But didn't you hear? The New Slashdot[tm](R) is only for the young, beautiful people. If you eyes are more than 45 years old, then either get them replaced with new bionic eyes already (with custom iris patterns selected by Lady Gaga) or GTFO!
Wow, just wow. I opened that in a new tab. After a couple of seconds, a space opened in the layout for the picture. At around T+10 seconds (I wasn't using a stopwatch), the picture finally loaded. Seeing how long it took to load the picture was as WTF as the picture itself.
They didn't make the body text 85% gray like everybody else does, so quichyer bellyaching! But they did make the body text 85% size to help with the unreadability.
Also, the current 100% body text size is much easier to read than 85% body text size. This is a stupid thing that "everybody does it" (as in if they jumped off a bridge you would do it too), and those of us with less than perfect eyes (which is most anybody older than 45) hate it. I set the text size in my browser where it is for a reason. At least they didn't go with 85% gray body text on top of 15% gray backgrounds like "everybody does it" too.
I have been doing UI design for 20 years. I started doing interface design for CD-ROM based multimedia projects in 1992. I started designing websites in 1993 with the draft release of HTML 1.0.
And the guy who came up with this re-design was just learning to walk on two feet then. Those who fail to learn history (in this case, the history of UI design, and an old and very functional UI that looks nothing like the generic Web 3.0 crap that's everywhere) repeat it, badly.
If you're going to sacrifice readability with narrow content divs and useless pictures you damn well better be doing something functionally better for the users somewhere.
QFT. Also 85% body text size is an evil that must be purged with fire.
Bottom line, implement the current beta as-is will destroy your audience and your ad revenues will go down the toilet along with the site traffic.
Also, hire someone above the age of 25 please. This looks like a classic ego-driven design. OOH I JUST DISCOVERED HOW TO MAKE IMAGES FADE IN SLOWLY LOOK AT ME I"M SO COOL
Well I see they already have the 85% body text size (so that those of us over 45 can have even more fun squinting to read the text), and the 15% gray background, but they forgot the 85% gray for body text that everybody does to make the text extra unreadable.
(Hint: DO NOT MAKE BODY TEXT SMALLER TO MAKE HEADLINES BIGGER. I SET THE TEXT SIZE IN MY BROWSER WHERE IT IS FOR A REASON. Of course with that stupid sidebar squeezing the text area, something has to give, so get rid of it first. Hint #2: NOT EVERYBODY FULL-SCREEN MAXIMIZES THEIR BROWSER WINDOW ON A WIDE SCREEN. Some of us actually use this thing called a "windowing system" to make other things visible on the screen too.)
The hell with the screen width, what's with these STUPID generic graphics that take up the space of three article headers on the current front page? Yeah, a 300x500 px Half Life logo is really going to make people swoon in ecstasy and give you a lot of web-wanker awards! All I see here is indications of a massive ego of whoever redesigned the front page. And then to make it worse, they do lazy fade-ins of these stupid graphics. Any slashdot redesign that uses fancy crap from node.js or whatever it is is just wrong.
Seriously, if I had to describe the new layout in one word, that word would be WANKER.
One party using these procedures to try to repeal laws that they already failed to stop from passing
Ah, yes, that law that was passed when the the Democrats had an absolute majority and it went up without (AFAIK) a single Republican vote for it. Of course they "failed to stop it from passing", because it was impossible to do so.
Part of the problem is that (as far as I can tell) they've switched completely to the new v1.1 for mass production. (I guess the v1.0 just wasn't designed for mass production.) Today's launch is important because now this new version of the rocket has had a successful launch, and that opens up a lot of future launches. In particular, there is one launch of a communications satellite in the next couple of months that was contingent on having a successful launch first.
I really don't get. Why is it so hugely popular on/. to jump on Apple so hard? People go on and on and how expensive it is jokes and so on, but I just don't get it. OS X, IMO has been very stable since 10.3. and Mavericks is very stable, regardless whether you like the new UI or not. Heck, OS X has been amazingly secure when you consider the amount of users/hackers concentrating their efforts on the platform.
I would say, at the present time, Apple is much more inventive than Microsoft. And yet Microsoft gets the most market share each year. For what? For fucks sake, the Windows Mobile is EXACTLY the same as Windows CE! Oh wait...it's bigger. And they have a tablet version of the same fucking thing! Surely that is innovative, right?
Also, people bitch like hell over how much iOS 7 sucks because of the new UI, except these are the very same asshats who claim Apple suxs and never innovates. If you hate Apple so much, why are you so upset when they change the product?.
People can say and think what they want of course, but at this point, I would much rather get behind Apple than those D-bags in Redmond or trust google to look after my privacy.
