truth is in the eye of the beholder - you can only report a certain amount,and of that you need to make it more entertaining than just a list of facts. As a result, some people will selectively decide which bits to report and which are irrelevant to the story. Everyone does it.
The Guardian journalists will do it, favouring the left-leaning side of the story (as that's the stuff appeals to them the most) whereas others will go for the right-leaning aspects.
The idea of reading 2 sides of a story is to get both sets of reported facts so you can make a slightly more informed decision than just what 1 side tells you is important. Really try it., and try it on some unimportant news to see all the stuff they leave out.
Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre - forget boycotting it, make one of those days the "fuck beta" day where no comment shall be allowed except to say "fuck beta".
I suppose the Financial Times was the most unbiased "right-wing" paper as it had a job to not convince its readership of anything they didn't already believe (ie in capitalism and suchlike).
The guardian, not convinced of its truthfulness, at least not its absolute truth when it will be subjectively manipulated to tell the left-leanings of its journalists. In many ways this is normal, there is no "truth" that can be reported as people will never quite get it perfectly unbiased.
the "both sides" principle is very good, try it some time, its eye-opening.
not sure about that - most people with mod points will mod "fuck beta" posts as -1 as they are offtopic, and such posts are easy to moderate (ie you don't have to think if something is insightful or informative for example).
However,I don't think there are enough mod points available to kill all the fuckbeta posts.
BTW fuck beta. Really, fuck the stupidity of it. (I wouldn't mind if it still delivered what is important about slashdot but its just sidelined the comments and stories as if they're the irrelevant parts).
seriously, won't anyone RTFM. Its just really bad editorial as usual - they simply expected the coder to use their API rather than bypass it using jQuery. That's all.
but they never said that - they said you must use their API to access their server, and using jQuery to get round it is a hack.
Its their server, they can mandate you use their API, simple to understand surely? Fuck all to do with jQuery, that's just bad reporting and a useless poster.
RTFM - they didn't say jQuery is a hack, they said "using jQuery (or plain xmlHttpRequest) to workaround their own API that they mandate you use to access their servers (as part of their TOS)" is a hack.
Ars is good, and their comments system is better on mobile - where threaded would be difficult to do, theirs works well there (though obviously you get the most votes on the early comments).
Either way, its a hell of a lot better than beta's comments section. So that will do for me when beta goes live./. gave me a good breath of education - I know a little bit about a lot of different things thanks to this place's users and their comments (ie the truly informative ones). I will miss that, and the cheekiness of some funny comments.
Personally I am moving my news + commenty feeds from slashdot to ArsTechnica. Its a bit more professional though you get fewer stories and the comments aren't threaded, but it does work great on mobile.
Come beta, I won't be here much if at all. While I can manage some change - the huge font and the stupid sidebar on the comments page is a killer for me. And the "load more" button that doesn't just grab more to add to the bottom but also fills in comments above the set you've already read (being threaded of course)
Way back in the day, The RAC (breakdown rescue club) used to have uniformed drivers who were famous for saluting motorists - the reason they did so was not to be polite, but to warn them of upcoming speed traps - if they didn't salute, you slowed down. Of course, this didn't count as warning the motorist as the RAC man hadn't done anything... literally.
I guess the point about trying to catch speeding drivers is that these are the ones who will speed up after they've gone past the trap and continue to be dangerous - best to catch them and take note of who they are so they can be banned after they've been caught enough times.
The trick then is to a) make it easy to tip a microtransaction and b) get a pot of them when times are good so you still have some left over when you're broke.
unfortunately the Guardian has quite a bias towards the left. If that's your thing then go for it, but if you're looking for unbiased its probably not the best.
If you're really looking for unbiased, I'd get 2 opposing papers and try to read the same story delivered by both - if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Or just go with the FT, which may not cover your story much at all, but the ones it does will be plainly factual.
As for microtransactions, I dislike them too - but I think this is one area where the bitcoins (or rather a better one that's more "inflationary" like dogecoin) can find a niche. I understand Reddit uses dogecoins quite happily as "tips" as that currency is deigned to generate coins to encourage spending rather than hoarding. As a result, people actually spend them on little things.... like articles you appreciated.
they put Ruby on Rails on it... well, "ASP.NET MVC Razor" which basically took all the most interesting and useful bits of Rails and put them into this C# framework.
Its quite popular. Very popular. When I was looking for my last contract, roughly 8 out of 10 jobs were asking for it.
Did the Windows 95 Start Menu everyone seems to love nowadays (for some reason) come about because MS started asking people how they wanted their desktop to work?
no, generally Microsoft brings things about by looking at successful products elsewhere and copying them. Badly.
no, a company is supposed to do what its owners want (the owners are the shareholders).
That most CEOs think the company belongs to them, and follow through with whatever crazy personal schemes they like is just a symptom of poor oversight from said shareholders, but that doesn't mean a company exists to do anything other than enrich its owners. Typically enriching owners is best done by making great products, but then many others do it by screwing the crap out of a locked-in customer base.
