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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:That's the point... (Score 1) 147

If I'm CC'ing him, we're well past the point where I don't trust things to be going as smoothly as they should.

Exactly. If you're to the point where you need to CC an authority that doesn't need to be there, you are deliberately conveying a MESSAGE that the recipient is untrusted to complete a task or whatever.

There are other situations where it's just routine to CC a supervisor. If you get worried about those, you're just paranoid.

Comment Re:Paragraph-by-paragraph verifiability (Score 1) 70

Very true. But each paragraph of an article also has to be verifiable.

Yes, but your previous post was about the NOTABILITY guideline. Obviously if you declare X source is not "reliable," then a paragraph with only that source can be removed.

But that has nothing to do with the notability guidelines. The entire point of your previous post was about how to pre-emptively ban an entire article through notability guidelines. As the summary notes, whether or not a particular source is "reliable" is often a judgment call. Even a "scholarly" souce can be unreliable if it's discussing information outside of its main purview. (E.g., if you're writing a paragraph on baking different types of bread, citing an academic book on Beethoven's music may not actually be a reasonable "reliable" source on bread-baking technique.)

I'm not at all making a judgment call on the Daily Mail here, just noting that judging a "reliable source" on a single sentence or something is quite a bit different from pre-emptively declaring an entire article to be non-notable for lack of ANY verifiable sources.

If your only point was "text with unreliable sources can be deleted," there was no point in even writing your previous post on notability... because basically the entire summary was about the unreliable source policy.

Wikilawyering at its best -- one policy fails, so quote another, even if it's irrelevant to the point you originally claimed to be making. I don't give a crap about Wikipedia policy guidelines, but your projection of making a pre-emptive strike at any subject matter ("ACK! This may not be notable! DELETE, DELETE, DELETE!!") is actually indicative of many editors at Wikipedia, and I think a major failing of the project. That was the MAIN point of my reply to you -- but your Wikilawyering instincts clearly took over and you chose to try to change the subject to assert your superior knowledge of the guidelines, rather than actually addressing the fact that deletionism is contributing to the ruin of Wikipedia.

Cheers!

Comment Re:Notability would ban that subject in the 1st pl (Score 1) 70

Why do you assume the "subject" mentioned in TFS was the subject of an entire article? It could also be the only source for a "subject" of a paragraph or even a sentence within an article that has multiple sources. There are other guidelines dealing with material within an article, but notability only applies if the "subject" is an entire article. (BTW -- what you just did there? Wikilawyering. That is one of the primary reasons people hate contributing to Wikipedia. And if you're one of the deletionists -- who tend to quote notability guides most often -- you're one of the main problems with Wikipedia.)

Comment Re:Pretty old news now but anyway.... (Score 1) 123

Well, I'm not exactly in favor of such models either, but I would note in the U.S. at least that it's been quite common to bundle "workbooks" or other such course materials with textbooks for decades. Some instructors make heavy use of them, and by themselves they've often cost ~$40 in the past. In this case, apparently students can forego the $100 textbook and just pay for the "online workbook" equivalent for $40, instead of what students would do 15 years ago and have to buy the $140 textbook/workbook combo.

Also, it should be noted that many college instructors have traditionally used textbooks mostly for the standard set of exercises they can assign from them. (Which is part of the reason publishers can often so easily force the adoption of new editions, since their most common strategy is to scramble the exercises, making it difficult to use more than one edition.)

Obviously in an ideal world, I suppose every college professor would write his/her own exercises, but if you're an adjunct getting paid $1500 to teach the entire course (more common than you might think), that's a lot more work.

Comment Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect (Score 4, Informative) 132

Thanks for the text, though your summary doesn't quite say the same thing as the text. You said it prohibits sharing of intimate images "that were taken without consent," but what this text actually bans is sharing of intimate images where "the depicted person did not consent to the disclosure." The word "disclosure" isn't defined, but presumably it would also cover instances where the TAKING of the image was consensual but the DISTRIBUTION was NOT consensual.

Comment Re:'Jucers' are a meme (Score 1) 353

People don't want to choke down 2 raw carrots and a cup of kale every day when they can slam it with some apple juice in one gulp.

Yeah, that "with some apple juice" part bugs me. It drives me a little nuts when you see those expensive "juice blends" sold at the store claiming to be full of veggies and labeled "green goodness" or "green goddess" or whatever.

Except a lot of times there's mostly high sugar apple or pear juice or whatever.

I get that most people like sweet stuff compared to savory stuff. But I think a lot of that is cultural conditioning. Stop eating a lot of products with added sugar for a while, and suddenly even a lot of vegetables start tasting "sweet" when they're ripe and fresh. It's frustrating that even the high-priced "vegetable" juice blends are mostly packaged sugar products, with a minor amount of stuff with more nutrients.

