It's good to see people seeing Linux as useful for small, embedded systems. Its low cost and easy maintenance (hey, the source code's free!) make it an obvious choice. It's quite fun to see the little light bulbs turning on over people's heads.
Most of Linux's perceived shortcomings are already being addressed, or have active groups working on them.
But of course. The one thing that can make or break any technology is media. CD couldn't have made it if the studios hadn't supported it. Ditto for VHS (remember Betamax?).
I also really like the idea of releasing stuff that is tailored for DVD, instead of mindless re-releasing of stuff already available in other media. This makes the format more compelling for people wondering if they should buy into the new(er) format.
Number 17 has a bigger this, 19 has a diminished that, etc.
Just what we need.
"Sample #17 had a larger pariatal lobe, and tasted a bit like pork. Sample #19, on the other hand, was smaller in the medulla, and had a buttery aftertaste..." --
I heard this on my way to work on NPR. The reporter also said that Einstein would have preferred not to be remembered for his body.
Of course, I can see it now. No more need for IQ tests. Just measure parts of a person's brain. Of course, they'll have to remove it first, but anything for progress! --
Controversial? Yes. But I really don't think any of this is NSI's fault. They're a company, and a company at the verge of losing their monopoly and thus their massive profits.
This is a company that was given its monopoly by the government, and with the knowledge that this monopoly wouldn't be permanent.
They seem to be doing just about anything and everything to retain their monopoly, despite the efforts of the ICANN.
Blame them? I most certainly can. What gives them the right to the information in the WHOIS database? When I registered a domain name, I did not grant NSI the sole authority to do what it wants with that information; it was given so people would know who to contact if there were any problems with the maintenance of the domain!
NSI now claims that this information, originally a public database, is their proprietary information in retrospect.
They are also raising stumbling blocks as the domain competition gets underway. So far, of the five companies selected by ICANN, only one is able to do the registrations. And we are talking BIG companies here... like AOL! Since there is no competition for this service right now, except from NSI, the price hasn't gone down (big surprise!).
I won't go so far as to say that NSI is another Microsoft. That would be going a bit too far. But they are trying to retain their monopoly at all costs, and they are spreading FUD and rumors, and they are stalling any REAL competition in the domain registration arena. This isn't any ethical business practise that I would want to be associated with. But I guess for them, the bottom line is money -- this is understandable in a business, but I don't have to personally like it. --
Concentrating less on "freedom" (as in FSF) does have its drawbacks, but since Open Source has gotten into our lexicon, something should be done about this term.
If the term is too generic that it cannot be trademarked, then fine. Coming up with "OSI Certified" sounds OK to me (I just don't want to see Open Source Certified Engineers...!). It would be nice to have some sort of protection against people abusing terms like "Open Source" etc. I mean, COME ON... even Microsoft has gotten into the act, and they are proprietary as hell.
However, Eric's message leaves me a bit uncertain as to how the process will be provided.
Will every bit of software that wishes to be "OSI Certified" need to be submitted to the magnifying glass of the OSI? This would look like it would be a difficult job for OSI to provide, and might be expensive.
Or, would OSI have some pre-written licenses (like the GPL) that people can copy unmodified and use the "OSI Certified" mark? This would be easier, especially if you consider that a lot of open source projects are being done by people that don't have access to lots of money. And if a company decides that these standard licenses aren't suitable, due to various reasons, they could either forgo the "OSI Certified" mark, or they could have OSI examine their licenses and either bless them individually, or give hints on how to achieve OSI's blessing.
This alternative (which may be what OSI is considering) would seem to me to be easiest for the typical hacker project, and give flexibility to those that need special consideration. --
[OBJOKE] Al Gore was rejected because he isn't Catholic, and even if he gets elected, he'll only have one miracle to claim. [smile] This really seems like joke material. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't April 1. [/OBJOKE]
This really seems like joke material. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't April 1.
All kidding aside, does the internet really need a patron saint? Maybe so. You see, this may actually help some technophobes overcome their instincitve Luddite fear of the net (remember the kids being "talked to" because they admitted to playing DOOM?). The technology can be seen as being "blessed" as it were, by the Vatican.
For its part, the vatican has been keeping tabs on the internet, with a web presense. Actually, only the Church of Scientology comes to mind as being more net savvy, although the stories associated with the Scientologists are usually negative with respect to the net.
The presense of the Vatican may be even more beneficial, as the internet currently has an image problem (maybe rightfully so) as being awash with pornography, weapons how-to's, and other negative things. Its nice to know there is a major organized religion that may actually champion this technology and help get it seen as acceptable for families, etc.
