Why you should not link to Slashdot
Aug. 21st, 2007 02:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
progWhile looking at the ETech 2008 website, I see that they link to this Slashdot story as an example of something cool that they'd welcome a presentation on. Really, you shouldn't do that. Link to the story that Slashdot is linking to, instead. Otherwise the page you link to looks like this:
Headline (literallly) MILITARY RUNNING A PARALLEL EARTH SIMULATOR
Story (on theregister.com, my summary): The US military is looking into a proposal to predict domestic and political reactions to various speculative events through by a sophisticated computer program that would be able to work with various kinds of gathered intelligence data. It is currently just a concept paper and is not "running", by the military or anyone else, and the scope of its simulation doesn't go beyond the political. (The Register's tone is pretty over-the-top ZOMG YOU ARE BEING SIMULATED as well, but it's not hard to read past.)
Comments (taking up 99 percent of the page's vertical space): Booger-flinging fight about the Iraq War, mixed with +5 Funnys involving iPhones, beowulf clusters, and assorted sexist leering.
Dude, no.
Headline (literallly) MILITARY RUNNING A PARALLEL EARTH SIMULATOR
Story (on theregister.com, my summary): The US military is looking into a proposal to predict domestic and political reactions to various speculative events through by a sophisticated computer program that would be able to work with various kinds of gathered intelligence data. It is currently just a concept paper and is not "running", by the military or anyone else, and the scope of its simulation doesn't go beyond the political. (The Register's tone is pretty over-the-top ZOMG YOU ARE BEING SIMULATED as well, but it's not hard to read past.)
Comments (taking up 99 percent of the page's vertical space): Booger-flinging fight about the Iraq War, mixed with +5 Funnys involving iPhones, beowulf clusters, and assorted sexist leering.
Dude, no.