I never really got into the "juicing fad," but I did use a juicer occasionally for a while. But I rarely juiced sweet fruits -- the sweetest stuff I'd do would often be stuff like carrots. Carrot juice is actually quite sweet, sweet enough to pair with a lot of more savory or even bitter juices once you actually get used to it.

Comment Re:Not what I expected (Score 1) 353

Sounds like you have a relatively unusual issue. For most of the human race, a reasonable amount of fiber (with enough liquid consumption) helps to promote digestive transit time and softens stool. If what you say is true, though, you have my sympathies for the problems it sounds like it causes you.

I have a 2-3 week travel time. Bowel movements about 1 pound (fist-sized) occur every 18-26 days.

Are you serious? Do you eat food daily? Are you on some sort of strange liquid-only diet?

Sounds like "dietary fiber sensitivity" is a thing but nobody wants to claim you can overdose on fiber.

I don't think any reasonable dietician or doctor would say you can't "overdose on fiber." But it's so incredibly rare that most people don't talk about it. But yes, if you consume massive amounts of fiber every day it can screw up nutrient absorption and other even more serious things than messing with your bowel movement. Again, given how few people even consume the "recommended" amount of fiber -- let alone excess -- it's something rarely talked about though.

Comment Re:'Jucers' are a meme (Score 1) 353

And no need to go crazy on the fruit either, since most fruit is very high on sugar, and low on nutrients.

I wouldn't exactly say it's "low on nutrients," and the amount of sugar depends on the fruit. And part of the issue is how we tend to define "fruit" which is not a botanical definition but one seemingly mostly based on sweetness. If you include the varieties of botanical fruits (from cucumbers to peapods), "fruits" in general have a great variety of nutrients and aren't necessarily very sweet. And a lot of how your body processes the sugar has to do with what else you consume with it. A whole fruit at least has the fiber that regulates the digestive process a bit more.

But yeah -- if you define "fruit" as "sugary stuff" -- better to load up on more vegetables than lots of fruit in general. Still, eating whole fruit is often a lot better than eating a bunch of other junk food.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 3, Interesting) 343

Plus, and I'm going to be called nasty things for saying this, but traffic accidents do not appear to be "way up", like they would be if smart phones were causing a ton of new accidents.

I'm not going to call you "nasty things," because you're basically right that stats don't appear to be "way up." BUT it also depends on what stats you use. You're right that "distracted driving" stats are always hard to estimate.

What we do know: overall number of crashes (including fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and property-damage-only crashes) basically had been in steady decline since the mid-1990s, when we had nearly 7 million crashes/year in the U.S. This trend lasted until ~2010, when it got down to ~5.5 million/year.

For some reason total crashes have been steadily rising again, from a low of 5.3 million in 2011 up to 6.3 million in 2015.

Granted, total number of injuries and fatalities have thankfully not been rising at the same rate (though they are rising again too), but for some reason total CRASHES have been going up quickly. (That is, particularly crashes with no significant injuries.)

The official reports say that cell phone distractions have been steadily rising, though they only claim to account for around 2% of distraction-caused accidents in 2005 rising up to 8% of distraction-caused accidents in 2015. That is obviously a significant rise in that category, but I don't know how those numbers are estimated -- and still only accounts for (according to the report) 69,000 crashes in 2015, which is only about 1% of total crashes.

But I think we need to ask -- if total crashes have risen by ~20% in the past 5 years, after >15 years of steady declines (despite increased total miles driven), why? Drunk driving numbers have generally been continuing to decline. Are drivers really just that much more reckless in general than they were a few years ago? Are the reports estimating things that poorly? Are people suddenly reporting more accidents for some reason? Or could there be some more specific reasons why we're now seeing ~1 million more crashes per year than 5 years ago?

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 343

Smart phones weren't designed for use while driving but neither were maps, kids, sleepiness, or being drunk.

Let's take those in turn, shall we?

Maps -- traditionally, most people only used these occasionally, relying on street signs, visual cues, and other general direction sense. For long trips, a lot of people would have a travel companion to use the map. And in any case, map use was usually NECESSARY to actually find your destination (which was your entire point of being in the car).

Kids -- can be horrible distractions. But again, like maps, you can't really avoid dealing with them.

Oh and most people don't really WANT to be distracted by kids and maps -- they're just forced to deal with them while driving. People WANT to look at their phones and thus seem drawn to them.

Sleepiness and being drunk -- the hallmark of bad drivers. The latter is explicitly illegal. The former is generally avoidable too, and if a cop catches you weaving and pulls you over to find you literally asleep at the wheel, you might end up with problems too.

Contrast this with phones -- which the present study says a lot of drivers use FREQUENTLY and which don't have the necessity element in most scenarios. Unlike maps (which actually get your where you're going) or kids (which can't be ignored), most of the non-mapping features of your phone use CAN be delayed. People just choose not to.

