Feed the groupthink! One survey suddenly proves the internet is harmless? Puuuhlease. You know this was partially funded by corporations that just happen to have a vested interest in the results? Now I'm not saying it was rigged, but you guys can at least be consistent. Ignore it like you would any other corporate funded study.
This survey probably wasn't rigged, but come on. There are lots of ways to get the wrong results on a survey like this. Firstly, it seems as if most of the test only "asked" people if they felt like they were being cut off. Well, I don't know about you, but very few people with problems with admit that they have it (even to themselves). Secondly, the internet has only made itself into America's living room in the past year or two. Don't assume that just because it's got a huge market share now, that all those users have been using the net with any regularity for a significant amount of time. Thirdly, I believe Katz and this survey quoted about ~75%, that's still a significant percentage who are reporting problems. That remaing ~25% could be all over the map, maybe 1% with serious problems. Fourthly, because this study is so broad, you can't ignore the fact that most of the users are so new that it's unlikely that they'd have problems even if the internet were known to be harmfull in extreme. In other words, this doesn't mean the internet hardened geeks of the world that have been using it for years have nothing to worry about.
Maybe this is going a little too far, but I believe you'd see similar numbers if you were to introduce alchohol and do a similar survey. Do you feel you're an alchoholic? Of course not. Do you know anyone that's become an alchoholic after only moderate use? Similarly, most people who drink alchohol don't abuse it, but some do.
It's clear that the internet offers undeniable benefits, even some social ones (i.e., to communicate via email with friends). It may be very positive on the aggregate, but I am convinced that there is also a significant bad element in it. I am convinced that excessive usage of stuff like slashdot, IRC, ICQ, IM, etc are going to be a real cause of tension in relationships and what not in the coming years. I've seen enough of it first hand to know that it's there. Anyways, the point is this survey has done nothing to dissuade me. Katz is wrong to trumpet it like it means you can just scoff at any criticism.
If we ever want to see linux used in mission critical systems like air traffic control, embedded medical devices, or military applications, then projects like this are the key.
IANAESE, but Linux will never be used in a life critical medical device, never mind implantable medical devices. Firstly, the FDA requirements are simply too strict to allow linux's usage. Secondly, it's both overkill and underkill at once. Linux may be relatively efficient compared to systems like Windows, but it's not anywhere near small enough for traditional embedded systems. Third, Linux simply does more than it would need ever need to, why use it? Fourth, it's not setup for DSP type operations. Fifth, do you really want to unnecessarily trust your life to linux just so you can make a statement?
I've not used Delphi; between it being somewhat pricey, non-ubiquitous, and such, it hasn't been an option. The company I work for got worried a couple years ago over the financial condition of Borland, and basically "nixed" the use of any of Borland's tools for new work. (There used to be quite a lot of Paradox systems.)
I can certainly understanding not using it if it doesn't meet your particular criteria (i.e., price). However, to reject it because you think the alternatives (i.e., MS products) are more likely to "last" is a bit ridiculous. It's been my experience that MS breaks their own compatibility all the time anyways, whereas with Delphi (not to mention others) things tend to be significantly more stable and backwards compatible. Furthermore, even if Borland collapsed, it's unlikely that it would result in Delphi disappearing--it's simply too valuable an asset to just let it go up in smoke. It fits a market that no other products really address even nearly as well. Anyways, if Borland decided to stop developing Delphi, it's not like your apps would suddenly break. It's a compiler/RAD that just happens to be excellent for developing database frontends. If you need to make revisions to the code, you probably wouldn't want to upgrade Delphi.
I just don't see a real reason not to use it along those lines. For short and sweet apps, Delphi is by far the fastest and most efficient (in terms of speed of development and the end product)...the long term survivability of Delphi is basically irrelevant. For longer term apps, the odds are that you simply don't want to use something like Access or paradox anyways. The advantages that Delphi offers over VC++ (or even VB) are just too tremendous to ignore, especially when the supposed drawbacks are scrutinized.
I've actually found Access to be pretty much crap. Don't get me wrong, Access has got its unique uses for throwing together a trivial database in 5 minutes and what not, but for much beyond that it's pretty much horrendous. I've found the form building to be especially horrible [and support for 3rd party databases basically non-existent]. Much the same for reporting. It's fine if all you need to do is print up a simple select statement, but when you start adding any real complexity you're basically SOL.
Though I know most users don't have access to the tools, I can honestly tell you that I can develop just about anything in Delphi and a decent SQL backend faster than I can with Access. I don't really see a large market for Access in and of itself, the way it is now. In my opinion, its limited success is due mostly to the fact that it comes _bundled_ with many systems; the manager, or whomever, doesn't need to run out and buy overpriced software for an application that'll only get a couple hours of use.
That being said, I do think Linux needs an application that _actually_ does the above well. Kylix (Delphi) will certainly be a huge boon for professionals when and if it comes out. Hell, even such an application targeted more at _end users_ for Windows would be nice.....
I personally liked the idea of DIVX. Though I never studied the matter extensively, the fact is that I would _save_ a significant amount of money, not to mention hassle, by not having to bother with returning videos, and the inevitable late fees. I had no moral or "hassle" objection to DIVX. The reason I never bothered to actually buy one is because they weren't sufficiently common. Much like Laserdisc (only worse), if hardly anyone rents them with enough selection/quantity, then the worth of the technology to the consumer approaches zero. I believe DIVX failed more because of poor management of the technology by trying to be too propreitary.
Tell me something. When a conservative makes a truck, does it pull right? The answer is No.
But, seriously, it's virtually impossible to influence politics through the way you create a truck or what have you. The media, on the other hand, has a very significant influence on the public by simply producing their sole product: information. Put simply, they are the SOURCE from which 99.99% of the public relies on for information beyond their immediate surroundings. It's not as if each and every person personally hears what a politican has to say, or can accurately measure the state of the economy beyond their own hometown. Instead, they turn to the likes of CNN from their information on the candidates, what they say, and on the issues. When those quotes are selectively biased against a particular candidate, or when the "facts" about a candidate are distorted, or when the information of the state of the economy is withheld from people, you can be sure that's going to have some influence.
To sum it all up, there's a word for this. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed the people crap, you can hardly depend on them making anything other than crappy decisions. Now maybe crap is a little strong of a word, but the point is that the more crap you foist on the public, the more apt the public is to bring about bad policy. The more leftist the media coverage is, the more likely the public is to be friendly to leftist policies.
I, for one, believe in the public, on the aggregate. In other words, if you give the public a decent reporting of the facts, the majority of the answers are apt to be things that you'll agree with. The flipside, of course, is when the media gives its typically glossy coverover of the news, they'll have little understanding or appreciation for the more subtle issues.
Yes, that's right. They were and still are restricted by law. The reasonable view, in my opinion, is where both sides admit that both sides are basically trying to follow the law. They may have two entirely different takes on the issue, but that is the way law works. The real question is whether or not these agencies will hear stuff that they're not entitled to; not that they're _actively_ trying to setup some kind of echelon-style sniffing network. This leaves two questions: The legal debate and the technical debate (whether or not they can follow the legal criteria).
