if it's ever appeared anywhere, it can't appear here? August 5, 2002 1:29 PM Subscribe
There we go, a day's worth of Slashdot stories for you.
posted by wackybrit
So, is the new rule that if it's ever appeared anywhere, it can't appear here?
posted by wackybrit
So, is the new rule that if it's ever appeared anywhere, it can't appear here?
See my comments on another thread here and here. I won't speak to the merits of any particular thread or post, but I will say that I like front page posts with some research behind them. Rather than a link to a piece of news, whether or not it's been seen on another site, I'd like to see the link to the particular item, plus some links to background material and related items that put the topic in context. Y2karl's occasional music posts are, in my opinion, perfect examples of front page posts.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:40 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:40 PM on August 5, 2002
Doesn't everything on Slashdot show up on The Register first anyway?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:40 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:40 PM on August 5, 2002
It's a great topic for a post. It's unavoidable that Slashdot links would end up on Metafilter from time to time (and probably vice versa). Besides, if wackybrit really cared about standards here, he would've pitched his fit here in MetaTalk where it belongs, instead of polluting the thread.
posted by rcade at 1:42 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by rcade at 1:42 PM on August 5, 2002
I don't think wackybrit meant any harm. Anyone can understand the frustration felt when a visit to the 'Filter shows only one or two things you haven't seen before. I don't think that we need any guideline besides "post things most people haven't seen before", but a cranky "aw man!" here or there won't bring the sky crashing down, either.
In other words: no harm done, dejah.
posted by Marquis at 1:47 PM on August 5, 2002
In other words: no harm done, dejah.
posted by Marquis at 1:47 PM on August 5, 2002
I get annoyed when I see links from Slashdot on Metafilter. Even though I know that's not logical.
But I'm also smart enough to realize many Metafilter readers don't read Slashdot. And among those that do I'll bet real money that most (if not all) would rather discuss the topic at Metafilter than Slashdot.
In other words - dejah420 is right, and wackybrit is wrong.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:47 PM on August 5, 2002
But I'm also smart enough to realize many Metafilter readers don't read Slashdot. And among those that do I'll bet real money that most (if not all) would rather discuss the topic at Metafilter than Slashdot.
In other words - dejah420 is right, and wackybrit is wrong.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:47 PM on August 5, 2002
None of that really bothers me, but seeing Yahoo's Oddly Enough column reprinted here like a week after the articles appear is maddening. I just employ a new strategy: skip the damned thread.
posted by adampsyche at 1:52 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 1:52 PM on August 5, 2002
monju, dig what you're saying, and agree...but in this instance, the article was so well researched and documented, it would have seemed like plagiarizing to try and document it any more. :) I'm rarely astounded by how well researched something is...and this was one of those times when I was tre amazed at the work the author had done.
I do check /. periodically...just with no where near the regularity that I check the blue. Mostly because, while I enjoy scanning the links and news they have, I've just kinda lost interest in playing with the community there. Although, there are some funny, funny people that hang out there, which can often make it worthwhile if you filter by score.
I think I probably overreacted. I'm a bit moody. Kung Fu Fetus is keeping me awake nights and the Neighbors of Doom are keeping me awake during the day. Like my mom always said, there's just no rest for the wicked. :)
posted by dejah420 at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2002
I do check /. periodically...just with no where near the regularity that I check the blue. Mostly because, while I enjoy scanning the links and news they have, I've just kinda lost interest in playing with the community there. Although, there are some funny, funny people that hang out there, which can often make it worthwhile if you filter by score.
I think I probably overreacted. I'm a bit moody. Kung Fu Fetus is keeping me awake nights and the Neighbors of Doom are keeping me awake during the day. Like my mom always said, there's just no rest for the wicked. :)
posted by dejah420 at 1:56 PM on August 5, 2002
I said this before, and I'll say it again . . .
There's no point in trying to escape links on other community or individual sites. How many links are sourced here only, or even first? The fact that someone's found them normally means they've been found by someone else first, and it seems a moot point to track down all the other places a link or a story has appeared before deciding whether or not it belongs here.