I'll finish up with " something something forest for trees."

Smartphone screens as distractions are a serious new threat. Like drunk driving and fatigue, they are not a necessary element to the driving experience and are easily avoidable... and yet people seem unable to stop using them even when doing what's pretty much the most dangerous activity most people do on a regular basis.

It's an addiction, more serious than drunk driving, because at least most people seem to recognize the dangers of drunkenness -- whereas lots of people seem to want to downplay the seriousness of the new smartphone distraction threat or, like you, just pretend "it's always been this way!" No, it hasn't. This is a new one which -- at a minimum -- ADDS to the previous potential distractions and compounds the danger.

Comment Re: The real solution.. (Score 1) 98

Do the books change subtly enough from edition to edition that it would be possible to prepare a plan that would work for both the current and previous editions at the same time?

Textbook producers have long found ways around this. I mentioned exercise numbers, because that's one way they make this practice next-to-impossible.

One edition you assign problems #1-10, but in the next edition those same problems are #1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 19. Oh, except for #4 and #7 in the original edition, which have been dropped for no apparent reason and replaced with new problems. (Admittedly, in the first few editions the exercises are often edited for legitimate improvements -- clarifying them, dropping bad exercises, etc. But by the time you get to the 7th ed. or whatever, it's mostly about making it really annoying to keep using the 6th ed.)

That's just one thing they do. There are also generally various other minor differences incorporated to make it just annoying enough that it's hard to use multiple editions in the same class.

The solution is for professors to just generate their own sets of problems, rather than relying on textbook exercises. But that takes more work and is frequently one of the main reason professors choose textbooks (more for the exercises than the readings). And if it's a big lecture class that has graduate teaching assistants or whatever, it's generally easier to just point them to some answer guide that is provided by the textbook publisher or whatever, rather than having to write up detailed solutions to explain to the TAs.

There are various ways around this stuff for professors who want to do the work. But a lot of those ways end up defeating some of the main points of using a standard textbook in the first place.

Comment Re:Trying to sell access to basic data (Score 4, Insightful) 144

They were trying to monetize access to basic data and got under cut by a competitor who did it cheaper and more customer friendly. If your webtraffic can be decimated by customers receiving a one sentence answer to their question the problem may have been your business model, not Google.

There's a very flawed assumption here, which is that "basic data" and "one sentence answers" are always inherently easy to gather, and there's no significant time or monetary investment needed to do so.

That's obviously false. There's loads of non-trivial data out there which isn't available in something like a free government database or Wikipedia or whatever. It may take significant effort or resources to gather that data. I have no idea how much effort this particular site put into its data gathering, but clearly if Google is using it as a primary source for its "snippets," it must either not be available easily elsewhere for free or other sources are less reliable.

Thus, the site is apparently providing some value by gathering information that others don't.

Whether this can be turned into a viable business model is of course a separate question, but acting like Google is blameless by just TAKING that data and reusing it without permission is -- well, Google is certainly morally suspect at a minimum here. If businesses like this can't make money gathering such data, who will gather the data?

(Note that I really don't care about celebrity net worth, so I really couldn't care less if this data went ungathered. But the model applies to lots of other potentially useful information.)

Comment Re:NO! (Score 2) 140

If tipping is done like in the Lyft app, then you're tipping after you've already left the car so there is actually less pressure to tip.

This is one of the things I tend to hate about cab tipping, as opposed to other services. (Tipping in general is of course annoying too; I wish people were actually just paid reasonably for their services.)

Anyhow, in most services, you tip as you are leaving the transaction (or the service person is leaving). In a cab, particularly if you are paying by card, you're often forced to tip before you even get out of the car -- frequently handing back the credit card thing to the driver, where he prints out your receipt with tip listed and hands it to you. If you have bags in the trunk or whatever, will the driver treat you the same if you don't tip well? And even if you wanted to tip in cash, it's awkward, because you generally do the transaction in the car for payment before those final parts of service are rendered (opening your door, taking out bags, etc.) -- and if you don't tip until after all of that is complete, the driver may be thinking you're a cheapskate because you haven't tipped already.

It's really awkward.

Comment Re:fuck tipping (Score 1) 140

If they pick a percentage/sum by default I think they should be forced to advertise prices with that service fee though.

I'm not sure I've ever encountered a situation where that wasn't the case that a service fee was posted or discussed in advance. If you have a party of over X number of a people at a restaurant (usually 6-8 or more), menus or signs will often say there's a service charge included. If you order room service at a hotel, the menu will generally say X% service charge will be added to the cost.

However, in an ideal world, posted prices should simply include those fees, rather than designating them separately on top of the price. The only reason I assume they do so is actually to signal that an additional tip isn't necessary, which I actually appreciate given the U.S. tendency toward tipping everywhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...