I have no problem when people want to argue the issues where they lay. What I do take issue with, is when they distract from the central questions by bashing integrity of the FBI and all other involved parties. There is a world of difference between saying "I don't trust your judgement entirely, I want X, Y, and Z" and saying "I know you're TRYING to take my civil rights away, therefore I will do the exact opposite as you no matter what"
One of my nagging issues with these conspiracy theorists is that their beliefs don't seem to match. Ok, so you believe the NSA and/or the FBI is trying to hide features in Carnivore? If you believe these agents are that evil, that intelligent, and that motivated, why would they bring the press and _any_ academic scrutiny upon themselves to begin with? Why couldn't they just go behind everyone's back? Why couldn't they just give MIT a dummy machine and let them say whatever they will? The fact of the matter is that no review, be it academic or media, is going to completely obviate the need for trust.
As this guy said, Carnivore is a tool, it can be used for good or bad. You trust our intelligence services with agents and sattelites and what not. You trust our law enforcement agents with guns. You trust our military with a staggering amount of weaponary. All these can be used for great evil. But that doesn't mean we would be better off sticking our head up our ass and abolishing them entirely simply because there is potential for abuse. Question them? Sure. Nail them where they abuse? Certainly. Abandon all reason? Never.
Ok. First, corporations DO pay taxes. Second, the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividends. (That's called getting taxed *TWICE*). Third, empirically speaking, the revenues they actually DO pay, on *average*, far exceed their costs to society. [You're going to have a really hard time arguing that companies like Cisco consume 1+ billion dollars a year in legal fees and the like]. Fourth, there is little doubt that companies make a positive net contribution to society. Fifth, "Joe Schmoe" pays for very little as a percentage; the top 5% pay for most of it. Sixth, Joe Schmoe's money comes from companies in some form or another (most of it is corporations)....
But that's what sells Big Iron to PHBs. Brands. You need to wake up and smell the Enterprise Java Beans.
Buying brand names isn't necessarily irrational. In fact, there are plenty of rational arguments for buying established brands. i.e., less likely that it'll die out, better access to support, more people trained in using it, etc., etc. Try to lay off the demagoguery.
If you want a PHB to buy it, they need a face, a brand, someone they can sue the pants off to get support.
Tripe! Did it ever occur to you that companies provide support because they get hurt in the market place if they do not? Suing might play a role, but it's a very small one.
Companies want support, not the right to sue. Support comes in all different kinds of shades and colors. Don't assume that the right to sue == good support, or that support = good support.
Which is why some of us own stock in them - it's not that they're better, it's not that they're faster, it's that they will survive the marketplace.
If that's what you base your investment decisions on ("survival") then I don't want to see your portfolio. Anyways, i'm skeptical about Red Hat. I question their ability to produce add a lot of value to Linux under GPL. I question their ability to provide support....lot's of questions.
That 3 million still puts him in the much despised 1%, the same group that he loves to slam. If this money is really for his campaigns, then it shouldn't be in his name. It should be in his non-profit's account, so he can't get to it. The point that a gay lobbyist (may or may not to true) has as much money as him is irrelevant, it's Nader who is proclaiming all these economic reforms. If he's going to talk the talk, he should walk the walk.
Most corporations do pay plenty of taxes. These few cases are an exception, but as I pointed out above, it's not free money. It'll probably cost the shareholders more money ultimately. Anyways, what's the point of taxing a corporation? You act as if taxing the corporation is an end into itself. It should not be. Why is it so evil for a corporation to not get taxed? In reality, they're simply an agent for a lot of individuals, some rich, some poor. When those individuals sell their shares, or recieve dividends, then they're subjected to all the taxes that the corporations earned. Furthermore, the richer the individual is, the larger percentage the individual pays. As we have already established, MOST of the burden does, in fact, fall on the "rich". In addition, empirically and theoretically speaking, corporations pay significantly more taxes than either partnerships or sole proprietorships. So what gives?
For a supposed Republican, you have an awefully bitter economic view.
Look, the US is strongly biased in favor of corporate welfare, and tech firms are the worst offenders. Major corporations even have special loopholes written for them by Congress and the Senate, and then write off the vacations they give said members as a business expense.
Ok, let's be honest here. It's not the corporations you hate, it's that some people are making more money than you. If you felt these corporations were a vehicle to improve the wealth of people such as yourself, you'd have no problem with it. So to say you're giving corporations "welfare" means nothing.
This case, in particular, is a very bad example of corporate "welfare." Cisco enriched its employees by about 7 billion dollars in exchange for 1 billion and change in tax savings. This 7 billion dollars is not "free" money that came out of no where either; every additional share dillutes original shareholder's piece of the pie. It represents a net transfer of wealth from the bigger shareholders and institutional investors to the employees. Frankly, everything else being equal, they'd do better taking that tax on without that writeoff, and skipping stock options entirely.
Every time Bill Gates goes on a trip to China to see the Great Wall and play bridge with his buds, the entire trip is a tax write-off for Microsoft, under the guise of "doing business".
Oh come on. I'm no fan of corporate percs, but it's the SHAREHOLDER that pays the bulk of these costs, not other tax payers. Let the shareholder's deal with it. As if Gates' reason for existence is to live off of percs; he doesn't need them, they're a drop in the bucket for him.
When I was a kid, corporations paid three-quarters of the income taxes. Now, people pay almost all of the income taxes. And, it's a scam for the rich, because we get to set up trusts to hide our income legally, and if you elect George Bush, we'll get an even bigger slice of the pie.
Ahem, Funny you should bring that up. You do know that the "rich" pay most of the tax burden, right? The top 1% pays roughly 32%, the top 5% roughly 50%...and the bottom 50% only pays something like 5%. So let's be clear here, there is _no_ doubt that the rich plenty of taxes in actuality. Insofar as Bush goes, although I don't agree with his income tax proposals (not at this point anyways), it's hardly a transfer to the rich. Any tax cut across the board, is going to disproportionately benefit the "rich", because they already are bearing most of the load. Furthermore, the marginal tax rates for the rich have actually _increased_ since Clinton took office, this is because a number of writeoffs and such were removed by Clinton and company.
In defence of Bush's tax cuts, his reducing taxes hardly means you'll bear a bigger burden than you already do. Did you know that we're paying more taxes as a percentage of GDP than we did even in WWII? Why would we possibly need that much? I don't think we do, at least if we get sensible. [I disagree with him for other reasons]
And face it, no matter how innovative you may think you are, you're quite unlikely to become a multi-millionaire.
Uh no. I actually stand a pretty good chance. Of course, i'm willing to do more than bitch and demand some sort of personal welfare....
There are very few ways to do it - one is to save more than 10 percent of your income.