2. Bash behaves oddly. If we have the line "set -o vi" in our.bashrc or.bash_profile, it does not work.
This bothered me, too. The fault, however, lies in the package initscripts-4.16-1 -- there's an "/etc/inputrc" file that/etc/profile (or one of the files in/etc/profile.d, I cannot remember) that overrides YOUR $HOME/.inputrc and, in general, mungs up your vi modes. Locate the relevant lines in/etc/profile or wherever (unset INPUTRC, for example) and you should be set.
I don't think that the Slashdot community will ever come up with a term for people that try to break into other computers that will satisfy everybody.
I think "cracker" is a much better term than "hacker," though.
George Orwell's _1984_ came up with an interesting way to "prevent" crime by removing words for the different categories of crime from the language (double speak). So, things like rape, murder, stealing, and presumably taking too large a deduction on your income tax could only be expressed by the word "crimethink." Apparently, if you can't express the exact nature of the crime, it may be harder to commit.
I think the term "script kiddies" is perfect for some of those with too much time on their hands, since the term is so patently offensive to those that are being described.
If you want a better word than "cracker," you might want to consider the much simpler (and more Orwellian) "low life." [smile]
Actually, this isn't the first time that the NSA has rejected requests that Congress has required it to grant.
For example, the "Freedom of Information Act" allows private citizens of the USA to access their records from intelligence agencies, among other things. The NSA has consistantly refused to hand over ANY information to anybody, saying that they are not covered by the act.
What makes anybody think that even if they are mentioned specifically in an act of Congress, that the NSA will honor it? It is not an agency that was created by Congress, so I think its purview is in the Executive branch of government. I am not a lawyer (of course!) but wouldn't that mean that getting the agency to supply any information would require a direct request from the President?
The NSA probably has the ability to tie up Congress's request in legal hurdles for years before anything is actually DONE. And by then, there will be a new administration... back to square one...!
I wouldn't hold my breath expecting anything to happen with this.
I don't think that Jon's article went that far, and despite that, I do think that the Village Voice article raises quite a few interesting points.
Yes, it sucks to be a kid. But, unlike the author of that article, I believe that you candecide against the moves for playing along with the popularity game.
Twenty-some odd years ago, I was in the same situation as Jon's correspondants. I was a computer nerd (geek wasn't used back in 1974). I didn't earn the anger of the more popular students, but rather they just ignored me totally.
There is NOTHING that justifies what happened in Littleton. But also, there is NOTHING that justifies what has happened in the aftermath of Littleton -- expulsions, suspensions, geek counseling, "geek profiling," etc.
The establishment is overreacting, as usual. But let us not overreact as well.
School sucks. College sucks. Work sucks. Life sucks.
It's up to you to figure out how to win the game. Spraying a school with bullets isn't the answer. Succeeding is the answer.
How? Everybody will have to figure that out for himself/herself.
This seems to reinforce the idea that there are "time bombs" in cells that cause the aging/death process. It may also be possible to extrapolate that something in the genetic material has "programmed" the apparent age.
Some things to ponder:
If Dolly is three now, and appears to be six; in three years, will she appear to be nine, or twelve? In other words, is the aging process exponential?
New experiment: Save Dolly's genetic material, and use Dolly to clone another sheep, and check the genetic material in three years. What "apparent" age will the Dolly^2 have? Can we do any comparisons between Dolly, the original donor, and Dolly's clone? Is a clone of a clone even feasible?
Some of these are raised in the article. We live in interesting times!
First, nobody says that the keyboards have to be touch keyboards. Look at the point of sale machines that they use... no buttons, just touch pads.
Second, a touch screen seems to be the perfect method for accessing a web-only device. Doesn't seem to be too difficult for an employee to use some glass cleaner (or whatever) every 30-60 minutes to keep those nasty germs away.
I saw a mention of "french fry grease." The greases and oils used in fast food tend to gum up things like keyboards, but point of sale technology has been around since the 1970's... it doesn't appear to be a problem with the majority of the fast food places you see around town.
I don't think I'd use it (I'd hate to be standing in a "line" behind a bunch of kids ooh-ing and ahhh-ing over the technology). But... there ARE cyber-cafes right now. Why not cyber fast food?
--
Re:Gnu + penguin concept?
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 1
Do we really want a gnu "looking down" on the penguin?
This may sound silly, but what if somebody suggested "GNU System (Linux Inside)" instead?
