Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Lol (Score -1, Redundant) 70

You are full of shit on so many levels.

Please name and describe as many of those levels as you can so that I can refute them.

However, I will admit that Soulskill just gave this response- which definitately settles some of my personal main issues with beta (and I don't have any reason to disbelieve Soulskill at this point in time)-

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4771749&cid=46207205

Soulskill:"

We have plans to implement direct linking to comments. It's been on our to-do list since before the recent expansion of the beta test. It's one of several features we simply haven't had time to implement yet.

Also, the way in which comments are displayed is still a work-in-progress as well. There will be improvements.
"

Lastly, bonus advise to Soulskill/Slashdot about the FirstPost issue- how about randomizing the time of article release to various IP. I.e. within a 30 minute block perhaps? Just a thought.... (but really, the classic moderation/comment system seems to be the well evolved solution to that already)

Comment Re:Early Posts Win With Beta (Score 1) 299

Please be nice VortexCortex. I for one thank Soulskill for that response. And I thank you VortexCortex for a comment you made long ago about how we may possibly once again in the future be able to trust our computers (open source hardware designs shipped with the hardware, allowing users to do things such as compare power draw under simulation and reality to ensure extra hardware/software isn't running alongside the published design). And Soulskill, I'll take your word and start playing a little nicer. And Dave Schroeder- it would be kind of cool if you would weigh in with some respectful commentary as well. That previous slashdot article about a scientist being systematically harassed by a corporation rings entirely too true with my own experiences. If you have some friends in government, I would deeply appreciate your looking into my case.

Comment First Post! (Score -1, Offtopic) 70

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4766259&cid=46193879

1) the fresh user experience involves by default full expansion of 0 and -1 comments. This is pure poison. Much as I laud the side of the debate that paints us commenters as *contributors* rather than just 'audience', the fact is that there are as many poisonous comments as golden ones. Exposing new users to the site to all of those instead of hiding score:0/-1 by default and 1-lining score:1/2 will simply leave new visitors with the wrong impression of the site (IMHO)

2) for me, the ability to direct link to comments is critical. This seems missing, and as yet I've seen no promise to implement it in beta or keep its aspect of classic around permanently. For instance, I like to share specific comment subthreads, like this one, between myself and active duty US Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder from 8 months prior to the Snowden revelations-

http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

snippets of context include-

"
That's one problem with cyber (Score:5, Insightful)
Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.
First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.
" ...

"
A couple of things:

1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things. ... ... ...

Back to the other issues. I'm a little disappointed you called so many of my responses straw men; they're not in any respect.

I have not seen any serious calls for "backdoors" in secure protocols. You're completely misunderstanding what even the FBI wants: you're imagining a scenario where "the Man" has a secret backdoor to any running system, encryption, or secure protocol, anywhere. That is not only false, it actually would be gravely detrimental to our own security: we -- individuals, the civilian sector, the government, the military -- rely on the security of these protocols. It's similar to the belief among some that NSA has a "secret backdoor" ...
"

Comment Re:Net Neutrality (Score 1) 213

They are only prohibiting commercial use of consumer grade contracts. There is no prohibition for the innovator getting a business line contract and making money at home.

"commercial use of..." huh?? Are people who sell knick knacks on Ebay engaging in "commercial use of consumer grade contracts"? (yes, they are). Are people who agree to view advertisements on gmail in exchange for 'free' use of a service that costs money to run engaging in "commercial use of consumer grade contracts" (yes, they are). Network Neutrality was intented to prevent giving ISPs arbitrary power over such things. Without it, ISPs can charge consumers extra to visit, e.g. Netflix, or FoxNews, or PlannedParenthood. ISPs *should not have* that arbitrary ability to discriminate amongst traffic. It should be none of their business whether or not the primary profiteer of my used bandwidth is Microsoft via Skype, or myself personally.

Comment Re:Ohhh, Slashdot beta makes sense now (Score 4, Insightful) 299

Actually, I like Beta.

In all fairness, there are some things I like about beta, and some things I don't. I think the animosity is stemming from the apparent inflexibility on the idea of maintaining classic as an alternative indefinitely for those who prefer it. And perhaps for not fixing some things (aforementioned via direct linked historical comment) that could use fixing before deploying it on all (or even 25% of) users.

Comment Re:Net Neutrality (Score 2) 213

The FCC tried.

Two judges, with partial support from a third, said the commission has the authority to regulate broadband access but had failed to show that it has a mandate to impose the anti-discrimination rules on broadband providers.

