Yes, time for another installment of Oolon Colluphid fixes everything; the segment where I banter about how things should be, and no one listens. Well... it makes me feel a little better at least.
There was some recent hubbub on Digg.com about the so called "power users". These are people that submit a lot of news stories to the site, and regularly see their submission made "popular". Popular stories are displayed on the front page, where anyone loading the site will see it. This generates huge traffic for the site in the submission. Many of these people network with other power users to trade "diggs" (i.e. votes) on each other's stories. They just go down a list of submission from people and digg them all, in return theirs are dugg. You'll see a lot of them with hundreds of diggs in a day. Far more than one would expect if they were... you know, actually reading the submission to see if they were any good.
In addition, it is not uncommon for power users to resubmit a link they found on digg (posted by a regular user), and pretend it was their own. Some of them don't even have real jobs, they just Digg things for a living. Being able to get something on the front page of Digg is an in-demand "skill".
Some feel the power users have too much control, others think they contribute to the community and should be allowed to operate as they please. I think from the tone, it should be obvious where I come down on this issue. I think the power users have taken over Digg. There are too many examples of them gaming the system.
Digg is supposed to be a web 2.0 site, so you can't just make things anonymous. But I have to admit, I'd be fine with that (I don't use it as a social networking site). There's an easy solution here, put a flood filter on Digg. A lot of forums have similar measures to keep people from posting in quick succession. Just set it up so that no one can digg more than say... five stories in a five minute period. It still seems like a lot, huh? It is, but it will make it incredibly tedious to go down a list to click the "Digg" button on a bunch of stories as part of a power user "quid pro quo".
It might be enough to wrest control of the front page back from the same small group of users. If it's no longer virtually guaranteed that their submission will be made popular, they'll have no reason to continue gaming the system.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
She should have known this...
So I was on Digg today and stumbled across a story about "10 Things You Should Never Say to Twins". Yeah, sounds stupid, doesn't it? My better judgment was overridden somehow. Current working theory is temporary mental impairment due to micro-stroke.
It was written by one of the two twins staring in some new dating show. I didn't care to figure out which one, so I'll just call her "twin 1". Anyway, I browsed through the list feeling skeptical that anyone had actually said those things to her. I was feeling a little stupid for even reading the article and was about to stop when I noticed something. Number three reads:
Now... I may have just had a minor stroke (again, just the current theory), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. I'm almost remiss to bring it up, but lets face it, what's the point of the internet if I can't make fun of people anonymously? Also, I have nothing better to do on a Sunday night. Perhaps twin 1 just wants publicity for her trashy reality show, and was talked into writing this article. Fine, but at least do a little research. One would expect that if you were say, a fireman or a pilot, you would know a bit about fires and planes respectively. Same goes for being a twin. You really ought to know a bit about it.
So here's the skinny, twin 1; twins are not twins because they come from one placenta. The placenta is the organ that develops in the womb that delivers nutrients and processes waste. It is also fucking gross. If you've never seen one, have a look. I'll wait... ... gross, huh? Some people eat that thing... anyway, back on topic. Twins can have individual placentas or share one. It's just not a factor. So I can indeed understand how people get "flustered" when you talk about placentas, twin 1. They're probably thinking to themselves, "Is everything I know about twins wrong?" It's a natural reaction, considering you would expect a twin to know what caused her to be a twin.
So what is a twin? I'm sure twin 1 knows by now, after the flood (trickle?) of comments and emails this article probably produced. If you paw through the ones with subject lines like, "YOUR HOTT" and the more grammatically correct, "YOU ARE HOT", you'll probably find a few that say the following: monozygotic, or "identical" twins are the product of a single fertilized egg that split into two complete embryos early in development.
So... for shame, twin 1. You're just playing into the blond model stereotype. I know that they aren't putting you on TV for your brains... but still. Oh, and by the way, the rest of the list was really vapid as well.
It was written by one of the two twins staring in some new dating show. I didn't care to figure out which one, so I'll just call her "twin 1". Anyway, I browsed through the list feeling skeptical that anyone had actually said those things to her. I was feeling a little stupid for even reading the article and was about to stop when I noticed something. Number three reads:
"You're not twins. (People try to get in arguments about how we're not identical twins. Identical doesn't mean that we look exactly the same, identical means that we came from the same placenta. But when I talk about placentas they get all flustered.)"