There are actually many different ways, I suggest you read your statistics to account for the rapid rise in them. In any event, one is major way is to start a business, which I can tell, you're so clearly opposed to. Not every businessman or multimillionaire is a elitist or sinister as you would have the slashdot's juniors believe.
oh well. fight flame with flame. g'night
FYI, Nader is worth at least 3 million now. Did you know that? If he is so high principled, why hasn't he transferred all that money, in accordance with his platform (i.e., a progressive tax rate of 100% at 10x minimum wage...well he's well over), to a charity or something?....Also, he said he invested substantial part of his money in Cisco!
Ok, it seems to me that most people here envision this system as solving all the bandwidth ills by creating a barter system all the while having perfectly legal applications. The problem with this is that people are trading bandwidth that they don't really have. The only way a user can make more than the cost of the connection, is if he's using an _excessive_ share of the bandwidth where they're using more than then ISPs allows (or presumes) him to use. What's more, most ISPs are significantly oversubscribed. They depend on most users not being geeks, using only a fraction of their supposed bandwidth, and still paying for it. If everyone were to attempt to use all the bandwidth available to them, it'd be well below their expectations.
There really isn't such a thing as "wasted" bandwidth for most every end user. One might be able to sell "his" bandwidth, without negatively impacting the status quo for other users or his ISP, but only if he takes mojo in lieu of his normal personal bandwidth consumption. Anything beyond that necessarily implies that someone else is paying for it, either the rest of the users, the ISP, or the intellectual property owners.
Which brings me to another point. If the user is participating in a legal transfer, how could the payment possibly exceed the cost? If the only service the customer is really providing is bandwidth and nominal storage, you'd pretty much have to expect the cost of bandwidth to be higher. What value does the customer add to the transaction that the ISP cannot do, and do better (i.e., faster and more economical connections)? The only reasonable answer is _illegal goods_ (i.e., pirated stuff). If the ISP cannot partake in facilitating piracy for legal reasons, then one might expect the customer to be "adding value", to speak, which the ISP cannot.
Very true. In fact, there is a lot more that could be discussed on the whole "economic" side of sharing bandwidth like this, but I don't want to get into it here and now.
He's not entirely incorrect. Though I don't have the statistics onhand, Wall Street and the venture capital community has gone mostly sour on E-commerce now. They are like that. There is a herd mentality with them. There may well be a backlash now, but that's just the point. One day E-commerce is redhot, at the exclusion of most everything else, the next, it's the plague. Insofar as venture capital goes, it's not exactly the most rational behavior.
The fact is that venture capital has performed poorly historically; their success is a very recent phenomenon. However, I'd accredit that mostly to the stock market buying the same crap they have. It's (or was) a matter of turnover. They could invest 5 million in a single DotCom and quadruple their money in the space of a couple months because the market was receptive. When it's not, you'll find the vast majority of these venture capital firms do very poorly. Whether or not this particular behavior makes sense for the particticular venture capital firm is debatable, but the point is that it a significant economic cost. While one sector soaks up 90% of the available venture capital, other promising sectors suffer. Likewise, when that sector goes cold, the VCs run from any mention of it, meaning that opportunities will be lost there as well. Just to be clear, I do believe in our capital markets on the aggregate, but venture capital tends to be a poor vehicle for this.
In all seriousness, what exactly is it that you are trying to say? I don't see a coherant argument. All I hear is a gripe about capitalism supported by a vague and, possibly, misleading argument.
In any case, the trick is to go in knowing what you're looking for, and treat the McDonald's graduates that work there like the simple wet interfaces to the inventory system they are (e.g., "Do you have any $PRODUCT?" or "Where are the $PRODUCT_CATEGORY?" questions).
Unfortuntately, in many parts of the country they're even worse than that. Often they do not even know their inventory by name. The proper question in, say, Philadelphia is: You do have $PRODUCT in $PRODUCT_CATEGORY, will you _please_ get it for me now?;)
How about bringing back customers who understand that the purchase of a PC _does not_ mean a lifetime of coddling and hand-holding?
You, sir, are bitter. The fact is that there has been a marked decline in the quality of techies at retail stores and a similar decline on technical support lines. It's a documented fact, one that I have had to deal with in a number of different ways. That being said, I know full well that most computer users are technically incompetent. That, however, doesn't change the fact that this problem exists. Customers, stupid or not, need a certain level of service.
A good many customers may well be willfully ignorant or abrasive, but the fact remains that there are plenty of customers that have legitimate cause for complaint. That, if you did not notice, is a complaint, and a well deserved one at that. I do not pretend that it's a solution or a full description of the problem. It is a casual, accurate, and fair comment. Your response, on the other hand, is none of the above. Your response sounds more like the whining of a malcontent techie.
How about bringing back literacy skills which include trivial bits of information like the difference between a colon and a semi-colon, what an ampersand is, and that "quotes" around a word are NOT supposed to be typed in?
Hello, this is slashdot, an _informal_ discussion forum. This thread, in particular, was meant to be mostly comical in nature. So step off your high-horse.
FYI, I am plenty literate and I could punctuate according to MLA, or what have you, when it behooves me.
PS: My use of quotes is not as improper as you suggest. For instance, it is common and accepted practice, in academia and business alike, to use quotations in instances where words have a special or ironic meaning. Unless you are omniscient, you could hardly know my meaning with any real certainty. I did, in fact, intend something of a double meaning. If you still can't handle that, then I suggest you lighten up and little more reading.
hehe well that is debatable. But the quality in both has fallen substantially. Granted, you never had the best and the brightest at such outfits, but there used to be a time when they could do more than read the labels off the products they sell. My theory is that the demand for technies has outstripped the supply for even the most marginally skilled ones. Each skill level has essentially been pushed up a notch or two, leaving only the equivelent of McDonalds employees to work such jobs (at least in most major cities). Kids with just a little bit of programming experience, can and do land real jobs programming. Whereas many of them would have started out working at radio shack, or something to that effect.
mistakenly believe it matters, as if more than 1% of the Internet population could write as well and clearly as he...
This may well be true, but what does that really mean? Ok, so only 1% of internet users are decent writers, and maybe only.005% are good writers. That's still a couple thousand that _could_ write meaningfull stuff. Instead, we almost always have a few people with nominal skill at bating slashdot's sycophants.
b) focus on the wrong system -- it's not/. that's "broken", it's humanity, in the sense that we have yet to build a "meta-system" that individual humans cannot outwit (and I don't mean "isolated humans" -- they're allowed to team up, as individuals, that's the system, man;-).
I both agree, and disagree, with this statement. There is a world of difference between creating a system that is _impossible_ to exploit, and creating one that at least encourages quality some reasonable percentage of the time. Slashdot's system, conversely, apparently aims to do the exact opposite. They incite riot. They award zealots with karma. And they refuse to call anyone within the so-called 'groupthink' on anything.
Frankly, I think active conspiracies amongst groups of individuals are the least of slashdot's problems. Rather, it's the totalility of the entire system that allows people like Signal 11 to flourish.
