Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Google It (Score 1) 189 189

Damn, that's a nice program. Kudos to Brother.

I wish I could find something on their website that states what they actually do with the returned toner cartridges. All I could find is this:

We will evaluate the opportunities to recycle, reuse, reduce, refuse and reform resources throughout the life cycle of our products.

My emphasis. This is not a commitment to recycle. It's feel-good corporate-speak.

Do they actually dismantle and recycle them? Do they refurbish them, or sell them to a refurbisher? Or do they just dispose of them so that they stay out of the after-market?

I'm sorry to be cynical. Brother may very well be acting as a good corporate citizen. But when I don't see explicit mention of their actions, I start to wonder what they are.

I suspect there are two problems for them in being too clear. First, I suspect they can't guarantee to reuse every cartridge - some of them will be damaged or contaminated, I imagine; second, they won't want to validate third party cartridge refills by admitting they actually do refills themselves! I recycle my Lexmark cartridges by mailing them back (with a prepaid shipping label they include with every new cartridge); my guess is they will refill and reset perfect-condition cartridges, recondition damaged or older ones, and recover the raw materials from unusable ones, but they won't want to be too open about the details. The "new" cartridges aren't exactly cheap, admitting they're sometimes actually refills would probably hurt sales.

Comment: Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 4, Interesting) 130 130

I have outstanding submissions anywhere from 6 months to a year right now. I just got one denied that was just over 6 months old.

Of course, they'll take graffiti on the side of a dumpster, but they won't take actual non-death-camp historic landmarks.

As I keep saying, their approval process is handled by a randomizer. No human can be as pathetic as their approve/deny decisions have been.

Hell, I tried to have a portal removed from my ex-wife's house. I went out to visit our daughter, and while I was trying to explain the game, I turned on the game and it was on the house. The picture was from a commercial property miles away. They refused to remove it.

Comment: Re:Why two videos? For the love of dog, why?! (Score 1) 47 47

That said, I still can't see any good reason for doing this. "Management-imposed restraints" could mean anything.

Well, "management-imposed restraints" doesn't actually answer the question of why, so your question wasn't unreasonable.

Based on the trajectory of Slashdot after the Dice takeover, though, presumably the real answer for "why" is "because our managers are total morons."

Comment: Re:Or (Score 1) 117 117

If you do the leading edges and windscreen with furniture polish (people swear by Lemon Pledge, I use Mr Sheen because Pledge doesn't seem to be sold locally) the bug guts wipe off very easily (and I suspect many just don't stick but I've not done a scientific test of this).

Take an awful lot of Pledge to do an airliner leading edge, though.

Comment: Re:No More Bennett (Score 1) 187 187

In chromium/chrome, you can save the file as "nobennett.user.js" and drag it from your file manager onto the chrome://extensions page; chrome will then give you a popup to ask you to confirm.

In firefox, you can install it using the Greasemonkey plugin.

There might be other options for other browsers; this was the first/only user script I've ever written, so I don't know all the tricks.

Comment: No More Bennett (Score 5, Interesting) 187 187

I was surprised to find this show up on the Slashdot front page, and then realized that since the last time we had a Bennett post, I had switched computers, and so my user script to block them was no longer installed. Since I'd already seen it, though, I figured I'd post a link to the script again: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/3235db049b18699c082b#file-gistfile1-txt.

This article isn't as stupid as Bennett's normal tripe; at least he seems to have identified a real issue here, although Slashdot is still allowing him to use their website as his personal blog. One amusing thing, though: he's complaining that United isn't responding to his emails about the hole. I've asked Slashdot repeatedly (through both e-mail and comment threads) to make it possible for us to block Bennett posts, or at least to comment on why they won't. The Slashdot staff have, so far, completely ignored me. They have apparently been too busy adding "share to TwitBook" buttons to the stories.

Comment: Re:What about low-income boys? (Score 1) 473 473

Look, if I start a soup kitchen for the poor in some predominantly black community, it doesn't mean I'm a racist who hates white people. It just means I only have the resources for one soup kitchen and because I live there or have ties to that community I wanted to help those people with my limited time and money.

The program under discussion isn't serving a predominately female community.

Comment: Re:I'd be in favour of something else... (Score 1) 233 233

I am making the leap that they do not mind them - this is not the same as enjoys them. I suspect that the vast majority do not watch them and even fewer do more than skim the transcripts.

The post I referenced in my original reply that you objected to said:

Thousands of people watch those videos and seem to like them...

If your point is just that most people don't hate the videos enough to complain about them in the comment section, then there's no point arguing further, because we agree.

Roblimo made the claim that a sparse number of complaints is evidence that people like them. That seemed to be what you were defending as well, but if that's not the case, then it doesn't matter.

Comment: Re:I'd be in favour of something else... (Score 1) 233 233

However, it is faulty logic to assume what you dislike is normative.

My post has nothing to do with an assumption that everyone shares my dislike.

My point is that Roblimo has absolutely no proof that thousands of people like these videos. Neither do you, unless you've got a stash of private communication from people that like them. You're making a leap that there is some silent majority that enjoys them, but doesn't talk about them, because otherwise you'd expect more negative comments.

You could be right. I think that's doubtful, given the reasons I've outlined already -- the total of your evidence seems to be that I should "rest assured" that you're right -- but short of taking a poll I can't prove it.

Comment: Re:I'd be in favour of something else... (Score 1) 233 233

What you are leading yourself to believe does not seem to be important or factual. It does not even seem to be logical. Do you think that the folks who watch the video are going to come post, "I am glad that was in video format, I liked it!" Surely you do not believe that... We, as a group, do not post about what we like - we post about what we dislike. If you see a few posts complaining then you can reasonably guess that far more do not mind.

Or alternatively -- and just as reasonable a guess -- only the people who have an extreme dislike for the videos post complaining about them, and the far more who do not post on the subject just don't feel strongly enough about it to complain. I fall into that category; I haven't complained about the video, but I think that a video interview is an extremely poor medium for conveying information.

People come to Slashdot for the comment section. Presumably, if there actually existed a large number (thousands) of people that like these videos, then they would respond to some of the negative comments. That rarely happens.

The complainers have had a positive effect, by the way. Originally there were rarely transcripts of the videos, which made them useless to anyone who has better things to do with their lives than watch them. I doubt we would have ended up getting transcripts for most videos if it wasn't for the complaints.

Comment: Re:I'd be in favour of something else... (Score 1) 233 233

Thousands of people watch those videos and seem to like them, while 5 or 10 complain.

I don't have a problem with linking to a video as long as you have a transcript, but the fact that "thousands" of people watched them without complaining doesn't prove anything about whether they liked them. In fact, every single comment I've seen about the sort of "webcam interview" videos which are nothing but somebody talking is negative, which leads me to believe that very few people actually like them.

This is as opposed to videos that actually show something graphically that you're not going to get from a simple transcript -- people seem to be mostly OK with those.

The UNIX philosophy basically involves giving you enough rope to hang yourself. And then a couple of feet more, just to be sure.

Working...