Now... I may have just had a minor stroke (again, just the current theory), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. I'm almost remiss to bring it up, but lets face it, what's the point of the internet if I can't make fun of people anonymously? Also, I have nothing better to do on a Sunday night. Perhaps twin 1 just wants publicity for her trashy reality show, and was talked into writing this article. Fine, but at least do a little research. One would expect that if you were say, a fireman or a pilot, you would know a bit about fires and planes respectively. Same goes for being a twin. You really ought to know a bit about it.
So here's the skinny, twin 1; twins are not twins because they come from one placenta. The placenta is the organ that develops in the womb that delivers nutrients and processes waste. It is also fucking gross. If you've never seen one, have a look. I'll wait... ... gross, huh? Some people eat that thing... anyway, back on topic. Twins can have individual placentas or share one. It's just not a factor. So I can indeed understand how people get "flustered" when you talk about placentas, twin 1. They're probably thinking to themselves, "Is everything I know about twins wrong?" It's a natural reaction, considering you would expect a twin to know what caused her to be a twin.
So what is a twin? I'm sure twin 1 knows by now, after the flood (trickle?) of comments and emails this article probably produced. If you paw through the ones with subject lines like, "YOUR HOTT" and the more grammatically correct, "YOU ARE HOT", you'll probably find a few that say the following: monozygotic, or "identical" twins are the product of a single fertilized egg that split into two complete embryos early in development.
So... for shame, twin 1. You're just playing into the blond model stereotype. I know that they aren't putting you on TV for your brains... but still. Oh, and by the way, the rest of the list was really vapid as well.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Ring the bell all you want, I don't feel bad.
'Tis the season to avoid eye contact with those Salvation Army bell ringers. You probably feel bad about it, don't you? Well, in recent years I've come to the conclusion that I don't really feel bad about ignoring them. I give to charitable causes, just not them. Why, you may ask? Well, there are lots of charitable groups out there, and most of them don't show a pattern of discrimination.
Most people don't realize that the Salvation Army is a church first and foremost. Of course, they'd prefer you didn't think of them like that. It's not that surprising, just think about the name: Salvation Army. What sort of salvation? The religious kind, I guess. Their officers are ministers, and their charter clearly emphasizes their mission to spread Christianity.
If this were the extent of it, I wouldn't care so much. There are instances of the nicer donated items going home with high-ranking employees, theft of funds by employees, and then there's that creepy militaristic thing they do. In many areas officers are not even allowed to marry outside the church -er, I mean organization.
There is a clear pattern of discrimination against homosexuals in the Salvation Army. They refuse to hire anyone known to be gay. They even worked out secret deals with the Bush administration to protect that policy in exchange for supporting the "faith-based initiatives". In fact, they even actively lobby against pro-gay legislation. Their addiction treatment programs are just glorified bible study. It that's your thing, fine. But people should know that's what they're donating to.
When New York City moved to require all organizations to provide benefits to the domestic partners of employees, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their New York soup kitchens. It seems like their priorities are a little off. They're a church when it's beneficial, and a charitable organization when that's beneficial.
Okay, I get it... they're technically a church and they can do this stuff (as stupid as it is). That doesn't mean that people shouldn't know this before they fork over donations. There are lots of other charities to donate to. Why not give some money to public radio or Amnesty International instead?
Most people don't realize that the Salvation Army is a church first and foremost. Of course, they'd prefer you didn't think of them like that. It's not that surprising, just think about the name: Salvation Army. What sort of salvation? The religious kind, I guess. Their officers are ministers, and their charter clearly emphasizes their mission to spread Christianity.
If this were the extent of it, I wouldn't care so much. There are instances of the nicer donated items going home with high-ranking employees, theft of funds by employees, and then there's that creepy militaristic thing they do. In many areas officers are not even allowed to marry outside the church -er, I mean organization.