Think of that next time you open an old.doc file...
of course, you've just used things you saw on TV to advocate what laws the government should pass..... and you didn't see any resemblance to Cameron doing exactly the same thing?
I blame modern education that eschews classical teaching in favour of shiny technology:-(
only the police used historical mobile data to find some suspects in the Madeleine Mcann disappearance case (to the shame of the Portugese police who no doubt didn't have access to such, if they weren't incompetent as described in the media:) )
So there's a real-life case of what he's saying being true, while those TV crime dramas do exaggerate the possibilities (think CSI using the reflection in a car body as evidence, or 24 using satellite tracking video data, or Bladerunner zooming into a picture to see behind objects) that doesn't mean the drama series are based on nothing but fantasy.
So the question isn't really that we can do these things, or even if the police use these things in their work; but how do we ensure that the authorities use them responsibly, openly and without abusing them. I'm certain we can't trust the security services to check themselves, and politicians seem to be in the thrall of these guys, so what can we get that puts the correct restrictions on this data so its used as we want it to be?
You'd think the only way to do this is to enshrine it clearly in law, which is the "charter" he's talking about... now forget the stupid talk of complaining about what he said and start talking about the contents of that law he wants introduced.
how many poor kids do you know f that commit white-collar crimes like fraud, financial rigging, insider trading?
How many of them end up with no social conscience because the parents were either not around or too far gone into self-obsession that they have no initiative to parent their kids?
well, I say forget this dangerous, insta-hacked concept... go back to what you think of every time you watch those cop-chase TV shows: police helicopters should be armed with missiles to stop those scumbag car chases. Its the only truly safe way - after all, if you remotely-immobilise a fleeing car carrying criminals, they will just get out and run away!
Note, also works against terrorists. I can only think they didn't go for this simply because the liberal democrats threatened to vote against it. Either that or the Americans have patented the idea already:(
I guess they could implement a "not for me, pass it along to EFF or other charitable body" option on the recipient's end for those who don't care to bother with their tips.
not even that, they're moving to "open standard" so people can use.odt formats instead of.doc/docx crap.
Then anyoine can use whatever application that like - including Office for those who still want to use it, but those who have, say Android tablets, get to use whatever tool they like.
I imagine once the lock-in of *having* to use Word disappears, so too will Word.
Slashdot Mirror
truth is in the eye of the beholder - you can only report a certain amount,and of that you need to make it more entertaining than just a list of facts. As a result, some people will selectively decide which bits to report and which are irrelevant to the story. Everyone does it.
The Guardian journalists will do it, favouring the left-leaning side of the story (as that's the stuff appeals to them the most) whereas others will go for the right-leaning aspects.
The idea of reading 2 sides of a story is to get both sets of reported facts so you can make a slightly more informed decision than just what 1 side tells you is important. Really try it., and try it on some unimportant news to see all the stuff they leave out.
Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre - forget boycotting it, make one of those days the "fuck beta" day where no comment shall be allowed except to say "fuck beta".
I suppose the Financial Times was the most unbiased "right-wing" paper as it had a job to not convince its readership of anything they didn't already believe (ie in capitalism and suchlike).
The guardian, not convinced of its truthfulness, at least not its absolute truth when it will be subjectively manipulated to tell the left-leanings of its journalists. In many ways this is normal, there is no "truth" that can be reported as people will never quite get it perfectly unbiased.
the "both sides" principle is very good, try it some time, its eye-opening.
not sure about that - most people with mod points will mod "fuck beta" posts as -1 as they are offtopic, and such posts are easy to moderate (ie you don't have to think if something is insightful or informative for example).
However,I don't think there are enough mod points available to kill all the fuckbeta posts.
BTW fuck beta. Really, fuck the stupidity of it. (I wouldn't mind if it still delivered what is important about slashdot but its just sidelined the comments and stories as if they're the irrelevant parts).
it is true, but .. you have to take what you can get.
seriously, won't anyone RTFM. Its just really bad editorial as usual - they simply expected the coder to use their API rather than bypass it using jQuery. That's all.
but they never said that - they said you must use their API to access their server, and using jQuery to get round it is a hack.
Its their server, they can mandate you use their API, simple to understand surely? Fuck all to do with jQuery, that's just bad reporting and a useless poster.
RTFM - they didn't say jQuery is a hack, they said "using jQuery (or plain xmlHttpRequest) to workaround their own API that they mandate you use to access their servers (as part of their TOS)" is a hack.
Ars is good, and their comments system is better on mobile - where threaded would be difficult to do, theirs works well there (though obviously you get the most votes on the early comments).
Either way, its a hell of a lot better than beta's comments section. So that will do for me when beta goes live. /. gave me a good breath of education - I know a little bit about a lot of different things thanks to this place's users and their comments (ie the truly informative ones). I will miss that, and the cheekiness of some funny comments.