If it's not on slahdot, it's on fark. If not fark, then plastic. If not plastic, you can but you bootie it's appeared on Kottke or RCB or Weblog Wannabe or Ain't Too Proud or any other number of high-trafficked blog sites out there. And if it's not at any of those places, no doubt it was found on daypop, or will be found there damn shortly.
The MeFi credo for a long time has been "Oh, here's something interesting . . . what do you think?," so why fight it? No doubt the same number of NYT and WP and Wired links are going to continue to appear, along with the occasional Nation, Sun, and Register links. Not everyone's going to bother researching a topic they feel strongly about to make a front page post. More often than not, posts here have been little more than interesting things found stumbling the web. Just because tools like daypop and blogdex have made it easier to find those things doesn't mean that MeFi posters should be chastised for being interested in the same thing as everyone else, coincidentally or not.
posted by dogmatic at 2:10 PM on August 5, 2002
There's no point in trying to escape links on other community or individual sites. How many links are sourced here only, or even first? The fact that someone's found them normally means they've been found by someone else first, and it seems a moot point to track down all the other places a link or a story has appeared before deciding whether or not it belongs here.
If it's not on slahdot, it's on fark. If not fark, then plastic. If not plastic, you can but you bootie it's appeared on Kottke or RCB or Weblog Wannabe or Ain't Too Proud or any other number of high-trafficked blog sites out there. And if it's not at any of those places, no doubt it was found on daypop, or will be found there damn shortly.
The MeFi credo for a long time has been "Oh, here's something interesting . . . what do you think?," so why fight it? No doubt the same number of NYT and WP and Wired links are going to continue to appear, along with the occasional Nation, Sun, and Register links. Not everyone's going to bother researching a topic they feel strongly about to make a front page post. More often than not, posts here have been little more than interesting things found stumbling the web. Just because tools like daypop and blogdex have made it easier to find those things doesn't mean that MeFi posters should be chastised for being interested in the same thing as everyone else, coincidentally or not.
posted by dogmatic at 2:10 PM on August 5, 2002
dejah: I understand what you're saying, and the article you linked to was a good one. My only point is that the tragedy of the commons, which was the subject of that article, is a economic concept that has been argued in every context from the environment to artificial intelligence. Some resources are here, here, here and here. I just like to see posts that point out some of those other resources.
Again, to dogmatic, I think we're arguing past each other. I have no problem seeing NYT or Wired links, as both are great publications that I don't have time to read thoroughly. In fact, I think one purpose of Metafilter is just that, to filter news sources, including the major ones, so people see what's important and/or interesting. I'm just saying that it's nice to see a post which is, in addition to the link to the news article, fleshed out with background material and additional links.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:18 PM on August 5, 2002
Again, to dogmatic, I think we're arguing past each other. I have no problem seeing NYT or Wired links, as both are great publications that I don't have time to read thoroughly. In fact, I think one purpose of Metafilter is just that, to filter news sources, including the major ones, so people see what's important and/or interesting. I'm just saying that it's nice to see a post which is, in addition to the link to the news article, fleshed out with background material and additional links.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:18 PM on August 5, 2002
There's nothing special about Slashdot. There are well over a dozen other popular sites that people will complain about if anything posted there also shows up here. Not to mention all the people who complain about links from certain newspapers ("groan, not the Post again!" "eew, the Guardian??"). And many Metafilter readers read many of the same blogs (in some cases those MeFi readers may comprise the bulk of their readership). The point is, all of us have different reading habits online. The only thing that it can be taken for granted that we all read is Metafilter. Period.
posted by rushmc at 2:30 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by rushmc at 2:30 PM on August 5, 2002
I've gotta say that some days MeFi is more like "rehash Fark and Slashdot" day. It bugs me, but hey: at least the conversation here is far more intelligent than most of what gets posted at Slashdot (although, IMO, not as funny as Fark).
posted by mrmanley at 2:31 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by mrmanley at 2:31 PM on August 5, 2002
I have never ever been to /. I've heard enough about it to know that it wouldn't be very interesting to me, so I don't go.
