1) Metmod. I know lots of people think metamod doesn't work, but I think it does - it's imperfect but it's the best way to avoid handing moderation to people who make moderations most people disagree with.
See here for an explanation of why metamod doesn't work. I stopped using metamod ages ago.
2) Posting rule. This might be even more effective - the fact fact that you cannot moderate AND post. Since most people want to weigh in on a topic it means people moderating are willing to hang back and moderate up stuff the agree with, more than moderate down... yes you could bury a bunch of stuff but at the risk of posts you think are good getting buried too. This arms race means that generally more posts will get modded up.
.. because sockpuppets are so difficult to create?
Sorry, but what stops a "/.patriot" from opening multiple browsers each with their own accounts? if one account isn't eligible to moderate today, use it to post.
That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.
Sorry, but your own quotes say that I am right.
I shall quote my own post:
A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer:
You say...
Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work
When your citations say:
"the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase."
And
Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow.
So - if drivers don't adapt, how exactly is that "proven to work"?
I think your quotes show that it's your argument on this topic that could be classified as "BS", not mine.
Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.
As you're so good at providing citations, perhaps you could show me where exactly I (or the post I was replying to) said anything about red light cameras one way or the other. I didn't remember writing anything about it, and I just checked and couldn't spot it.
It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.
Agreed. However, as my post wasn't about the cameras, perhaps we can play mutual masturbation another time?
The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.
A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.
They've been installed in my city at a few intersections - they were originally intended for pedestrian signals, but they work *really* well for drivers - it tells you exactly how much time you have to make the light, and you can start slowing down earlier.
Incorrect. It may be ineffective from a technical perspective, but it clearly qualifies as effective under the definition in the DMCA.
or a copy protection measure.
Mu. It doesn't need to be a copy protection measure - it needs to "prevent access" - which it does.
Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place.
Incorrect.
Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory.
Which is pretty meaningless. Under the DMCA, technological measures have no such requirements. In fact, when addressing the issue of "I can't play these movies on my OS of choice", the Copyright office said that argument was the equivalent of demanding VHS systems play Betamax tapes.
So I'm expecting the usual reaction from the Slashdot audience cheering the gloriously free nature of information on the net and our ability to stick it to the man.
This has nothing to do with us "sticking it" to anyone. This is about a dinosaur who is sticking it to himself.
I'm asking a sincere question, as the journalists really do have to get paid eventually. Advertisers? Probably not with the click rates the way they are nowadays.
Why is that? Why is it that internet ads get paid on the number of people who immediately stop what they're doing and go to the advertiser's site, but "traditional" media doesn't?
Why is it that with "traditional" media advertising, the goal is brand awareness, but on the internet, it's direct sales? Why are TV ads not paid based on the number of people who immediately stop what they're doing and rush out to buy the advertised product?
Even with the rare internet ad program that's CFM-based, the amount is a tiny fraction of the amount of traditional media.
Either advertising is about brand awareness, or it's about direct sales. If it's about direct sales, then people like Murdoch have been lying to their clients for decades. If it's about brand awareness, then one of the following must be true:
A) Brand awareness is only worth a fraction of the amount that traditional advertisers are paying, and thus they are being ripped off.
B) Brand awareness is worth what they're paying for traditional advertising, and therefore advertisers are being severely undercharged for internet advertising.
If (A) is true, then traditional media is dead, and your question of "how will journalists get paid" is moot - Advertisers will wake up, realize the medium is irrelevant, and no journalist will be paid regardless of whether they're "traditional" or "internet".
If (B) is true, then internet news sites will begin raising their ad rates, and "internet" journalists will be paid just like their "traditional" counterparts.
In order to remain in business, Murdoch must believe that (A) is true, and thus he should stop with the stupid stunts and instead work on his salesmanship - he needs to convince advertisers that "click through" is a meaningless metric for determining the worth of an advertisement.
I assume of course that your logic has led you to also blame Clinton for all the failures that led up to 9/11, right? I mean, Bush only had 9 months in office and didn't have time to redo all the damage Clinton had done to our intelligence apparatuses.
And Courtney Love's article was heavily based on an article by Steve Albini in "Maximum Rock and Roll", 20 years ago - http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
The truth is that code was reused (if not copied, exactly, in the same way you don't submit a copied essay which you've taken from a classmate) from a UNIX derivative, which is now (somewhat disputably) owned by SCO.
No, this is not the truth - it is pretty much the exact opposite of "truth".
We also learned that the whole STREAMS fuss was not about linux
In other news: fire is hot, and bears shit in the woods.
It's well known that Caldera programmers attempted to get STREAMS accepted into the kernel mainline, and the linux devs (most notably Alan Cox) said "no fscking way."
The news isn't that it's not about Linux, but that Kevin McBride is a raving psychotic who claims that because someone else (Gcom) shipped Caldera's GPLed STREAMS implementation, that means that "Linux infringes SCO[X]'s copyrights."
the guy who was actually in Darth Vader's suite never got paid
I thought movies used trailers, not hotel rooms.
and wouldn't Darth Vader be in Darth Vader's suite? Or are you talking about his bodyguard or something? (I would think it would be the actor's responsibility to pay his staff.)