I'm never one to argue with maddog, but I think the "[xxx] inside" sounds a bit wrong.
Intel's advertising campaign was to differentiate different system integrators that used "real" Intel chips against those systems that used clone chips.
My understanding is that Linux isn't trying to differentiate itself from GNU, but rather the idea is more to show that GNU components are integrated into Linux.
There may be SOME logo that can be designed that may get this point across; I'm not a graphics designer, though. --
What will it look like?
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 1
A picture of a gnu shaking hands with a penguin? --
Might be a compromise, but....
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 1
I think it would be wonderful if a GNU logo could be shown on the packaging of Linux distributions, but I seriously think that RMS has shown a lack of desire for compromise. He really wants it called "GNU/Linux" and I think that anything else will still offend him.
Of course, to satisfy even more Linux users, a Microsoft logo within a red circle and slash might be even better... [smile] --
I think the word "cracker" is simply an attempt to come up with some sort of in-between with the media in describing somebody that breaks into systems. Most journalists don't use that term; they use the term "hacker" instead. Anyway, I think a better term to describe people that break into systems is "criminal."
The author's description of a hacker as somebody that makes furniture with an axe is probably correct entymologically; it reminds me of watching those guys at state fairs with chain saws attacking a log the size of Hulk Hogan's leg and creating a pretty statue while everybody else just gawks. But you probably wouldn't want your living room to be populated by that kind of furniture.
Hackers are good for getting a job done quickly, and even artistically.
In my experience, it is usually best for a larger project if you team up a hacker and a software engineer with more experience... the hacker will be chomping at the bit trying to write the code, and the engineer will be starting off with a real design. Usually the hacker will end up facing a brick wall while the engineer will have a pretty good design ready for the two of them to code. If the hacker is willing to learn his/her trade, such a pairing will usually end up with two pretty competent engineers.
There's a time and a place for hacking code. There's also a time and a place for good design. And there is no place for a "cracker" in my world. [smile] --
Violent Movies/TV shows are a red herring
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Dick Cavett once stated, "I see more comedy on television than violence, but I have never heard anybody complaining about comedy in the streets."
Here's a thought: have somebody give themselves credentials and make a claim that fill in the blank with your least favorite ethnic group is inferior. Publish the story. Don't worry about getting any opposing comments. Don't worry about checking whether the claim being made has any basis in fact. Just publish it.
This is not what I call responsible journalism.
Do you think that they would print an article saying that somebody has described all psychologists or journalists as delusional, arrogant, self-righteous, pompous windbags? Of course not!
I really resent the entire point of the article. As Rob points out, there are a few incorrect assumptions about definitions here. To my way of thinking, a person that breaks into systems is not a hacker. Such a person should be better described as a "criminal."
But, of course, we hackers are anti-social, so it's easy to dismiss us away. We have no spokespeople (sorry, ESR, RMS, et al!), so there are no comments to the contrary.
Interesting journalistic angle, though. Take a common misconception and prejudicial idea and give it credence by having it espoused by a so-called expert and report it as news.
The easiest way to deal with this (for me, at least) is to treat this as the garbage that it is and put http://www.nationalpost.com into my Junkbuster block file. It doesn't make the bad stuff go away, but I don't have to waste my bandwidth reading such trash. --
Erik brings up a good point. Why not go to the people that have experience with message forums for suggestions?
I, for one, think that the moderation rules outlined above by Rob are a bit arcane and a trifle bewildering. I guess that I'll just wait and see to find out how effective they become.
Finally, I am also seeing the "0 of 0" replies on the front screen; such numbers usually make me avoid reading until a few people have contributed their own two cents worth...! --
I think it's high time that slashdot evaluate it's goals.
When I saw these articles, I just thought "Wow! It's April Fools Day again!"
I think it is a good sign for a "news" site like Slashdot to not take itself very seriously. Letting their hair down, so to speak (does that translate in the 90's?).
Evaluate it's goals? I don't really think it's necessary. I think Slashdot does a fine job of keeping its finger on the pulse of the geek community... and that includes everything including geek pranks.
I remember a fine geek-oriented magazine, Computer Language that dedicated its April, 1984 (is that the correct year?) to joke articles about programming... takeoffs of Jerry Pournelle's columns, amusing anectdotes and other stories... even a CENTERFOLD.
I, for one, had gotten used to searching the April issues of Byte for joke articles and reports (not always very obvious).
What happened? Well, Computer Language never did any more prank articles after that issue. And Byte started phasing out their joke articles after a time. And I think that this was/is a loss.
