to repeatedly assert that 'Bush was trying to find out our personal information' is by this time just repeating a lie
Because this is so out of character for the Bush administration?
There never was any "request by the Bush administration for personal information." All the Justice Department asked for was a list of all search terms from a given time period.
And what if the search terms themselves ARE personal?
Do you jack your game systems into it and record plays for later use?:)
With most TV capture cards, you wouldn't want to actually play the games through the capture card, since there is an added delay of around a second to a few seconds. For live TV this is not important, but that'd really mess with a gaming experience. But if you split the signal, play off of a TV, and route the spare signal through the capture card for recording, then you could do this.
What unique things can this system do?
One feature which I think is underappreciated is the networking ability. MythTV is split into a backend and a frontend, and multiple frontends can be connected to the backend at a time (although the number of sessions actively watching live tv is limited by the number of capture cards, a large number can watch recorded shows). You can even run MythTV via an ssh tunnel if you route port 3306 (for mysql) and port 6543 (for mythtv) through ssh. This means you can sit a server at home for your primary TV with a single capture card, and then watch recordings or live cable TV securely from any linux machine (laptop or desktop) that you have on a good network connection.
This is a convenient way to be able to watch different shows in different parts of the house without splitting the cable line or buying a lot of TVs, and also a convenient way to get access to cable TV in places that have good network connectivity, but no cable line or TV.
That's not a bad featureset for only requiring a $50 capture card and some time to set up MythTV.
Mod parent up. Everytime I see that stat saying, "WinXX will be infected x minutes after installation!" it just makes me want to beat my head. Sweet zombie Jesus, is it so hard to exercise proper protocol when you set these things up? Yes, windows sucks hard and fast, but as technologists, we've got to work around it.
Yeah, by installing Linux. When an operating system can't even install and update itself in a networked environment without become an infected cesspool, then it's the fault of the operating system, not the user.
"Proper protocol" should not have to be to have a spare computer around to download patches, or for all users to keep an external hardware firewall in stock for installations. This would be like having to get a tow truck to tow a new car home before starting it for the first time, rather than driving it off the lot.
How can you really tell how many people are infected with spyware?
For starters, you could use the median, and not the average, for a number with any sort of meaning. One computer with 20 million copies of a spyware program, and a million computers with no spyware programs, have an average of 20 spyware programs per computer. They also have a median of around 0.
Not that spyware is not a problem, but this statistic does not show it.
I'd say, standardize on Java, C#, or C++ (depending on your needs) as your primary language, add your scripting language of choice, then fire anyone who can't handle that.
Or you could just hire people with enough ability to pick up languages in a trivial time period, and then instead of standardizing across the entire company, you make an intelligent choice on each project. If it's an unusual language, then the team working on it has to justify a benefit for using that unusual language. If a significant benefit exists, you use it. If it doesn't, you use a more standard language. Any group of programmers sitting around a table discussing a project knows what the major languages are, and should be able to make such decisions intelligently. If they can't, you hired the wrong people.
One company I worked at had language choice as one of the major interview questions. They wanted to see if people they were hiring had enough analytical ability to choose an appropriate language wisely, and they ended up with some fairly good programmers working there.
The responses are flooded already, but just in case you're reading far down, I'll add my two cents. Use the tips mentioned, but the central most important key is to isolate all the dangerous aspects. C++ has a lot of features that can trip you up with subtle errors, like arrays without boundary protection, and pointer access. So take all of these features, and isolate them to a very small set of very simple functions, and use those functions repeatedly. If everything dangerous is isolated into simple functions that are used repeatedly, you will eliminate a large part of your error by shielding yourself from the problems. You'll be adding a bit of extra overhead, but real stability requires a little extra overhead.
Once you've done that, make sure you test each component separately. Every piece of the program should be tested with a test suite of inputs designed to test its range of outputs, and test its resilience against outputs which are out of bound. Every single component MUST test its inputs, and must have a prescribed action for any type of faulty input, EVEN if that faulty input is "impossible" in your design. A large percentage of crashes are due to high level assumptions about inputs that are made invalid by other sections of code, where the developer, or another developer, is no longer aware of the constraints, or writes a section which accidently generates an invalid input to a function. So as a result, handling invalid inputs inside every function needs to be one of your central focuses.