It's a silly argument to say that once something has appeared on foo.com, then it shouldn't be posted anywhere else. Can you imagine the boys down at the Eyewitness Foo newsroom throwing up their hands and saying: "Aw, crap! CNN already reported the coal mine collapse story! Well, then scrap it, boys. Let's work on that black ghetto sidewalk blobs story instead. That one has Pulitzer written all over it! Doesn't it? Fellas?"
posted by evanizer at 2:36 PM on August 5, 2002
It's a silly argument to say that once something has appeared on foo.com, then it shouldn't be posted anywhere else. Can you imagine the boys down at the Eyewitness Foo newsroom throwing up their hands and saying: "Aw, crap! CNN already reported the coal mine collapse story! Well, then scrap it, boys. Let's work on that black ghetto sidewalk blobs story instead. That one has Pulitzer written all over it! Doesn't it? Fellas?"
posted by evanizer at 2:36 PM on August 5, 2002
" I just like to see posts that point out some of those other resources."
Or maybe we could use the comment section for what it's designed for. That is - discuss the topic, offer our own opinion, and point out other links that might be of interest.
I fail to understand why a front page post needs to be "researched". I thought Metafilter was designed to foster discussion among its members. If you have a link to add to the discussion then do so. Why beat down the poster because he or she didn't find the links you like?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:44 PM on August 5, 2002
Or maybe we could use the comment section for what it's designed for. That is - discuss the topic, offer our own opinion, and point out other links that might be of interest.
I fail to understand why a front page post needs to be "researched". I thought Metafilter was designed to foster discussion among its members. If you have a link to add to the discussion then do so. Why beat down the poster because he or she didn't find the links you like?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:44 PM on August 5, 2002
I fail to understand why a front page post needs to be "researched".
Because it's more interesting, and provides a more useful resource for users. MeFi's not ALL about the discussion, after all. I think this is particularly true about news posts. Rather than a one liner link from the article, some background and a unique reason to post would be appreciated. Does every post have to be a gem? Of course not. I'd just like it to be the rule, rather than the exception.
I thought Metafilter was designed to foster discussion among its members. If you have a link to add to the discussion then do so.
That's fine, but again, it's not all about the discussion. If all we want is discussion, why even have links at all. Just post "foo," and everybody else can provide the links. It just doesn't work that way.
Why beat down the poster because he or she didn't find the links you like?
I don't think I "beat down" anybody. Isn't this a "self-policing" community? Don't we develop and maintain our own standards? I was just making known my opinion about what I think a good post should be. I recognize that it's my opinion, and people don't have to agree with me. However, by making my preferences visible, I hope other mefites will think about what kind of posts they want to see. I'm just peddling my wares in the marketplace of ideas, ya know.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:54 PM on August 5, 2002
Because it's more interesting, and provides a more useful resource for users. MeFi's not ALL about the discussion, after all. I think this is particularly true about news posts. Rather than a one liner link from the article, some background and a unique reason to post would be appreciated. Does every post have to be a gem? Of course not. I'd just like it to be the rule, rather than the exception.
I thought Metafilter was designed to foster discussion among its members. If you have a link to add to the discussion then do so.
That's fine, but again, it's not all about the discussion. If all we want is discussion, why even have links at all. Just post "foo," and everybody else can provide the links. It just doesn't work that way.
Why beat down the poster because he or she didn't find the links you like?
I don't think I "beat down" anybody. Isn't this a "self-policing" community? Don't we develop and maintain our own standards? I was just making known my opinion about what I think a good post should be. I recognize that it's my opinion, and people don't have to agree with me. However, by making my preferences visible, I hope other mefites will think about what kind of posts they want to see. I'm just peddling my wares in the marketplace of ideas, ya know.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:54 PM on August 5, 2002
Btw, y6y6y6, beautiful pictures on your site.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:55 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:55 PM on August 5, 2002
[gratuitous continuation of the thread hijack]
"Btw, y6y6y6, beautiful pictures on your site."
Thanks. I'm very impressive.
I think we'll just disagree about this style issue. To me the thread is a fantastic example of the community creating an enjoyable discussion and a very nice link resource. I don't see how more research on the part of the poster could have made it better.
To me Metafilter is a great place for discussion. I've seen threads that would pass your research test turn into page after page of "Best. Post. Ever" and "I agree". There is an advantage to leaving the topic a bit open.
In addition, while we sometimes have posts which are designed to present a balanced and fairly comprehensive overview. This post clearly wasn't of that type. It was designed to point to interesting content (which it did), and foster interesting discussion (which it did).
