at one chop shop, where I was a sysop, we would routinely order the smallest drive within a series and when it arrived, swap the logic from the failed, larger capacity drive, from the same series & viola!... more megs
After some thought, I believe that/. could be improved in such a way as to increase the number of accepted submissions and, at the same time, narrow down the number of articles and responses that a user receives. The first part, increasing the volume of articles depends upon the skill of the editors / managers / owners. The second part depends on the versatility of the filters and the creativity of the user. Given talent and time, there is a good chance Slashdot could be fine tuned in a manner not yet possible in an online discussion.
With all due respect, I'm troubled by the fact that so many articles are rejected by the "editors". It seems to me that there are simply not enough articles. Perhaps the editors are being too selective? How do we know how much better it could be if these same editors insist on always only doing it their way. This isn't my idea of an informal discussion, or even a campus bulletin board, unless said board has an over vigilant monitor. Personally. I feel the the editors demonstrate poor management in trying to over-control the slashdot community.
As for the format of a typical article, I wonder why you don't post better guidelines? Perhaps the editors could create a page that actual lists your requirements and has a clear example of a well formatted submission? As well, would some feedback be too much to ask for, even just once in awhile? After all, it is impossible to improve without feedback, no?
By the way, I really wonder if you've ever considered the number of man hours you just so casually discard on a daily basis? As well, have you considered how much more informative slashdot might be by know, had you encouraged submissions and developed a working system to manage the subsequent volume?
I hope you can take the the time to consider my polite points and I hope you can see why I'm so disappointed in the status quo.
Yes, Myth and a few other small scale and mostly open source multimedia apps are workable. However, the exceptions prove the rule. Currently, as far as I can see there is no commercial software that is acceptably reliable or well supported. IMHO, people have just gotten used to crap.
The last apps I used that I trusted were either Emacs or WordPerfect 5.1
Having a submission rejected is the norm, always has been. I've seen this complaint as long as I've been lurking here (97 or 98). The only time I don't remember seeing this was when reading the story & comments filled *1* page.
Sigh. The problem is it shouldn't be the norm, nor should it ever have been allowed to become the norm. You haven't provided any real objection here, so am I correct in assuming that you really can't disagree with my statement?
I agree with you that/. is much much more open (sometimes to a fault) than most other sites.
As well, I clearly stated that I don't believe/., as a site, is really that open. In fact, I specifically argued that it is not that open enough at all. As well, I argued that it needs to be more open.
In addition to your suggestion above, what else do think could make/. better?
As for my solution. Simple, let story selection be done by a larger, elected group.
This all looks good, on the outside ...
on
The Year of the HTPC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hey, don't get me wrong... it's looking good. However, what about the inside? I mean, when do we get software that actually works as advertised?
Thank goodness for open hardware standards. Now, if only the software industry had some integrity. After all, if cars crashed as much as software, people would walk.
Sir, with all due rspect, the real problem is the editors and their rates of rejection. I've submitted a number of articles only to have them turned down without explanation. Why should I bother to waste my time further? If there was some feedback as to why you've rejected it, perhaps the submissions could improve.
Furthermore, why not let the readers, or a select group, decide which submissions could be accepted. Why does it have to be a small, elite and privileged group? It seems tyrannical and not in keeping with the open nature of this community or its medium.
In short, I feel you've done a poor job in fostering interesting submissions and the entire community is suffering from the need of few to promote their own status.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." ~ R.A. Heinlein (The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail)
Why not?... Are we afraid?... Why should we be afraid? I'm not. As far as I'm concerned, let the truth stand and the facts being known. I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Actually, sure. However, no, I don't mean secrecy should never be used, just rarely and temporarily. I fear internal secrecy more than I fear all external opposition. See?
If there needs be conflict, why can't it be met honestly and openly?
The fact is that George Lucas and company have made billions from Star Wars fans. These same fans are the ones doing the downloading. I fail to see how suing your own customers can be considered to be good business.
