Journal damn_registrars's Journal: My Friend's Latest Joke 24
dr. limbeck
in his first new journal entry. So I pondered who this "doctor" might be - and google helped out quite a bit with that. A Google search gives some insight and leads to a photosharing site where we see a message from my friend's my friend's other slashdot name. That message leads to a more telling message where he shares with us the identity of this doctor:
By Naqamel on Jan 29, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Yeah, it is a portmanteau of Limbaugh and Beck, since that's two names guaranteed to make liberal heads explode.
And therein we find the joke. Because of course a true conservative (who he is not) would know that indeed liberals do not find themselves victims of exploding heads from those two names. Rather, a true conservative knows that those names generally leave us doubled over in laughter.
So thank you for the joke, friend. It is amusing to see that you are sharing your unique humor with a wider audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you just continuing on his joke, by hiding under the anonymous coward veil and accusing me of being a "cyber-stalker"?
Either way I thank my friend railgunner/naqamel for a good laugh. This week was starting to d
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have a fascinating new definition of "stalker", there. Everything I referred to was publicly accessible, either through google or through a slashdot journal entry.
I was curious what the two of you were groping each other over, so I found this. I don't care one way or another who is in love with whom, but I would like to point out that whether information is publicly accessible has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're "stalking." I am not convinced at all that you ARE stalking, but simply saying "it's publicly accessible" is completely irrelevant to that question.
This has been a public service announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
and
Of course, I recognize that the second is not the same as actually agreeing with what I said, and I acknowledge your right to have a different opinion than my own.
However, your assertion of "you two" is interesting from a different standpoint. Are you suggesting that the anonymous coward post that I was replying
Re: (Score:2)
However, your assertion of "you two" is interesting from a different standpoint. Are you suggesting that the anonymous coward post that I was replying to was actually posted by my friend with the interesting journal entries?
No, I was referring to the posters of the duelling journal entries. I saw RailGunner's journal entry; I looked for journal entries that mentioned him; came to this one. It's not hard, anyone can do it. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw RailGunner's journal entry
Are you referring to This entry ("How Cute!")? [slashdot.org]
He did not actually specify that his entry was in response to a journal entry. His text was quite short, as a matter of fact. While indeed my journal entry some 20 minutes prior [slashdot.org] did specifically mention him and his earlier entry, he could have been referring to something else in his entry.
I looked for journal entries that mentioned him; came to this one. It's not hard, anyone can do it.
I will take that to mean that the journal entry search tool works better for you than it does for me. Or did you instead use the google tool that I employed (and earned
Re: (Score:1)
He did not actually specify that his entry was in response to a journal entry.
You're right. And yet, when I searched the journals for "railgunner," there it was!
I will take that to mean that the journal entry search tool works better for you than it does for me.
Nope. This older search [slashdot.org] works quite well, actually. I don't use it much, but it's there. Or you can go to the home page, hit "recent," and then type "railgunner journal" in the search box.
I could have left off "journal," of course, but I figured I'd look there first, to get a better chance of higher-value results. If it failed to turn it up, I would have removed "journal" or replaced it with "comment."
Now you know! And
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap. I logged in as "pudgetest" to make sure that my non-admin account works fine with the search, since you implied that maybe it wasn't working well. THIS IS HOW MUCH I GIVE OF MYSELF.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap. I logged in as "pudgetest" to make sure that my non-admin account works fine with the search, since you implied that maybe it wasn't working well.
Actually I have three concerns about the search
Re: (Score:2)
search.pl
Don't use search.pl. Use the home page (preferably when logged in).
The search doesn't generally work well with "and" functions
AND and NOT work (on the home page) in the form of + and -. In search.pl, it's all OR'd.
[the firehose] has some nice features, but it is quite slow and makes simple things more difficult (while not appreciably helping with more difficult things)
I wonder if you need to use it more ... it's not any slower for searching than search.pl for me (and usually faster).
How very liberal of you to give more of yourself than you think is necessary.
Charity is not a particularly liberal virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
search.pl
Don't use search.pl. Use the home page (preferably when logged in).
Perhaps I am not seeing something obvious here, but when I run a search from the field on the home page, it always sends me to search.pl for the results.
The search doesn't generally work well with "and" functions
AND and NOT work (on the home page) in the form of + and -. In search.pl, it's all OR'd.
Hmmm. I'll have to play around with it some, but so far my results don't support that working as advertised.
And why can't I input quotes into the search field? For example if I want to find "Microsoft sucks donkey" instead of any page that has "Microsoft", "sucks", and "donkey"?
[the firehose] has some nice features, but it is quite slow and makes simple things more difficult (while not appreciably helping with more difficult things)
I wonder if you need to use it more ... it's not any slower for searching than search.pl for me (and usually faster).
I may just need to upgrade to a newer and sexier browser. My browser does
Re: (Score:2)
one Merriam-Webster definition of liberal [merriam-webster.com] reads "marked by generosity"
That's idiotic. In fact, studies show that conservatives are MORE generous than liberals. True, liberals want to give more, but that's after taking it from other people, which doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
That's idiotic. In fact, studies show that conservatives are MORE generous than liberals. True, liberals want to give more, but that's after taking it from other people, which doesn't count.