These are minor points and the horse is quite dead.
[/gratuitous continuation of the thread hijack]
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:19 PM on August 5, 2002
"Btw, y6y6y6, beautiful pictures on your site."
Thanks. I'm very impressive.
I think we'll just disagree about this style issue. To me the thread is a fantastic example of the community creating an enjoyable discussion and a very nice link resource. I don't see how more research on the part of the poster could have made it better.
To me Metafilter is a great place for discussion. I've seen threads that would pass your research test turn into page after page of "Best. Post. Ever" and "I agree". There is an advantage to leaving the topic a bit open.
In addition, while we sometimes have posts which are designed to present a balanced and fairly comprehensive overview. This post clearly wasn't of that type. It was designed to point to interesting content (which it did), and foster interesting discussion (which it did).
These are minor points and the horse is quite dead.
[/gratuitous continuation of the thread hijack]
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:19 PM on August 5, 2002
People used to apologize for posting Salon links. Now I almost think folks should apologize for posting Obscure Store or Media News links, as they all seem to make it here shortly after Romenesko posts 'em. Just a tip o' the hat to his ability to find the weird stuff, I guess.
posted by GaelFC at 3:24 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by GaelFC at 3:24 PM on August 5, 2002
MeFi's not ALL about the discussion, after all.
I'd tend to agree (so far, anyway). I spent a year as a non-member reading MeFi every day. I rarely even clicked to the threads, let alone actually follow them.
So if Metafilter is designed to foster discussion, it also serves pretty well in the capacity of finding interesting shit to read on the web.
posted by bingbangbong at 3:29 PM on August 5, 2002
I'd tend to agree (so far, anyway). I spent a year as a non-member reading MeFi every day. I rarely even clicked to the threads, let alone actually follow them.
So if Metafilter is designed to foster discussion, it also serves pretty well in the capacity of finding interesting shit to read on the web.
posted by bingbangbong at 3:29 PM on August 5, 2002
My only point is that the tragedy of the commons, which was the subject of that article
The tragedy of the commons was not the subject of the article. The tragedy of the commons refers to open access resources that can be diminished by use. The article focused on restricted access, and a good part to resources that can not be diminished by use (ideas).
I thought wackybrit's comment was out of line and annoying, but that's just me, and I am biased because I don't read slashdot and was hoping for an interesting discussion.
posted by Nothing at 4:04 PM on August 5, 2002
The tragedy of the commons was not the subject of the article. The tragedy of the commons refers to open access resources that can be diminished by use. The article focused on restricted access, and a good part to resources that can not be diminished by use (ideas).
I thought wackybrit's comment was out of line and annoying, but that's just me, and I am biased because I don't read slashdot and was hoping for an interesting discussion.
posted by Nothing at 4:04 PM on August 5, 2002
To those who think every half-assed comment on MetaFilter deserves a MeTa post, rearrange these words and fill in the blanks with your own incorrect guesses: retentive, anal, unhealthy, online, pointless, pedantic, and ramble.
I don't think wackybrit meant any harm.
Peace.
posted by wackybrit at 4:37 PM on August 5, 2002
I don't think wackybrit meant any harm.
Peace.
posted by wackybrit at 4:37 PM on August 5, 2002
People used to apologize for posting Salon links. Now I almost think folks should apologize for posting Obscure Store or Media News links, as they all seem to make it here shortly after Romenesko posts 'em. Just a tip o' the hat to his ability to find the weird stuff, I guess.
I'd wager that these days all Jim Romenesko has to do to find the weird stuff is open his inbox.
posted by jjg at 6:16 PM on August 5, 2002
I'd wager that these days all Jim Romenesko has to do to find the weird stuff is open his inbox.
posted by jjg at 6:16 PM on August 5, 2002
> I fail to understand why a front page post needs to be "researched".
>> Because it's more interesting, and provides a more useful resource for users.
Monju_bosatsu, what works for you doesn't work well for everyone. In fact, I remember posting something in MeTa eons ago about posts that have too many links in them. (Case in point -- one of the y2karl threads you linked to.) Too many links and background information is overload, and I know that I for one tend to skip over those threads.
