The sections are also accessible from the section links at the left side of the page, or the section links at the bottom of a story on the main page.
Or a YRO slashbox, of course. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Read the ARTICLE on kuro5hin before posting
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
I've never seen this submission. Doesn't mean you didn't submit it, because a number of people read and cull the submissions bin, but I've never seen it before now. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Totally Unnecessary
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
People do go around, every day, making up stories about how Andover is suing them, saying we're censoring stories, etc. etc. etc. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Totally Unnecessary
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 1
Site <> readers.
-- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:Totally Unnecessary
on
MAPS vs. ORBS
·
· Score: 2
There was no intent to beat up on the site. I like kuro5hin, I have an account there.
The intent was to beat up on the conspiracy theorists, who mainly reside on slashdot.org but seem to have migrated to k5 as well.
I hope people can see that the site and the posters are two distinct entities. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Funny (I wonder what percentage of slashdot readers will get the reference?), but untrue. It went down as stated; your beloved YRO editors jamie and I started getting deluged with submissions, tried to figure out what was going on before posting, and pretty much gave up in the "he said, she said" maze of twisty little passages, all alike. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This question gets asked about every third or fourth book review. (Check if you don't believe me.) The answer, as always, is the same: the reviewers review books they want to review, which usually means books they liked. If I read half a crappy book and then toss it back on the bookcase, am I going to take the time to write up a review? Not unless some editor forces me to... and we don't do that.
I suppose if I read something really blatantly bad, really pustulent and horrid, I might be tempted to review it and pan it, in the spirit of "Mission to Mars". But if it were merely bad, merely not-so-good, where's the motivation?
Note that readers are welcome to submit book reviews to slashdot for posting! If they're any good (by which I mean well-written, not necessarily favorable) we'll post them! Submit your negative reviews if that's what you want to see... For example, I haven't found any really bad O'Reilly books yet, but if there are any, I want to know, because when I want to learn about a subject I usually just find the O'Reilly book on that subject and buy it, sight unseen. Save me from buying an O'Reilly stinker!:) -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Now why is it that I emailed you earlier today, telling you that it was a troll (on the off-chance that you were a sucker instead of a troll yourself), and the email didn't bounce, and yet here you are, still trolling the same old line? Can it be that you're a troll yourself? With an email address like natalie_portman@evilemail.com? Heavens.
It's a troll, people. Nothing to see here, move along. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Sometimes the schedule is broken for reasons beyond our control, generally interviewees that take an inordinately long time to respond. But we're still shooting for one/week.
There's a sliding scale. If you're a big fish (a radio station), the recording industry pays you to air the song, under the table, which is officially illegal. If you're a small fish (you want to play music in your store, or club, or what-have-you), then you pay the recording industry.
You ever heard some radio station play the same song 20 times in one day? Now you know why...
This is marked up as funny, but actually we here at slashdot are getting a copy of the videotape and will be digitizing it and making it available online.
Actually we continue to post a ton of articles from Salon. Because the search function is broken right now, you can only get the first page of search results, which shows a lot of stories which have "salon" in them twice, due to the story name including "salon". If you said the magic words and looked at the second page of search results, you'd see that we posted stories from Salon (which happened to only include the word "salon" in them once) on 5-31-2000, 5-16, 5-12, 5-9, 4-25, 4-23, 4-13, etc.
I admit we purposely skipped the Stallman "free software and free sex" story. It was flamebait.
But this isn't true. Most websites on the internet are put up as a labor of love, and neither charge for admission nor have advertising. Saying that "advertising keeps the internet free" is to ignore the huge mass of content put up by individuals who have no interest in profiting from it.
Maybe out of the 500 submissions of this story, 499 of them have been deleted, and one has been designated for a "slashback" article scheduled for later today. Maybe the entire slashdot crew is sick and tired of YANS (Yet Another Napster Story) in which the only commentary is "Napster Is Stealing! Is Not! Is Too! Is Not!" and we don't frigging feel like running another one today. Maybe this has already been noted in comments in yesterday's Napster story (yes, yesterday's), as well as about 30 people like you who want to post this breaking hot news in totally unrelated stories.
Hey, what do you think the odds of that are? Naw, probably slashdot is "hiding the story"/"only wants to build hype"/let me find a few more accusations from the comments. That's probably it.
FWIW, moderators, this guy is a fake. I'm not sure if it's someone trying to impersonate and defame a real individual, or if it's just someone trying to see how misinformation can get moderated up if it's written in a certain fashion, but either way, there's a lesson here: don't mod something "informative" because of its tone.