There is a clear pattern of discrimination against homosexuals in the Salvation Army. They refuse to hire anyone known to be gay. They even worked out secret deals with the Bush administration to protect that policy in exchange for supporting the "faith-based initiatives". In fact, they even actively lobby against pro-gay legislation. Their addiction treatment programs are just glorified bible study. It that's your thing, fine. But people should know that's what they're donating to.
When New York City moved to require all organizations to provide benefits to the domestic partners of employees, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their New York soup kitchens. It seems like their priorities are a little off. They're a church when it's beneficial, and a charitable organization when that's beneficial.
Okay, I get it... they're technically a church and they can do this stuff (as stupid as it is). That doesn't mean that people shouldn't know this before they fork over donations. There are lots of other charities to donate to. Why not give some money to public radio or Amnesty International instead?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Mike Huckabee thinks you're dumb.
If you're pressed for time, allow me to summarize my feelings on fmr. Gov. Huckabee. Huck (as I like to call him) is trying his hardest to convince people that conservative values are the right ones. In the process he says really offensive things in a really polite tone in an attempt to fool you. He thinks you're an idiot.
Huck just wrote a book, and is therefore, on a book tour. I've caught a few of his interviews and was instantly reminded of how much I dislike him. In each interview the subject of gay marriage has come up. This seems to be the most contentious right now; probably because of the Prop 8 fiasco. He has a really interesting (and moronic) way of responding to the totally valid point that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and he comes off as patronizing. His first argument is on the basis of definitions.
Seriously, he just blathers on about how we shouldn't be changing the definition of marriage. My response is, "why the hell does it matter?" Definitions change all the time. What is this, some sort of language worship? But when he says "definition" I think he means "biblical definition". In order not to sound too preachy, he carefully avoids this phrase. There are a lot of things that were acceptable in biblical times that are not appropriate now, and vice versa. He's talking down to people with this. Why would he think that definitions are a reason to deny someone equality? When this gets old he moves on to, what must be, the lamest argument. Chromosomes.
He always starts this line of reasoning talking about how humans have 46 chromosomes. He does this to sound smart. What he's getting at is the classic argument that marriage is for procreation. It was laughable the first time I heard it, and it still is. My wife and I have no plans to have kids... are we not allowed to be married? What if someone is sterile? This argument just doesn't make sense to me. This seems like a well masked "tab A, slot B" obsession. I can almost see him yelling, "THEY JUST GO TOGETHER!" And what about transgendered people? Are they allowed to marry someone of the opposite physical gender, but same genetic gender? Will Huck be checking their genitals just to make sure?
This whole argument shouldn't even be happening. Denying marriage to gay people is discrimination, plain and simple. To mask it behind some sort of congenial business-like discussion seems even more insulting... if that's possible. Just imagine Huck walking up to you and saying, "So, just so you're aware we're gonna go ahead and deny you some rights. Don't worry about it though, it makes more sense this way."
Huck just wrote a book, and is therefore, on a book tour. I've caught a few of his interviews and was instantly reminded of how much I dislike him. In each interview the subject of gay marriage has come up. This seems to be the most contentious right now; probably because of the Prop 8 fiasco. He has a really interesting (and moronic) way of responding to the totally valid point that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and he comes off as patronizing. His first argument is on the basis of definitions.
Seriously, he just blathers on about how we shouldn't be changing the definition of marriage. My response is, "why the hell does it matter?" Definitions change all the time. What is this, some sort of language worship? But when he says "definition" I think he means "biblical definition". In order not to sound too preachy, he carefully avoids this phrase. There are a lot of things that were acceptable in biblical times that are not appropriate now, and vice versa. He's talking down to people with this. Why would he think that definitions are a reason to deny someone equality? When this gets old he moves on to, what must be, the lamest argument. Chromosomes.
He always starts this line of reasoning talking about how humans have 46 chromosomes. He does this to sound smart. What he's getting at is the classic argument that marriage is for procreation. It was laughable the first time I heard it, and it still is. My wife and I have no plans to have kids... are we not allowed to be married? What if someone is sterile? This argument just doesn't make sense to me. This seems like a well masked "tab A, slot B" obsession. I can almost see him yelling, "THEY JUST GO TOGETHER!" And what about transgendered people? Are they allowed to marry someone of the opposite physical gender, but same genetic gender? Will Huck be checking their genitals just to make sure?
