The problem is that just having a good browser is not enough. The thing we really have trouble with is all the proprietary plugins that are only available under Windows (and some of them for the Mac). While there are some that are available for Linux, what we really need is some portable plugin architecture. Netscape isn't the be all and end all of browsers, but the main problem I have with Netscape under linux is the sites that it doesn't work for, and that isn't because of (the numerous) flaws in netscape. Solutions?
I noticed the pictures illustrating the effect of menu fade was of Office, not well known for its limited use of widgets. Surely the more sensible use of toolbars is a more easily achieved and less obtrusive modification. I use the gnome editor and much prefer the minimalist use of widgets.
Currently, having a minimal toolbars and such is very nice, but you have to think about why that's the case. The reason I don't like having the screen full of toolbars is because they're taking space when I'm not using them. If they only came into existence when I'm actually using the mouse, and silently faded (or preferably slid) away when I wasn't using the mouse, it wouldn't really matter how much space it took during the few times I actually want to use the mouse.
I guess my main concern with the whole thing is the question of what you do with ppl once you've assessed them to be potentially violent. That's what determines how severe a false positive would be.
The other thing that disturbs me is the number of ppl who comment on this without even reading the article. This isn't about classifying geeks, or those who stick out. And the answers are *not* given by the students, but by administrators (for better or worse).
I want to file for a patent on patenting things that everyone already uses. Granted, there's a bit of trouble with prior art (ie, this entire the article in question), but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, does it?
So now I can sue anyone who attempts to get a patent on these kind of things.
I'm a little scared to mention this for fear of being moderated down further, but it really annoyed me to see the above comment moderated down for being redundant. I just checked again, and I was the first person to mention anything like that. View the comments oldest first, no threading if you doubt. So I guess I lost points because my idea was popular enough that others later repeated it, got moderated up, and someone who read based on score thought mine redundant. Proving that moderation is as hard as metamoderation for redundant.
The problem is, you don't know which moderation you're looking at. You could be looking at the person who first changed it from 1 to 2, instead of from 4 to 5. Rob, PLEASE give us before and after scores for the moderation we're moderating.
I just went to metamoderate, and it looks like a nice setup. One thing I found hard, tho, was that a LOT of the moderations I was supposed to rate were "Overrated." Could CmdrTaco add something to the code so we can tell what the rating was before the moderation was put in place? In fact, it would be useful if in general it displayed the score either immediately before, or immediately after the moderation in question, instead of the total score as of now (an up moderation that's fair from 1 to 2 may not be fair from 4 to 5). Keep up the good work!
I would only support this if it were added separately, so that a user would have to turn on a preference to see it (sort of like the signature, but defaulting to off instead of on). Otherwise it would get annoying really fast. But if it could be turned off it might be rather cool (tho I doubt many would bother to use it).
But seriously, who are they trying to fool with the "remote disabling" bit? That's ridiculously easy to break. Look out for disable-command blockers on the crack sites.
I'd be more concerned with crackers figuring out the protocol and remotely disabling your software for you. As if they didn't have enough ways to do that without the companies building backdoors in.
What I'd rather see is an floating average--say, the average of your last 10 comments (if you've made that many). Actually, I rather preferred each comment being independent of the poster's history, but... (Ok, I'll take this time to say that what I really REALLY want is collaborative filtering, but I know it's not going to happen)
Collaborative filtering would certainly be ideal. The only drawback I can see is that it might be a HUGE load on the server. How are the current algorithms at doing this with reasonable space and time limits? Is there anyway some of the work could be pushed onto the client side (I'd be willing to sacrifice a few mega-cpu cycles to see things filtered the way I want them). If that's unreasonable (it may well be:(), could we possibly have a system of assigning not just a score to a comment, but also a labeling system of some sort? I haven't thought thru the details, but if instead of moderating a comment down, a moderator could give it a more helpful description of WHY s/he deems it worthless (checkboxes for first post, flame-bait, redundancy, etc). Then if I decide that there's a lot of valuable stuff being labeled redundant, I could choose to view that while having the first posts filtered out. At the same time, it wouldn't be adding much load to the server. Only problem is how to get 400 moderators to agree on labeling (or is it first come first serve, or what?). Just some random thoughts.
Granted, Starship Troopers had some pretty stupid battles, orbital bombardment only works if there's NOTHING on the planet that should remain. Destroying an entire planet is in the realm of the Dark Side, not the Light. If there are civilians, you can't just go around doing that. The problem I see is that for that sort of fight, light sabers just aren't nearly as useful as a good machine gun (or blaster, or what have you).