In truth, the MPAA is clearly just motivated by greed and is clearly incompetent. The movie and music industries have perverted the law and are simply practicing profiteers. The real crime here is in how the affluent have corrupted the system in order to generate excessive profits in order to fund lavish lifestyles.
ok, let's say you don't like and or trust voting machines, so perhaps you don't vote
meanwhile the less educated, less technical and less thoughtful people, who see only the convenience, vote in greater numbers
this could shift the outcome to candidates, and parties, who directly appeal to the shallow and more popular issues, directly leading to a shallow, populist government
Second they decided on an open architecture so that other manufacturers could produce and sell compatible machines -- the IBM PC compatibles, so the specification of the ROM BIOS was published. IBM hoped to maintain their position in the market by royalties from licensing the BIOS, and by keeping ahead of the competition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC (italics are mine)
My point still stands. I'd probably have owned a Mac or be using a Mac OS if Steve Jobs wasn't so much like Bill Gates. I'm just glad there wasn't a similiar egotist running IBM at the time.
Of course, anyone who dares to question Apple is always labelled. Why is that? Insecurity, perhaps?
Ah, the golden years, eh. What an opportunity they had! It's just too bad they blew it. I've always admired Apple, however, I've never owned one. I just can't get past the lack of open standards. It's really a shame when you consider the influence they could have had. Personally, I'm just glad that IBM was smart enough to see an industry instead of a market.
Slashdot Mirror
the truth is, it's not where you're at
it's what you make of it
oh, and home is where the heart is
buerocrats don't build, engineers do
... tender a contract
NASA is a bureaucracy, not a construction company
the only thing NASA can build is even more bureaucracy
if you want a moon base, space station, etc
at one chop shop, where I was a sysop, we would routinely order the smallest drive within a series and when it arrived, swap the logic from the failed, larger capacity drive, from the same series & viola! ... more megs
ah the joys of hacking
gee, just think of the things we could build if we wisely spent our money
instead we waste it on selfish unsatisfying consumerism
go figure
thankfully, this type of tyranny will only result in better anonymity
if software was reasonably priced, there would be very little piracy
After some thought, I believe that /. could be improved in such a way as to increase the number of accepted submissions and, at the same time, narrow down the number of articles and responses that a user receives. The first part, increasing the volume of articles depends upon the skill of the editors / managers / owners. The second part depends on the versatility of the filters and the creativity of the user. Given talent and time, there is a good chance Slashdot could be fine tuned in a manner not yet possible in an online discussion.
With all due respect, I'm troubled by the fact that so many articles are rejected by the "editors". It seems to me that there are simply not enough articles. Perhaps the editors are being too selective? How do we know how much better it could be if these same editors insist on always only doing it their way. This isn't my idea of an informal discussion, or even a campus bulletin board, unless said board has an over vigilant monitor. Personally. I feel the the editors demonstrate poor management in trying to over-control the slashdot community.
As for the format of a typical article, I wonder why you don't post better guidelines? Perhaps the editors could create a page that actual lists your requirements and has a clear example of a well formatted submission? As well, would some feedback be too much to ask for, even just once in awhile? After all, it is impossible to improve without feedback, no?
By the way, I really wonder if you've ever considered the number of man hours you just so casually discard on a daily basis? As well, have you considered how much more informative slashdot might be by know, had you encouraged submissions and developed a working system to manage the subsequent volume?
I hope you can take the the time to consider my polite points and I hope you can see why I'm so disappointed in the status quo.
Yes, Myth and a few other small scale and mostly open source multimedia apps are workable. However, the exceptions prove the rule. Currently, as far as I can see there is no commercial software that is acceptably reliable or well supported. IMHO, people have just gotten used to crap.
The last apps I used that I trusted were either Emacs or WordPerfect 5.1
Having a submission rejected is the norm, always has been. I've seen this complaint as long as I've been lurking here (97 or 98). The only time I don't remember seeing this was when reading the story & comments filled *1* page.
/. is much much more open (sometimes to a fault) than most other sites.
/., as a site, is really that open. In fact, I specifically argued that it is not that open enough at all. As well, I argued that it needs to be more open.
/. better?
Sigh. The problem is it shouldn't be the norm, nor should it ever have been allowed to become the norm. You haven't provided any real objection here, so am I correct in assuming that you really can't disagree with my statement?
I agree with you that
As well, I clearly stated that I don't believe
In addition to your suggestion above, what else do think could make
As for my solution. Simple, let story selection be done by a larger, elected group.
Hey, don't get me wrong ... it's looking good. However, what about the inside? I mean, when do we get software that actually works as advertised?
