We also wanted to take a moment and talk more about yesterday's changes. This is not a full redesign â" far from it. We got rid of the left-hand nav bar because it just wasn't getting used very much. One of the biggest pieces of feedback from the Beta test was that the community didn't want us to waste screen real estate. The left-hand nav bar wasted a lot, particularly on smaller browser widths. Aside from gaining more space on the page, all the comments and stories are the same as before. The most noticeable change was to the header. We didn't want to take away navigation functionality altogether, so we put it there, and made the header look and scale a bit better. We're not done working on it, and we're cleaning up the places in which it breaks.
I think one of the biggest fallacies that developers make is forgetting that vertical real estate is far more precious than horizontal real estate. Even now on a 27" screen, I've got two inches of vertical real estate eaten up by browser menus, tabs, and headers. I've got perhaps ten inches of horizontal real estate that serves no purpose other than to brighten my room. Needless to say, I'm not a huge fan of the changes, but I understand you have a larger market to serve. I am obviously not part of that market, and that's why these changes make me sad - this website used to provide me relevant information in my field that I used on a regular basis. Now it just lets me know that I am not relevant, and that slashdot isn't capable of providing useful news. You're a Crossfire or The View, when you used to be the Daily Show.
To be fair, I think my one of my points was very specifically that the countries most in need are in fact the ones most responsible for the tropical deforestation. To wit:
you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves?
My response to that idea was certainly *not* more talk or bribing. Perhaps you'd like me to simplify it, so I'll do you the favor. These countries interact choose to interact with developed countries because they seek to gain equal footing amongst their peers. The terms by which we engage this desire will absolutely control the behavior they exhibit. If you'd choose to bribe or talk to them, all you accomplish is playing at their level. Their behavior is all about tit-fot-tat / quid-pro-quo. Instead, if you no longer accept how they do business and instead require that they operate according to the principles that you dictate, then you can control more than simply the product you receive. Now, please don't forget that communication is always a two-way street; they must be happy with the terms mutually agreed upon. Like I said toward the tail-end of my argument: globalization certainly has some benefits in that regard.
I think its abysmal that the same people outraged about things such as tropical deforestation are also outraged at the idea of globalization. At the end of the day it simply doesn't make sense. If you want someone to work with you on something, it certainly isn't helpful to ostracize them. You simply can't include them into your circle for some things, and exclude them for others. That isn't the way society works.
P.S. I don't know about you, but I can't for an instant believe that bribing someone is going to encourage them to feel a part of your circle, or even that it would change their behavior at all. I'm more inclined to think they're going to give you more face time, and learn how to tell you want you want to hear. Course, that only works so for so long before they think they can start asking for reparations. Or something.
There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.
Now, the thing that gets under my skin about your mentality is this:
As an American, I recognize that American philosophy is very commercilized, very liberal-thinking, and very consumerist in general.
What I respect about the outrage over people actively producing carbon is that it encourages people to take some ownership of their choices and actions.
What I cannot respect about the outrage that people have regarding the destruction of these tropical rain forests (or anything, really, for that matter) is this:
1) The outraged people have no legal, ethical, moral, or social ties to the things in question.
2) The outraged people have no understanding regarding the political, economic, or social climate of the area in question.
3) The countries in question are certainly approaching their land with a simple cost-benefit analysis in mind. If they can get something out of what's there to get ahead, why shouldn't they?
Now, don't get me wrong. I heard a statistic the other day that 26% of man-made CO2 production comes directly from these rain forests being decimated (source completely forgotten and thus heresay, my apologies). I'm pretty sure that Americans may get close to that figure, but I doubt they actually exceed that. Encouraging another continent to be more responsible for their planet would be cool, but lets not forget the struggle those continents are going through right now. The four horsemen seem to be beating a pretty steady drum there; you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves? Admirable, simply admirable, in your arrogance and ignorance.
To that end, becoming the stewards of our planet truly seems our burden to bear; that we might shoulder some of their responsibility to the degree which they are obviously unable, so that they as a continent might be able to gain a somewhat more steady footing among their peers, the other continents.
If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?
My own two cents: I will cease to be a member of this community if they remove Classic Slashdot. I *barely* tolerate this hideous amalgamation of the original Slashdot; if Dice were anything more than a marketing / PR firm, they would recognize that the area they need to focus on is not redesigning the front-end / back-end, it is ensuring that the content meets the requirements of their community. Dice has certainly had too many crit-fails on their die rolls to believe their current campaign.
Quick googling shows a 2013 net worth of 72 B, and 2.52455e9 seconds in 80 years. Even a rough estimate means that match cost thirty bucks [72,000,000,000 / 2.52455e9]. Gates essentially said 'Hey kid, playing this game isn't worth a fifty to me.'