Personally I am moving my news + commenty feeds from slashdot to ArsTechnica. Its a bit more professional though you get fewer stories and the comments aren't threaded, but it does work great on mobile.
Come beta, I won't be here much if at all. While I can manage some change - the huge font and the stupid sidebar on the comments page is a killer for me. And the "load more" button that doesn't just grab more to add to the bottom but also fills in comments above the set you've already read (being threaded of course)
Way back in the day, The RAC (breakdown rescue club) used to have uniformed drivers who were famous for saluting motorists - the reason they did so was not to be polite, but to warn them of upcoming speed traps - if they didn't salute, you slowed down. Of course, this didn't count as warning the motorist as the RAC man hadn't done anything... literally.
I guess the point about trying to catch speeding drivers is that these are the ones who will speed up after they've gone past the trap and continue to be dangerous - best to catch them and take note of who they are so they can be banned after they've been caught enough times.
The trick then is to a) make it easy to tip a microtransaction and b) get a pot of them when times are good so you still have some left over when you're broke.
unfortunately the Guardian has quite a bias towards the left. If that's your thing then go for it, but if you're looking for unbiased its probably not the best.
If you're really looking for unbiased, I'd get 2 opposing papers and try to read the same story delivered by both - if you read the Guardian and the Daily Mail, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Or just go with the FT, which may not cover your story much at all, but the ones it does will be plainly factual.
Try DuckDuckGo instead of Google.
As for microtransactions, I dislike them too - but I think this is one area where the bitcoins (or rather a better one that's more "inflationary" like dogecoin) can find a niche. I understand Reddit uses dogecoins quite happily as "tips" as that currency is deigned to generate coins to encourage spending rather than hoarding. As a result, people actually spend them on little things.... like articles you appreciated.
they put Ruby on Rails on it... well, "ASP.NET MVC Razor" which basically took all the most interesting and useful bits of Rails and put them into this C# framework.
Its quite popular. Very popular. When I was looking for my last contract, roughly 8 out of 10 jobs were asking for it.
yeah, but Gates told him to say that.
Did the Windows 95 Start Menu everyone seems to love nowadays (for some reason) come about because MS started asking people how they wanted their desktop to work?
no, generally Microsoft brings things about by looking at successful products elsewhere and copying them. Badly.
no, a company is supposed to do what its owners want (the owners are the shareholders).
That most CEOs think the company belongs to them, and follow through with whatever crazy personal schemes they like is just a symptom of poor oversight from said shareholders, but that doesn't mean a company exists to do anything other than enrich its owners. Typically enriching owners is best done by making great products, but then many others do it by screwing the crap out of a locked-in customer base.
Think of that next time you open an old .doc file...
motion charging on your watch... its not porn, its an "interactive battery charging assistance aid"!
of course, you've just used things you saw on TV to advocate what laws the government should pass..... and you didn't see any resemblance to Cameron doing exactly the same thing?
I blame modern education that eschews classical teaching in favour of shiny technology :-(
only the police used historical mobile data to find some suspects in the Madeleine Mcann disappearance case (to the shame of the Portugese police who no doubt didn't have access to such, if they weren't incompetent as described in the media :) )
So there's a real-life case of what he's saying being true, while those TV crime dramas do exaggerate the possibilities (think CSI using the reflection in a car body as evidence, or 24 using satellite tracking video data, or Bladerunner zooming into a picture to see behind objects) that doesn't mean the drama series are based on nothing but fantasy.
So the question isn't really that we can do these things, or even if the police use these things in their work; but how do we ensure that the authorities use them responsibly, openly and without abusing them. I'm certain we can't trust the security services to check themselves, and politicians seem to be in the thrall of these guys, so what can we get that puts the correct restrictions on this data so its used as we want it to be?
You'd think the only way to do this is to enshrine it clearly in law, which is the "charter" he's talking about... now forget the stupid talk of complaining about what he said and start talking about the contents of that law he wants introduced.
how many poor kids do you know f that commit white-collar crimes like fraud, financial rigging, insider trading?
How many of them end up with no social conscience because the parents were either not around or too far gone into self-obsession that they have no initiative to parent their kids?
See, rich kids have it hard too.:-)
well, I say forget this dangerous, insta-hacked concept... go back to what you think of every time you watch those cop-chase TV shows: police helicopters should be armed with missiles to stop those scumbag car chases. Its the only truly safe way - after all, if you remotely-immobilise a fleeing car carrying criminals, they will just get out and run away!
Note, also works against terrorists. I can only think they didn't go for this simply because the liberal democrats threatened to vote against it. Either that or the Americans have patented the idea already :(
I guess they could implement a "not for me, pass it along to EFF or other charitable body" option on the recipient's end for those who don't care to bother with their tips.
not even that, they're moving to "open standard" so people can use .odt formats instead of .doc/docx crap.
Then anyoine can use whatever application that like - including Office for those who still want to use it, but those who have, say Android tablets, get to use whatever tool they like.
I imagine once the lock-in of *having* to use Word disappears, so too will Word.