Well, mostly, but it makes for a catchy subject-line:-) Here's why the folks running slashdot may not be too worried about all the furore and threats to leave. There are two key facts (which, for the sake of argument, we'll assume are accurate):
1) 3% of slashdot users load pages at 25 times the rate of the average user.
2) A score 3 posting is read by 1/50th of the slashdot readership.
So there's a very small minority here who write posts. Interestingly, the number of people who *read* posts is small too. So that means that for all those who're up in arms about this: you are not what makes slashdot what it is!
For 97% of visitors, your comments are irrelevant. They never read them. The only people reading comments are probably the same set of people who're writing them. Moreover, at 25 multiplier, it also means this tiny 3% minority accounts for about 44% of page views.
Does it matter if these 3% go away? Well, slashdot's bandwidth costs would fall dramatically, and the remaining 97% of viewers would still be there. (I know, this is a radical oversimplication of the issue.) You make slashdot what it is for the rest of the 3% very heavy users. Not for the 97%.
It would seem to me that the posters in this thread seem to grossly overestimating the importance of their contributions to slashdot. In reality, based on these numbers, there are two slashdots: one where 97% of people come to click on stories on the front page, and a lively discussion forum for the remaining 3%. So the fact that these 3% get hit hardest is fair, since they're putting a disproportionate load on the server with a limited benefit to others. Moving away from slashdot to another site would just create the same problem.
The final question you have to ask yourself is: why am I posting? Is it out of sheer altruism to help slashdot? Or is it because you want your opinions to be read and interact with others? Slashdot offers a forum where like-minded others will have a chance to see your posts. And they can respond to them. So slashdot is offering you a service that fulfills a need. Is it worth paying for?
In the end, there are four options:
1) Live with the ads. 2) Pay up. 3) Leave. 4) Block the ads.
I think CmdrTaco is probably not too worried about 1-3. The last option may look tempting, and will work in the short term. But by choosing option 4, you'll be contributing to the downfall of something you appear to find valuable.
Pipelines should be incorporated into the UI. Have "droplet" apps (like those common on the Mac) that you can not only drop files onto to have them processed, you can drag a little piece off the droplet's icon and "chain" it to another droplet (it could even draw a line onscreen indicating this connection!) - and when done, you simply drop your files onto the frontmost droplet in the chain and watch your processed goodies fall out the other end.
This already exists for MacOS, and it's called FilterTop. It's been around for quite a while, but has never taken off. Development looks to be pretty dead too. Oh, well...
One recent story that might deserve Slashback treatment is the potato-powered web server. As explained in a few articles in The Register, it was a hoax. A astounding number of organizations were taken in by it, including the venerable BBC and numerous other supposedly quality news organizations. A bit more skepticism could not hurt... (OK, so I thought it was genuine too, but at least I can hide behind the excuse that I am not a news organization.:-))
Of the screenshots posted, I found the ones of the new QuickTime player particularly encouraging. The current incarnation of the QT player is an affront to UI design principles, and has been rightly pilloried and excoriated. The screenshots of the new QT player seem to address the bulk of the criticisms made; perhaps it's a testament to my cynicism that I am encouraged by a company that seems to have listened for a change.
Coupled with the changes to the Dock, I am now more hopeful that the final version of MacOS X will also take into account the critiques of the previous preview that have appeared on the web.
I thought feature was rather unimpressive, and missing the point. Since it's aimed primarily at non-regular Slashdot readers, the title is likely to be incomprehensible to non-geeks. How many people know what != means?
As for the feature, it does not address Microsoft's claims of copyright infringement in any detail, but is rather a generic argument for the Open Source credo of free speech & beer. I don't think this approach is particularly effective in this context; new visitors to this site (I would imagine) are more likely to be interested in why slashdot (if it chooses to fight in court) thinks Microsoft's claims are unfounded. (I also thought the exposition of Open Source principles of freedom was a bit weak, but that's another thread...)
