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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Your biggest screw up (Score 4, Informative) 249 249

And by doing so Reddit became "the front page of the Internet".

Except it's actually not, and titles like that lend credence to the view that Reddit users are entitled self-absorbed people in general.

Top sites on the internet, according to Alexa:

1. Google.com (note, this is the actual "front page of the internet")
2. Facebook.com (this could also be easily considered the "front page of the internet")
3. Youtube.com (yet another "front page" contender)
4. Baidu.com (how many Reddit users have ever seen the fourth most-used web site?)
5. Yahoo.com (almost literally "the front page of the internet" as the default home page for many people, much more popular than reddit.com)
6. Amazon.com
7. Wikipedia.org
8. Qq.com (I've only ever heard of this site in passing a few times, and it's still way more popular than reddit.com)
9. Taobao.com (shopping for Chinese folk)
10. Twitter.com (this site is used by Reddit users who want to express their righteous indignation)
11. Google.co.in (the Indian version of Google is significantly more popular than Reddit)
12. Live.com (apparently this is still a thing; significantly more popular than Reddit)
13. Sina.com.cn (Chinese messaging, apparently)
14. Linkedin.com (this is where Reddit moderators can find employment)
15. Weibo.com (this site is so Chinese that the Alexa description is written in Chinese; significantly more popular than Reddit)
16. Yahoo.co.jp (the Japanese version of Yahoo is also more popular than Reddit)
17. Google.co.jp
18. Ebay.com
19. Yandex.ru
20. Vk.com (Russian social network; more popular than Reddit)
21. Blogspot.com
22. Tmall.com (more Chinese shopping)
23. Google.de (German Google is more popular than Reddit)
24. Hao123.com (the only thing I know about this site is that it is more popular than Reddit)
25. T.co (a shorter twitter.com URL domain is more popular than Reddit)
26. Msn.com (this is a site built for the purpose of making Internet Explorer painfully slow to start; more popular than Reddit)
27. Instagram.com
28. Google.co.uk (the Google portal for the United Kingdom [pop. ~64 million] is more popular than Reddit)
29. Bing.com (search engine primarily used by people who don't know how to change the default search engine for IE; more popular than Reddit)
30. Amazon.co.jp (the Japanese Amazon portal is more popular than...)
31. Reddit.com ( "The Front Page Of The Internet!!!" claims its frenzied, self-important user base)
32. Google.com.br

So, there you go. Your "front page of the internet" is right there between Japanese Amazon and Brazilian Google. Now please excuse me if I don't give a shit what your CEO or user base are doing with their time.

Comment: Re:Too little too late (Score 1) 249 249

People are apparently rather unhappy.

Shit, they're rather unhappy? Well, I guess that explains the petition. Petitions: the tool of the rather unhappy.

But the good news is that Ellen Pao thinks that her users don't care

She's probably right, I bet that the majority of people who visit Reddit don't care about what happens at the top. And I know for a fact that the vast majority of people using the internet don't care about what happens at Reddit at all.

Comment: Re:"Name" all you want. (Score 4, Insightful) 58 58

Thanks for saving me the typing.

She won't give a shit. Most people voting for her don't understand what crime she committed and even think it's something great because ... terrorists, child molesters, whatever, I don't keep track of the boogeyman du jour.

Name her what you want. She'll laugh it off 'til someone misses the brakes accidentally next time she crosses the street.

Comment: Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 1) 116 116

Again. The problem is not whether or not manipulation takes place. The problem is that someone can cry foul and there is no way to convince the computer unsavvy that he's full of shit.

You can verify your vote with some device not under your control. That alone gives room for doubt.

Political processes are complicated and intricate. That's already plenty of room for people wanting to claim that politics is all shenanigans and foul play because it's so complicated that most people don't understand it and rather follow someone claiming to understand it.

Voting, at least so far, is something rather simple. Take a sheet of paper, make a mark, toss it in a big box, then count the slips with the same marks when everyone tossed his paper into the box. That's simple enough that people understand it and that they trust such a system. Anything making the process more complex makes it easier for people wanting to create doubt in the process.

Comment: Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 2) 116 116

I didn't say that paper elections cannot be rigged. They can, and have been more often actually than there have been fair elections.

I did not even say that it's easier to rig electronic elections than paper elections. Personally, I'd expect it to be as long as you're the one calling the shots.

What is harder is simply to debunk cries of foul play. People can easily imagine what a paper election is like and how counting them (with representatives of all parties involved present) can be somewhat trusted. It is easy, on the other hand, to convince people that this is not the case with voting machines.

People don't trust what they don't understand. And trust is something a democracy needs urgently. People need to have faith in their system of government. Whether they like their current government or not, but they need to know that it was elected fairly and that it is what "the people" wanted. That's the whole problem here. Because without ... well, you see how Mexico is doing...

Comment: Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 1) 116 116

It is?

Explain this to Joe Random who just heard some populist cry foul play, claiming that they can't be audited and that the auditors are all in league with the party that won the election. Yes, it's bull. But the problem is that you CANNOT debunk it. Joe Random can't imagine how such an audit takes place. He can imagine counting paper slips, and he can see through the ruse when someone cries foul in such an environment. Any party crying foul in a paper election will be told that they should've put some monitors down if they didn't trust the ones running the show and counting the paper slips. That's (at least in my country) their right to do.

You can't do that with computer voting. Yes, someone can make an audit. But it isn't something you can easily explain to someone who has no idea of computers. He will readily believe someone who claims that it's bogus. Simply because he doesn't understand what "audit" means. He understands counting paper slips, though.

The danger is even less in the actual possibility of manipulation as it is in the possible loss of faith in the election. People are already weary of politicians and even politics to some degree (personally, I can only hope that the general apathy is more due to useless politicians rather than people genuinely not caring about democracy anymore). The very last thing we need now is that something gives them the impression that it doesn't matter jack anymore whether or not they vote because it's rigged anyway. Whether real or imagined, if someone starts beating that drum, people will follow easily.

Simply because you can't easily debunk it.

Comment: Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 3, Interesting) 116 116

But any party involved can (at least in my country, and pretty much all civilized countries I know of) nominate election observers that can easily identify whether everything's running correctly without any kind of special knowledge. They can easily tell whether the ballot is properly sealed, they can easily tell whether people step into the voting booth alone. They can easily find out whether the choice is free of influence. They can be present when the ballot seal is broken (actually, over here people are essentially locked in 'til the paper slips are counted, collected and sealed again, nothing going in or out in between) and when the paper slips are counted.

It's pretty hard to manipulate anything in such an environment. It's easy to see whether someone tries to manipulate results since it takes little more than eyes to detect foul play.

Comment: Re:The inherent problem with electronic voting (Score 1) 116 116

You act as if that wasn't even easier with voting machines. "Whoopsie, computer crash!"

And unlike in this case, you can't even claim that they're criminally incompetent. Because, hey, computers crash, that's what they do, right? Happens to you at home, too, and you can't be blamed for that, can you?

In other words, them running out of ballots and being unable/unwilling to allow voters to vote is something people can easily identify as something not being as it should be. Manipulation gets heaps easier with voting machines.

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis