From megaer beginings it grew to be quite a popular net hotspot. We've won lots of awards and we serve up hundreds of thousands of pages each day. My time is now fully consumed with running this beast. To make that a reality, myself, and a few friends created a company called BlockStackers Inc. Slashdot is the first real product from our company, but Everything- our distributed database and AdFu, our banner ad server are both coming into their own as entertaining projects. Now if they make money or not, that remains to be seen.
IMO, if this thing does happen with AOL then there is a chance that Open Source projects could be forced to compensate "volunteers".
Although, it may be a different enough situation that it is ok for people to volunteer...
Or maybe this was all just some evil plot by Micro$oft to take out the Open Source software community.
They approach a few of those AOL volunteers, say, "Here's $1M, wanna file a lawsuit for us?" and the volunteers agree.
When the case is over and AOL loses, M$ just waves a little more money in the air to bring attention to all the Open Source programmers who are "volunteering" but benifitting who they are volunteering for, so they must be compensated.
There is a difference between volunteering for a charitable cause and volunteering to perform work that is critical to a company's business
Well, I wouldn't say that Moderation is critical to Slashdot's business. I think it would still work without moderation, it just wouldn't be quite as nice.
But I do agree with you about/. qualifying as a business. I just don't think Rob could get in trouble for letting people volunteer to moderate the comments.
I don't know, maybe there are other areas people volunteer in slashdot.
Maybe submitting stories? Well, that wouldn't be critical either, because Rob could find his own stories, so slashdot would still work without that.
Maybe in just submitting comments? Uh.. no. I wouldn't go that far.
In any case, I could still be wrong... if so, let me know.
No, not quite that many... unless I actually used them all. And they also have to fit in with my desktop. If I can put them around a picture or if my desktop is a tile it's ok. Right now I've got 34 icons on my desktop. I use 'em all. Easy access to all the programs I use. Much easier than opening Xterm and typing it in... or swiching to Xterm and typing it. :-) I like my icons. They are my friends. LOL
I'm sure IBM knows what a 'hacker' is and what a 'cracker' is... they also know what 99% of the population thinks of when they hear 'hacker.'
I like what they did to correct this.
They call real "hackers" "ethical hackers" and "crackers" are "hackers".
I actually like this, because most people (that 99% I talked about earlier) associate "hacker" with this insane super-genius who can break into any computer in less time than it takes to turn on a light switch. By adding "ethical" to the front of this, it conveys the same thing... only you picture someone who is mature and knows how to use that power.
I usually use the definition "ethical hacker" to explain stuff to stupid people... like the one who wrote this psychology of hackers.
hmm... opening Xterm (or moving to it if it's already open) and typing in 'netscape&' or double-clicking on the Mozilla icon conveniently placed on your desktop... let me think...
I know a lot of people believe that something like this will make Linux worse and not better.
However, it isn't true.
Just because someone is selling something that makes it easier for people to use Linux, it doesn't mean that it's going to make Linux "Just as bad as Windows."
The CLI and steep learning curve isn't what makes Linux good. What makes it good is the Openess and the great programmers behind it.
The one thing that has been SEVERELY over-looked IS the user-friendliness.
The only thing that making something easier to use is going to do is let more people use the operating system without having to know as much in advance. I know those of us who have already done it the hard way may feel cheated because the new users don't have to go thru everything we did... but so what?
And another thing... Making something more user-friendly DOES NOT mean that it is going to be less powerful. Those of you who think that have a lot to learn about software design. Basically it all comes down to the masculinity argument. Many people feel that their balls are bigger because they can memorize a man page about a particular piece of software.
Yes, I have felt the same way sometimes. However, I would much rather have the option of a quick GUI with a couple checkboxes instead of having to open an Xterm, reading a man page, and memorizing the sequence of options I have to enter. Don't get me wrong, I like the speed that you CAN do stuff with the CLI once you do remember the commands. I just understand how many new users can feel.
Another thing that has been overlooked that could easily be implemented in many X-based programs is something like an "Advanced Options..." option. Show the simple stuff, then if they want to, show everything. Even though their programs do suck, M$ has got this UI thing down. Not many people complain about the UI in M$ programs. (Except maybe for that little paperclip guy...) Which brings me to something else... Help systems. Let me just say this:
The man system in Linux is awesome. The GUI based help sux.
IMO, Linux users *should* be happy about new users coming in, even if they have been dumbed-down by a Micro$oft OS.
More users mean: More programs More drivers More support period.
Sorry for getting a little bit off-topic (kinda) in that. It's just something that has been bothering me about many Linux users.
They think that if something comes in that makes Linux easier to use, it's going to ruin the Linux community.
C'mon people, it's ok. Let 'em in, even if they can't work a CLI.
~enucite~
/me puts on his asbestos suit in preparation of the flames.
First off, I do agree that it is free speech, and shouldn't be acted against (no matter if it was immature and not funny). However, I know that if I had created these characters I'd be either mad at them for using them in such stupid comics, or just laugh at them for trying to pass this off as "humor." I was wondering if anyone knew the Legal definition of parody. I tend to think of it as _ABC_ making fun of _DEF_ using _DEF_'s characters/song/movie/etc. So the way I see parody, I wouldn't classify these "comics" as such. But, since I'm not a lawyer and don't know about the legal definition of parady, I could be wrong (if so, please let me know). They're just stupid attempts at being offensive using someone else's characters. Maybe they should try to think of their own characters or something.