Given the law (DMCA) as it stands, it's more of a copyright issue than free speech. One might argue that the DMCA is wrong, immoral or unconstitutional, but it is on the basis of the DMCA that the court case will be fought, not high-minded priciples of free speech, unless you want to argue that the DMCA violates the First Amendment. In that case, the article should have made that point.
My interpretation of that line is that, overall, students had WORSE memory performance when sleep-deprived, but those students who had greater activity in the parietal region performed better than those with lower activity -- but still worse than they would have had with a good night's sleep. Am I correct in my reading?
Yes, this is also borne out by the original article in Nature, which in its abstract says:
"Although sleep deprivation significantly impaired free recall compared with the rested state, better free recall in sleep-deprived subjects was associated with greater parietal lobe activation."
And in the article itself, they say:
"Subjects performed significantly less well on free recall when they were sleep-deprived"
I don't know whether the full article is accessible with a guest login at Nature's site, as I have a subscription.
There's also a story on Yahoo from AP which also points out that sleepy subjects did worse than well-rested ones.
Actually, the X-33 may not fly this year, after one of the graphite-epoxy fuel tanks failed in a test. They may have to build new aluminum tanks for it to fly, postponing the first flight till early 2002.
Oh well... gives me more time to accumulate sufficient funds to pay for a vacation in space.:-)
So if Apple were REALLY interested in human-machine interface instead of branding and marketing, they would make slick interfaces with the uber-configurability of G/E and beyond...
This was supposed to be implemented in MacOS 9.0 (well, OK, it was supposed to have been implemented in Copland:-)) as "Themes" for the Appearance Manager. Indeed, MacOS 9 betas for a long time shipped with various Themes, which did allow for very far-reaching customization of the GUI, far more than what is possible with, say, Kaleidoscope. This was apparently nixed at the last moment (by Steve Jobs Himself, the lore goes). Since it was never officially included, no reason was given, but the thinking goes that such Themes would have made helpdesk support a complete nightmare, as one would not be able to describe UI elements generically. Anyway, I suppose comes back to the difference between full customizability for power users, and providing a good, generic solution for, eh, "normal" people.:-) We'll probably see some Kaleidoscopish for MacOS X too, although I am not familiar with Aqua's patching mechanisms.
Programs using the Classic API will not benefit from the "new" features such as memory protection or pre-emptive multitasking; essentially, it's a MacOS 9.x emulator (with a performance hit?). Carbon apps will reap the benefits of the BSD stuff underneath, and porting from Classic to Carbon tends not to be too difficult. Even better, Carbonized apps will also run on MacOS 9.x machines, albeit without the memory protection, etc. So developers can maintain one codebase for both 9.x and X. Lastly, the Cocoa API is the evolved and improved version of the OpenSTEP API, and does AFAIK support Objective-C and Java. Cocoa and Carbon apps will be "equal citizens."
More information can be found at Apple's OS X site and its developer site. I suspect StepWise will have more information on MWSF before long.
on a similar theme, an editorial in today's London Times also addresses this issue. It is less bitter, but also belittles the danger that did exist.
A valid point it brings up is whether the amount spent on Y2K was reasonable. Interesting quote from the editorial: "If British Telecom spent £400 million and Telecom Italia next to nothing, questions will have to be asked."
The author's ranting about techo-hucksters is quite off the mark, but he does propose an interesting riposte for managers to fend off upgrading to new microsoft products.:-) The sad thing is, though, that his enmity towards "techno-hucksters" stems from his understandably poor experiences with microsoft products and the relentless, enforced update cycle, and then projects it onto areas where these experiences do not necessarily apply.
Slashdot Mirror
The crash landing of a Varig 707 in 1973 was due to a fire probably started in the aft lavatory by a cigarette. 123 people died.
See
here, here, and here
(Scroll down or search for cigarette on the latter page).