A few qualities/suggestions off the hip:
a) Slashdot awards quantity, not quality. It awards haste, not well thought out comments. People who have this refresh bug, naturally are the most likely ones to post first to articles. And people who post earlier than others (even in the space of a few minutes) get the most visibility. Thus they get upwardly moderated first. To add to this problem, slashdot's moderation system is so trivial and small, that they're leveraged even more. Because it only takes a differential of 3 positive moderations to put you at the top, these same articles, generally the most inflamatory ones remain near the top, soak up most of the mindshare, and recieve the most comments.
b) Slashdot's "editorial" staff, if you could call it that, all comes from one tightly clustered mindset that "just happens" to agree with groupthink. Either they shaped groupthink, or they set out to cultivate groupthink. In either case, it's not balanced. It's, at best, suboptimal for productive conversation when the tone is set with a shreik to begin with, especially when it comes from a supposedly "respected" and "well researched" source.
c) Not only do they feed groupthink, but they refuse anyone the chance to directly address groupthink with anything to the contrary. For instance, I've submitted a number of articles, both under my handle and as A.C., to slashdot. Some are overall coverage of the problem, others are empirical examples. Likewise, I've known many other capable individuals who have had the same problem too. I find it very hard to believe that there simply aren't any worthwhile opposing articles....and no, I don't mean those stupid flames where they quote some schmoe from Microsoft on open source (or whatever), and begin by begging for flames.
d) They exert little to no social pressure or consequences for biased moderation. I've yet to hear them speak up about any of the issues, or take any responsibility whatsoever for being wrong.
...anyways, I've got more than a few ideas that I'm sure would be dramatic improvement over slashdot. Perhaps later when I have time....
Just feel like spatting off a few comments off the hip for some reason now...
First, i'm a little skeptical that proving this "groupthink" theory right was his real motivation. Put simply, I find it difficult to believe that a reasonably intelligent person (which I believe Signal 11 probably is) would beat a dead horse like that. He just did it way too often, and it consumed way too much of his time to be some sort of casual theory. I believe, perhaps unfairly, that he truely believed most of the things he posted. At some point, and in some instances, I'm sure he tweaked his comments and added on, what I would call, "slashdot wings" i.e., key words or phrases designed to grab slashdot's attention.
Perhaps Signal 11 got bored with it at some point, or perhaps he simply realized it was ruining his life, or perhaps he simply couldn't handle losing his karma. In any event, I think his basic summary of "groupthink", what I've been complaining about for a long time, is right.
Slashdot's moderation system is basically broken. CmdrTaco knows that. Signal 11 knows that. You know that, and I certainly know that. The problem is, as I mentioned in my previos comment, slashdot is effectively incentivized to be anything but be professional.
Though I suppose it is fine if a couple people want to gather on the internet and bitch and wax ecstatic. But if so, they should name it appropriately. "Arguments for Zealots", "Whines for Idiots", or something to that effect, would be a more appropriate name if Slashdot wishes to wash their hands of any and all responsibility under the name of being casual. When they command as much attention as they do, I think they should expect increased criticism. Especially when the popular direction of this forum is often libelous. It's funny how quickly slashdot will lash out at any other news source for being biased, unfair, or inaccurate. They're hypocritical at best....
In terms of solutions. I certainly think there are many improvements that could be made to slashdot for any particular objective. Certainly your idea would not be that taxing of their existing hardware. I could easily code such a thing into a number of DBs...even MySQL. Compared to the load due to bad design (an entirely seperate complaint) with MySQL and/or their use of perl, it's quite trivial.
...anyways, my complaint isn't so much the trolls and spammer types, as it is slashdot's own tendencies. it seems as if not only is their central code inadequate, but they _intentionally_ promote and "publish" material that they know to be inflammatory and meaningless.
...though I'm skeptical of the "perfect" moderation system, slashdot could do a lot to balance things out without a great deal of energy. Also, I'm working on a few ideas myself, hopefully i'll make time to code them out once i've decided on the exact structure of the system. One conclusion that I've drawn though, is to intentionally not try to be slashdot-like. I'm aiming for somethinger larger, and hopefully more sustainable that to be a bunch of peoples' instantaneous gratification for a couple years. Though this hyperactive reloading thing may be a thrill for some people, it only detracts from the quality of the material and the tone of the crowd. My goal is to create something that in the upper end vaguely nears the quality of magazines such as the Economist, but provide lower barriers to entry... This does not mean that any and everyone would have open access to high visibility, that's obviously an impossibility. Rather, I mean allow people to cut their teeth first. Give everyone a chance to be heard. And collect the benefits on reaping on a truely diverse pool of writers that are interacting directly with one another. I also realize that at least half the trick to such a forum could not be done exclusively in code, but in "training" the crowd if you will. There will always be human factor....but enough for now. good night
And you think that ABC (Disney), CBS (?), and NBC (GE), are "real journalistic quality"?
Well, yes and no. First, let me be clear, those 3 are basically bottom of the barrel, despite their broad appeal. Second, I think most of the stories they run are sensationalistic crap, but in a much different way than slashdot is. It lacks a particular skew, and instead simply aims a large swath of people in with some common themes....In short, I have many complaints about them too.
I regard The Economist as being a good example of journalism. They may not be entirely without bias, and they're certainly not perfect, but they're willing to ask tough and important questions. They critize both sides, and they're evidently willing to call a spade a spade. It is my opinion that this kind of "discussion" offers real benefit to society, if nothing else because it eliminates radicalism and better informs society. A better informed society is better able to legislate effectively.
You will never see scaremongering stories about the latest "nightmare drug" on slashdot, because slashdot isn't tied to big corporate interests.
So because they're not tied to a "big corporate" interest they can't be manipulative? That is foolish, I think the results show otherwise. Instead of "big", they're "small". Instead of "nightmare drugs" that scare the mainstream, they publish the "nightmare patent", or what have you, that scares this particular niche audience (i.e., geeks). At best, they're the flipside of the coin. At worst, they thrive, as I suggested, on lots of shouting and screaming as a result of their "articles".
We don't give a fuck about Jon Benet Ramsey, or care much about OJ simpson, and most of the US never gave much of a fuck either. Slashdot gives us stuff we care about, for the most part. Just because there are more Linux stories than you care to see, or maybe you hate Anime, doesn't mean that Slashdot won't eventually cover most of what is important to you.
Though I conceed Linux isn't foremost of my concerns, even towards that end it fails to produce anything meaningfull. If you claim it is "linux" that you are interested in, then you want not only "linux" articles, you want articles that drive at the truth, not irrationality, invective, dogma, etc. It all leads to a misdirection of resources and energy that is better spend elsewhere.
Here is the bottom line. Have you seen much of anything about Carnivore on any major news outlet? Don't think think this is important to all of our collective futures? Yeah thats right. I thought so. Its a choice, truth or happiness, and I would give up liking everything I see on my news, for a little truth.
Actually I have. I listened to NPR discussing it just the other day. In fact, they provided a much more balanced take on the matter than any visible comment on slashdot. For instance, they pointed out that while it was true that one particular lawyer on the Carnivore review team once worked for the government, he also, even more recently, had sued the government multiple times, and wrote hostile articles against the same hand that supposedly feeds him. That's the verifiable truth. Ok, so you can argue that maybe they're biased, but why couldn't slashdot bring this point up? It is more truthful to not include such facts? I don't think so. All I heard on slashdot was paranoia and rage. What significant end does that accomplish other then titillate slashdot geeks?