Some stories (an increasing number, actually) are posted under the sections, see links, left side of the screen, in a grey box. Going to the BSD section, for example, includes both front-page and section-only BSD stories.
Moving something out of the spec to hide it doesn't help. If MS moved the incompatibility part of their Kerberoes specification into a new spec called "Microsoft Kerberos Specifications" or something like that, you could now say, "Microsoft's Kerberos specification doesn't include any incompatibility," and saying that would be truthful on the surface but only because of its narrow focus.
Previous P3P specifications did include a protocol to transmit data; and P3P is obviously worthless without one; and the only reason it was taken out is so that the P3P people could say it wasn't in there.
That doesn't appear to be the case at all from a closer look at the documentation. It is described as being intended to allow the user to be selectively notified (at the user's option) when information the user considers critical is being requested and to allow the user to make an informed decision whether to allow that information to be sent. You are claiming that the intent is precisely the opposite. I've seen nothing to back that up other than your rather strident assertions of ill intent.
But you're missing two things. The first is that the ground rules have now shifted - there wasn't previously a way for websites to get information about you unless you made an explicit decision to give it to them. (Ways around this, like Doubleclick's ID-matching have been condemned.) So at best, the situation is the same as before - the user provides information only when they decide to, and they are always notified. In any other situation except the best case, the user is worse off - as soon as they got tired of the pop-up boxes (have you ever tried to set Netscape to notify you when a cookie is being set? How many minutes did it take before you turned that off?) and turned it off. Further, once you say yes, the user-agent will store those preferences so that next time you come back to buystuff.com, your info will be sent silently. As a convenience to you, of course.
I claim the intent is the opposite because it is. Sorry if that seems like proof by assertion, but I've been watching P3P for some years now. If a bunch of major corporations spend a bunch of time on a protocol designed to transmit your personal information to them - that's what it does, and that's all it does - the intent is not for them to get less information from you. Where's the fiscal motive in getting less information? Okay, now where's the fiscal motive in getting more information?
Their loss, then. In the competitive world of the Web, sites that turn away business by implementing such policies won't be around long. You're positing a worst-case scenario and calling it the norm. That's either paranoid or deliberately misleading. And it displays little understanding of how Web commerce actually works.
Just like all the sites that track you with Doubleclick, or demand you have javascript or flash installed to use the site, or require user registration, won't be around long... Think of how many sites you've been required to "register" with to use. Are they all out of business? Why not?
God protect me from those who would save me from myself. Thank you, but I don't turn off features that apply security/privacy policies with which I agree.
You would if it popped-up a box every time you went to a new website.
Slashdot Mirror
If Mr. Coward had read the PROMINENTLY LINKED story at the top of this article, he'd know it isn't the OEMs' decision, but Microsoft's policy.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The sections are also accessible from the section links at the left side of the page, or the section links at the bottom of a story on the main page.
Or a YRO slashbox, of course.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I've never seen this submission. Doesn't mean you didn't submit it, because a number of people read and cull the submissions bin, but I've never seen it before now.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
People do go around, every day, making up stories about how Andover is suing them, saying we're censoring stories, etc. etc. etc.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Site <> readers.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There was no intent to beat up on the site. I like kuro5hin, I have an account there.
The intent was to beat up on the conspiracy theorists, who mainly reside on slashdot.org but seem to have migrated to k5 as well.
I hope people can see that the site and the posters are two distinct entities.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Funny (I wonder what percentage of slashdot readers will get the reference?), but untrue. It went down as stated; your beloved YRO editors jamie and I started getting deluged with submissions, tried to figure out what was going on before posting, and pretty much gave up in the "he said, she said" maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This question gets asked about every third or fourth book review. (Check if you don't believe me.) The answer, as always, is the same: the reviewers review books they want to review, which usually means books they liked. If I read half a crappy book and then toss it back on the bookcase, am I going to take the time to write up a review? Not unless some editor forces me to... and we don't do that.
:)
I suppose if I read something really blatantly bad, really pustulent and horrid, I might be tempted to review it and pan it, in the spirit of "Mission to Mars". But if it were merely bad, merely not-so-good, where's the motivation?
Note that readers are welcome to submit book reviews to slashdot for posting! If they're any good (by which I mean well-written, not necessarily favorable) we'll post them! Submit your negative reviews if that's what you want to see... For example, I haven't found any really bad O'Reilly books yet, but if there are any, I want to know, because when I want to learn about a subject I usually just find the O'Reilly book on that subject and buy it, sight unseen. Save me from buying an O'Reilly stinker!
