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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1824

What if users could edit the story summary, like how StackOverflow works with answers? People post complaints about summaries all the time. Perhaps instead, there should be a system where moderators or some other class of people can edit summaries, and another can approve edits. Then Slashdot becomes the best source for story summaries.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 1) 325

Oh no, clickbait has come to comments, not just headlines? lol

"Do you know what [your spouse | your children | Donald Trump | Julian Assange's mistress] is doing now? Go check it out!"
Worse-yet, is someone will start moderating these kinds of posts as +1 Insightful even though they make absolutely no point at all.

Comment Re:Android != Play Store (Score 1) 166

Running an Android phone today, without relying on the Google stuff, is really hard. No store sells such a phone (except those cheap phones that replace it with the Amazon equivalents). You usually have to root the phone, and the manufacturers won't honor the warranty. You risk some hardware not working, not getting updates, etc.

Face it: The hand held phone industry is 100% vendor lock-in. They aren't like PCs where you still have Linux if you want to control your machine. Heck, even Windows and OS X don't try to lock you down the way Android, iOS, and Windows Mobile (or whatever it is called now) do.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 2) 325

It's BS. I did as the AC suggested, and Googled it. It looks like one of the women's best friend's mother's uncle's former roommate said something about Cuba one time. Or something silly like that.

http://www.theguardian.com/med...

What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders, however, are a few key incidents in Miss A career, in particular that she is said to have worked in the Swedish embassy in the US, and wrote her university thesis in 2007 on a vision of Cuba after the death of Castro.

This has led to widespread allegations that the woman is a CIA agent, planted as a honeytrap to bring down Assange. One blogger notes: "[Assange] just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America's foreign policy.

There are various more sensational articles, but none of those provide any evidence. This was the only article that seemed to explain the connection clearly.

Comment Re:Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1824

Two thoughts:
1) Really? Are they email notifications? If so, I probably turned those off 18 years ago and forgot about it. Maybe the notifications need to be somewhere else. Or maybe I've been missing out on something key, since I regularly scan my recent comments for new replies. I guess I've been doing it the hard way.

2) Notifications aren't sufficient anyway. Let me share a vision:

Stop thinking of Slashdot as a news site. Instead, consider it to be the exact inverse of StackOverflow. SO is focused on specific questions and specific answers, while cutting-off discussions. Slashdot is about impromptu discussions, with no end, based on current events "News for nerds, stuff that matters." If I just wanted news, there are 5 billion news aggregators out there. Heck, half the time Slashdot links to some other news aggregator or blog site anyway. It's gotten so meta that people make it a goal to find the "real" story and post a link to it. Some of this is about editors, but there is something bigger going on.

The joke on Slashdot is that nobody RTFAs. They come here and click on the comments. I do it too. It's because half the time, the story is garbage, or overblown, or misrepresented. I don't mean the Slashdot summary is wrong (it sometimes is), but that the news article itself is a troll. But this is a good thin, and it should be the focus of Slashdot. It has lots of really smart geeks who want to prove everyone else wrong. Lets use that! For example: There was a story something like "Germany produced half it's power from solar." I click the comments, and learn that really it was "For 45 minutes one summer day, Germany reduced the gas-fired plants down to almost zero. So baseline nuclear imported from outside the country + and solar was sufficient." Wow, that's very different. So in 3 minutes I'm already the local expert because I know the truth. I can debunk the overblown headline when someone brings it up over lunch. And with 15 more minutes of reading high-rated comments, I know what I'm talking about on what is baseload power versus peak and the economics of solar.

What if we could take the best rated comments, and aggregate them into a summary? Almost a real-time semi-automated Wikipedia? Ever read https://alterslash.org/ ? It kinda does that.

So now we get to the problem with notifications. Someone posts some revealing insightful thing about the article. Someone else posts a question like "Can you provide a link to that?" or "Hey, but what about this other thing..." and.... no replies. Because the incentive to reply is gone once the story is off the front page. The discussion got cut-off. Is there a way to change the site to be discussion-centric, where highly moderated threads stay up there and people are more inclined to see them and continue talking about them? I almost want a moderation of "+5 Nailed it" that applies to a whole thread. That's for comments that aren't snarky one-liners, they are those "Ohhh.... NOW I get it!" moments. Those times someone made you change your mind. That's what keeps me coming back.

