Slashdot has the best system I've seen so far. Reddit's just leads to bandwagoning. Slashdot is capped at -2:5.
Additionally if I only have 5 points I'll usually not waste them on 0, I normally just browse at +2. Back in the day you would have entire threads of +5s. I'll save them for someone that needs modded up, not waste it on someone that doesn't need to be heard.
Agreed. Slashdot has easily the single best method of moderating out of every major website, changing that would be foolish. Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5. If you state your opinion reasonably and rationally, Slashdot is almost always interested in hearing it. Character attacks on unnamed moderators, with no examples or anything of substance at all, are not inside this category.
Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?
I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.
Because it's not a profitable decision. Being liable for terrorist attacks, eh, maybe a $150,000 settlement once a decade, and potentially some bad press which doesn't mean anything when your reputation is crap. On the flip side, the FCC is the only entity with significant power that wants an open Internet, and that scares ISPs shitless. If they become regulated, they'll actually be required to provide decent service for a reasonable price, and they would probably have to invest money into upgrading their infrastructure. Worse yet, there would be at least some form of compeition, as opposed to the current scheme where they all conveniently agree to not charge below certain prices. What's a few dead people and some angry bloggers compared to that red ink?
I understand that logic.
But what's wrong with allowing edit until someone replies? Or even allow edit up until someone begins to compose a reply. And then, if the original author is editing, and the person wanting to reply clicks reply, they get a helpful message saying "author is editing, reply not allowed until editing is complete/times out". I know it's a hassle to enumerate the possible combinations, but it wouldn't be too much AJAX to make it work.
However, making it work nicely with those using static HTML (who I support 100% BTW) is much trickier. For those users it becomes a bit more tedious. Their reply goes up to the server, but if an edit occurred before their reply was received, the reply content gets bounced back to the user and they are given a chance to edit it in context with the new post content. That way they can decide if their reply is still relevant. There is one more combination that would be robust, but may piss some users off as their new post/or edit (depending on how you want to slice it) would be bounced.
Anyway, I normally get paid quite well to work this stuff out for my clients. Slashdot certainly isn't paying me enough to write any more than this...
With operating systems becoming more and more secure, hackers are increasingly focusing on end user programs, such as VLC. Do you think the project needs work in this regard? If so, may I ask what your plans and ideas for improving it would be?
By the way, thank you for all of your hard work! VLC isn't my day to day player, but nonetheless it has come in handy many, many times, and my life is much easier because of it. I heavily appreciate your taking time out of your day to answer our questions!
Currently, we live in an era where media players have become quite a bit more sophisticated. For example, Windows Media Player or iTunes offer some pretty advanced features for managing large libraries, integrate heavily within their ecosystems, and some even come with complete stores, where you can buy songs with a single click. On the other end, there's players such as Audacious that focus on playing music, and only on that - and the result is that you get a very speedy and lightweight player, and the support of winamp skins makes it possible to heavily personalize. What role do you think VLC plays in the ecosystem, and more specifically, where do you think you want to take the project in the future?
Actually it is, because diversity brings new opinions and viewpoints. If all you hire are white men you're only going to ever have the viewpoints of white men. And if the talent pool is heavily biased against non white men you need to go out of your way to choose diversified talent to make your company better.
You're making a grave and extremely patronizing mistake, whether you know it or not. The whole concept of diversity is based around the concept that people of different ethnicities have had significantly different life experiences, and this assumption is flawed in two ways; for starters, people who grow up in the same country, with the same economic and educational backgrounds, do actually tend to think alike. Take a black person and a white one from Seattle; notice that both are pretty likely to support gay rights. Take a black person and a white one from smallsville Idaho, and notice that both are pretty likely to vote against it. The point is, social class and physical location forms one's opinion far more than skin color. You would get significantly different viewpoints if you hire two white (or two black) people from two different cities than if you hire one each from the same city.
Second off, the whole concept is incredibly degrading, for everyone involved. You assume white people come from one well off background and are incapable of imaging what being poor or discriminated against is like. You assume that people with minority skin color can't handle the work, and so we need special accommodations for them. And you assume that quality of work is no longer the only criteria you should be using to judge employees. This whole movement is largely based on assumptions , and blatantly racist ones at that. Yes, there are plenty of white people who are the minority ethnicity where they live. I myself have lived in Japan for years, being the only white european person for miles when I walk on the streets, so you can cut the judgmental crap about not understanding being a minority. Furthermore, just because I am white skinned, does that automatically tell you my upbringing? How about a person from France? Do you think we have the same opinions, philosophy, and views on life, despite coming from entirely separate cultures, just because our skin color and gender are the same?
I don't know if you intend diversity to be kind or something, in a really twisted and demeaning version, but racism is still racism even when you say it with ("good") intentions. You should judge employees by the quality of work, and ideally nothing more (you're being paid to help the company, not fix society at the expense of it). If you really want to get different perspectives, sit down with a cup of coffee in a cafe with your employees, ask a few philosophical questions, and see what happens. You will get a far, far better answer than looking at a checkbox or groping their genitals ever will.
Even assuming your comment was sarcasm, I still think it's worth investigating how this 'bug' appeared only months after the acquisition.
Yeah because Microsoft decides periodically to cause mischief just because it can, in a product that it's desperately trying to groom, at a time when this issue is a very sensitive topic, in the wake of a large controversy over its star breadwinner, in regions where it could potentially face serious and sustained liability.
Let's not kid ourselves here, this is almost certainly a "Joe updated the server side dictionary manager but Jaine is behind schedule on the client" situation.
From original post:
This feature is solely for the use of emergency service providers, and your precise location is never seen or handled by Google. It is sent from your handset to emergency services only when you explicitly place an emergency call, either directly or through your mobile network.
It uses your Wi-Fi, GPS and cell tower information to pinpoint exactly where you are and sends across the data without allowing it to be accessed by anyone else.
Doesn't sound like it can't be accessed by anyone else like the article states, just that it gets sent on a direct route between your phone and emergency services. OTA MITM attacks could still get that information.
If you have explicitly placed a call to 911, I think having your location information intercepted is the least of your worries
it will refuse to boot or will boot in a limited capacity mode (presumably akin to safe mode)
It's right there in the summary... underlined no less.
I'm more concerned about the fact that I may not be able to replace the stock android with a custom firmware. Thanks to all the crapware that manufacturers insist on pre-installing on most handsets, and their refusal to provide updates, you're basically forced to use a custom firmware just to have a usable phone.
Yes, I know you could always just stick with a Nexus branded device, but then you'd miss out on potentially interesting innovations provided by another manufacturer.
Google should never have permitted the android ecosystem to become a dichotomy of "You can get updates, or you can get a cool device, but not both."
Err, you already can't replace stock Android with a custom firmware if the manufacturer doesn't support it. For example, I have an Asus Memopad, and because Asus doesn't allow it to be unlocked I can't reflash the OS. One of the only downsides to it
Though honestly, the bloat ware is actually sometimes useful for once, and that is a nice change of pace.
How would you know? How do you know he didn't purchase his copy of Mac OS?
How, exactly, would one purchase a free OS? (Not that I have problems with Hackintoshes, by the way, but I'm curious by what you mean)
Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.