Just how many of the normal motions I make with my hands will trigger random window events?
I have a bad enough time with "tap to click" on touchpads. It inevitably generates false-positive clicks just from me moving the pointer around. And I've had this happen both on OS X and Windows laptops. (The Windows laptop incident was a couple of weeks ago, on someone's nearly brand new laptop running W8, so it's not an OS-specific problem, or old touchpad technology.)
The two-finger "right click" thing may be enticing, but it'll probably generate clicks while using two-finger scrolling, which is the ONLY special trackpad motion that doesn't annoy me with false-positives. (Note that this is specifically with trackpads, not touch-screens. For one thing, touch screen devices don't need you to drag the cursor around the screen. But I don't own any such devices, thus limited experience with them.)
The business of actuarials is to not understimate risk.
FTFY. If they overestimate the risk a little, and people pay the higher insurance rates anyhow (competition only matters if people actually make the effort to compare prices), then that's fine with them.
Also, every year since Katrina, they've been predicting an extreme hurricane season every year. And they've been wrong every year. All we got was a hurricane that went a little far north, combined with a storm from the north, and hit land at high tide. It wasn't even hurricane force anymore when it hit. This year we were even close to having a record low hurricane season.
Actually, the real problem was the screwed-up segment architecture of the 8086 forced memory to be used in 64K chunks. In my opinion, that set back the PC industry by ten years as users tried to deal with the infamous 640K limit, made worse by the design of the '286.
They were supposedly also talking with Motorola when deciding on what chip to use for the PC. Stories vary, but it seems as though they wanted the 68008 (the 8-bit bus version of the 68K) which wasn't going to be ready in time. According to one story I heard, Motorola wasn't willing to commit to their chip being ready on IBM's schedule, though it did get released in time after all. According to Wikipedia, the 68008 was released in 1982, so the timing is right.
It's also skewed to "languages used in Github projects". More importantly, would the people programming in a real WTF language not even know that it was such a WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
But didn't you hear? The New Slashdot[tm](R) is only for the young, beautiful people. If you eyes are more than 45 years old, then either get them replaced with new bionic eyes already (with custom iris patterns selected by Lady Gaga) or GTFO!
Take for example this pile of shit: http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/story/13/10/01/1521222/the-next-big-fiber-showdown-austin [slashdot.org] What the fuck is the point that picture?
Wow, just wow. I opened that in a new tab. After a couple of seconds, a space opened in the layout for the picture. At around T+10 seconds (I wasn't using a stopwatch), the picture finally loaded. Seeing how long it took to load the picture was as WTF as the picture itself.
They didn't make the body text 85% gray like everybody else does, so quichyer bellyaching! But they did make the body text 85% size to help with the unreadability.
Some of the new things are nice
Care to list any of them, or are you just being unnecessarily polite?
Also, the current 100% body text size is much easier to read than 85% body text size. This is a stupid thing that "everybody does it" (as in if they jumped off a bridge you would do it too), and those of us with less than perfect eyes (which is most anybody older than 45) hate it. I set the text size in my browser where it is for a reason. At least they didn't go with 85% gray body text on top of 15% gray backgrounds like "everybody does it" too.
One word: CONTRAST. Learn what it means.
I have been doing UI design for 20 years. I started doing interface design for CD-ROM based multimedia projects in 1992. I started designing websites in 1993 with the draft release of HTML 1.0.
And the guy who came up with this re-design was just learning to walk on two feet then. Those who fail to learn history (in this case, the history of UI design, and an old and very functional UI that looks nothing like the generic Web 3.0 crap that's everywhere) repeat it, badly.
If you're going to sacrifice readability with narrow content divs and useless pictures you damn well better be doing something functionally better for the users somewhere.
QFT. Also 85% body text size is an evil that must be purged with fire.
Bottom line, implement the current beta as-is will destroy your audience and your ad revenues will go down the toilet along with the site traffic.
And that needed extra boldface.
Also, hire someone above the age of 25 please. This looks like a classic ego-driven design. OOH I JUST DISCOVERED HOW TO MAKE IMAGES FADE IN SLOWLY LOOK AT ME I"M SO COOL
Well I see they already have the 85% body text size (so that those of us over 45 can have even more fun squinting to read the text), and the 15% gray background, but they forgot the 85% gray for body text that everybody does to make the text extra unreadable.
(Hint: DO NOT MAKE BODY TEXT SMALLER TO MAKE HEADLINES BIGGER. I SET THE TEXT SIZE IN MY BROWSER WHERE IT IS FOR A REASON. Of course with that stupid sidebar squeezing the text area, something has to give, so get rid of it first. Hint #2: NOT EVERYBODY FULL-SCREEN MAXIMIZES THEIR BROWSER WINDOW ON A WIDE SCREEN. Some of us actually use this thing called a "windowing system" to make other things visible on the screen too.)