Above: This is either the cover of Huck's new book, or it's a cunning photoshop... your call.
This whole argument shouldn't even be happening. Denying marriage to gay people is discrimination, plain and simple. To mask it behind some sort of congenial business-like discussion seems even more insulting... if that's possible. Just imagine Huck walking up to you and saying, "So, just so you're aware we're gonna go ahead and deny you some rights. Don't worry about it though, it makes more sense this way."
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Don't get used to it.
I purchased some gas today, and I was actually happy about it. Why? Because it was $1.59/gallon. We call that awesome 'round these parts. I just think it's especially interesting because we've sort of gotten in this mindset that we'd never see these sort of prices again. Case in point:
Above: I don't remember any planes at the gas station today
It's not every day the Internet has to eat its words. But here's the thing, it won't last. Lets all enjoy it, but don't rely on it. Even though this trend is recent, people seem to be forgetting that. According to Marketwatch, in May only about 9% of SUV owners that traded in their vehicles got another large one. Just a few months ago, when prices began to plummet, that rate had risen to over 20%. This is a troubling trend.
I just don't want this to be one of those never-ending cycles. Gas gets cheap, people buy huge cars that they don't need, gas prices spike, everyone freaks out. I could see the "big three" thinking that they don't actually need to retool in the near future. Maybe they get their bailout, and gas stays cheap for a year or two. Enough time for people to stop clamoring for fuel efficiency (because people have shit long-term memories). It's like a snake eating it's own tail or something.
It's not every day the Internet has to eat its words. But here's the thing, it won't last. Lets all enjoy it, but don't rely on it. Even though this trend is recent, people seem to be forgetting that. According to Marketwatch, in May only about 9% of SUV owners that traded in their vehicles got another large one. Just a few months ago, when prices began to plummet, that rate had risen to over 20%. This is a troubling trend.
I just don't want this to be one of those never-ending cycles. Gas gets cheap, people buy huge cars that they don't need, gas prices spike, everyone freaks out. I could see the "big three" thinking that they don't actually need to retool in the near future. Maybe they get their bailout, and gas stays cheap for a year or two. Enough time for people to stop clamoring for fuel efficiency (because people have shit long-term memories). It's like a snake eating it's own tail or something.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Keep god out of homeland security.
I came across this article the other day and was a bit taken aback. Last time I checked, we have separation of Church and state:
"Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security"
My favorite part was :
Hmmm... pretty sure we don't have to acknowledge divine providence. I mean, can anyone explain to me how this is acceptable? It's a clear endorsement of a religious belief. We don't need to be officially endorsing anything of the sort. If you wanna believe in a god that cares and has control over what happens on Earth, that's you call. Though, what with all the stuff that goes down in the world, that would seem to make him a bit of a jerk. Whatever. I'm not asking for a giant "keep god out of government" sign, just that we ignore the issue in the public sphere.
If we suppose for a minute that god is real, who's to say that he's rooting for us? I mean, Bush has done some very un-christian things in the last 8 years. What if god is like, totally cool with Switzerland or Belgium, and could care less what happens to America? I don't think people should be trying to attach intentions to the supposedly omnipotent god they worship. If I were omnipotent, that would piss my almighty ass off.
"Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security"
My favorite part was :
"No government by itself can guarantee perfect security," Riner said. "There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational understanding of what America is."
Hmmm... pretty sure we don't have to acknowledge divine providence. I mean, can anyone explain to me how this is acceptable? It's a clear endorsement of a religious belief. We don't need to be officially endorsing anything of the sort. If you wanna believe in a god that cares and has control over what happens on Earth, that's you call. Though, what with all the stuff that goes down in the world, that would seem to make him a bit of a jerk. Whatever. I'm not asking for a giant "keep god out of government" sign, just that we ignore the issue in the public sphere.
If we suppose for a minute that god is real, who's to say that he's rooting for us? I mean, Bush has done some very un-christian things in the last 8 years. What if god is like, totally cool with Switzerland or Belgium, and could care less what happens to America? I don't think people should be trying to attach intentions to the supposedly omnipotent god they worship. If I were omnipotent, that would piss my almighty ass off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