The bottom line:
A) Rarely ever is there balance in any of slashdot's upwardly moderated comments. It's pretty much exclusively popularistic crap.
B) Slashdot could do a lot better, yet they don't...
Though I'm not exactly sure why CmdrTaco and company dislike Signal 11 now, Signal 11 personifies everything that is wrong with slashdot. He was the most effective and the most vocal personality for, what I call, the slashdot junior crowd. Everything he said was a targeted populism, designed to strike a cord with this crowd. To see that sort of idiocy, the lack of questioning, elevated as "journalism" really turns me (and i'm sure many others) off. It's not that I can't tolerate idiots--I know there will always be plenty of them out there. But to see it gain acceptance, to see everything being painted in broad strokes of black and white, and to see it be swallowed by a significant majority sickens me.
That being said, I sincerely doubt this is the reason why slashdot dislikes him now. In fact, the longer I stay here, the more it becomes apparent to me that this style of slashdot is what they love. Whether they admit it, or not, I know they profit from the lack of balanced and reasonable discussion. While an effective moderation system that could attain both balance and reason would be worthwhile, I don't believe it could ever draw the kinds of crowds that slashdot does, or can. Put simply, people don't come here for balanced journalism; they come here to argue and/or bitch. Balanced journalism is never going to draw people the way it does now, where they hit reload and literally spend hours a day here.
Slashdot is basically a necessarily niche product/service. It draws a certain audience, its loyal reloading 24-7 audience, in alarming proportions (i.e., young/techie/sub-professional/passionate/malconten ts). Slashdot knows on some level that they risk alienating this crowd, and this crowd is exclusively what slashdot has managed to capitalize on. Thus they will continue to insure that the flames are fanned, even if they could design effective moderation.
It's a real shame too. Although I'm skeptical, if any open system could ever attain real journalistic quality, the potential benefits of anything even approaching that are too great to ignore. Slashdot, the one place that has the visibility and credibility (misplaced though it may be), refuses to make a real effort towards that goal. My hope is that a significant percentage of the audience grows tired of this routine, and demands a more mature discussion....
Slashdot Mirror
Feed the groupthink! One survey suddenly proves the internet is harmless? Puuuhlease. You know this was partially funded by corporations that just happen to have a vested interest in the results? Now I'm not saying it was rigged, but you guys can at least be consistent. Ignore it like you would any other corporate funded study.
This survey probably wasn't rigged, but come on. There are lots of ways to get the wrong results on a survey like this. Firstly, it seems as if most of the test only "asked" people if they felt like they were being cut off. Well, I don't know about you, but very few people with problems with admit that they have it (even to themselves). Secondly, the internet has only made itself into America's living room in the past year or two. Don't assume that just because it's got a huge market share now, that all those users have been using the net with any regularity for a significant amount of time. Thirdly, I believe Katz and this survey quoted about ~75%, that's still a significant percentage who are reporting problems. That remaing ~25% could be all over the map, maybe 1% with serious problems. Fourthly, because this study is so broad, you can't ignore the fact that most of the users are so new that it's unlikely that they'd have problems even if the internet were known to be harmfull in extreme. In other words, this doesn't mean the internet hardened geeks of the world that have been using it for years have nothing to worry about.
Maybe this is going a little too far, but I believe you'd see similar numbers if you were to introduce alchohol and do a similar survey. Do you feel you're an alchoholic? Of course not. Do you know anyone that's become an alchoholic after only moderate use? Similarly, most people who drink alchohol don't abuse it, but some do.
It's clear that the internet offers undeniable benefits, even some social ones (i.e., to communicate via email with friends). It may be very positive on the aggregate, but I am convinced that there is also a significant bad element in it. I am convinced that excessive usage of stuff like slashdot, IRC, ICQ, IM, etc are going to be a real cause of tension in relationships and what not in the coming years. I've seen enough of it first hand to know that it's there. Anyways, the point is this survey has done nothing to dissuade me. Katz is wrong to trumpet it like it means you can just scoff at any criticism.
IANAESE, but Linux will never be used in a life critical medical device, never mind implantable medical devices. Firstly, the FDA requirements are simply too strict to allow linux's usage. Secondly, it's both overkill and underkill at once. Linux may be relatively efficient compared to systems like Windows, but it's not anywhere near small enough for traditional embedded systems. Third, Linux simply does more than it would need ever need to, why use it? Fourth, it's not setup for DSP type operations. Fifth, do you really want to unnecessarily trust your life to linux just so you can make a statement?
I just don't see a real reason not to use it along those lines. For short and sweet apps, Delphi is by far the fastest and most efficient (in terms of speed of development and the end product)...the long term survivability of Delphi is basically irrelevant. For longer term apps, the odds are that you simply don't want to use something like Access or paradox anyways. The advantages that Delphi offers over VC++ (or even VB) are just too tremendous to ignore, especially when the supposed drawbacks are scrutinized.
I've actually found Access to be pretty much crap. Don't get me wrong, Access has got its unique uses for throwing together a trivial database in 5 minutes and what not, but for much beyond that it's pretty much horrendous. I've found the form building to be especially horrible [and support for 3rd party databases basically non-existent]. Much the same for reporting. It's fine if all you need to do is print up a simple select statement, but when you start adding any real complexity you're basically SOL.
Though I know most users don't have access to the tools, I can honestly tell you that I can develop just about anything in Delphi and a decent SQL backend faster than I can with Access. I don't really see a large market for Access in and of itself, the way it is now. In my opinion, its limited success is due mostly to the fact that it comes _bundled_ with many systems; the manager, or whomever, doesn't need to run out and buy overpriced software for an application that'll only get a couple hours of use.
That being said, I do think Linux needs an application that _actually_ does the above well. Kylix (Delphi) will certainly be a huge boon for professionals when and if it comes out. Hell, even such an application targeted more at _end users_ for Windows would be nice.....
oh well, g'night
I personally liked the idea of DIVX. Though I never studied the matter extensively, the fact is that I would _save_ a significant amount of money, not to mention hassle, by not having to bother with returning videos, and the inevitable late fees. I had no moral or "hassle" objection to DIVX. The reason I never bothered to actually buy one is because they weren't sufficiently common. Much like Laserdisc (only worse), if hardly anyone rents them with enough selection/quantity, then the worth of the technology to the consumer approaches zero. I believe DIVX failed more because of poor management of the technology by trying to be too propreitary.
Tell me something. When a conservative makes a truck, does it pull right? The answer is No.
But, seriously, it's virtually impossible to influence politics through the way you create a truck or what have you. The media, on the other hand, has a very significant influence on the public by simply producing their sole product: information. Put simply, they are the SOURCE from which 99.99% of the public relies on for information beyond their immediate surroundings. It's not as if each and every person personally hears what a politican has to say, or can accurately measure the state of the economy beyond their own hometown. Instead, they turn to the likes of CNN from their information on the candidates, what they say, and on the issues. When those quotes are selectively biased against a particular candidate, or when the "facts" about a candidate are distorted, or when the information of the state of the economy is withheld from people, you can be sure that's going to have some influence.