On a similar vein, I want to be able to see all my comments, in context, for all time. I get into some discussion in real-life, where I think "I read about this on Slashdot, and I posted a reply that I feel like really explained the issue." I wanna find that again. I also want to see how much my positions have changed. I imagine running for office one day, and wanting to go back over my comments to understand why I thought something. It's almost a mind-map of my own thoughts and opinions.

Sometimes, I've thought about taking a comment and turning it into a blog entry or article on my own site. This is because there is an "answer sniping" mentality on Slashdot, which makes people try to limit their posts to a few minutes. So you can't always post the entirety of your thoughts. If you post within 5 minutes, odds on a +5 are good. If you post within 15 minutes, you probably will get a moderation. If you post the next day, even if you are the only one who "gets it" odds are nobody will pay any attention. But if I posted on it 2 days later, I probably am really passionate about that post to have bothered to find that old story. So instead, I want to go be able to go back and expand on my quickly-written post. I want to turn it into an entire discussion. Put it somewhere that people can chime in and keep talking about it, so long as it interests someone.

What if instead of having "story" filters, you had "comment" or "discussion" filters. I am interested in discussions about energy, economics, and civil rights. But that discussion might have been spawned by a story about virus manufacturers. The story is just context for a philosophical discussion, but it's the discussion that matters.

I don't concretely know how to do all of this. But maybe this can spawn some ideas?

Comment Support long-running discussions (Score 1) 1824

Sometimes there is an interesting discussion, but aftera bout 12 hours people move on to other articles. It would be great if there was a way to flag a discussion as worthy in some way that it invites people to continue it. Someties I reply to a comment and say "Why?" or "Hey, can you post more information on that?" But the system, being news-based, puts a damper on discussions that last longer than the duration that the item is newsworthy.

Comment Re:Oh boy! (Score 1) 204

Many Youtube videos have already been taken down because they have mentioned the words "react" or "reaction" over this.

Do you have any links to show this? I did a search but failed to find anything to support that claim. Several others have posted it in this discussion too.

Comment Re:Oh boy! (Score 1) 204

They were already doing DMCA takedowns of any videos they happened across that contained "React" in the title for alleged copyright violation.

Do you have any links to show this? I did a search but failed to find anything to support that claim. Several others have posted it in this discussion too.

Comment Re:The Reg had a reasonable response to this (Score 1) 217

The Register's article seems logical if you assume network neutrality meant something else. One of the biggest problems NN had is that some very powerful corporations tried to redefine NN to mean "no throttling" or some other such thing.

The quote that best sums it up the confusion is this:

The usual reasons for detecting witchcraft neutrality violations are absent. It isn’t compulsory. It isn’t a rent-seeking scheme. It isn’t constraining choice. It isn’t disadvantaging anyone;

Those things they listed aren't what a network neutrality violation is. (I have no idea what a "rent-seeking" scheme is. Can someone explain what they meant?)

Network neutrality is the principle that all information on the network is treated the same. That the service provider does not alter the content, throttle it, or limit it it. It doesn't matter whether or not those alterations/throttles/limits are optional or compulsory. The problem with service providers doing this is that they distort the market. They make people prefer certain video providers, social networking sites, online shopping services, or whatever they limit it to. It makes it so that companies can't fairly compete. People who use this plan are constrained in that, once they go above their limits, they can only access certain services. As opposed to normal users, who just pay for more bandwidth and can see everything; or see nothing at all.

The fact that it isn't compulsory is irrelevant. This is one of the most disconcerting things about neutrality violations: customers might actually *prefer* the non-neutral plans. If you told someone "I can give you the entire internet for $60/month" or "I can give you iTunes and Netflix for $1/month" you can bet that a lot of people will choose the latter option. And those companies would *love* it because the service provider just got a whole lot of people to stop using Google Play Music and Amazon Prime. And the ISP might not even need a kickback from those companies to do it Maybe they just wanted to limit their bandwidth consumption by setting up proxy servers - but they couldn't do it for the whole internet. So they offer a subset of the full internet, and *bam* they can save themselves and customers lots of money.

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes.

Working...