I didn't say I don't support giving the government any powers, I said you have to consider that the power will be abused, and most people don't think that part through. I went on to say there are lots of things I'd like to see the government be able to do, but don't want them to have that power. I didn't give any examples and I didn't state whether or not it includes any powers the government currently exercises, so how can you infer how I feel about all government powers?
(The answer is that you can't.)
At no time did I say anything that would even _remotely_ imply I support anarchy. In fact, I said that it's important for the government to be able to maintain order, which is, you may or may not realize, the opposite of anarchy.
Really, some people around here argue like a Itchy and Scratchy cartoon.
Plus, I'm really disappointed to see an AC not whining about Beta. It's your patriotic duty as a Coward. Get on the bandwagon.
It seems like every time people try to legislate solutions to these kinds of problems they just create more problems due to their stunning lack of understanding of human nature.
What people fail to consider is what happens when any particular bit of power given to the government is misused, because it _will_ be misused. There are plenty of things I think it would be great for the government to be able to do, but would never support it because it could be abused. That's why we need as little government as we can get away with and still maintain order.
I rarely carry money these days already. I remember having a conversation in the barber shop around 1987 and someone suggested that money would become uncommon in 4 years or so. I said that I agreed, but that it would be more like 40 years. By 2027, I'd bet that physical currency will be either completely gone or rare... assuming civilization doesn't collapse and we're all using only barter.
That would be fine, except Dice has stated its clear intention to eliminate classic mode. If classic mode weren't going away, most people wouldn't care.
It's not handegg metaphors that will get you a wider audience, it's car metaphors. It's like when your fourth and long, deep in your own territory with a manual transmission and you don't know how to drive with a stick shift. See?
Nice story, except for/., the beta is not more flexible (because if it were, you could make it look like the old/.), and it is definitely not snazzier looking, unless your idea of snazzy is looking at carpet samples. If there are new features worth having that could be added with the new code, they are doing a great job of sitting on them. This is not a matter of the beta "not being ready", but that it is simply wrong from line-of-code one.
I think they understand the magnitude of their "failure" which isn't a failure in their eyes. They bought/., but they clearly don't want/., so they are going to demolish it and build something new.
It's not like you can "fix" the beta, because every single thing about it that is different from the site as it is now is wrong. I'm not talking from an aesthetic point of view, although aesthetically, the beta is like goat sick, but it systematically demolishes every piece of functionality that makes/. good.
There's nothing wrong with/. as it is today, minus a few small bugs that people have enumerated at least a dozen times in this discussion alone.
Dice clearly thinks they can make more money with not-Slashdot, and maybe they can. It's obvious that they don't care about the community that has existed here for 17 years (I've been around for about 14 of them). They're just in it for the money. That's business.
What I don't understand is they you would bother with the expense of acquiring something since their intent has obviously been to destroy it from Day One.
"Climate change" isn't the socialist conspiracy. It's most the proposed solutions, which seem more geared toward the goal of promoting socialism than doing anything about the alleged problem.
When a global warming/climate change person suggests (and a few have, but very few) that nuclear power is a good alternative because it doesn't emit carbon, then I will consider him or her actually interested in dealing with the issue. However, it seems that the same people who are global warming/climate change alarmists also often support biofuels, which compared to traditional fossil fuels, make the carbon problem worse.
Capital punishment can be a legitimate response to crimes committed by a member of society. I've always thought of it as being similar to war. There are times when war is inevitable as the only way to prevent a greater evil from happening. It's the same for capital punishment. Some crimes under some circumstances rise to the level where the only way to stop the criminal and prevent greater harm is to execute him.
However... in our society, this is no longer the case. It is possible to imprison someone in a way that there is no reasonable risk that he will cause further harm to society. Although, I am one of those tough love advocates and definitely a law and order guy, I believe that the problems with capital punishment far outweigh the benefits. The system of rights and appeals that we (rightly) afford to people being tried for these crimes, even once they are convicted, has to be so incredibly comple and overly redundant because we truly want to avoid executing people who aren't guilty. Therefore, a death sentence ends up dragging on for years at a minimum and possibly decades. If it's cruel to execute someone in the way Ohio did, then how much more cruel is it to sentence someone to indefinite imprisonment with a looming execution at some point in the future based on how good a lawyer he can afford?
