We're severely overreacting to terrorism (especially in schools), and severely under-reacting to other causes of death.


Comment Re:Remove casing from a Wallmart clock - get invit (Score 1) 621

And depression invoked suicides have killed more people than both put together. Did you have a point, or were you just spouting Islamophobia and random "Number A is larger than Number B"?

17,891 deaths by terror attack in 2013.
41,149 deaths by suicide in 2013 (in the US).

Note that those figures for terror attacks may be just for the US, or they may be worldwide...I'm not bothering to check, because if they're just for the US, it means suicides outnumber terror attacks 2 to 1, and if it's NOT just for the's a much worse ratio.


Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 1) 410

If you create an online community, then destroy it, you're an asshole. Simple as that.

Actually, it's not as simple as that. If you're being an ass online, and doing in a way that didn't used to be against the rules, but then the rules changed, and they retroactively cleaned up the vitriol you were spewing, that doesn't make you less of an ass, or the people who wrote the rules "assholes". Sometimes, it just means that there's a lot of toxic asshats, and you were lower on their list of "toxic stuff to clean up" than something else.

Simply put, just because a bunch of toxic people have a community doesn't mean they're any less toxic.

A site that used to allow X, but now prohibits X, doesn't make you less free to express your own special flavor of X. You're still free to say it. Or type it. "Freedom" doesn't mean "guaranteed platform".

Keep in mind, I have concerns about how Reddit is managing their site. "Making it less easy for toxic nincompoops to spew vitriol" isn't one of the things I have concerns about.

Slashdot Top Deals

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser