Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: absurd.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to absurd.org.

Comments · 9

  1. Re:We're so cool you can't buy our stuff. So there by boingo82 · · Score: 1 · on The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites

    Gosh, it's almost like being back at absurd.org back when they actually updated it.

  2. start with these by irritant-1 · · Score: 1 · on Your Favorite Net.Art?

    Shift -a delight.
    Airport
    Rhizome.org is worthwhile. Requires a membership fee but has free access on Fridays.
    Hell
    Ljudmila
    mayhem
    zkm
    absurd
    erational
    Critical Arts Ensemble doesn't fit the traditional requirements of net.art but I believe it's equally valid.
    sito
    LFS

  3. My own suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on HTML: Is it Art?

    Might I recommend Absurd.org? Unfortunately he removed the old stuff, but there's still a mess of bizarre and interesting things there. With a bunch of javascript.

  4. Re:computer code as art.. (links) by Draigon · · Score: 4, Interesting · on HTML: Is it Art?

    (sorry for double post, should have previewed first, here they are linked)

    http://www.once-upon-a-forest.com/
    http://www.snarg.net/
    http://www.entropy8zuper.org/
    http://www.redsmoke.com/
    http://www.absurd.org/
    http://www.fakeshop.com/
    http://snudd.sil.at/
    http://www.jodi.org/
    http://www.superbad.com/
    http://www.d2b.org/
    http://www.silverserver.co.at/lia/

  5. Popups should be considered spam... by t0qer · · Score: 2 · on No Pop-up Blocking in Netscape 7.0

    Every time another window opens, another instance of the browser has to be launched which can result in an overload of resources to the machine.

    This link is purely an educational tool, it will continually launch popups until your machine
    comes to a halt. Unless you're good with kill or task manager don't click it. A reboot and your machine will be fine.

    I think by law, ads should be rendered on the same page as the article and not in a popup or popunder window.

    Sites like slash should have a "Yellow Pages" of ads. I'd go browse a bunch of banners if they were presented like my yellow pages if I needed a service.

    Hmm, maybe we should ask Stallman if popups can be considered spam.

  6. old news! by skotte · · Score: 1 · on Web No Longer Eclectic?
    geeze .. even the supposed eclectic sites repoted this a fFew years ago!


    but on the other hand, in searching fFor that page, i also fFound this, this, and this.


    mundane? nah. i suspect the author there just has grown numb to what is actually quite commonplace.

  7. OT: MODERATE PARENT UP by absurd_spork · · Score: 2 · on First Legal Test of the GPL
    It's absurd how much FUD slashdot is spreading these days. Isn't it about time you guys revisited your submission process, and the way stories get posted.

    What Slashdot definitely lacks is an equivalent of Kuro5hin's Meta forum where Slashdot-relevant things could be discussed. Then one wouldn't have to file legitimate complaints like this one under other topics, they wouldn't get moderated to Offtopic or Troll, and maybe they'd even get read...

    Otherwise, there can never be a sensible discussion among Slashdot users how Slashdot community problems might be solved.

  8. Automatic modification of GPL'd code possible? by rxmd · · Score: 3 · on First Legal Test of the GPL
    Would it be technically possible to write a program that takes source code as input and heavily modifies it (i.e. renaming of identifiers, restructuring of source, restructuring of call order (should be possible for given languages using a virtual-machine concept), insertion of loops, heavy optimizations and so on) so that the result has no similarity with the original?

    It would be interesting to put it under the GPL (for the self-referentiality...) and use it to modify GPL's source code so that effectively, it's GPL'd-ness could no longer be proven or even ascertained :-)

    Then one could create legally interesting situations.

  9. Moderation for scientific publications by rxmd · · Score: 1 · on Scientists Demand Open Access to Research
    Moderation for scientific publications makes little sense for two reasons:
    • Most journals actually accept or reject articles sent to them based on their scientific content. That's why most journals are actually edited by expert scientists in the field - in order to guarantee that the scientific content is worthwhile. Since the fields a journal publishes in are usually rather narrow in most sciences, this actually works quite well.
    • Still, there is the occasional article which has scientific value that the editor does not recognize, for example if it is a "revolutionary" article or one that focuses on subjects of dispute. Public moderation would not solve this, however. Take a look at the moderation on Slashdot, for example: it does not judge the content of comments based on whether they're true or justified, but based on whether someone thinks they're worth reading, which is much more a matter of personal taste. In general, a large set of persons with varying expertise in a field is less likely to democratically judge so that the results are appropriate than a small set of editors with much expertise in the field. The reason for using Slashdot moderation is the avoidance of trolls (sorry, couldn't resist), a danger which is not or hardly not present in scientific publications.
    Apart from that, the problem of a lot of garbage getting published is not due to the pressure on the publishers and has little to do, hence, with the financial situation we are talking about. It is a more general problem in heavily paradigmatic sciences where a person's scientific productivity and, ultimately, "value" is based on the sheer number of their publications. Very little authors have the honesty and/or courage to publish, say, a result like "We did this and this experiment, but the results actually show that the investigated theory has little scientific significance."; instead, the pressure to publish forces them to inflate their results, leading to the well-known jokes about scientific jargon.