And if you're talking about the actor (or maybe the guy in the suit), instead of his entourage, why would you talk about where he stayed? Why not mention him specifically?
Most of the time anyone's pitching something "light saber" like in their marketing materials [...] I can see why Lucas is trying to get the association away from his name.
Maybe if Wicked had actually done that, you might have a point. But seeing as they don't make any mention of Star Wars, Lucas, Lightsabers, or anything even remotely connected to them in any way, this is just Lucas being a dick.
presenting this information can only decrease the security and value of your savings.
You're an idiot.
As the article states, the information is already known by the bad guys. Keeping it secret helps the bad guys, and hurts everyone else. Making it public will encourage the banks to fix the vulnerabilities, which will increase the security and value of my savings.
anyone that argues that the information needs to be public is probably broke.
No, the people who argue that the information needs to be public actually understand the issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
Or does it tell you what it's gonna do beforehand?
If you install something that says "THIS WILL COST YOU MONEY", and it sends SMS that costs you money, how exactly is that a "trojan"?
1) Metmod. I know lots of people think metamod doesn't work, but I think it does - it's imperfect but it's the best way to avoid handing moderation to people who make moderations most people disagree with.
See here for an explanation of why metamod doesn't work. I stopped using metamod ages ago.
2) Posting rule. This might be even more effective - the fact fact that you cannot moderate AND post. Since most people want to weigh in on a topic it means people moderating are willing to hang back and moderate up stuff the agree with, more than moderate down... yes you could bury a bunch of stuff but at the risk of posts you think are good getting buried too. This arms race means that generally more posts will get modded up.
.. because sockpuppets are so difficult to create?
Sorry, but what stops a "/.patriot" from opening multiple browsers each with their own accounts? if one account isn't eligible to moderate today, use it to post.
I also note they completely ignore the two largest smartphone platforms - Symbian and RIM
Wrong. That would be Android and RIM in the US (where Vonage is based), or Symbian and Android worldwide.
Bruce, you are exactly right - especially after you read things like this.
Actually, I believe he was referring to this, in which audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between monster cables and a coathanger.
That's a BS argument and has been refuted in the real world and has resulted in accidents at the intersection in question being reduced significantly.
Sorry, but your own quotes say that I am right.
I shall quote my own post:
A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer:
You say...
Increasing Yellow signal times is proven to work
When your citations say:
"the percentage of last-to-cross vehicles clearing the intersection (T+0.2) seconds or more past the yellow onset was not appreciably changed by the extension of the yellow phase."
And
Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow.
So - if drivers don't adapt, how exactly is that "proven to work"?
I think your quotes show that it's your argument on this topic that could be classified as "BS", not mine.
Try reading the studies these cameras increase not decrease accidents, the accidents cost more to repair, are more likely to injure people involved, and perversely are more likely to result in a fatality.
As you're so good at providing citations, perhaps you could show me where exactly I (or the post I was replying to) said anything about red light cameras one way or the other. I didn't remember writing anything about it, and I just checked and couldn't spot it.
It's all about the money honey! These cameras are nothing but a dangerous revenue generating scheme.
Agreed. However, as my post wasn't about the cameras, perhaps we can play mutual masturbation another time?
The problem with just increasing the length of yellow is that people will eventually become accustomed to longer yellows, and still run the red.
A better idea is to keep the yellow the same duration, and install a countdown timer: 20 seconds before the light turns yellow show a countdown to the yellow light.
They've been installed in my city at a few intersections - they were originally intended for pedestrian signals, but they work *really* well for drivers - it tells you exactly how much time you have to make the light, and you can start slowing down earlier.
First off CSS isn't protected by the DMCA
The legal system disagrees with you. Seeing as they are y'know lawyers and judges, I hope you won't be offended that I believe them over you.
it fails to be effective
Incorrect. It may be ineffective from a technical perspective, but it clearly qualifies as effective under the definition in the DMCA.
or a copy protection measure.
Mu. It doesn't need to be a copy protection measure - it needs to "prevent access" - which it does.
Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place.
Incorrect.
Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory.
Which is pretty meaningless. Under the DMCA, technological measures have no such requirements. In fact, when addressing the issue of "I can't play these movies on my OS of choice", the Copyright office said that argument was the equivalent of demanding VHS systems play Betamax tapes.
only if your name is Ted Theodore Logan. :)
So I'm expecting the usual reaction from the Slashdot audience cheering the gloriously free nature of information on the net and our ability to stick it to the man.
This has nothing to do with us "sticking it" to anyone. This is about a dinosaur who is sticking it to himself.
I'm asking a sincere question, as the journalists really do have to get paid eventually. Advertisers? Probably not with the click rates the way they are nowadays.
Why is that? Why is it that internet ads get paid on the number of people who immediately stop what they're doing and go to the advertiser's site, but "traditional" media doesn't?
Why is it that with "traditional" media advertising, the goal is brand awareness, but on the internet, it's direct sales? Why are TV ads not paid based on the number of people who immediately stop what they're doing and rush out to buy the advertised product?