That all depends on whose studies you are watching, and how they define "liberal" versus "conservative" (amongst other things).
However, that is not at all related to what we were discussing before I tried to make a joke. I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my attempt at humor. I do recall a time not too long ago where you tried to make a joke, so I thought perhaps that meant it would be OK for me to try the same.
I would very much rather discuss how one is to execute a meaningful search on slashd
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my attempt at humor.
No, I am just annoyed that a dictionary would have such an idiotic definition. Dictionaries often suck.
As to the rest, I don't think you can search for phrases. And again, don't use search.pl. Not sure how you are getting it, and can't look right now, but ... don't do it!
Re: (Score:2)
I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my attempt at humor.
No, I am just annoyed that a dictionary would have such an idiotic definition. Dictionaries often suck.
Perhaps there was also an error in communication in that matter. Your response seemed to be based on the expectation that I was using the word in the political sense, while I was actually using it in a non-political (see the definition provided) sense - which is why it was supposed to be a joke.
If you don't like the dictionary, I don't really know what to say. I generally try to use language to within the confines of the definitions provided by dictionaries, and I occasionally try to exploit the odditi
Re: (Score:2)
Your response seemed to be based on the expectation that I was using the word in the political sense
No, I was referring to the dictionary, not you. And there is no definition of "liberal" that reasonably means "generous," not in the sense of personal generosity, which is how the M-W definition reads. Saying someone provides "liberal portions of meat" is not the same as being, himself, generally "marked by generosity." Of course, M-W is often poorly written.
I generally try to use language to within the confines of the definitions provided by dictionaries
Odd. I never do that. Dictionaries do not tell us how TO use words, they tell us how we already DO use words (if they are any good).
When I enter a search into the search bar at the top of the slashdot front page, and hit enter, I am directed to a query at search.pl
I do not. May
Re: (Score:2)
I generally try to use language to within the confines of the definitions provided by dictionaries
Odd. I never do that. Dictionaries do not tell us how TO use words, they tell us how we already DO use words (if they are any good).
From my perspective it seems that one possible consequence of continually redefining words on-the-fly is that soon many words will lose their meaning altogether. At that point communication itself could start to break down due to lack of understanding between communicating parties.
But we are getting quite a ways off-topic from the more important matter...
When I enter a search into the search bar at the top of the slashdot front page, and hit enter, I am directed to a query at search.pl
I do not. Maybe it's a Konq thing. Weird. Not sure offhand, but I can look into it.
I just tried using Firefox3 and saw the same result. In my case the important part seems to be whether I am logged in or not - if I am logged in, my
Re: (Score:2)
Now my searches go through index2.pl (and look like the firehose). But so far I can only find a way to use that search to search through stories or (perhaps) submissions. It doesn't seem to search through journal entries or comments. How does one do that? The old search.pl had radio buttons that could be used to run the search through any of "stories", "comments", "journal entries", etc... I can't seem to find a way to configure
Re: (Score:2)
it seems that one possible consequence of continually redefining words on-the-fly
I wouldn't know, as I've never done that.
It occurs to me that I did opt to set "use classic index" to on.
That would likely do it.
Re: (Score:2)
so far I can only find a way to use that search to search through stories or (perhaps) submissions
Click the "recent" tab. By default you're looking at "stories." Then change the color to "black" as most comments will be that color.
You can also use the search box to restrict to type. "comment firefox3" will show your latest comment (een under "stories"). "journal" and "submission" also work.
Re: (Score:2)
Click the "recent" tab. By default you're looking at "stories." Then change the color to "black" as most comments will be that color.
OK. I entered a search query from the front page. The results were useless but they got me to where I could click "recent". I did that, which lead me to http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org]. There I cannot find any way to set the color.
I thought I could perhaps replicate your search anyways. You suggested
You can also use the search box to restrict to type. "comment firefox3" will show your latest comment (een under "stories")
Which I took (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that I can type
comment firefox3
Into the search box to find my comment. I did that and the results page was http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=comment+firefox3 [slashdot.org] which did not
Re: (Score:2)
There I cannot find any way to set the color.
The little color thingy next to the search box (assuming, again, you are logged in)?
Which I took (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that I can type "comment firefox3"
No, that's right, but again, you need to lower the color. You can just add "color=black" to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The little color thingy next to the search box (assuming, again, you are logged in)?
I am logged in, but the colored box is not showing up.
Which I took (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that I can type "comment firefox3"
No, that's right, but again, you need to lower the color. You can just add "color=black" to that.
That does work. That was my "hack" that I mentioned in the end of that previous reply :)
On a related note, what if I want to search for something with a hyphen in its name? Say perhaps I wanted to see how many people talked about "blu-ray" versus "bluray". If I enter "blu-ray" into the search box it splits the terms and does a search for "blu" OR "ray"; much of which will of course have nothing to do with "blu-ray".
Re: (Score:2)
You're right
Wow, that isn't something you say to me very often. I might have to write this down on my calendar or something.
This older search works quite well, actually. I don't use it much, but it's there
That actually is quite similar to the search function I use regularly [slashdot.org] to search for new journal entries. However I do not make a practice of searching for entries from specific authors; and I have even missed some entries from some authors on busy days or days when I don't read slashdot.
However I suspect you may be aware that one option for members is to receive a message whenever their frie