If no portion of your program can cause a segfault because all pointer work and array accesses are isolated into protected functions, and if every single function has a procedure for handling invalid input and invalid object data for every piece of object data, then your program will not crash. (Unless you made a mistake, that is. Such is life.)
if AT&T should have seen warrants before doing anything, and they obviously didn't - while still complying with the government request, they are a guilty party. They should have opposed the government and gone to court, since they were in their right fighting an illegal order. They should have gone to the press and kicked a huge fuss. But they chickened out and complied.
That point you made warrants emphasis. (No pun intended.) If there are no penalties for companies failing to obtain a warrant before compromising the privacy rights of citizens, then warrants will end up only protecting the privacy of "popular" individuals, while the "unpopular" will promptly lose protection of the fourth amendment. I don't want to live in a world where companies can conclude that a particular individual is "probably guilty anyway" because "everyone knows it", and can then hand over compromising personal information without a warrant.
I don't specifically know about California (though I live here), but in other state's I've lived in you can refuse to have your car searched. The officer then files a form with the state to that effect, and your license to drive is revoked.
That would make an interesting Supreme Court case. It's pretty easy to argue that if there are severe penalties for exerting your fourth amendment rights, then essentially you don't have fourth amendment rights. A state law that says "If you don't let us search your house without a warrant, then we'll fine you six million dollars and take your house," would clearly violate the fourth amendment. It doesn't strike me that a driver's license would be much different here. No matter how much the phrase "driving priviledge" is invoked, it's still a severe penalty for exerting a constitutional right.
Absolutely. This makes a complete nonsense out of the newspapers claims. Trouble is, what the newspapers want is not for their site to be removed from the index, but for Google News to be shut down, as they see it as a competition as a news portal. If they only withdraw from being indexed themselves, they'll only succeed in reducing traffic to their site, whilst Google News is every bit as much as a news portal competitor as before.
There are strong sanity limits on what the courts could do here anyway. In the absolute worst and most insane case, the courts could rule out fair use, and then google news indexing would resort to opt-in only. So google would then immediately put out a call for people to add an "index me google news" flag to their robots.txt, and every news site that wants traffic will add it. It would temporarily disrupt google news, and then it would return to the same situation where all the news sites have to decide if they want traffic going to them, or to their competitors. This would reduce traffic to a few of the smaller outfits that don't know enough about running a site to be able to opt-in, but in general google news would continue functioning the same way as it is now.
Yet Wikipedia is seriously flawed! I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference. I really wish the edit wars would stop. I really wish I could truly trust the information posted there. I really wish the POV could be fixed so that various viewpoints could be accurately and fairly be included.
Wikipedia is not a source of truth, it is an index of information, statements, and beliefs, with references to further information. This means it is about as authoritative about truth as searching through Google, but reorganized by topic, and thus providing a different means of accessing information.
The problems with Wikipedia begin with people believing it is accurate, simply because much of it is written in a style that makes it "feel" accurate.
No, because one begins with "should begin with", and the other begins with "must in fact bring". These are two very different conditions. One declares the goal that should be strived for, and the other states the inevitable condition which must be considered when evaluating a candidate.
The underlying premise you missed, is that while people will succeed at this goal of fact-based judgment to varying degrees, no one will succeed at this completely because this is ultimately not possible as there are insufficient facts to use. Therefore, two important things to evaluate when considering a justice should be how well they manage to stick to the facts, and what their beliefs are about how things should be interpreted when there are insufficient facts.
What isn't working here isn't just Congress, it's the poor quality and education of lawyers. In fact, it's that we rely on lawyers at all to tell us what our rights are. That's the real problem here.
I'm genuinely interested in hearing who, or what system, you think we should rely on to tell us what our rights are. There must be a rigorously defined system which can make decisions about what is or is not a right, so how should it operate?
Well, I can see the irony you refer to, but interpretation shouldn't be blind to the facts. In fact, one could argue that if it is blind to the facts and based ONLY on pre-existing beliefs, then it is not interpretation of anything, but simply imposition of ones beliefs. Judicial interpretation should begin with the factual content of the law and a factual examination of the situation, and then it should attempt to interpret the intent of the law from within that factual framework.
If you went into a library and instead of checking out a book, they just ran off a photocopy for you of the whole thing and let you keep it, they'd be in trouble.
But if I make photocopies myself using the library's copy machine so that I can finish a paper I'm writing, then this is called fair use.
No, that's an excellent SCOTUS nominee: regardless of his beliefs and attitudes on a subject, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to determine what the LAW says on a subject.