Well, mostly, but it makes for a catchy subject-line :-) Here's why the folks running slashdot may not be too worried about all the furore and threats to leave. There are two key facts (which, for the sake of argument, we'll assume are accurate):
1) 3% of slashdot users load pages at 25 times the rate of the average user.
2) A score 3 posting is read by 1/50th of the slashdot readership.
So there's a very small minority here who write posts. Interestingly, the number of people who *read* posts is small too. So that means that for all those who're up in arms about this: you are not what makes slashdot what it is!
For 97% of visitors, your comments are irrelevant. They never read them. The only people reading comments are probably the same set of people who're writing them. Moreover, at 25 multiplier, it also means this tiny 3% minority accounts for about 44% of page views.
Does it matter if these 3% go away? Well, slashdot's bandwidth costs would fall dramatically, and the remaining 97% of viewers would still be there. (I know, this is a radical oversimplication of the issue.) You make slashdot what it is for the rest of the 3% very heavy users. Not for the 97%.
It would seem to me that the posters in this thread seem to grossly overestimating the importance of their contributions to slashdot. In reality, based on these numbers, there are two slashdots: one where 97% of people come to click on stories on the front page, and a lively discussion forum for the remaining 3%. So the fact that these 3% get hit hardest is fair, since they're putting a disproportionate load on the server with a limited benefit to others. Moving away from slashdot to another site would just create the same problem.
The final question you have to ask yourself is: why am I posting? Is it out of sheer altruism to help slashdot? Or is it because you want your opinions to be read and interact with others? Slashdot offers a forum where like-minded others will have a chance to see your posts. And they can respond to them. So slashdot is offering you a service that fulfills a need. Is it worth paying for?
In the end, there are four options:
1) Live with the ads.
2) Pay up.
3) Leave.
4) Block the ads.
I think CmdrTaco is probably not too worried about 1-3. The last option may look tempting, and will work in the short term. But by choosing option 4, you'll be contributing to the downfall of something you appear to find valuable.
The "-paper" bit in the headline is Reuters shorthand, meaning that the story is based on a newspaper article.
Pipelines should be incorporated into the UI. Have "droplet" apps (like those common on the Mac) that you can not only drop files onto to have them processed, you can drag a little piece off the droplet's icon and "chain" it to another droplet (it could even draw a line onscreen indicating this connection!) - and when done, you simply drop your files onto the frontmost droplet in the chain and watch your processed goodies fall out the other end.
This already exists for MacOS, and it's called FilterTop. It's been around for quite a while, but has never taken off. Development looks to be pretty dead too. Oh, well...
One recent story that might deserve Slashback treatment is the potato-powered web server. As explained in a few articles in The Register, it was a hoax. A astounding number of organizations were taken in by it, including the venerable BBC and numerous other supposedly quality news organizations. A bit more skepticism could not hurt... (OK, so I thought it was genuine too, but at least I can hide behind the excuse that I am not a news organization. :-))
Of the screenshots posted, I found the ones of the new QuickTime player particularly encouraging. The current incarnation of the QT player is an affront to UI design principles, and has been rightly pilloried and excoriated. The screenshots of the new QT player seem to address the bulk of the criticisms made; perhaps it's a testament to my cynicism that I am encouraged by a company that seems to have listened for a change.
Coupled with the changes to the Dock, I am now more hopeful that the final version of MacOS X will also take into account the critiques of the previous preview that have appeared on the web.
I thought feature was rather unimpressive, and missing the point. Since it's aimed primarily at non-regular Slashdot readers, the title is likely to be incomprehensible to non-geeks. How many people know what != means?
As for the feature, it does not address Microsoft's claims of copyright infringement in any detail, but is rather a generic argument for the Open Source credo of free speech & beer. I don't think this approach is particularly effective in this context; new visitors to this site (I would imagine) are more likely to be interested in why slashdot (if it chooses to fight in court) thinks Microsoft's claims are unfounded. (I also thought the exposition of Open Source principles of freedom was a bit weak, but that's another thread...)