Thank goodness for open hardware standards. Now, if only the software industry had some integrity. After all, if cars crashed as much as software, people would walk.
Sir, with all due rspect, the real problem is the editors and their rates of rejection. I've submitted a number of articles only to have them turned down without explanation. Why should I bother to waste my time further? If there was some feedback as to why you've rejected it, perhaps the submissions could improve.
Furthermore, why not let the readers, or a select group, decide which submissions could be accepted. Why does it have to be a small, elite and privileged group? It seems tyrannical and not in keeping with the open nature of this community or its medium.
In short, I feel you've done a poor job in fostering interesting submissions and the entire community is suffering from the need of few to promote their own status.
sigh ... size doesn't matter, nor even winning.
Simply fighting back earns both respect and self confidence.
Everyone has difficulties; even gifted people. Everyone is struggling to overcome thier own personal difficulties.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
~ R.A. Heinlein (The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail)
factually, it's no longer really a true democracy
in truth it's actually become a damned plutocracy
Why not? ... Are we afraid? ... Why should we be afraid? I'm not. As far as I'm concerned, let the truth stand and the facts being known. I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Can our government say the same?
So, just what is the rationale behind the rising and excessive cost of government secrecy?
No anwser? My, how shocking!
Actually, sure. However, no, I don't mean secrecy should never be used, just rarely and temporarily. I fear internal secrecy more than I fear all external opposition. See?
If there needs be conflict, why can't it be met honestly and openly?
... feel the need to hide behind secrecy.
If they could be proud, they would be loud.
Project on Government Secrecy http://www.fas.org/sgp/
the existence of commerce does not imply immorality, rather immorality acts against existing commerce
The fact is that George Lucas and company have made billions from Star Wars fans. These same fans are the ones doing the downloading. I fail to see how suing your own customers can be considered to be good business.
In truth, the MPAA is clearly just motivated by greed and is clearly incompetent. The movie and music industries have perverted the law and are simply practicing profiteers. The real crime here is in how the affluent have corrupted the system in order to generate excessive profits in order to fund lavish lifestyles.
ok, let's say you don't like and or trust voting machines, so perhaps you don't vote
meanwhile the less educated, less technical and less thoughtful people, who see only the convenience, vote in greater numbers
this could shift the outcome to candidates, and parties, who directly appeal to the shallow and more popular issues, directly leading to a shallow, populist government
Copyright Durations
...the copyright term began on the date of publication or registration, and originally lasted 28 years... g ht_durations.html
1 33.html
h tml
http://www.bromsun.com/practice/copyrights/copyri
bulk.resource.org
Data rescued by media.org.
http://bulk.resource.org/copyright/
Copyright Clearance Center
http://www.copyright.com/
Copyright in Cyberspace
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/0963702513p
Copyright Management Center
http://copyright.iupui.edu/
Copyright Website
http://www.benedict.com/
FAIRCOPY
http://www.faircopy.com/
Janis Ian
The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.
FALLOUT - a follow up to The Internet Debacle
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
Musicians Against Copyrighting Of Samples
http://www.icomm.ca/macos/
Stanford University Libraries
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
What is Copyright Protection
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
and then there's the whole story ...
Second they decided on an open architecture so that other manufacturers could produce and sell compatible machines -- the IBM PC compatibles, so the specification of the ROM BIOS was published. IBM hoped to maintain their position in the market by royalties from licensing the BIOS, and by keeping ahead of the competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC (italics are mine)
My point still stands. I'd probably have owned a Mac or be using a Mac OS if Steve Jobs wasn't so much like Bill Gates. I'm just glad there wasn't a similiar egotist running IBM at the time.
Of course, anyone who dares to question Apple is always labelled. Why is that? Insecurity, perhaps?
Ah, the golden years, eh. What an opportunity they had! It's just too bad they blew it. I've always admired Apple, however, I've never owned one. I just can't get past the lack of open standards. It's really a shame when you consider the influence they could have had. Personally, I'm just glad that IBM was smart enough to see an industry instead of a market.
Sadly, Mr. Jobs still needs to work this.
Sigh. No actually, I'm not confusing the two. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this topic, eavesdropping is not acceptable in public.
When you need to stretch so much, you only serve to weaken your own position.