Remember, April Fools jokes are a real tradition here in the States. USENET has had its share of prank postings on this date (I've perpetrated a few of them myself). Even National Public Radio usually has one or two prank reports on this day (and you really can't get any more news-oriented than that source!).
C'mon, develop a sense of humor with the rest of us geeks and nerds and enjoy the day.
Slashdot Mirror
It's good to see people seeing Linux as useful for small, embedded systems. Its low cost and easy maintenance (hey, the source code's free!) make it an obvious choice. It's quite fun to see the little light bulbs turning on over people's heads.
Most of Linux's perceived shortcomings are already being addressed, or have active groups working on them.
This is great news!
--
Who else out there thinks
there will be one huge company
someday?
Can you say, "Microsoft?"
--
But of course. The one thing that can make or break any technology is media. CD couldn't have made it if the studios hadn't supported it. Ditto for VHS (remember Betamax?).
I also really like the idea of releasing stuff that is tailored for DVD, instead of mindless re-releasing of stuff already available in other media. This makes the format more compelling for people wondering if they should buy into the new(er) format.
--
Number 17 has a bigger this, 19 has a diminished that, etc.
Just what we need.
"Sample #17 had a larger pariatal lobe, and tasted a bit like pork. Sample #19, on the other hand, was smaller in the medulla, and had a buttery aftertaste..."
--
I heard this on my way to work on NPR. The reporter also said that Einstein would have preferred not to be remembered for his body.
Of course, I can see it now. No more need for IQ tests. Just measure parts of a person's brain. Of course, they'll have to remove it first, but anything for progress!
--
Controversial? Yes. But I really don't think any of this is NSI's fault. They're a company, and a company at the verge of losing their monopoly and thus their massive profits.
This is a company that was given its monopoly by the government, and with the knowledge that this monopoly wouldn't be permanent.
They seem to be doing just about anything and everything to retain their monopoly, despite the efforts of the ICANN.
Blame them? I most certainly can. What gives them the right to the information in the WHOIS database? When I registered a domain name, I did not grant NSI the sole authority to do what it wants with that information; it was given so people would know who to contact if there were any problems with the maintenance of the domain!
NSI now claims that this information, originally a public database, is their proprietary information in retrospect.
They are also raising stumbling blocks as the domain competition gets underway. So far, of the five companies selected by ICANN, only one is able to do the registrations. And we are talking BIG companies here... like AOL! Since there is no competition for this service right now, except from NSI, the price hasn't gone down (big surprise!).
I won't go so far as to say that NSI is another Microsoft. That would be going a bit too far. But they are trying to retain their monopoly at all costs, and they are spreading FUD and rumors, and they are stalling any REAL competition in the domain registration arena. This isn't any ethical business practise that I would want to be associated with. But I guess for them, the bottom line is money -- this is understandable in a business, but I don't have to personally like it.
--
Concentrating less on "freedom" (as in FSF) does have its drawbacks, but since Open Source has gotten into our lexicon, something should be done about this term.
If the term is too generic that it cannot be trademarked, then fine. Coming up with "OSI Certified" sounds OK to me (I just don't want to see Open Source Certified Engineers...!). It would be nice to have some sort of protection against people abusing terms like "Open Source" etc. I mean, COME ON... even Microsoft has gotten into the act, and they are proprietary as hell.
However, Eric's message leaves me a bit uncertain as to how the process will be provided.
Will every bit of software that wishes to be "OSI Certified" need to be submitted to the magnifying glass of the OSI? This would look like it would be a difficult job for OSI to provide, and might be expensive.
Or, would OSI have some pre-written licenses (like the GPL) that people can copy unmodified and use the "OSI Certified" mark? This would be easier, especially if you consider that a lot of open source projects are being done by people that don't have access to lots of money. And if a company decides that these standard licenses aren't suitable, due to various reasons, they could either forgo the "OSI Certified" mark, or they could have OSI examine their licenses and either bless them individually, or give hints on how to achieve OSI's blessing.
This alternative (which may be what OSI is considering) would seem to me to be easiest for the typical hacker project, and give flexibility to those that need special consideration.
--
Open Source: Release early. Release often.
Much better than MicroSoft: Promise early. Release maybe. Patch occasionally.
This is good news indeed.
--
[OBJOKE]
Al Gore was rejected because he isn't Catholic, and even if he gets elected, he'll only have one miracle to claim. [smile] This really seems like joke material. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't April 1.
[/OBJOKE]
This really seems like joke material. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't April 1.
