Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
1. You are considered "audience";
2. In 2013 the site failed to increase on ad-revenue. And there is no evidence it will increase in the future. Hence Dice decided to slash the site's budget from several millions to zero. (source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news... "Recent Developments" chapter).
3. Hence, in layman's terma, Dice has (most probably) decided to kill the site.
4. Since there is no budget, you will (most probably) not see the Classic functionality implemented in Beta (comment and moderation system, which is the heart of the community, which is the heart of the site)
5. Hence, Dice's "reaching out to the audience" at this point is pretty useless, as they might as well listen, but they will do nothing about it.
6. Hence, this site is already dead. The community wants to migrate to better shores and there are several ideas as to how/where. Not calling them out by name, because I don't want to be slanted.
7. At this point, I don't think the Slashcott will be of any effect, but it's worth trying; you never know.
Bonus Point. Since the heart of the site is user-generated content, an aspect of the boycott is stopping the regular flow of comments. Can't argue with that.
Hope this helps.
If the government sponsors a research of yours, you still get the credit and aknowledgement. Should work the same with any kind of project, I guess?
I actually find the Agencies' technology brilliant: sniffing the traffic of the Industries' spying on you. Genius. Evil Genius, tho.
Anyway, only here to say that it's sybolical and to raise awarness. I actually didn't have the perception of how far the industrial spying went. Thanks Snowden!
Sure someone can hack off your hand and get your passwords.
In my day and age, hackers were much more of a sophisticated bunch.
The journalists got it wrong, no one ever checked the sources.
Good thing that you don't actually need to be particularly pro-open to see that they have a point. No closed software can be considered secure, ever; no steps to assure more security "regardless of promises or even intent" can change that.
"Even if this looks like a good thing, this can't be a good thing because it's proprietary". How can you disagree? They bother making the statement, because it's their mission, and to warn off non tech-savvy people who might fall for it.
If I had the time, this is the game I'd play.