If the law already contained the answers, we wouldn't need to be very concerned with who the justices are. The problem is, the justices are responsible for INTERPRETING the law, and applying a collection of more general legal principles to specific cases for which no specific law has been written. This is not a mechanistic process of reading the law, knowing what it says, and then regurgitating this. Any interpretation process must in fact bring a bit of personal beliefs into the process, and thus, the beliefs and opinions of the justice on how areas of the law should be interpreted are everything in determining what sort of justice a person will be.
He did not dodge questions because his personal opinions are unrelated to the process of judging, but simply because he was heavily coached to do this so that a controversy could be avoided and the confirmation could proceed by simple party majority without any substantial discussion or review of his actual interpretation of the law.
If you feel that an unthinking government drowning in rhetoric with no substantial debate is good for society, then I guess go ahead and support a process like that, but I for one have have problems with it.
They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home. The parents have more right to ask for the ID of people at the school than the school does that of the parent.
And if the parents just refuse the retinal scan and walk in and get the child anyway, are they going to arrest the parents and then the school will kidnap the child? Somehow I doubt that would go over very well with the courts... I think a system like this would only be a valid solution for the parents who approve of it as a voluntary means of protecting their children. It would be extremely difficult to establish justification for not returning children to their parents because the parents refuse a retinal scan.
Documentation for open source projects, such as this example from VideoLAN's wiki. Also, collaboration on new features
What about the source code for a project? I wouldn't really suggest using a wiki in the full-open format where anyone can contribute, because the potential for slipping in unnoticed and dangerous code is too great, but I wonder how it would work as a coordination tool between registered programmers working together on a project if all of the souce code were actually wikified. If there were enough changes made for syntax checking and automatic hyperlinking of function calls and variable references, it might make for a useful collaborative IDE, since the version control is already present.
It looks like something CmdrTaco has introduced over the weekend. Basically it seems that "minor" stories that earlier used to appear only in subsections such as science.slashdot.org now appear as little stubs on the main page.
It's a nice change. Sometimes I would catch stories I would have read off to the side in one of the subsections, but I'll catch them a week or so late since I don't always check that. This way I can scan through them quickly as they appear, but without cluttering up the screen too much.
And as for science, I think it should definitely be said that a career in science is not for everyone. Being an artist is not for everyone. Working on Wall Street is not for everyone. What's bad is not that many people think a scientific career is not for them, but that so many people think science is beyond them. It seems that science and scientists are becoming a bit mystified and idolized in contemporary culture, and we need to make sure this doesn't get out of hand.
The idea of "its science, therefore it's truth given to us by smart people," is a dangerous one, since the scientific method doesn't quite work that way.
For ID to be a good scientific theory, it should be falsifiable. This means that there should be something you can test which has one possible result which will show the theory to be wrong. This means, ID should propose a prediction for something which would happen, or should predict a result which has already happened but has not yet been observed, and which could then be checked. So what experiment would you accept as having one possible result which would show ID wrong?
If there is none, then it's not a science. If you can provide one, then maybe we could talk about testing it, as is done in science.
I agree. I've often considered the link to the article being at the section "sticky widget" to be a shortcoming in the link formatting with some Slashdot articles. Sometimes this makes it difficult to figure out which one of several links is the central article for that story. And in cases where "sticky widgets" are a rare topic that many people don't actually know about, this overwrites the opportunity for putting a link under "sticky widget" to an explanation of what sticky widgets actually are.
I would say, rather than placing the article link under sticky widgets telling us what the link contains, it actually describes it incorrectly. My instincts from the rest of the web tell me that a link labeled "sticky widgets" should tell me about sticky widgets. An article talking about something regarding sticky widgets is not the same thing, and often won't even describe them in detail, so placing a keyword link is misleading. If the link were the entirety of "article about sticky widgets", this would be more clear than just "sticky widgets".
(Sheesh, I think I typed "sticky widgets" enough times in that post.)
At any rate, when the best things there are to complain about are which words are included in the links, then clearly things are being managed fairly well as a whole. After all, it's been nearly a decade, and we keep coming back.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. I shall henceforth refer to it as the Commandment of General Relativity.
to repeatedly assert that 'Bush was trying to find out our personal information' is by this time just repeating a lie
Because this is so out of character for the Bush administration?
There never was any "request by the Bush administration for personal information." All the Justice Department asked for was a list of all search terms from a given time period.
And what if the search terms themselves ARE personal?