Sure, innocent people are harmed when they are unjustly convicted and imprisoned, but at least we can do something about it if the conviction is subsequently shown to be wrong after the fact... at least if the person hasn't died in prison. Furthermore, capital punishment completely destroys the possibility of rehabilitation. Sure, the kinds of people who commit crimes that put them on death row are not very likely to be rehabilitated, and almost certainly not to the point where they could be released back into society, but given that it is no longer necessary to kill someone to prevent them from harming innocents more than they already have, can we not recognize that there is still value to that person's life... or at least potential value?
Capital punishment is just as able to be a just solution as war... you know when we shoot guns and drop bombs and people die in ways that are incomparably more horrible than this guy in Ohio. But the important thing that we have to recognize as a society is that just as war must be a last resort when _nothing_ else will work, such as it was during the World Wars and at other times in our nation's history, we must treat capital punishment in the same way, and given the state of our ability to securely imprison people, there simply isn't any situation which rises to the necessity of putting someone to death to prevent further harm... and the necessary protections built into the system make capital punishment too ineffective to be used as a deterrent.
The sad thing isn't that this insult-laden diatribe wasn't marked "Insightful". The sad thing is that it really is "Insightful". The new design is _that_ bad.
You can't believe anything that comes out of the MSM news outlets, be it Faux New, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC etc.. The ONLY news outlets you can half way believe are the alternative news media. The MSM news outlets are ALL controlled by corporate interests and all put either a far right or far left spin on EVERYTHING!!
That's exactly what the gigantic alternate news media corporations _want_ you to believe.
Because you can't get it to work just like Windows 7. The biggest complaint I have is that you get that eye-gougingly ugly "flat" interface that wastes a lot of screen real estate and you can't get rid of it.
Every version of Windows prior to 8 allowed you to switch back to the Windows 2000 look, which in my opinion is the last version of Windows that actually looked good. But Windows 8 is so advanced you can't do that any more. It looks like Windows 2, but with a larger color palette.
And don't go on about themes and skinning apps and all that. From what I've seen, and I've looked a lot, it can't be done.
Combine that with the fact that configuring new versions of Windows was always an adventure of discovery where you have to figure out where they've hid everything _this_ time around, except now half of it is in the Metro interface, which is not discoverable in any meaningful way. There is no justification that these changes, and the Metro interface as a whole, were done for anyone's benefit except for Microsoft's (or at least that's what they seem to have thought). It seems they felt if they foisted all this nonsense on the users the users would just accept it, because that's what Microsoft has taught them for the last 20 years, except at some point even the most complacent user will complain and fight back.
That's not true. We can demand fact-checking and all the other things that journalism is supposed to represent. If a source doesn't live up to the standard we can take our business to someone who does. The free market for news works just fine.
The problem is that 90+% of the viewers simply don't care and are just looking for blood and guts or T and A.
So "we" can't, when "we" means you and me and the too few other folks who really care about the truth and not just confirming our prejudices, but when "we" means enough people to actually make a difference in the marketplace, then you're right... it's not going to happen.
I've never had a piece of software piss me off more so quickly..
Then you've obviously never used Lotus Notes or anything made by BMC. See, there are lots of companies out there that are every bit as arrogant and user hostile as Microsoft, but without all the smart people that work for Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Straw man much?
Let's review for the reading impaired:
I didn't say I don't support giving the government any powers, I said you have to consider that the power will be abused, and most people don't think that part through. I went on to say there are lots of things I'd like to see the government be able to do, but don't want them to have that power. I didn't give any examples and I didn't state whether or not it includes any powers the government currently exercises, so how can you infer how I feel about all government powers?
(The answer is that you can't.)
At no time did I say anything that would even _remotely_ imply I support anarchy. In fact, I said that it's important for the government to be able to maintain order, which is, you may or may not realize, the opposite of anarchy.
Really, some people around here argue like a Itchy and Scratchy cartoon.