Of course, a form of Force virus might work, spreading from Jedi to Jedi, corrupting the very power that makes them good...hmmm, maybe we could call it something like "The Dark Side"...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that just having a good browser is not enough. The thing we really have trouble with is all the proprietary plugins that are only available under Windows (and some of them for the Mac). While there are some that are available for Linux, what we really need is some portable plugin architecture. Netscape isn't the be all and end all of browsers, but the main problem I have with Netscape under linux is the sites that it doesn't work for, and that isn't because of (the numerous) flaws in netscape. Solutions?
Currently, having a minimal toolbars and such is very nice, but you have to think about why that's the case. The reason I don't like having the screen full of toolbars is because they're taking space when I'm not using them. If they only came into existence when I'm actually using the mouse, and silently faded (or preferably slid) away when I wasn't using the mouse, it wouldn't really matter how much space it took during the few times I actually want to use the mouse.
The other thing that disturbs me is the number of ppl who comment on this without even reading the article. This isn't about classifying geeks, or those who stick out. And the answers are *not* given by the students, but by administrators (for better or worse).
I want to file for a patent on patenting things that everyone already uses. Granted, there's a bit of trouble with prior art (ie, this entire the article in question), but that doesn't seem to matter anymore, does it?
So now I can sue anyone who attempts to get a patent on these kind of things.
I'm a little scared to mention this for fear of being moderated down further, but it really annoyed me to see the above comment moderated down for being redundant. I just checked again, and I was the first person to mention anything like that. View the comments oldest first, no threading if you doubt. So I guess I lost points because my idea was popular enough that others later repeated it, got moderated up, and someone who read based on score thought mine redundant. Proving that moderation is as hard as metamoderation for redundant.
The problem is, you don't know which moderation you're looking at. You could be looking at the person who first changed it from 1 to 2, instead of from 4 to 5. Rob, PLEASE give us before and after scores for the moderation we're moderating.
How about a "New slashboxes" slashbox?
I just went to metamoderate, and it looks like a nice setup. One thing I found hard, tho, was that a LOT of the moderations I was supposed to rate were "Overrated." Could CmdrTaco add something to the code so we can tell what the rating was before the moderation was put in place? In fact, it would be useful if in general it displayed the score either immediately before, or immediately after the moderation in question, instead of the total score as of now (an up moderation that's fair from 1 to 2 may not be fair from 4 to 5). Keep up the good work!
I would only support this if it were added separately, so that a user would have to turn on a preference to see it (sort of like the signature, but defaulting to off instead of on). Otherwise it would get annoying really fast. But if it could be turned off it might be rather cool (tho I doubt many would bother to use it).
I'd be more concerned with crackers figuring out the protocol and remotely disabling your software for you. As if they didn't have enough ways to do that without the companies building backdoors in.
What I'd rather see is an floating average--say, the average of your last 10 comments (if you've made that many). Actually, I rather preferred each comment being independent of the poster's history, but... (Ok, I'll take this time to say that what I really REALLY want is collaborative filtering, but I know it's not going to happen)
Collaborative filtering would certainly be ideal. The only drawback I can see is that it might be a HUGE load on the server. How are the current algorithms at doing this with reasonable space and time limits? Is there anyway some of the work could be pushed onto the client side (I'd be willing to sacrifice a few mega-cpu cycles to see things filtered the way I want them). If that's unreasonable (it may well be :(), could we possibly have a system of assigning not just a score to a comment, but also a labeling system of some sort? I haven't thought thru the details, but if instead of moderating a comment down, a moderator could give it a more helpful description of WHY s/he deems it worthless (checkboxes for first post, flame-bait, redundancy, etc). Then if I decide that there's a lot of valuable stuff being labeled redundant, I could choose to view that while having the first posts filtered out. At the same time, it wouldn't be adding much load to the server. Only problem is how to get 400 moderators to agree on labeling (or is it first come first serve, or what?). Just some random thoughts.
Most hackers don't do anything nasty. That's the realm of crackers. Read the 10000 posts above for the distinction.
Granted, Starship Troopers had some pretty stupid battles, orbital bombardment only works if there's NOTHING on the planet that should remain. Destroying an entire planet is in the realm of the Dark Side, not the Light. If there are civilians, you can't just go around doing that. The problem I see is that for that sort of fight, light sabers just aren't nearly as useful as a good machine gun (or blaster, or what have you).
Of course, a form of Force virus might work, spreading from Jedi to Jedi, corrupting the very power that makes them good...hmmm, maybe we could call it something like "The Dark Side"...