The hell with the screen width, what's with these STUPID generic graphics that take up the space of three article headers on the current front page? Yeah, a 300x500 px Half Life logo is really going to make people swoon in ecstasy and give you a lot of web-wanker awards! All I see here is indications of a massive ego of whoever redesigned the front page. And then to make it worse, they do lazy fade-ins of these stupid graphics. Any slashdot redesign that uses fancy crap from node.js or whatever it is is just wrong.
Seriously, if I had to describe the new layout in one word, that word would be WANKER.
If Google Fiber is a "beta", it'll be gone in two more years, tops!
Are you trying to make a joke? Then I don't get it. Because they already do sound like baboons.
There is still a finite amount of helium in the planet no matter now much natural gas may be trapped in the crust of the planet.
Not quite finite.
What could be more worthwhile than sounding like a chipmunk for 10 seconds?
Having all of Congress sound like a chipmunk for 10 minutes.
And such delicious maple syrup.
I should probably add this here:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
One party using these procedures to try to repeal laws that they already failed to stop from passing
Ah, yes, that law that was passed when the the Democrats had an absolute majority and it went up without (AFAIK) a single Republican vote for it. Of course they "failed to stop it from passing", because it was impossible to do so.
Part of the problem is that (as far as I can tell) they've switched completely to the new v1.1 for mass production. (I guess the v1.0 just wasn't designed for mass production.) Today's launch is important because now this new version of the rocket has had a successful launch, and that opens up a lot of future launches. In particular, there is one launch of a communications satellite in the next couple of months that was contingent on having a successful launch first.
I really don't get. Why is it so hugely popular on /. to jump on Apple so hard? People go on and on and how expensive it is jokes and so on, but I just don't get it. OS X, IMO has been very stable since 10.3. and Mavericks is very stable, regardless whether you like the new UI or not. Heck, OS X has been amazingly secure when you consider the amount of users /hackers concentrating their efforts on the platform.
I would say, at the present time, Apple is much more inventive than Microsoft. And yet Microsoft gets the most market share each year. For what? For fucks sake, the Windows Mobile is EXACTLY the same as Windows CE! Oh wait...it's bigger. And they have a tablet version of the same fucking thing! Surely that is innovative, right?
Also, people bitch like hell over how much iOS 7 sucks because of the new UI, except these are the very same asshats who claim Apple suxs and never innovates. If you hate Apple so much, why are you so upset when they change the product?.
People can say and think what they want of course, but at this point, I would much rather get behind Apple than those D-bags in Redmond or trust google to look after my privacy.
That's what monkeys are for.
Just how many of the normal motions I make with my hands will trigger random window events?
I have a bad enough time with "tap to click" on touchpads. It inevitably generates false-positive clicks just from me moving the pointer around. And I've had this happen both on OS X and Windows laptops. (The Windows laptop incident was a couple of weeks ago, on someone's nearly brand new laptop running W8, so it's not an OS-specific problem, or old touchpad technology.)
The two-finger "right click" thing may be enticing, but it'll probably generate clicks while using two-finger scrolling, which is the ONLY special trackpad motion that doesn't annoy me with false-positives. (Note that this is specifically with trackpads, not touch-screens. For one thing, touch screen devices don't need you to drag the cursor around the screen. But I don't own any such devices, thus limited experience with them.)
The business of actuarials is to not understimate risk.
FTFY. If they overestimate the risk a little, and people pay the higher insurance rates anyhow (competition only matters if people actually make the effort to compare prices), then that's fine with them.
Also, every year since Katrina, they've been predicting an extreme hurricane season every year. And they've been wrong every year. All we got was a hurricane that went a little far north, combined with a storm from the north, and hit land at high tide. It wasn't even hurricane force anymore when it hit. This year we were even close to having a record low hurricane season.
Actually, the real problem was the screwed-up segment architecture of the 8086 forced memory to be used in 64K chunks. In my opinion, that set back the PC industry by ten years as users tried to deal with the infamous 640K limit, made worse by the design of the '286.
They were supposedly also talking with Motorola when deciding on what chip to use for the PC. Stories vary, but it seems as though they wanted the 68008 (the 8-bit bus version of the 68K) which wasn't going to be ready in time. According to one story I heard, Motorola wasn't willing to commit to their chip being ready on IBM's schedule, though it did get released in time after all. According to Wikipedia, the 68008 was released in 1982, so the timing is right.
It's also skewed to "languages used in Github projects". More importantly, would the people programming in a real WTF language not even know that it was such a WTF?
Or just use radio waves.