Plus, I'm really disappointed to see an AC not whining about Beta. It's your patriotic duty as a Coward. Get on the bandwagon.
That's an astounding level of *whoosh*. Congratulations.
It seems like every time people try to legislate solutions to these kinds of problems they just create more problems due to their stunning lack of understanding of human nature.
What people fail to consider is what happens when any particular bit of power given to the government is misused, because it _will_ be misused. There are plenty of things I think it would be great for the government to be able to do, but would never support it because it could be abused. That's why we need as little government as we can get away with and still maintain order.
I rarely carry money these days already. I remember having a conversation in the barber shop around 1987 and someone suggested that money would become uncommon in 4 years or so. I said that I agreed, but that it would be more like 40 years. By 2027, I'd bet that physical currency will be either completely gone or rare... assuming civilization doesn't collapse and we're all using only barter.
That would be fine, except Dice has stated its clear intention to eliminate classic mode. If classic mode weren't going away, most people wouldn't care.
Beta delenda est.
It took a day or two, but now when I google "fuck beta" all the top results are from slashdot. Yay.
I wouldn't be surprised if that works the other way around, too.
It's not handegg metaphors that will get you a wider audience, it's car metaphors. It's like when your fourth and long, deep in your own territory with a manual transmission and you don't know how to drive with a stick shift. See?
... and the beta sucks.
It's kind of like people who are experts in bland, content-ruining, low-contrast, lower-functionality websites are talking about /.:
Nothing good comes of it.
"subtly flaunt it"? Screw that. I got a low-5-digit ID, baby! Read it and weep! Go on, brag. It will make you feel good. :-)
Nice story, except for /., the beta is not more flexible (because if it were, you could make it look like the old /.), and it is definitely not snazzier looking, unless your idea of snazzy is looking at carpet samples. If there are new features worth having that could be added with the new code, they are doing a great job of sitting on them. This is not a matter of the beta "not being ready", but that it is simply wrong from line-of-code one.
I think they understand the magnitude of their "failure" which isn't a failure in their eyes. They bought /., but they clearly don't want /., so they are going to demolish it and build something new.
It's not like you can "fix" the beta, because every single thing about it that is different from the site as it is now is wrong. I'm not talking from an aesthetic point of view, although aesthetically, the beta is like goat sick, but it systematically demolishes every piece of functionality that makes /. good.
There's nothing wrong with /. as it is today, minus a few small bugs that people have enumerated at least a dozen times in this discussion alone.
Dice clearly thinks they can make more money with not-Slashdot, and maybe they can. It's obvious that they don't care about the community that has existed here for 17 years (I've been around for about 14 of them). They're just in it for the money. That's business.
What I don't understand is they you would bother with the expense of acquiring something since their intent has obviously been to destroy it from Day One.
Granted, another issue is that people who just use web browser and office productivity apps really don't have any reasons to upgrade _period_.
Knowing what I know now, I would have purchased a Windows 7 license for the laptop I bought last year that came with Windows 8.
"Climate change" isn't the socialist conspiracy. It's most the proposed solutions, which seem more geared toward the goal of promoting socialism than doing anything about the alleged problem.
When a global warming/climate change person suggests (and a few have, but very few) that nuclear power is a good alternative because it doesn't emit carbon, then I will consider him or her actually interested in dealing with the issue. However, it seems that the same people who are global warming/climate change alarmists also often support biofuels, which compared to traditional fossil fuels, make the carbon problem worse.
I'm disappointed that of all the people who whooshed your last line, none of them complained about "free reign". :-(
Capital punishment can be a legitimate response to crimes committed by a member of society. I've always thought of it as being similar to war. There are times when war is inevitable as the only way to prevent a greater evil from happening. It's the same for capital punishment. Some crimes under some circumstances rise to the level where the only way to stop the criminal and prevent greater harm is to execute him.