In the suicide booth, Bender uses a quarter tied to his finger to pay for it, then yanks the quarter out--even though he's committing suicide and won't be able to use it again.
In the bar, Bender talks about how he could bend girders to any degree... 30, 32,....31.
Bender's 'Olde Fortran' Malt Liquor
In "Old New York" after Fry talks about never seeing anyone he knows again, Blender says "there's someone you know!" (Refering to Leela, who at the time was hunting them down)
This is the best: When Fry and Leela have their "moment" Bender puts his hand on top of both of theirs, stealing Leela's ring. Leela quickly notices and Bender gives it back. Then he says "Well, that solves the case of the missing ring! This calls for a drink." He then pulls out 3 beers, and instead of giving one to each person, chugs them all.
Another part, that everyone knows, is when they are partially surrounded, he $h*ts a brick.
One other thing, I wasn't sure if it was intentional or not... After he $h*ts the brick, he says "We're Boned!" The first time I thought he said "Doomed" but after playing it through over and over I discovered it is "Boned." Can they not say "screwed" on television, or was it just something stupid that I took way to far?
One footnote--Another thing I noticed (not about Bender) was Leela's..uh.. officer ID number? When she called for backup, she said this is agent "1 B D I". Just something small and stupid that I overlooked the first time thru.
I know most people who use Linux now won't want this.
But I know a LOT of people who would think about trying this who cursed Linux as a tool of the devil.
(Hey--in their defense--it does have daemons);-)
This just opens Linux up to a whole new market of people. That is always good. I know I would have moved to Linux a lot sooner if there was something like this when I was first looking at it.
Slashdot Mirror
or industrial espionage.
~enucite~
From Rob's page
From megaer beginings it grew to be quite a popular net hotspot. We've won lots of awards and we serve up hundreds of thousands of pages each day. My time is now fully consumed with running this beast. To make that a reality, myself, and a few friends created a company called BlockStackers Inc. Slashdot is the first real product from our company, but Everything- our distributed database and AdFu, our banner ad server are both coming into their own as entertaining projects. Now if they make money or not, that remains to be seen.
~enucite~
Hmmm..
:-)
That's something that I didn't even think about.
IMO, if this thing does happen with AOL then there is a chance that Open Source projects could be forced to compensate "volunteers".
Although, it may be a different enough situation that it is ok for people to volunteer...
Or maybe this was all just some evil plot by Micro$oft to take out the Open Source software community.
They approach a few of those AOL volunteers, say, "Here's $1M, wanna file a lawsuit for us?" and the volunteers agree.
When the case is over and AOL loses, M$ just waves a little more money in the air to bring attention to all the Open Source programmers who are "volunteering" but benifitting who they are volunteering for, so they must be compensated.
But I could just be paranoid.
~enucite~
There is a difference between volunteering for a charitable cause and volunteering to perform work that is critical to a company's business
/. qualifying as a business. I just don't think Rob could get in trouble for letting people volunteer to moderate the comments.
Well, I wouldn't say that Moderation is critical to Slashdot's business.
I think it would still work without moderation, it just wouldn't be quite as nice.
But I do agree with you about
I don't know, maybe there are other areas people volunteer in slashdot.
Maybe submitting stories? Well, that wouldn't be critical either, because Rob could find his own stories, so slashdot would still work without that.
Maybe in just submitting comments? Uh.. no. I wouldn't go that far.
In any case, I could still be wrong... if so, let me know.
~enucite~
Seriously. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
;-)
I'd rather be wrong once, and be corrected, than go running around looking like an idiot.
Thanks Ymerej.
Hey... just wondering... your name wouldn't happen to be Jeremy? Cool, that's mine too. (I apologize for the stupid observation.)
~enucite~
No, not quite that many... unless I actually used them all.
And they also have to fit in with my desktop.
If I can put them around a picture or if my desktop is a tile it's ok.
Right now I've got 34 icons on my desktop.
I use 'em all.
Easy access to all the programs I use.
Much easier than opening Xterm and typing it in... or swiching to Xterm and typing it.
:-)
I like my icons. They are my friends.
LOL
~enucite~
Have you seen IBM's advertisements?
I'm sure IBM knows what a 'hacker' is and what a 'cracker' is... they also know what 99% of the population thinks of when they hear 'hacker.'
I like what they did to correct this.
They call real "hackers" "ethical hackers" and "crackers" are "hackers".
I actually like this, because most people (that 99% I talked about earlier) associate "hacker" with this insane super-genius who can break into any computer in less time than it takes to turn on a light switch. By adding "ethical" to the front of this, it conveys the same thing... only you picture someone who is mature and knows how to use that power.
I usually use the definition "ethical hacker" to explain stuff to stupid people... like the one who wrote this psychology of hackers.