Do you jack your game systems into it and record plays for later use? :)
With most TV capture cards, you wouldn't want to actually play the games through the capture card, since there is an added delay of around a second to a few seconds. For live TV this is not important, but that'd really mess with a gaming experience. But if you split the signal, play off of a TV, and route the spare signal through the capture card for recording, then you could do this.
What unique things can this system do?
One feature which I think is underappreciated is the networking ability. MythTV is split into a backend and a frontend, and multiple frontends can be connected to the backend at a time (although the number of sessions actively watching live tv is limited by the number of capture cards, a large number can watch recorded shows). You can even run MythTV via an ssh tunnel if you route port 3306 (for mysql) and port 6543 (for mythtv) through ssh. This means you can sit a server at home for your primary TV with a single capture card, and then watch recordings or live cable TV securely from any linux machine (laptop or desktop) that you have on a good network connection.
This is a convenient way to be able to watch different shows in different parts of the house without splitting the cable line or buying a lot of TVs, and also a convenient way to get access to cable TV in places that have good network connectivity, but no cable line or TV.
That's not a bad featureset for only requiring a $50 capture card and some time to set up MythTV.
There is a .Net client that has very limited functionality that runs on windows, but the proper mythtv stuff itself doesn't.
The WinMyth frontend you refer to also seems to fail or crash for a lot of people who try it. It's still fairly solidly in the developmental stage.
Mod parent up. Everytime I see that stat saying, "WinXX will be infected x minutes after installation!" it just makes me want to beat my head. Sweet zombie Jesus, is it so hard to exercise proper protocol when you set these things up? Yes, windows sucks hard and fast, but as technologists, we've got to work around it.
Yeah, by installing Linux. When an operating system can't even install and update itself in a networked environment without become an infected cesspool, then it's the fault of the operating system, not the user.
"Proper protocol" should not have to be to have a spare computer around to download patches, or for all users to keep an external hardware firewall in stock for installations. This would be like having to get a tow truck to tow a new car home before starting it for the first time, rather than driving it off the lot.
How can you really tell how many people are infected with spyware?
For starters, you could use the median, and not the average, for a number with any sort of meaning. One computer with 20 million copies of a spyware program, and a million computers with no spyware programs, have an average of 20 spyware programs per computer. They also have a median of around 0.
Not that spyware is not a problem, but this statistic does not show it.
I'd say, standardize on Java, C#, or C++ (depending on your needs) as your primary language, add your scripting language of choice, then fire anyone who can't handle that.
Or you could just hire people with enough ability to pick up languages in a trivial time period, and then instead of standardizing across the entire company, you make an intelligent choice on each project. If it's an unusual language, then the team working on it has to justify a benefit for using that unusual language. If a significant benefit exists, you use it. If it doesn't, you use a more standard language. Any group of programmers sitting around a table discussing a project knows what the major languages are, and should be able to make such decisions intelligently. If they can't, you hired the wrong people.
One company I worked at had language choice as one of the major interview questions. They wanted to see if people they were hiring had enough analytical ability to choose an appropriate language wisely, and they ended up with some fairly good programmers working there.
The responses are flooded already, but just in case you're reading far down, I'll add my two cents. Use the tips mentioned, but the central most important key is to isolate all the dangerous aspects. C++ has a lot of features that can trip you up with subtle errors, like arrays without boundary protection, and pointer access. So take all of these features, and isolate them to a very small set of very simple functions, and use those functions repeatedly. If everything dangerous is isolated into simple functions that are used repeatedly, you will eliminate a large part of your error by shielding yourself from the problems. You'll be adding a bit of extra overhead, but real stability requires a little extra overhead.
Once you've done that, make sure you test each component separately. Every piece of the program should be tested with a test suite of inputs designed to test its range of outputs, and test its resilience against outputs which are out of bound. Every single component MUST test its inputs, and must have a prescribed action for any type of faulty input, EVEN if that faulty input is "impossible" in your design. A large percentage of crashes are due to high level assumptions about inputs that are made invalid by other sections of code, where the developer, or another developer, is no longer aware of the constraints, or writes a section which accidently generates an invalid input to a function. So as a result, handling invalid inputs inside every function needs to be one of your central focuses.