Given the law (DMCA) as it stands, it's more of a copyright issue than free speech. One might argue that the DMCA is wrong, immoral or unconstitutional, but it is on the basis of the DMCA that the court case will be fought, not high-minded priciples of free speech, unless you want to argue that the DMCA violates the First Amendment. In that case, the article should have made that point.
My interpretation of that line is that, overall, students had WORSE memory performance when sleep-deprived, but those students who had greater activity in the parietal region performed better than those with lower activity -- but still worse than they would have had with a good night's sleep. Am I correct in my reading?
Yes, this is also borne out by the original article in Nature, which in its abstract says:
"Although sleep deprivation significantly impaired free recall compared with the rested state, better free recall in sleep-deprived subjects was associated with greater parietal lobe activation."
And in the article itself, they say:
"Subjects performed significantly less well on free recall when they were sleep-deprived"
I don't know whether the full article is accessible with a guest login at Nature's site, as I have a subscription.
There's also a story on Yahoo from AP which also points out that sleepy subjects did worse than well-rested ones.
The X-33 will be flying this year.
Actually, the X-33 may not fly this year, after one of the graphite-epoxy fuel tanks failed in a test. They may have to build new aluminum tanks for it to fly, postponing the first flight till early 2002.
Oh well... gives me more time to accumulate sufficient funds to pay for a vacation in space. :-)
So if Apple were REALLY interested in human-machine interface instead of branding and marketing, they would make slick interfaces with the uber-configurability of G/E and beyond...
This was supposed to be implemented in MacOS 9.0 (well, OK, it was supposed to have been implemented in Copland :-)) as "Themes" for the Appearance Manager. Indeed, MacOS 9 betas for a long time shipped with various Themes, which did allow for very far-reaching customization of the GUI, far more than what is possible with, say, Kaleidoscope. This was apparently nixed at the last moment (by Steve Jobs Himself, the lore goes). Since it was never officially included, no reason was given, but the thinking goes that such Themes would have made helpdesk support a complete nightmare, as one would not be able to describe UI elements generically. Anyway, I suppose comes back to the difference between full customizability for power users, and providing a good, generic solution for, eh, "normal" people. :-) We'll probably see some Kaleidoscopish for MacOS X too, although I am not familiar with Aqua's patching mechanisms.
There are three API's supported in MacOS X:
1) Classic (basically the old MacOS 9.x API)
2) Carbon (a modified offshoot of Classic)
3) Cocoa (the enhanced & updated OpenSTEP API)
Programs using the Classic API will not benefit from the "new" features such as memory protection or pre-emptive multitasking; essentially, it's a MacOS 9.x emulator (with a performance hit?). Carbon apps will reap the benefits of the BSD stuff underneath, and porting from Classic to Carbon tends not to be too difficult. Even better, Carbonized apps will also run on MacOS 9.x machines, albeit without the memory protection, etc. So developers can maintain one codebase for both 9.x and X. Lastly, the Cocoa API is the evolved and improved version of the OpenSTEP API, and does AFAIK support Objective-C and Java. Cocoa and Carbon apps will be "equal citizens."
More information can be found at Apple's OS X site and its developer site. I suspect StepWise will have more information on MWSF before long.
on a similar theme, an editorial in today's London Times also addresses this issue. It is less bitter, but also belittles the danger that did exist.
A valid point it brings up is whether the amount spent on Y2K was reasonable. Interesting quote from the editorial: "If British Telecom spent £400 million and Telecom Italia next to nothing, questions will have to be asked."
The author's ranting about techo-hucksters is quite off the mark, but he does propose an interesting riposte for managers to fend off upgrading to new microsoft products. :-) The sad thing is, though, that his enmity towards "techno-hucksters" stems from his understandably poor experiences with microsoft products and the relentless, enforced update cycle, and then projects it onto areas where these experiences do not necessarily apply.