You forgot to mention (if I'm not mistaken) how the court practically invited the FCC simply to invoke common carrier regulation as the legally proper way to achieve it's Net Neutrality anti-discrimination rules. While the "FCC tried", the FCC also _has not tried_ to reinstate Net Neutrality via its legal authority to regulate common carriers that way (vs 'information services'). The FCC, also, after a year and a lot of press, has never given me a single sentence of analysis of my 53 page Net Neutrality complaint I filed with them, via the Kansas Attorney General's Office, over GoogleFiber's (terms of service) blocking of residential servers. (after my cause inspired some protesters in Utah, Google backed down and narrowed the blockage to 'commercial servers', whatever that means. I.e. a Quake3 server is a commercial server making money for Id Software. Somehow that is OK, but god forbid any innovator in their own home makes a profit)

Comment Re:Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (Score 1) 213

And if they grow big enough to appear on the provider's radar, they are so wellknown, it will be noticed if they get throttled.

I'm not sure you understood my point. My point was that without Network Neutrality, and with throttling, the Establishment can keep them from growing in the first place. Or did you understand that? If so, please clarify your point.

Comment Sure, Netflix is safe, what about the rest? (Score 5, Insightful) 213

Sure, one extremely popular destination on the internet is safe, because throngs of angry users will raise a stink. But what about all the small players who get throttled into oblivion before their innovations get a chance to have the kind of army of defensive consumers that Netflix has?

This is an information warfare[1] campaign where the Establishment is trying to make sure they stay there indefinitely, safe from all new comers.

[1] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4766259&cid=46193879

Comment Re:Tell them... (Score 1) 526

I agree that the F.B. information warfare[1] campaign here has been juvenile. But an on topic instance of the decreased beta features is this- I recently made this comment, which the pre-beta interface allows me to direct link[2] to for convenience-

"
> Overloading a system by running it as hard as ...

Not that I'm accusing Lennart Poettering of cyberwarfare, but a highly relevant anecdote is that when pulseaudio was first thrust upon me in fedora, I and many(?) others discovered that it was only software that was preventing our PC's audio out from being overdriven to the point of health and property risk. I discovered this as my volume, due to bug, instantaneously jumped to 400% as I had my sony earbuds in listening to music. The result was excruciating ear pain for the duration of time (about half a second) it took my body to react and rip the earbuds out of my ears. I wonder (not enough to experiment) what would have happened if my speakers had been connected. It would have certainly taken me more than half a second to cause things to stop, and I'm guessing permanent damange to my speakers may have occurred.

Of course, I'm not sure how expensive it would have been for sony to have put a safety in the earbuds. Still, quite the educational experience that was precisely illustrative of what you described, but in a more personal non-industrial sort of way.
"

[1] http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745
[2] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4741383&cid=46132559
[3] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4766259&cid=46193879

Comment Re:Explain why comments are broken (Score 3, Informative) 77

What has been fundamentally broken in the comment system? Nobody seems to say, they just say it sucks, or is fundamentally broken, or as you say is an add-on, etc.

I'm not the GP, but I'll answer with the 2 most critical points for me personally.

1) the fresh user experience involves by default full expansion of 0 and -1 comments. This is pure poison. Much as I laud the side of the debate that paints us commenters as *contributors* rather than just 'audience', the fact is that there are as many poisonous comments as golden ones. Exposing new users to the site to all of those instead of hiding score:0/-1 by default and 1-lining score:1/2 will simply leave new visitors with the wrong impression of the site (IMHO)

2) for me, the ability to direct link to comments is critical. This seems missing, and as yet I've seen no promise to implement it in beta or keep its aspect of classic around permanently. For instance, I like to share specific comment subthreads, like this one, between myself and active duty US Navy Information Warfare Officer Dave Schroeder from 8 months prior to the Snowden revelations-

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3156485&cid=41530745

snippets of context include-

"
That's one problem with cyber (Score:5, Insightful)
Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.
" ...

"
A couple of things:

1. I thought your Google manifesto was very good (I know it's a work in progress).
2. I think you're reading WAY too much into certain things. ... ... ...

Back to the other issues. I'm a little disappointed you called so many of my responses straw men; they're not in any respect.

I have not seen any serious calls for "backdoors" in secure protocols. You're completely misunderstanding what even the FBI wants: you're imagining a scenario where "the Man" has a secret backdoor to any running system, encryption, or secure protocol, anywhere. That is not only false, it actually would be gravely detrimental to our own security: we -- individuals, the civilian sector, the government, the military -- rely on the security of these protocols. It's similar to the belief among some that NSA has a "secret backdoor" ...
"

Comment Re:NNTP over Slashdot! (Score 1) 2219

I'm tempted. At this point, though, it's been so long that I can't even remember the name of any of the old NNTP clients!