If no portion of your program can cause a segfault because all pointer work and array accesses are isolated into protected functions, and if every single function has a procedure for handling invalid input and invalid object data for every piece of object data, then your program will not crash. (Unless you made a mistake, that is. Such is life.)
if AT&T should have seen warrants before doing anything, and they obviously didn't - while still complying with the government request, they are a guilty party. They should have opposed the government and gone to court, since they were in their right fighting an illegal order. They should have gone to the press and kicked a huge fuss. But they chickened out and complied.
That point you made warrants emphasis. (No pun intended.) If there are no penalties for companies failing to obtain a warrant before compromising the privacy rights of citizens, then warrants will end up only protecting the privacy of "popular" individuals, while the "unpopular" will promptly lose protection of the fourth amendment. I don't want to live in a world where companies can conclude that a particular individual is "probably guilty anyway" because "everyone knows it", and can then hand over compromising personal information without a warrant.
I don't specifically know about California (though I live here), but in other state's I've lived in you can refuse to have your car searched. The officer then files a form with the state to that effect, and your license to drive is revoked.
That would make an interesting Supreme Court case. It's pretty easy to argue that if there are severe penalties for exerting your fourth amendment rights, then essentially you don't have fourth amendment rights. A state law that says "If you don't let us search your house without a warrant, then we'll fine you six million dollars and take your house," would clearly violate the fourth amendment. It doesn't strike me that a driver's license would be much different here. No matter how much the phrase "driving priviledge" is invoked, it's still a severe penalty for exerting a constitutional right.
Oddly enough, it seems Librarians spend a disproportionate amount of time doing such things.
From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.
I would love to see the results of a study comparing politicians and librarians for knowledge of what the constitution says.
Absolutely. This makes a complete nonsense out of the newspapers claims. Trouble is, what the newspapers want is not for their site to be removed from the index, but for Google News to be shut down, as they see it as a competition as a news portal. If they only withdraw from being indexed themselves, they'll only succeed in reducing traffic to their site, whilst Google News is every bit as much as a news portal competitor as before.
There are strong sanity limits on what the courts could do here anyway. In the absolute worst and most insane case, the courts could rule out fair use, and then google news indexing would resort to opt-in only. So google would then immediately put out a call for people to add an "index me google news" flag to their robots.txt, and every news site that wants traffic will add it. It would temporarily disrupt google news, and then it would return to the same situation where all the news sites have to decide if they want traffic going to them, or to their competitors. This would reduce traffic to a few of the smaller outfits that don't know enough about running a site to be able to opt-in, but in general google news would continue functioning the same way as it is now.
Why is IQ judged only on the basis of science & technical application?
Because artists don't conduct scientific studies of IQ. Ponder that for a while...
Yet Wikipedia is seriously flawed! I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference. I really wish the edit wars would stop. I really wish I could truly trust the information posted there. I really wish the POV could be fixed so that various viewpoints could be accurately and fairly be included.
Wikipedia is not a source of truth, it is an index of information, statements, and beliefs, with references to further information. This means it is about as authoritative about truth as searching through Google, but reorganized by topic, and thus providing a different means of accessing information.
The problems with Wikipedia begin with people believing it is accurate, simply because much of it is written in a style that makes it "feel" accurate.
Two contradictory statements.
No, because one begins with "should begin with", and the other begins with "must in fact bring". These are two very different conditions. One declares the goal that should be strived for, and the other states the inevitable condition which must be considered when evaluating a candidate.
The underlying premise you missed, is that while people will succeed at this goal of fact-based judgment to varying degrees, no one will succeed at this completely because this is ultimately not possible as there are insufficient facts to use. Therefore, two important things to evaluate when considering a justice should be how well they manage to stick to the facts, and what their beliefs are about how things should be interpreted when there are insufficient facts.
What isn't working here isn't just Congress, it's the poor quality and education of lawyers. In fact, it's that we rely on lawyers at all to tell us what our rights are. That's the real problem here.
I'm genuinely interested in hearing who, or what system, you think we should rely on to tell us what our rights are. There must be a rigorously defined system which can make decisions about what is or is not a right, so how should it operate?
Well, I can see the irony you refer to, but interpretation shouldn't be blind to the facts. In fact, one could argue that if it is blind to the facts and based ONLY on pre-existing beliefs, then it is not interpretation of anything, but simply imposition of ones beliefs. Judicial interpretation should begin with the factual content of the law and a factual examination of the situation, and then it should attempt to interpret the intent of the law from within that factual framework.
If you went into a library and instead of checking out a book, they just ran off a photocopy for you of the whole thing and let you keep it, they'd be in trouble.