To sum it all up, there's a word for this. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed the people crap, you can hardly depend on them making anything other than crappy decisions. Now maybe crap is a little strong of a word, but the point is that the more crap you foist on the public, the more apt the public is to bring about bad policy. The more leftist the media coverage is, the more likely the public is to be friendly to leftist policies.
I, for one, believe in the public, on the aggregate. In other words, if you give the public a decent reporting of the facts, the majority of the answers are apt to be things that you'll agree with. The flipside, of course, is when the media gives its typically glossy coverover of the news, they'll have little understanding or appreciation for the more subtle issues.
Yes, that's right. They were and still are restricted by law. The reasonable view, in my opinion, is where both sides admit that both sides are basically trying to follow the law. They may have two entirely different takes on the issue, but that is the way law works. The real question is whether or not these agencies will hear stuff that they're not entitled to; not that they're _actively_ trying to setup some kind of echelon-style sniffing network. This leaves two questions: The legal debate and the technical debate (whether or not they can follow the legal criteria).
I have no problem when people want to argue the issues where they lay. What I do take issue with, is when they distract from the central questions by bashing integrity of the FBI and all other involved parties. There is a world of difference between saying "I don't trust your judgement entirely, I want X, Y, and Z" and saying "I know you're TRYING to take my civil rights away, therefore I will do the exact opposite as you no matter what"
One of my nagging issues with these conspiracy theorists is that their beliefs don't seem to match. Ok, so you believe the NSA and/or the FBI is trying to hide features in Carnivore? If you believe these agents are that evil, that intelligent, and that motivated, why would they bring the press and _any_ academic scrutiny upon themselves to begin with? Why couldn't they just go behind everyone's back? Why couldn't they just give MIT a dummy machine and let them say whatever they will? The fact of the matter is that no review, be it academic or media, is going to completely obviate the need for trust.
As this guy said, Carnivore is a tool, it can be used for good or bad. You trust our intelligence services with agents and sattelites and what not. You trust our law enforcement agents with guns. You trust our military with a staggering amount of weaponary. All these can be used for great evil. But that doesn't mean we would be better off sticking our head up our ass and abolishing them entirely simply because there is potential for abuse. Question them? Sure. Nail them where they abuse? Certainly. Abandon all reason? Never.
Ok. First, corporations DO pay taxes. Second, the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividends. (That's called getting taxed *TWICE*). Third, empirically speaking, the revenues they actually DO pay, on *average*, far exceed their costs to society. [You're going to have a really hard time arguing that companies like Cisco consume 1+ billion dollars a year in legal fees and the like]. Fourth, there is little doubt that companies make a positive net contribution to society. Fifth, "Joe Schmoe" pays for very little as a percentage; the top 5% pay for most of it. Sixth, Joe Schmoe's money comes from companies in some form or another (most of it is corporations)....
Tripe! Did it ever occur to you that companies provide support because they get hurt in the market place if they do not? Suing might play a role, but it's a very small one.
Companies want support, not the right to sue. Support comes in all different kinds of shades and colors. Don't assume that the right to sue == good support, or that support = good support.
If that's what you base your investment decisions on ("survival") then I don't want to see your portfolio. Anyways, i'm skeptical about Red Hat. I question their ability to produce add a lot of value to Linux under GPL. I question their ability to provide support....lot's of questions.
That 3 million still puts him in the much despised 1%, the same group that he loves to slam. If this money is really for his campaigns, then it shouldn't be in his name. It should be in his non-profit's account, so he can't get to it. The point that a gay lobbyist (may or may not to true) has as much money as him is irrelevant, it's Nader who is proclaiming all these economic reforms. If he's going to talk the talk, he should walk the walk.
Most corporations do pay plenty of taxes. These few cases are an exception, but as I pointed out above, it's not free money. It'll probably cost the shareholders more money ultimately. Anyways, what's the point of taxing a corporation? You act as if taxing the corporation is an end into itself. It should not be. Why is it so evil for a corporation to not get taxed? In reality, they're simply an agent for a lot of individuals, some rich, some poor. When those individuals sell their shares, or recieve dividends, then they're subjected to all the taxes that the corporations earned. Furthermore, the richer the individual is, the larger percentage the individual pays. As we have already established, MOST of the burden does, in fact, fall on the "rich". In addition, empirically and theoretically speaking, corporations pay significantly more taxes than either partnerships or sole proprietorships. So what gives?
For a supposed Republican, you have an awefully bitter economic view.
This case, in particular, is a very bad example of corporate "welfare." Cisco enriched its employees by about 7 billion dollars in exchange for 1 billion and change in tax savings. This 7 billion dollars is not "free" money that came out of no where either; every additional share dillutes original shareholder's piece of the pie. It represents a net transfer of wealth from the bigger shareholders and institutional investors to the employees. Frankly, everything else being equal, they'd do better taking that tax on without that writeoff, and skipping stock options entirely.
Oh come on. I'm no fan of corporate percs, but it's the SHAREHOLDER that pays the bulk of these costs, not other tax payers. Let the shareholder's deal with it. As if Gates' reason for existence is to live off of percs; he doesn't need them, they're a drop in the bucket for him.
Ahem, Funny you should bring that up. You do know that the "rich" pay most of the tax burden, right? The top 1% pays roughly 32%, the top 5% roughly 50%...and the bottom 50% only pays something like 5%. So let's be clear here, there is _no_ doubt that the rich plenty of taxes in actuality. Insofar as Bush goes, although I don't agree with his income tax proposals (not at this point anyways), it's hardly a transfer to the rich. Any tax cut across the board, is going to disproportionately benefit the "rich", because they already are bearing most of the load. Furthermore, the marginal tax rates for the rich have actually _increased_ since Clinton took office, this is because a number of writeoffs and such were removed by Clinton and company.
In defence of Bush's tax cuts, his reducing taxes hardly means you'll bear a bigger burden than you already do. Did you know that we're paying more taxes as a percentage of GDP than we did even in WWII? Why would we possibly need that much? I don't think we do, at least if we get sensible. [I disagree with him for other reasons]
Uh no. I actually stand a pretty good chance. Of course, i'm willing to do more than bitch and demand some sort of personal welfare....
There are actually many different ways, I suggest you read your statistics to account for the rapid rise in them. In any event, one is major way is to start a business, which I can tell, you're so clearly opposed to. Not every businessman or multimillionaire is a elitist or sinister as you would have the slashdot's juniors believe.
oh well. fight flame with flame. g'night
FYI, Nader is worth at least 3 million now. Did you know that? If he is so high principled, why hasn't he transferred all that money, in accordance with his platform (i.e., a progressive tax rate of 100% at 10x minimum wage...well he's well over), to a charity or something?