OMG Poniez!!! I succumbed to temptation. After an hour or so, I've got some answers you may be interested in. Short story- slrn. Next, I find it somewhat hilarious that it was RocketRabbit's post that got me to post to usenet for the first time in probably over a decade. It was only about a week ago I discovered RR on /. and had to call him out for (mild as far as I bothered to research) anti-semitism (see my comment history). That said, posting to usenet for the first time in many years is the most fun I've had in a long time. I can help you with the rusty memory if you happen to be similar. I'm on CentOS 6. I got slrn 1.0.1 from sourceforge. Had to yum install slang-devel, then configure --with-slanglib=/usr/lib64 (and maybe --with-slanginc=/usr/include/slang --prefix=/opt/slrn).

also did

cp /opt/slrn/share/doc/slrn/slrn.rc ~/.slrnrc
(then edit it, after going to eternal-september.org and registering to get user/pass then changing password)
then something like
NNTPSERVER='news.eternal-september.org' /opt/slrn/bin/slrn -f ~/.jnewsrc --create

then I posted to eternal-september.test , got a nice bounce even

had to remember/use-help for things like 'a' (author search) 'h' hide message 't' toggle headers (to see timestamps)

i feel young again

(no I have no illusions that it will actually be useful in the short term, but I've had a quixotic desire to see usenet ressurrected as a viable alternative to things like facebook/twitter/slashdot for a long time now, and ... it's still there. I think there are even moderation/score features these days that I've never used)

Comment Re:Probably becasue it costs a lot of moeny (Score 1) 2219

Probably becasue it costs a lot of moeny to maintain the old crappy site and the new modern awesome site.

Work isn't free, the site isn't free, servers aren't free.
Got it?

I get it. But I don't think you've seriously considered it. You have to weigh the benefits of the work vs the cost. The comments all day today, should illustrate an estimate of the value gained by that maintenance cost. Likewise, you aren't honestly suggesting that server cost is a real issue are you? One server can serve multiple code paths. And the bandwidth and server resources are proportional to the number of visitors accessing that service. And by the time you imagine that many people would choose the classic over the new, to the point that there is real server and bandwidth cost, you pretty much have to admit that the value is justified by that many people who clearly prefer the classic over the new.

I'm guessing, and it is just a guess and no offence intended, that you were not alive for the 'new coke' fiasco. Businesswise, it became very clear, very soon (smells analagous to today on slashdot), that it was a wise business decision for coca cola to maintain the production facilities and infrastructure for the "classic coke" product. In fact, some months, maybe a couple years after coca cola realized it was a wise business practice to maintain that infrastructure, their consumers voted so consistently, that now 'classic coke' is just plain 'coke'. And the 'new coke' that was marketed as 'coke' is now a distant memory. It tasted bad. It was not as good. That seems to be the message of the majority of slashdot contributors/consumers today about the new 'beta'.

Comment Re:Exactly Correct (Score 1) 2219

2. Everything is expanded by default, which, again makes it tiresome to skip through pages of low-rated comments.

THIS. I don't know why I haven't seen more complaints about this, perhaps another issue only for people that don't log in or set cookies or something. But this is the most horrible thing. Much as I like the side of this debate that paints us CONTRIBUTORS as valuable, we must also admit that at least half of the comments are beyond crap. Setting asside the occasional max-modded (5 funny) comment about someone's mother being raped by a splintered stick (happened to be on the slashdot article about one of my cause-de-jur of the last few years), there are often such comments that get appropriately modded to 0 and -1. I consider those sorts of things an assault on my eyes. The value of slashdot is in it's self-policing nature. Expanding by default every 0 or -1 flamebait or troll and subjecting every new user to the site to those comments is practically suicidal from a business standpoint. Having sane defaults for viewing the conversation, i.e. 0/-1 not displayed, 1/2 abbreviated, and 3/4/5 expanded, is what makes slashdot discussions so impressive.

If you make new users visually scan over all 0 and -1 comments, they are going to think this site's "audience" are psychotic idiots, and never come back. This seems like a formulaic way of literally sabotaging and destroying the community discussion nature of this site, which as mentioned about a thousand times today, is the *core value of slashdot*. What were you thinking? Were you thinking that the 'flag as innapropriate' facility would replace that? No, because almost as often, intelligent, witty, insightful and funny people respond to those crap comments in very entertaining and enlightening, and heartening ways. That sort of interplay, built on the beautful AND UGLY foundation of freedom of expression, is what makes slashdot discussions often valuable. It seems like today we are witnessing a 'cyberwar' between the people who have enjoyed that sort of interplay for years, and a standard large business that wants to do away with it, and replace it with something much more sanitized and productized. I still wouldn't dare to bet which side wins. But face up to the facts- default expanding 0 and -1 comments for new visitors to the site IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.

Slashdot Top Deals

Science may someday discover what faith has always known.

Working...