Even with the rare internet ad program that's CFM-based, the amount is a tiny fraction of the amount of traditional media.
Either advertising is about brand awareness, or it's about direct sales. If it's about direct sales, then people like Murdoch have been lying to their clients for decades. If it's about brand awareness, then one of the following must be true:
A) Brand awareness is only worth a fraction of the amount that traditional advertisers are paying, and thus they are being ripped off.
B) Brand awareness is worth what they're paying for traditional advertising, and therefore advertisers are being severely undercharged for internet advertising.
If (A) is true, then traditional media is dead, and your question of "how will journalists get paid" is moot - Advertisers will wake up, realize the medium is irrelevant, and no journalist will be paid regardless of whether they're "traditional" or "internet".
If (B) is true, then internet news sites will begin raising their ad rates, and "internet" journalists will be paid just like their "traditional" counterparts.
In order to remain in business, Murdoch must believe that (A) is true, and thus he should stop with the stupid stunts and instead work on his salesmanship - he needs to convince advertisers that "click through" is a meaningless metric for determining the worth of an advertisement.
I assume of course that your logic has led you to also blame Clinton for all the failures that led up to 9/11, right? I mean, Bush only had 9 months in office and didn't have time to redo all the damage Clinton had done to our intelligence apparatuses.
Except for the fact that the intelligence systems were working, and Bush was briefed daily about possible terror attacks before 9/11 and yet decided to ignore the reports.
Now, if you'd like to blame Clinton for the dot-com bubble, that could be roughly analogous to the BP/Gulf crisis for Obama.
That's just shitty. /me ducks
Well, it could be worse - he could be Will Wright :)
Well, both of those are newer than 20 years, but you do deserve something for the effort..
Here you go - two cookies:
And Courtney Love's article was heavily based on an article by Steve Albini in "Maximum Rock and Roll", 20 years ago - http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
I have a cookie for anyone who can one-up that. :)
If someone says something, and you remove it, that's censorship.
No, it's not.
Censorship is:
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
So, you're saying that this is not being deleted? Or that it's not objectionable? If it's not objectionable why is it being deleted? Oh, right:
because discussing magazine articles is offtopic
.. and offtopic stuff isn't objectionable? Again - if it's not objectionable, why is it being deleted?
Your own definition proves that this is indeed censorship.
they try to shoehorn existing paradigms (and therefore existing software and interfaces) into new hardware
*cough*iphone -> ipad*cough*
Thank you for the clarification - I'd thought that Gcom shipped an actual STREAMS implementation, not just an API translator.
Still, just makes my point even further - Kevin claiming that Linux infringes SCOX's copyrights because it "included" STREAMS is just batshit insane.
The truth is that code was reused (if not copied, exactly, in the same way you don't submit a copied essay which you've taken from a classmate) from a UNIX derivative, which is now (somewhat disputably) owned by SCO.
No, this is not the truth - it is pretty much the exact opposite of "truth".
We've suffered this case for how many years and this is their evidence?
Yup. Although you should really put quotes around the word "evidence" when talking about this stuff :)
Someone tell me that they actually had a software engineer with extensive multi-generation and cross platform software development experience testify.
Actually, they had two such engineers inspect it. Both of them said that there was no copying.
SCOX went ahead with their slander and lawsuit anyway.
We also learned that the whole STREAMS fuss was not about linux
In other news: fire is hot, and bears shit in the woods.
It's well known that Caldera programmers attempted to get STREAMS accepted into the kernel mainline, and the linux devs (most notably Alan Cox) said "no fscking way."
The news isn't that it's not about Linux, but that Kevin McBride is a raving psychotic who claims that because someone else (Gcom) shipped Caldera's GPLed STREAMS implementation, that means that "Linux infringes SCO[X]'s copyrights."
the guy who was actually in Darth Vader's suite never got paid
I thought movies used trailers, not hotel rooms.
and wouldn't Darth Vader be in Darth Vader's suite? Or are you talking about his bodyguard or something? (I would think it would be the actor's responsibility to pay his staff.)
And if you're talking about the actor (or maybe the guy in the suit), instead of his entourage, why would you talk about where he stayed? Why not mention him specifically?
Most of the time anyone's pitching something "light saber" like in their marketing materials [...] I can see why Lucas is trying to get the association away from his name.
Maybe if Wicked had actually done that, you might have a point. But seeing as they don't make any mention of Star Wars, Lucas, Lightsabers, or anything even remotely connected to them in any way, this is just Lucas being a dick.
presenting this information can only decrease the security and value of your savings.
You're an idiot.
As the article states, the information is already known by the bad guys. Keeping it secret helps the bad guys, and hurts everyone else. Making it public will encourage the banks to fix the vulnerabilities, which will increase the security and value of my savings.
anyone that argues that the information needs to be public is probably broke.
No, the people who argue that the information needs to be public actually understand the issue here.
The earth has been both hotter and cooler than it is now.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of erroneous logic eldavojohn was talking about. Thank you for providing such a good example.
the global warming nuts haven't really provided much evidence
Climate scientists have provided volumes of evidence. Just because you don't like the fact that it proves you wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.