Ok, it seems to me that most people here envision this system as solving all the bandwidth ills by creating a barter system all the while having perfectly legal applications. The problem with this is that people are trading bandwidth that they don't really have. The only way a user can make more than the cost of the connection, is if he's using an _excessive_ share of the bandwidth where they're using more than then ISPs allows (or presumes) him to use. What's more, most ISPs are significantly oversubscribed. They depend on most users not being geeks, using only a fraction of their supposed bandwidth, and still paying for it. If everyone were to attempt to use all the bandwidth available to them, it'd be well below their expectations.
There really isn't such a thing as "wasted" bandwidth for most every end user. One might be able to sell "his" bandwidth, without negatively impacting the status quo for other users or his ISP, but only if he takes mojo in lieu of his normal personal bandwidth consumption. Anything beyond that necessarily implies that someone else is paying for it, either the rest of the users, the ISP, or the intellectual property owners.
Which brings me to another point. If the user is participating in a legal transfer, how could the payment possibly exceed the cost? If the only service the customer is really providing is bandwidth and nominal storage, you'd pretty much have to expect the cost of bandwidth to be higher. What value does the customer add to the transaction that the ISP cannot do, and do better (i.e., faster and more economical connections)? The only reasonable answer is _illegal goods_ (i.e., pirated stuff). If the ISP cannot partake in facilitating piracy for legal reasons, then one might expect the customer to be "adding value", to speak, which the ISP cannot.
Very true. In fact, there is a lot more that could be discussed on the whole "economic" side of sharing bandwidth like this, but I don't want to get into it here and now.
He's not entirely incorrect. Though I don't have the statistics onhand, Wall Street and the venture capital community has gone mostly sour on E-commerce now. They are like that. There is a herd mentality with them. There may well be a backlash now, but that's just the point. One day E-commerce is redhot, at the exclusion of most everything else, the next, it's the plague. Insofar as venture capital goes, it's not exactly the most rational behavior.
The fact is that venture capital has performed poorly historically; their success is a very recent phenomenon. However, I'd accredit that mostly to the stock market buying the same crap they have. It's (or was) a matter of turnover. They could invest 5 million in a single DotCom and quadruple their money in the space of a couple months because the market was receptive. When it's not, you'll find the vast majority of these venture capital firms do very poorly. Whether or not this particular behavior makes sense for the particticular venture capital firm is debatable, but the point is that it a significant economic cost. While one sector soaks up 90% of the available venture capital, other promising sectors suffer. Likewise, when that sector goes cold, the VCs run from any mention of it, meaning that opportunities will be lost there as well. Just to be clear, I do believe in our capital markets on the aggregate, but venture capital tends to be a poor vehicle for this.
Groupthink says:
Capitalism: Bad!
Anything but: Good!
In all seriousness, what exactly is it that you are trying to say? I don't see a coherant argument. All I hear is a gripe about capitalism supported by a vague and, possibly, misleading argument.
You, sir, are bitter. The fact is that there has been a marked decline in the quality of techies at retail stores and a similar decline on technical support lines. It's a documented fact, one that I have had to deal with in a number of different ways. That being said, I know full well that most computer users are technically incompetent. That, however, doesn't change the fact that this problem exists. Customers, stupid or not, need a certain level of service.
A good many customers may well be willfully ignorant or abrasive, but the fact remains that there are plenty of customers that have legitimate cause for complaint. That, if you did not notice, is a complaint, and a well deserved one at that. I do not pretend that it's a solution or a full description of the problem. It is a casual, accurate, and fair comment. Your response, on the other hand, is none of the above. Your response sounds more like the whining of a malcontent techie.
Hello, this is slashdot, an _informal_ discussion forum. This thread, in particular, was meant to be mostly comical in nature. So step off your high-horse.
FYI, I am plenty literate and I could punctuate according to MLA, or what have you, when it behooves me.
PS: My use of quotes is not as improper as you suggest. For instance, it is common and accepted practice, in academia and business alike, to use quotations in instances where words have a special or ironic meaning. Unless you are omniscient, you could hardly know my meaning with any real certainty. I did, in fact, intend something of a double meaning. If you still can't handle that, then I suggest you lighten up and little more reading.
hehe well that is debatable. But the quality in both has fallen substantially. Granted, you never had the best and the brightest at such outfits, but there used to be a time when they could do more than read the labels off the products they sell. My theory is that the demand for technies has outstripped the supply for even the most marginally skilled ones. Each skill level has essentially been pushed up a notch or two, leaving only the equivelent of McDonalds employees to work such jobs (at least in most major cities). Kids with just a little bit of programming experience, can and do land real jobs programming. Whereas many of them would have started out working at radio shack, or something to that effect.
I agree 100% on the keyboard thing. But how about:
;)
Techies at computer stores that actually know anything.
Competent and friendly technical support lines.
"Manly" products that might actually hurt you without any warning labels. As opposed to the watered down, idiotproof, disclaimer'ed products of today.
News programs on TV that actually have _some_ worth.
Decent seats on the airlines.
The unapologetic hiring of attractive waitresses and such.
....
I both agree, and disagree, with this statement. There is a world of difference between creating a system that is _impossible_ to exploit, and creating one that at least encourages quality some reasonable percentage of the time. Slashdot's system, conversely, apparently aims to do the exact opposite. They incite riot. They award zealots with karma. And they refuse to call anyone within the so-called 'groupthink' on anything.
Frankly, I think active conspiracies amongst groups of individuals are the least of slashdot's problems. Rather, it's the totalility of the entire system that allows people like Signal 11 to flourish.
A few qualities/suggestions off the hip:
a) Slashdot awards quantity, not quality. It awards haste, not well thought out comments. People who have this refresh bug, naturally are the most likely ones to post first to articles. And people who post earlier than others (even in the space of a few minutes) get the most visibility. Thus they get upwardly moderated first. To add to this problem, slashdot's moderation system is so trivial and small, that they're leveraged even more. Because it only takes a differential of 3 positive moderations to put you at the top, these same articles, generally the most inflamatory ones remain near the top, soak up most of the mindshare, and recieve the most comments.
b) Slashdot's "editorial" staff, if you could call it that, all comes from one tightly clustered mindset that "just happens" to agree with groupthink. Either they shaped groupthink, or they set out to cultivate groupthink. In either case, it's not balanced. It's, at best, suboptimal for productive conversation when the tone is set with a shreik to begin with, especially when it comes from a supposedly "respected" and "well researched" source.
c) Not only do they feed groupthink, but they refuse anyone the chance to directly address groupthink with anything to the contrary. For instance, I've submitted a number of articles, both under my handle and as A.C., to slashdot. Some are overall coverage of the problem, others are empirical examples. Likewise, I've known many other capable individuals who have had the same problem too. I find it very hard to believe that there simply aren't any worthwhile opposing articles....and no, I don't mean those stupid flames where they quote some schmoe from Microsoft on open source (or whatever), and begin by begging for flames.
d) They exert little to no social pressure or consequences for biased moderation. I've yet to hear them speak up about any of the issues, or take any responsibility whatsoever for being wrong.