I like it when a link is posted, and an opinion or point is given to start off the discussion. We don't need to try to out-do each other with our Google skills. Don't get me wrong -- research or a few select additional links can be helpful (particularly for an obscure topic, or to balance out a subjective link), but a single link by itself is fine.
posted by jennak at 9:40 PM on August 5, 2002
>> Because it's more interesting, and provides a more useful resource for users.
Monju_bosatsu, what works for you doesn't work well for everyone. In fact, I remember posting something in MeTa eons ago about posts that have too many links in them. (Case in point -- one of the y2karl threads you linked to.) Too many links and background information is overload, and I know that I for one tend to skip over those threads.
I like it when a link is posted, and an opinion or point is given to start off the discussion. We don't need to try to out-do each other with our Google skills. Don't get me wrong -- research or a few select additional links can be helpful (particularly for an obscure topic, or to balance out a subjective link), but a single link by itself is fine.
posted by jennak at 9:40 PM on August 5, 2002
I work on the Eyewitness Foo Action News Team. Live! Local! Late-breaking!
posted by owillis at 10:36 PM on August 5, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:36 PM on August 5, 2002
Monju_bosatsu, what works for you doesn't work well for everyone
Can't we agree that all are good (one-link discussion posts, research on a topic, generic topics, obscure topics, funny topics, music threads, science threads etc.)?. Diversity makes the Metafilter go round.
I loved dejah420's post and sent it off to a few of my friends. Its not something I would have found on my own. I dont read slashdot.
posted by vacapinta at 10:52 PM on August 5, 2002
Can't we agree that all are good (one-link discussion posts, research on a topic, generic topics, obscure topics, funny topics, music threads, science threads etc.)?. Diversity makes the Metafilter go round.
I loved dejah420's post and sent it off to a few of my friends. Its not something I would have found on my own. I dont read slashdot.
posted by vacapinta at 10:52 PM on August 5, 2002
I'm just going to make one final comment on this thread, because I think we're probably beating a dead horse at this point.
I like y2karl-style front page posts. I like posts that take an hour or more to go through, posts that destroy my productivity for the day. On the other hand, I'm not saying that every post has to be one of these. Rather, I would prefer to increase the ratio of the longer, more complicated posts to the basic news posts. I'm not calling anybody out or chastising anybody in particular for bad posts. Instead, I'm just making my preferences known in a gambit to convince people that those kinds of posts are good, and perhaps we'll see a few more.
I agree with vacapinta that a diversity of posts is a good thing, and I agree with Jennak that my preferences are not necessarily the community's preferences. I'm just putting my opinion out there in the hopes that I can get a bit more of what I, and hopefully a few others, like.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:35 AM on August 6, 2002
I like y2karl-style front page posts. I like posts that take an hour or more to go through, posts that destroy my productivity for the day. On the other hand, I'm not saying that every post has to be one of these. Rather, I would prefer to increase the ratio of the longer, more complicated posts to the basic news posts. I'm not calling anybody out or chastising anybody in particular for bad posts. Instead, I'm just making my preferences known in a gambit to convince people that those kinds of posts are good, and perhaps we'll see a few more.
I agree with vacapinta that a diversity of posts is a good thing, and I agree with Jennak that my preferences are not necessarily the community's preferences. I'm just putting my opinion out there in the hopes that I can get a bit more of what I, and hopefully a few others, like.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:35 AM on August 6, 2002
To those who think every half-assed comment on MetaFilter deserves a MeTa post, rearrange these words and fill in the blanks with your own incorrect guesses: retentive, anal, unhealthy, online, pointless, pedantic, and ramble.
Oh, bravo. Yet another courageous soul who is bucking the whole "self-policing" idea. You're a working man's hero, sir--you're right! You have the inherent right to be a dickhead whenever you want, and if someone has the temerity to call you out on it, well, that person is some undefined collection of your unpleasant adjectives.
Discussion in MeTa is not by definition pants-wetting or pedantry or rambling or pastel-fucking-jacketed-jackal-whatever (not that I've ever understood that particular muddled metaphor). It is the community--if you still want one, mind you--attempting to make sense of itself. Is that okay? It seems like it should be okay.
posted by Skot at 8:25 AM on August 6, 2002
Oh, bravo. Yet another courageous soul who is bucking the whole "self-policing" idea. You're a working man's hero, sir--you're right! You have the inherent right to be a dickhead whenever you want, and if someone has the temerity to call you out on it, well, that person is some undefined collection of your unpleasant adjectives.