~enucite~
hmm...
opening Xterm (or moving to it if it's already open) and typing in 'netscape&' or double-clicking on the Mozilla icon conveniently placed on your desktop...
let me think...
~enucite~
I know a lot of people believe that something like this will make Linux worse and not better.
However, it isn't true.
Just because someone is selling something that makes it easier for people to use Linux, it doesn't
mean that it's going to make Linux "Just as bad as Windows."
The CLI and steep learning curve isn't what makes Linux good. What makes it good is the Openess and
the great programmers behind it.
The one thing that has been SEVERELY over-looked IS
the user-friendliness.
The only thing that making something easier to use is going to do is let more people use the operating
system without having to know as much in advance. I know those of us who have already done it the
hard way may feel cheated because the new users don't have to go thru everything we did... but so
what?
And another thing... Making something more user-friendly DOES NOT mean that it is going to be less
powerful. Those of you who think that have a lot to learn about software design. Basically it all
comes down to the masculinity argument. Many people feel that their balls are bigger because
they can memorize a man page about a particular piece of software.
Yes, I have felt the same way sometimes. However, I would much rather have the option of a quick GUI
with a couple checkboxes instead of having to open an Xterm, reading a man page, and memorizing the
sequence of options I have to enter. Don't get me wrong, I like the speed that you CAN do stuff with
the CLI once you do remember the commands. I just understand how many new users can feel.
Another thing that has been overlooked that could easily be implemented in many X-based programs is
something like an "Advanced Options..." option. Show the simple stuff, then if they want to, show
everything. Even though their programs do suck, M$ has got this UI thing down. Not many people
complain about the UI in M$ programs. (Except maybe for that little paperclip guy...) Which
brings me to something else... Help systems. Let me just say this:
The man system in Linux is awesome. The GUI based help sux.
IMO, Linux users *should* be happy about new users coming in, even if they have been dumbed-down by a
Micro$oft OS.
More users mean:
More programs
More drivers
More support period.
Sorry for getting a little bit off-topic (kinda) in that. It's just something that has been bothering me about many Linux users.
They think that if something comes in that makes Linux easier to use, it's going to ruin the Linux
community.
C'mon people, it's ok.
Let 'em in, even if they can't work a CLI.
~enucite~
/me puts on his asbestos suit in preparation of the flames.
First off, I do agree that it is free speech, and shouldn't be acted against (no matter if it was immature and not funny).
However, I know that if I had created these characters I'd be either mad at them for using them in such stupid comics, or just laugh at them for trying to pass this off as "humor."
I was wondering if anyone knew the Legal definition of parody. I tend to think of it as _ABC_ making fun of _DEF_ using _DEF_'s characters/song/movie/etc.
So the way I see parody, I wouldn't classify these "comics" as such.
But, since I'm not a lawyer and don't know about the legal definition of parady, I could be wrong (if so, please let me know).
They're just stupid attempts at being offensive using someone else's characters.
Maybe they should try to think of their own characters or something.
~enucite~
It was a well planned and stupendously executed prank.
:-)
It was great watching so many people fumble around worrying about the status of Segfault/UF/BeDope
I know I've had fun today.
It's people like you that make this such a great joke.
It's the fools that get upset over April Fool's jokes.
Sorry that you didn't get it right away and missed out on all the fun.
It was just a little to coincidental (three sites, shutting down on April 1?) for me to believe.
It's funny, laugh.
~enucite~
In the suicide booth, Bender uses a quarter tied
....31.
..uh.. officer ID number?
to his finger to pay for it, then yanks the
quarter out--even though he's committing suicide
and won't be able to use it again.
In the bar, Bender talks about how he could bend
girders to any degree... 30, 32,
Bender's 'Olde Fortran' Malt Liquor
In "Old New York" after Fry talks about never
seeing anyone he knows again, Blender
says "there's someone you know!" (Refering to
Leela, who at the time was hunting them down)
This is the best: When Fry and Leela have
their "moment" Bender puts his hand on top of
both of theirs, stealing Leela's ring. Leela
quickly notices and Bender gives it back. Then
he says "Well, that solves the case of the
missing ring! This calls for a drink." He then
pulls out 3 beers, and instead of giving one to
each person, chugs them all.
Another part, that everyone knows, is when they
are partially surrounded, he $h*ts a brick.
One other thing, I wasn't sure if it was
intentional or not... After he $h*ts the brick,
he says "We're Boned!" The first time I thought
he said "Doomed" but after playing it through
over and over I discovered it is "Boned." Can
they not say "screwed" on television, or was it
just something stupid that I took way to far?
One footnote--Another thing I noticed (not about
Bender) was Leela's
When she called for backup, she said this is agent
"1 B D I". Just something small and stupid that
I overlooked the first time thru.
__________________
~enucite~
Isn't HTML an "open standard"?
I know most people who use Linux
;-)
now won't want this.
But I know a LOT of people who
would think about trying this
who cursed Linux as a tool of
the devil.
(Hey--in their defense--it does have daemons)
This just opens Linux up to a
whole new market of people.
That is always good.
I know I would have moved to
Linux a lot sooner if there
was something like this when
I was first looking at it.
~enucite~