...anyways, I've got more than a few ideas that I'm sure would be dramatic improvement over slashdot. Perhaps later when I have time....
Just feel like spatting off a few comments off the hip for some reason now...
First, i'm a little skeptical that proving this "groupthink" theory right was his real motivation. Put simply, I find it difficult to believe that a reasonably intelligent person (which I believe Signal 11 probably is) would beat a dead horse like that. He just did it way too often, and it consumed way too much of his time to be some sort of casual theory. I believe, perhaps unfairly, that he truely believed most of the things he posted. At some point, and in some instances, I'm sure he tweaked his comments and added on, what I would call, "slashdot wings" i.e., key words or phrases designed to grab slashdot's attention.
Perhaps Signal 11 got bored with it at some point, or perhaps he simply realized it was ruining his life, or perhaps he simply couldn't handle losing his karma. In any event, I think his basic summary of "groupthink", what I've been complaining about for a long time, is right.
Slashdot's moderation system is basically broken. CmdrTaco knows that. Signal 11 knows that. You know that, and I certainly know that. The problem is, as I mentioned in my previos comment, slashdot is effectively incentivized to be anything but be professional.
Though I suppose it is fine if a couple people want to gather on the internet and bitch and wax ecstatic. But if so, they should name it appropriately. "Arguments for Zealots", "Whines for Idiots", or something to that effect, would be a more appropriate name if Slashdot wishes to wash their hands of any and all responsibility under the name of being casual. When they command as much attention as they do, I think they should expect increased criticism. Especially when the popular direction of this forum is often libelous. It's funny how quickly slashdot will lash out at any other news source for being biased, unfair, or inaccurate. They're hypocritical at best....
In terms of solutions. I certainly think there are many improvements that could be made to slashdot for any particular objective. Certainly your idea would not be that taxing of their existing hardware. I could easily code such a thing into a number of DBs...even MySQL. Compared to the load due to bad design (an entirely seperate complaint) with MySQL and/or their use of perl, it's quite trivial.
...anyways, my complaint isn't so much the trolls and spammer types, as it is slashdot's own tendencies. it seems as if not only is their central code inadequate, but they _intentionally_ promote and "publish" material that they know to be inflammatory and meaningless.
...though I'm skeptical of the "perfect" moderation system, slashdot could do a lot to balance things out without a great deal of energy. Also, I'm working on a few ideas myself, hopefully i'll make time to code them out once i've decided on the exact structure of the system. One conclusion that I've drawn though, is to intentionally not try to be slashdot-like. I'm aiming for somethinger larger, and hopefully more sustainable that to be a bunch of peoples' instantaneous gratification for a couple years. Though this hyperactive reloading thing may be a thrill for some people, it only detracts from the quality of the material and the tone of the crowd. My goal is to create something that in the upper end vaguely nears the quality of magazines such as the Economist, but provide lower barriers to entry... This does not mean that any and everyone would have open access to high visibility, that's obviously an impossibility. Rather, I mean allow people to cut their teeth first. Give everyone a chance to be heard. And collect the benefits on reaping on a truely diverse pool of writers that are interacting directly with one another. I also realize that at least half the trick to such a forum could not be done exclusively in code, but in "training" the crowd if you will. There will always be human factor....but enough for now. good night
/END BLURB
heh no, there actually is a titanium card now too. I got one in the mail a couple months ago, had quite the laugh.
I regard The Economist as being a good example of journalism. They may not be entirely without bias, and they're certainly not perfect, but they're willing to ask tough and important questions. They critize both sides, and they're evidently willing to call a spade a spade. It is my opinion that this kind of "discussion" offers real benefit to society, if nothing else because it eliminates radicalism and better informs society. A better informed society is better able to legislate effectively.
So because they're not tied to a "big corporate" interest they can't be manipulative? That is foolish, I think the results show otherwise. Instead of "big", they're "small". Instead of "nightmare drugs" that scare the mainstream, they publish the "nightmare patent", or what have you, that scares this particular niche audience (i.e., geeks). At best, they're the flipside of the coin. At worst, they thrive, as I suggested, on lots of shouting and screaming as a result of their "articles".
Though I conceed Linux isn't foremost of my concerns, even towards that end it fails to produce anything meaningfull. If you claim it is "linux" that you are interested in, then you want not only "linux" articles, you want articles that drive at the truth, not irrationality, invective, dogma, etc. It all leads to a misdirection of resources and energy that is better spend elsewhere.
Actually I have. I listened to NPR discussing it just the other day. In fact, they provided a much more balanced take on the matter than any visible comment on slashdot. For instance, they pointed out that while it was true that one particular lawyer on the Carnivore review team once worked for the government, he also, even more recently, had sued the government multiple times, and wrote hostile articles against the same hand that supposedly feeds him. That's the verifiable truth. Ok, so you can argue that maybe they're biased, but why couldn't slashdot bring this point up? It is more truthful to not include such facts? I don't think so. All I heard on slashdot was paranoia and rage. What significant end does that accomplish other then titillate slashdot geeks?
The bottom line:
A) Rarely ever is there balance in any of slashdot's upwardly moderated comments. It's pretty much exclusively popularistic crap.
B) Slashdot could do a lot better, yet they don't...
Though I'm not exactly sure why CmdrTaco and company dislike Signal 11 now, Signal 11 personifies everything that is wrong with slashdot. He was the most effective and the most vocal personality for, what I call, the slashdot junior crowd. Everything he said was a targeted populism, designed to strike a cord with this crowd. To see that sort of idiocy, the lack of questioning, elevated as "journalism" really turns me (and i'm sure many others) off. It's not that I can't tolerate idiots--I know there will always be plenty of them out there. But to see it gain acceptance, to see everything being painted in broad strokes of black and white, and to see it be swallowed by a significant majority sickens me.
n ts). Slashdot knows on some level that they risk alienating this crowd, and this crowd is exclusively what slashdot has managed to capitalize on. Thus they will continue to insure that the flames are fanned, even if they could design effective moderation.
That being said, I sincerely doubt this is the reason why slashdot dislikes him now. In fact, the longer I stay here, the more it becomes apparent to me that this style of slashdot is what they love. Whether they admit it, or not, I know they profit from the lack of balanced and reasonable discussion. While an effective moderation system that could attain both balance and reason would be worthwhile, I don't believe it could ever draw the kinds of crowds that slashdot does, or can. Put simply, people don't come here for balanced journalism; they come here to argue and/or bitch. Balanced journalism is never going to draw people the way it does now, where they hit reload and literally spend hours a day here.
Slashdot is basically a necessarily niche product/service. It draws a certain audience, its loyal reloading 24-7 audience, in alarming proportions (i.e., young/techie/sub-professional/passionate/malconte
It's a real shame too. Although I'm skeptical, if any open system could ever attain real journalistic quality, the potential benefits of anything even approaching that are too great to ignore. Slashdot, the one place that has the visibility and credibility (misplaced though it may be), refuses to make a real effort towards that goal. My hope is that a significant percentage of the audience grows tired of this routine, and demands a more mature discussion....