Ya know -- it's hard enough ordering a custom laptop from dell online since you really have no clue about the power consupmtion... what ticks me off is that they give you no clue as to how much power you're going to be sucking down --
I mean, the difference between a 300 celeron and a 400 PII is BIG.
Oh well -- Gyserville will solve all our problems (sha right) -- anyway...
Well, hopefully they'll assist astronauts. There seems to be a rising tide among conservatives to cut NASA. Heck, they didn't even uphold the funding of the F-22, much to the chagrin of our dear Secretary Cohen.
I think things like these tennis ball sized robots illustrate how vital the space station is in promoting technological innovation. Lots of people have ragged on the International Space Station, saying that it's nothing new, it just orbits the earth. I think its clear that even space travel around our own earth has tremendous benefits.
There are bound to be medical advances on board the space station -- but I think articles like this should show that just having an active space program promotes really creative thinking -- who knows what we'll see next. I know I'll be waiting...
Frankly, I think this doesn't bode well for the average consumer.
If AMD's competition prompted these cuts (and not many people would deny that) what will happen in a world where AMD exerts little or no influence on the chip market. Intel certainly wouldn't be as prone to cut prices as it is today.
What's more, AMD's presence speeds up innovation and reductions in chip size. Without AMD exerting a strong presence there exists a very real threat of Intel slowing down its production schedule and keeping prices relatively high.
Further -- you can compare the NYT and slashdot, but not in any meaningful fashion. Slashdot has a paragraph at most of news -- the NYT has paragraph upon paragraph. Opinion pollution (or whatever he called it) probably has a less pervasive effect on slashdot since people are reading it for the superficial news and not anything further.
Also -- the NYT claims to be very objective -- whereas I don't think slashdot would make the same claim. What with the picture of bill gates and the fairly clear pro-opensource/anti-monopoly slant.. etc..
Also -- the manner in which news items are submitted should ensure that opinion pollution -- if it occurs -- represents the views of the readers and not the owners.
This article initially impressed me as conservative claptrap, yearning for a day when the traditional media was less liberal and more representative. The hapless Matthew Priestley guises this fundamental complaint in a haphazard analysis of Slashdot.
Slashdot is anything but traditional--something that should be apparent to everyone reading it. Making comparisons between the New York Times and Slashdot turn Priestley's criticisms to non sequtors. Slashdot is not the New York Times. It does not suffer from "rogue" reporters in the same sense. Further, it does not claim to be a heterogenous group. Slashdot's homogeniality is emblazoned for all to see on the top of the page, "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
Another striking feature of the article is its confusion of "authority" with "credibility." Priestley notes that "no opinion is authoritative until it runs the Slashdot gauntlet." Yet, in the next section, he criticizes the anonymous and user submitted comments -- which he argues are the same thing, as DrDeath is just as anonymous as Anonymous Coward -- for destroying possible credibility. He contends that it would be a good thing to have Madeline Albright's comments receive a higher score than DrDeath or some AC.
John Katz, the celebrated columnist of Slashdot, is popular because of what he writes, not because of who he is. The same should be and is true for Slashdot's users. If Madeline Albright has something to say, it should be judged on the content.
If content and source are intertwined, this approach becomes problematic. Clearly if Madeline Albright said that we had just bombed the Balkans that should be different from if DrDeath said we just bombed the Balkans. Slashdot has no method of dealing with this. But come the day when the Secretary of State wants to post a comment, CmdrTaco will find a way to verify his or her identity.
Slashdot Mirror
That thing is going to take a lot of power
Ya know -- it's hard enough ordering a custom laptop from dell online since you really have no clue about the power consupmtion... what ticks me off is that they give you no clue as to how much power you're going to be sucking down --
I mean, the difference between a 300 celeron and a 400 PII is BIG.
Oh well -- Gyserville will solve all our problems (sha right) -- anyway...
Well, hopefully they'll assist astronauts. There seems to be a rising tide among conservatives to cut NASA. Heck, they didn't even uphold the funding of the F-22, much to the chagrin of our dear Secretary Cohen.
I think things like these tennis ball sized robots illustrate how vital the space station is in promoting technological innovation. Lots of people have ragged on the International Space Station, saying that it's nothing new, it just orbits the earth. I think its clear that even space travel around our own earth has tremendous benefits.
There are bound to be medical advances on board the space station -- but I think articles like this should show that just having an active space program promotes really creative thinking -- who knows what we'll see next. I know I'll be waiting...
Frankly, I think this doesn't bode well for the average consumer.
If AMD's competition prompted these cuts (and not many people would deny that) what will happen in a world where AMD exerts little or no influence on the chip market. Intel certainly wouldn't be as prone to cut prices as it is today.
What's more, AMD's presence speeds up innovation and reductions in chip size. Without AMD exerting a strong presence there exists a very real threat of Intel slowing down its production schedule and keeping prices relatively high.
Yes, that and his comment about the NYT.
Further -- you can compare the NYT and slashdot, but not in any meaningful fashion. Slashdot has a paragraph at most of news -- the NYT has paragraph upon paragraph. Opinion pollution (or whatever he called it) probably has a less pervasive effect on slashdot since people are reading it for the superficial news and not anything further.
Also -- the NYT claims to be very objective -- whereas I don't think slashdot would make the same claim. What with the picture of bill gates and the fairly clear pro-opensource/anti-monopoly slant.. etc..
Also -- the manner in which news items are submitted should ensure that opinion pollution -- if it occurs -- represents the views of the readers and not the owners.
This article initially impressed me as conservative claptrap, yearning for a day when the traditional media was less liberal and more representative. The hapless Matthew Priestley guises this fundamental complaint in a haphazard analysis of Slashdot.
Slashdot is anything but traditional--something that should be apparent to everyone reading it. Making comparisons between the New York Times and Slashdot turn Priestley's criticisms to non sequtors. Slashdot is not the New York Times. It does not suffer from "rogue" reporters in the same sense. Further, it does not claim to be a heterogenous group. Slashdot's homogeniality is emblazoned for all to see on the top of the page, "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
Another striking feature of the article is its confusion of "authority" with "credibility." Priestley notes that "no opinion is authoritative until it runs the Slashdot gauntlet." Yet, in the next section, he criticizes the anonymous and user submitted comments -- which he argues are the same thing, as DrDeath is just as anonymous as Anonymous Coward -- for destroying possible credibility. He contends that it would be a good thing to have Madeline Albright's comments receive a higher score than DrDeath or some AC.
John Katz, the celebrated columnist of Slashdot, is popular because of what he writes, not because of who he is. The same should be and is true for Slashdot's users. If Madeline Albright has something to say, it should be judged on the content.
If content and source are intertwined, this approach becomes problematic. Clearly if Madeline Albright said that we had just bombed the Balkans that should be different from if DrDeath said we just bombed the Balkans. Slashdot has no method of dealing with this. But come the day when the Secretary of State wants to post a comment, CmdrTaco will find a way to verify his or her identity.