All kidding aside, does the internet really need a patron saint? Maybe so. You see, this may actually help some technophobes overcome their instincitve Luddite fear of the net (remember the kids being "talked to" because they admitted to playing DOOM?). The technology can be seen as being "blessed" as it were, by the Vatican.
For its part, the vatican has been keeping tabs on the internet, with a web presense. Actually, only the Church of Scientology comes to mind as being more net savvy, although the stories associated with the Scientologists are usually negative with respect to the net.
The presense of the Vatican may be even more beneficial, as the internet currently has an image problem (maybe rightfully so) as being awash with pornography, weapons how-to's, and other negative things. Its nice to know there is a major organized religion that may actually champion this technology and help get it seen as acceptable for families, etc.
--
This bothered me, too. The fault, however, lies in the package initscripts-4.16-1 -- there's an "/etc/inputrc" file that
Yeah! Another VI user! [smile]
--
I don't think that the Slashdot community will ever come up with a term for people that try to break into other computers that will satisfy everybody.
I think "cracker" is a much better term than "hacker," though.
George Orwell's _1984_ came up with an interesting way to "prevent" crime by removing words for the different categories of crime from the language (double speak). So, things like rape, murder, stealing, and presumably taking too large a deduction on your income tax could only be expressed by the word "crimethink." Apparently, if you can't express the exact nature of the crime, it may be harder to commit.
I think the term "script kiddies" is perfect for some of those with too much time on their hands, since the term is so patently offensive to those that are being described.
If you want a better word than "cracker," you might want to consider the much simpler (and more Orwellian) "low life." [smile]
My own opinion, of course.
--
Actually, this isn't the first time that the NSA has rejected requests that Congress has required it to grant.
For example, the "Freedom of Information Act" allows private citizens of the USA to access their records from intelligence agencies, among other things. The NSA has consistantly refused to hand over ANY information to anybody, saying that they are not covered by the act.
What makes anybody think that even if they are mentioned specifically in an act of Congress, that the NSA will honor it? It is not an agency that was created by Congress, so I think its purview is in the Executive branch of government. I am not a lawyer (of course!) but wouldn't that mean that getting the agency to supply any information would require a direct request from the President?
The NSA probably has the ability to tie up Congress's request in legal hurdles for years before anything is actually DONE. And by then, there will be a new administration... back to square one...!
I wouldn't hold my breath expecting anything to happen with this.
Good luck, Congressman!
--
Home alone on Friday night. Gas chambers.
I don't think that Jon's article went that far, and despite that, I do think that the Village Voice article raises quite a few interesting points.
Yes, it sucks to be a kid. But, unlike the author of that article, I believe that you can decide against the moves for playing along with the popularity game.
Twenty-some odd years ago, I was in the same situation as Jon's correspondants. I was a computer nerd (geek wasn't used back in 1974). I didn't earn the anger of the more popular students, but rather they just ignored me totally.
There is NOTHING that justifies what happened in Littleton. But also, there is NOTHING that justifies what has happened in the aftermath of Littleton -- expulsions, suspensions, geek counseling, "geek profiling," etc.
The establishment is overreacting, as usual. But let us not overreact as well.
School sucks. College sucks. Work sucks. Life sucks.
It's up to you to figure out how to win the game. Spraying a school with bullets isn't the answer. Succeeding is the answer.
How? Everybody will have to figure that out for himself/herself.
--
Some things to ponder:
What "apparent" age will the Dolly^2 have? Can we do any comparisons between Dolly, the original donor, and Dolly's clone? Is a clone of a clone even feasible?
Some of these are raised in the article. We live in interesting times!
--
First, nobody says that the keyboards have to be touch keyboards. Look at the point of sale machines that they use... no buttons, just touch pads.
Second, a touch screen seems to be the perfect method for accessing a web-only device. Doesn't seem to be too difficult for an employee to use some glass cleaner (or whatever) every 30-60 minutes to keep those nasty germs away.
I saw a mention of "french fry grease." The greases and oils used in fast food tend to gum up things like keyboards, but point of sale technology has been around since the 1970's... it doesn't appear to be a problem with the majority of the fast food places you see around town.
I don't think I'd use it (I'd hate to be standing in a "line" behind a bunch of kids ooh-ing and ahhh-ing over the technology). But... there ARE cyber-cafes right now. Why not cyber fast food?
--
Do we really want a gnu "looking down" on the penguin?
This may sound silly, but what if somebody suggested "GNU System (Linux Inside)" instead?
I'm never one to argue with maddog, but I think the "[xxx] inside" sounds a bit wrong.