Discussion in MeTa is not by definition pants-wetting or pedantry or rambling or pastel-fucking-jacketed-jackal-whatever (not that I've ever understood that particular muddled metaphor). It is the community--if you still want one, mind you--attempting to make sense of itself. Is that okay? It seems like it should be okay.
posted by Skot at 8:25 AM on August 6, 2002
...pastel-fucking-jacketed-jackal-whatever..
Skot and wackybrit are now my new anti-heroes. Here's the origin of the phrase if you're curious.
posted by euphorb at 9:45 AM on August 6, 2002
Skot and wackybrit are now my new anti-heroes. Here's the origin of the phrase if you're curious.
posted by euphorb at 9:45 AM on August 6, 2002
Skot and wackybrit are now my new anti-heroes. Here's the origin of the phrase if you're curious.
And the arduous search for the archivist of the dumb is now over. When you have a moment, can you track down modern usage information on the phrase "doggy dog world"?
posted by MarkAnd at 10:58 AM on August 6, 2002
And the arduous search for the archivist of the dumb is now over. When you have a moment, can you track down modern usage information on the phrase "doggy dog world"?
posted by MarkAnd at 10:58 AM on August 6, 2002
jennak: We don't need to try to out-do each other with our Google skills.
Is that what we're doing when we post a group of related links on a subject? Hm. I always thought of it as providing a more complex and interesting set of links for the community, which, btw, includes folks who don't read comments. Densely-linked posts aren't necessarily Google-boasting any more than single-link posts are necessarily lazy.
Anything else I'd say has been covered in monju_bosatsu's thoughtful and carefully-written comments.
posted by mediareport at 3:47 PM on August 6, 2002
Is that what we're doing when we post a group of related links on a subject? Hm. I always thought of it as providing a more complex and interesting set of links for the community, which, btw, includes folks who don't read comments. Densely-linked posts aren't necessarily Google-boasting any more than single-link posts are necessarily lazy.
Anything else I'd say has been covered in monju_bosatsu's thoughtful and carefully-written comments.
posted by mediareport at 3:47 PM on August 6, 2002
Diversity makes the Metafilter go round. Oh, absolutely. I was just saying (and perhaps I didn't make this clear) that there shouldn't be one official method of starting a thread.
Me: We don't need to try to out-do each other with our Google skills.
mediareport: Is that what we're doing when we post a group of related links on a subject?
No. We're all capable of doing the research, I'm sure. We've all heard of Google. The point is, in my opinion, to present a links that supports your discussion. Then additional commenters present their links that back up their position. Some other commenters will think of a tanget, or a distantly related topic, and post their links. The end result is a thoughtful discussion that you wouldn't have gotten by just sitting around on Google all day.
Aside: I hate when a bunch of links are presented at the top of the thread, simply because they mention the topic -- the poster, in fact, has nothing to add or say about each of them.
posted by jennak at 8:29 AM on August 7, 2002
Me: We don't need to try to out-do each other with our Google skills.
mediareport: Is that what we're doing when we post a group of related links on a subject?
No. We're all capable of doing the research, I'm sure. We've all heard of Google. The point is, in my opinion, to present a links that supports your discussion. Then additional commenters present their links that back up their position. Some other commenters will think of a tanget, or a distantly related topic, and post their links. The end result is a thoughtful discussion that you wouldn't have gotten by just sitting around on Google all day.
Aside: I hate when a bunch of links are presented at the top of the thread, simply because they mention the topic -- the poster, in fact, has nothing to add or say about each of them.
posted by jennak at 8:29 AM on August 7, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I admit, I didn't check slashdot and didn't realize that stuff posted there was not supposed to be posted here. Didn't realize there was a double post rule when it came to unrelated sites. My bad.
Someone forwarded the link to me. I read it, thought it was interesting, thought people here would think it was interesting.
Is there link that can be posted anymore without getting a snarky derail going?
posted by dejah420 at 1:32 PM on August 5, 2002