But if I make photocopies myself using the library's copy machine so that I can finish a paper I'm writing, then this is called fair use.
No, that's an excellent SCOTUS nominee: regardless of his beliefs and attitudes on a subject, a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to determine what the LAW says on a subject.
If the law already contained the answers, we wouldn't need to be very concerned with who the justices are. The problem is, the justices are responsible for INTERPRETING the law, and applying a collection of more general legal principles to specific cases for which no specific law has been written. This is not a mechanistic process of reading the law, knowing what it says, and then regurgitating this. Any interpretation process must in fact bring a bit of personal beliefs into the process, and thus, the beliefs and opinions of the justice on how areas of the law should be interpreted are everything in determining what sort of justice a person will be.
He did not dodge questions because his personal opinions are unrelated to the process of judging, but simply because he was heavily coached to do this so that a controversy could be avoided and the confirmation could proceed by simple party majority without any substantial discussion or review of his actual interpretation of the law.
If you feel that an unthinking government drowning in rhetoric with no substantial debate is good for society, then I guess go ahead and support a process like that, but I for one have have problems with it.
They are requiring intrusive "ID" to take their own child home. The parents have more right to ask for the ID of people at the school than the school does that of the parent.
And if the parents just refuse the retinal scan and walk in and get the child anyway, are they going to arrest the parents and then the school will kidnap the child? Somehow I doubt that would go over very well with the courts... I think a system like this would only be a valid solution for the parents who approve of it as a voluntary means of protecting their children. It would be extremely difficult to establish justification for not returning children to their parents because the parents refuse a retinal scan.
Documentation for open source projects, such as this example from VideoLAN's wiki. Also, collaboration on new features
What about the source code for a project? I wouldn't really suggest using a wiki in the full-open format where anyone can contribute, because the potential for slipping in unnoticed and dangerous code is too great, but I wonder how it would work as a coordination tool between registered programmers working together on a project if all of the souce code were actually wikified. If there were enough changes made for syntax checking and automatic hyperlinking of function calls and variable references, it might make for a useful collaborative IDE, since the version control is already present.
It looks like something CmdrTaco has introduced over the weekend. Basically it seems that "minor" stories that earlier used to appear only in subsections such as science.slashdot.org now appear as little stubs on the main page.
It's a nice change. Sometimes I would catch stories I would have read off to the side in one of the subsections, but I'll catch them a week or so late since I don't always check that. This way I can scan through them quickly as they appear, but without cluttering up the screen too much.
And as for science, I think it should definitely be said that a career in science is not for everyone. Being an artist is not for everyone. Working on Wall Street is not for everyone. What's bad is not that many people think a scientific career is not for them, but that so many people think science is beyond them. It seems that science and scientists are becoming a bit mystified and idolized in contemporary culture, and we need to make sure this doesn't get out of hand.
The idea of "its science, therefore it's truth given to us by smart people," is a dangerous one, since the scientific method doesn't quite work that way.
and for your information ID IS a science
For ID to be a good scientific theory, it should be falsifiable. This means that there should be something you can test which has one possible result which will show the theory to be wrong. This means, ID should propose a prediction for something which would happen, or should predict a result which has already happened but has not yet been observed, and which could then be checked. So what experiment would you accept as having one possible result which would show ID wrong?
If there is none, then it's not a science. If you can provide one, then maybe we could talk about testing it, as is done in science.
I agree. I've often considered the link to the article being at the section "sticky widget" to be a shortcoming in the link formatting with some Slashdot articles. Sometimes this makes it difficult to figure out which one of several links is the central article for that story. And in cases where "sticky widgets" are a rare topic that many people don't actually know about, this overwrites the opportunity for putting a link under "sticky widget" to an explanation of what sticky widgets actually are.
:)
I would say, rather than placing the article link under sticky widgets telling us what the link contains, it actually describes it incorrectly. My instincts from the rest of the web tell me that a link labeled "sticky widgets" should tell me about sticky widgets. An article talking about something regarding sticky widgets is not the same thing, and often won't even describe them in detail, so placing a keyword link is misleading. If the link were the entirety of "article about sticky widgets", this would be more clear than just "sticky widgets".
(Sheesh, I think I typed "sticky widgets" enough times in that post.)
At any rate, when the best things there are to complain about are which words are included in the links, then clearly things are being managed fairly well as a whole. After all, it's been nearly a decade, and we keep coming back.
And you stopped taking it because ________