Intel's advertising campaign was to differentiate different system integrators that used "real" Intel chips against those systems that used clone chips.
My understanding is that Linux isn't trying to differentiate itself from GNU, but rather the idea is more to show that GNU components are integrated into Linux.
There may be SOME logo that can be designed that may get this point across; I'm not a graphics designer, though.
--
A picture of a gnu shaking hands with a penguin?
--
Of course, to satisfy even more Linux users, a Microsoft logo within a red circle and slash might be even better... [smile]
--
I think the word "cracker" is simply an attempt to come up with some sort of in-between with the media in describing somebody that breaks into systems. Most journalists don't use that term; they use the term "hacker" instead. Anyway, I think a better term to describe people that break into systems is "criminal."
The author's description of a hacker as somebody that makes furniture with an axe is probably correct entymologically; it reminds me of watching those guys at state fairs with chain saws attacking a log the size of Hulk Hogan's leg and creating a pretty statue while everybody else just gawks. But you probably wouldn't want your living room to be populated by that kind of furniture.
Hackers are good for getting a job done quickly, and even artistically.
In my experience, it is usually best for a larger project if you team up a hacker and a software engineer with more experience... the hacker will be chomping at the bit trying to write the code, and the engineer will be starting off with a real design. Usually the hacker will end up facing a brick wall while the engineer will have a pretty good design ready for the two of them to code. If the hacker is willing to learn his/her trade, such a pairing will usually end up with two pretty competent engineers.
There's a time and a place for hacking code. There's also a time and a place for good design. And there is no place for a "cracker" in my world. [smile]
--
Dick Cavett once stated, "I see more comedy on television than violence, but I have never heard anybody complaining about comedy in the streets."
'Nuff said
--
I guess they will cover the .me2 domains...!
--
Imaginative. Descriptive.
A little over the top, perhaps?
--
Here's a thought: have somebody give themselves credentials and make a claim that fill in the blank with your least favorite ethnic group is inferior. Publish the story. Don't worry about getting any opposing comments. Don't worry about checking whether the claim being made has any basis in fact. Just publish it.
This is not what I call responsible journalism.
Do you think that they would print an article saying that somebody has described all psychologists or journalists as delusional, arrogant, self-righteous, pompous windbags? Of course not!
I really resent the entire point of the article. As Rob points out, there are a few incorrect assumptions about definitions here. To my way of thinking, a person that breaks into systems is not a hacker. Such a person should be better described as a "criminal."
But, of course, we hackers are anti-social, so it's easy to dismiss us away. We have no spokespeople (sorry, ESR, RMS, et al!), so there are no comments to the contrary.
Interesting journalistic angle, though. Take a common misconception and prejudicial idea and give it credence by having it espoused by a so-called expert and report it as news.
The easiest way to deal with this (for me, at least) is to treat this as the garbage that it is and put http://www.nationalpost.com into my Junkbuster block file. It doesn't make the bad stuff go away, but I don't have to waste my bandwidth reading such trash.
--
Erik brings up a good point. Why not go to the people that have experience with message forums for suggestions?
I, for one, think that the moderation rules outlined above by Rob are a bit arcane and a trifle bewildering. I guess that I'll just wait and see to find out how effective they become.
Finally, I am also seeing the "0 of 0" replies on the front screen; such numbers usually make me avoid reading until a few people have contributed their own two cents worth...!
--
I think it is a good sign for a "news" site like Slashdot to not take itself very seriously. Letting their hair down, so to speak (does that translate in the 90's?).
Evaluate it's goals? I don't really think it's necessary. I think Slashdot does a fine job of keeping its finger on the pulse of the geek community... and that includes everything including geek pranks.
I remember a fine geek-oriented magazine, Computer Language that dedicated its April, 1984 (is that the correct year?) to joke articles about programming... takeoffs of Jerry Pournelle's columns, amusing anectdotes and other stories... even a CENTERFOLD.
I, for one, had gotten used to searching the April issues of Byte for joke articles and reports (not always very obvious).
What happened? Well, Computer Language never did any more prank articles after that issue. And Byte started phasing out their joke articles after a time. And I think that this was/is a loss.
Remember, April Fools jokes are a real tradition here in the States. USENET has had its share of prank postings on this date (I've perpetrated a few of them myself). Even National Public Radio usually has one or two prank reports on this day (and you really can't get any more news-oriented than that source!).
C'mon, develop a sense of humor with the rest of us geeks and nerds and enjoy the day.
--