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Now why is it that I emailed you earlier today, telling you that it was a troll (on the off-chance that you were a sucker instead of a troll yourself), and the email didn't bounce, and yet here you are, still trolling the same old line? Can it be that you're a troll yourself? With an email address like natalie_portman@evilemail.com? Heavens.
It's a troll, people. Nothing to see here, move along.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It's a troll.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Give us some suggestions, we'll try to get them.
Sometimes the schedule is broken for reasons beyond our control, generally interviewees that take an inordinately long time to respond. But we're still shooting for one/week.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The best of your knowledge must not include slashdot's search function.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There's a sliding scale. If you're a big fish (a radio station), the recording industry pays you to air the song, under the table, which is officially illegal. If you're a small fish (you want to play music in your store, or club, or what-have-you), then you pay the recording industry.
You ever heard some radio station play the same song 20 times in one day? Now you know why...
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Gladiator.
You won't regret it.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
This is marked up as funny, but actually we here at slashdot are getting a copy of the videotape and will be digitizing it and making it available online.
I guess you could record your own DVD of it...
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Readers Demand It
Lack Of Follow-Through, They Cry
We Serve Most Humbly.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Actually we continue to post a ton of articles from Salon. Because the search function is broken right now, you can only get the first page of search results, which shows a lot of stories which have "salon" in them twice, due to the story name including "salon". If you said the magic words and looked at the second page of search results, you'd see that we posted stories from Salon (which happened to only include the word "salon" in them once) on 5-31-2000, 5-16, 5-12, 5-9, 4-25, 4-23, 4-13, etc.
I admit we purposely skipped the Stallman "free software and free sex" story. It was flamebait.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But this isn't true. Most websites on the internet are put up as a labor of love, and neither charge for admission nor have advertising. Saying that "advertising keeps the internet free" is to ignore the huge mass of content put up by individuals who have no interest in profiting from it.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Sheesh.
Maybe out of the 500 submissions of this story, 499 of them have been deleted, and one has been designated for a "slashback" article scheduled for later today. Maybe the entire slashdot crew is sick and tired of YANS (Yet Another Napster Story) in which the only commentary is "Napster Is Stealing! Is Not! Is Too! Is Not!" and we don't frigging feel like running another one today. Maybe this has already been noted in comments in yesterday's Napster story (yes, yesterday's), as well as about 30 people like you who want to post this breaking hot news in totally unrelated stories.
Hey, what do you think the odds of that are? Naw, probably slashdot is "hiding the story"/"only wants to build hype"/let me find a few more accusations from the comments. That's probably it.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Um.... why? Convince me.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
FWIW, moderators, this guy is a fake. I'm not sure if it's someone trying to impersonate and defame a real individual, or if it's just someone trying to see how misinformation can get moderated up if it's written in a certain fashion, but either way, there's a lesson here: don't mod something "informative" because of its tone.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Some stories (an increasing number, actually) are posted under the sections, see links, left side of the screen, in a grey box. Going to the BSD section, for example, includes both front-page and section-only BSD stories.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Moving something out of the spec to hide it doesn't help. If MS moved the incompatibility part of their Kerberoes specification into a new spec called "Microsoft Kerberos Specifications" or something like that, you could now say, "Microsoft's Kerberos specification doesn't include any incompatibility," and saying that would be truthful on the surface but only because of its narrow focus.
Previous P3P specifications did include a protocol to transmit data; and P3P is obviously worthless without one; and the only reason it was taken out is so that the P3P people could say it wasn't in there.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But you're missing two things. The first is that the ground rules have now shifted - there wasn't previously a way for websites to get information about you unless you made an explicit decision to give it to them. (Ways around this, like Doubleclick's ID-matching have been condemned.) So at best, the situation is the same as before - the user provides information only when they decide to, and they are always notified. In any other situation except the best case, the user is worse off - as soon as they got tired of the pop-up boxes (have you ever tried to set Netscape to notify you when a cookie is being set? How many minutes did it take before you turned that off?) and turned it off. Further, once you say yes, the user-agent will store those preferences so that next time you come back to buystuff.com, your info will be sent silently. As a convenience to you, of course.
I claim the intent is the opposite because it is. Sorry if that seems like proof by assertion, but I've been watching P3P for some years now. If a bunch of major corporations spend a bunch of time on a protocol designed to transmit your personal information to them - that's what it does, and that's all it does - the intent is not for them to get less information from you. Where's the fiscal motive in getting less information? Okay, now where's the fiscal motive in getting more information?
Just like all the sites that track you with Doubleclick, or demand you have javascript or flash installed to use the site, or require user registration, won't be around long... Think of how many sites you've been required to "register" with to use. Are they all out of business? Why not?
You would if it popped-up a box every time you went to a new website.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org