However... in our society, this is no longer the case. It is possible to imprison someone in a way that there is no reasonable risk that he will cause further harm to society. Although, I am one of those tough love advocates and definitely a law and order guy, I believe that the problems with capital punishment far outweigh the benefits. The system of rights and appeals that we (rightly) afford to people being tried for these crimes, even once they are convicted, has to be so incredibly comple and overly redundant because we truly want to avoid executing people who aren't guilty. Therefore, a death sentence ends up dragging on for years at a minimum and possibly decades. If it's cruel to execute someone in the way Ohio did, then how much more cruel is it to sentence someone to indefinite imprisonment with a looming execution at some point in the future based on how good a lawyer he can afford?
Sure, innocent people are harmed when they are unjustly convicted and imprisoned, but at least we can do something about it if the conviction is subsequently shown to be wrong after the fact... at least if the person hasn't died in prison. Furthermore, capital punishment completely destroys the possibility of rehabilitation. Sure, the kinds of people who commit crimes that put them on death row are not very likely to be rehabilitated, and almost certainly not to the point where they could be released back into society, but given that it is no longer necessary to kill someone to prevent them from harming innocents more than they already have, can we not recognize that there is still value to that person's life... or at least potential value?
Capital punishment is just as able to be a just solution as war... you know when we shoot guns and drop bombs and people die in ways that are incomparably more horrible than this guy in Ohio. But the important thing that we have to recognize as a society is that just as war must be a last resort when _nothing_ else will work, such as it was during the World Wars and at other times in our nation's history, we must treat capital punishment in the same way, and given the state of our ability to securely imprison people, there simply isn't any situation which rises to the necessity of putting someone to death to prevent further harm... and the necessary protections built into the system make capital punishment too ineffective to be used as a deterrent.
The sad thing isn't that this insult-laden diatribe wasn't marked "Insightful". The sad thing is that it really is "Insightful". The new design is _that_ bad.
But beta.slashdot.org serves you tons of stock photos. A stock photo for every story! That's what made /. great: meaningless images.
You can't believe anything that comes out of the MSM news outlets, be it Faux New, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC etc.. The ONLY news outlets you can half way believe are the alternative news media. The MSM news outlets are ALL controlled by corporate interests and all put either a far right or far left spin on EVERYTHING!!
That's exactly what the gigantic alternate news media corporations _want_ you to believe.
Because you can't get it to work just like Windows 7. The biggest complaint I have is that you get that eye-gougingly ugly "flat" interface that wastes a lot of screen real estate and you can't get rid of it.
Every version of Windows prior to 8 allowed you to switch back to the Windows 2000 look, which in my opinion is the last version of Windows that actually looked good. But Windows 8 is so advanced you can't do that any more. It looks like Windows 2, but with a larger color palette.
And don't go on about themes and skinning apps and all that. From what I've seen, and I've looked a lot, it can't be done.
Combine that with the fact that configuring new versions of Windows was always an adventure of discovery where you have to figure out where they've hid everything _this_ time around, except now half of it is in the Metro interface, which is not discoverable in any meaningful way. There is no justification that these changes, and the Metro interface as a whole, were done for anyone's benefit except for Microsoft's (or at least that's what they seem to have thought). It seems they felt if they foisted all this nonsense on the users the users would just accept it, because that's what Microsoft has taught them for the last 20 years, except at some point even the most complacent user will complain and fight back.
People don't come to slashdot for news that much, we come for the insightful (and inciteful) comments.
I rarely read the articles at /... I'm mostly just interested in what the commenters have to say.
Where's the link? WHERE'S THE LINK??!!! I _have_ to read this story!!!!11!!!!!
That's not true. We can demand fact-checking and all the other things that journalism is supposed to represent. If a source doesn't live up to the standard we can take our business to someone who does. The free market for news works just fine.
The problem is that 90+% of the viewers simply don't care and are just looking for blood and guts or T and A.
So "we" can't, when "we" means you and me and the too few other folks who really care about the truth and not just confirming our prejudices, but when "we" means enough people to actually make a difference in the marketplace, then you're right... it's not going to happen.
I've never had a piece of software piss me off more so quickly..
Then you've obviously never used Lotus Notes or anything made by BMC. See, there are lots of companies out there that are every bit as arrogant and user hostile as Microsoft, but without all the smart people that work for Microsoft.