OK -- here's my thoughts on moderation (please hear this out)
Traditional media's handling of feedback (such as a newspaper's "Letters" page) has been "moderated" by the editors. People reading the publication have provided some level of trust to the publisher. I'd assume most small weblogs run like this... (I'd guess slashdot did initially, and I think Technocrat did until recently.) Let's call this "cathedral" style moderation.
A key problem with this is accusations of bias on the part of the moderator. (E.g.: Rob Malda moderating down or deleting a post that says "Rob/Slashdot/Andover/VA sucks" because he has Evil Self-Interest at heart and silences the anonymous whistleblower's voice.)
To escape from accusations of bias, we create a new moderation system -- randomly give moderation power out to the readers! This relieves the burden from the operator's shoulders of being called 'evil censors'. Call this "Bazaar style" moderation.
But the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. So -- we have a system, "bazaar-style", that/kinda/ works. However, many potentially good "AC" posts may be overlooked, and many posts later saying the same thing (or saying it less well) from higher karma ppl may "float up".
Proposed solution: Reader-chosen trusted editors. Give the readers choice by leveraging the database-nature of the discussion sites. Keep a policy like slashdot -- no censorship, no matter what. But give me 3 (or 4?) choices when reading the comments on a story instead of 2. Currently I get to choose 1) read the comments that are at or above my chosen 'score'. 2) Read them all at -1. Add a 3rd choice -- read the comments scored up by editors I trust. (In slashdot's case, have some ppl on staff at VA/Andover/Slashdot, with good knowledge of journalism ethics, whose jobs it is to read and score EVERY comment.) Give me the choice to place my trust in those editors, so I can see the good AC-posted followups, without the fifty trolls.
The bazaar-style moderation may save the operators from censorship accusations, but the random public are not necessarily the most qualified moderators.
OK -- here's my thoughts on moderation (please hear this out)
Traditional media's handling of feedback (such as a newspaper's "Letters" page) has been "moderated" by the editors. People reading the publication have provided some level of trust to the publisher. I'd assume most small weblogs run like this... (I'd guess slashdot did initially, and I think Technocrat did until recently.) Let's call this "cathedral" style moderation.
A key problem with this is accusations of bias on the part of the moderator. (E.g.: Rob Malda moderating down or deleting a post that says "Rob/Slashdot/Andover/VA sucks" because he has Evil Self-Interest at heart and silences the anonymous whistleblower's voice.)
To escape from accusations of bias, we create a new moderation system -- randomly give moderation power out to the readers! This relieves the burden from the operator's shoulders of being called 'evil censors'. Call this "Bazaar style" moderation.
But the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. So -- we have a system, "bazaar-style", that/kinda/ works. However, many potentially good "AC" posts may be overlooked, and many posts later saying the same thing (or saying it less well) from higher karma ppl may "float up".
Proposed solution: Reader-chosen trusted editors. Give the readers choice by leveraging the database-nature of the discussion sites. Keep a policy like slashdot -- no censorship, no matter what. But give me 3 (or 4?) choices when reading the comments on a story instead of 2. Currently I get to choose 1) read the comments that are at or above my chosen 'score'. 2) Read them all at -1. Add a 3rd choice -- read the comments scored up by editors I trust. (In slashdot's case, have some ppl on staff at VA/Andover/Slashdot, with good knowledge of journalism ethics, whose jobs it is to read and score EVERY comment.) Give me the choice to place my trust in those editors, so I can see the good AC-posted followups, without the fifty trolls.
The bazaar-style moderation may save the operators from censorship accusations, but the random public are not necessarily the most qualified moderators.
EFNET May Be Forced To Open IRC The Internet |
Posted by Hobart on 3:15 PM September 13th, 2000 from the script-kiddies-dream dept.
IRCop writes: "Apparently, EFNET might have to open up their IRC protocal, according to a IRCNews article. The FCC seems to be concerned about their IRC dominance. Imagine that." This has been rumored several times before, with no action from the government. Meanwhile, EFNET continues to dominate the scene.
PowerVCR may be a step in the right direction...
on
Software-Based TIVO?
·
· Score: 2
CyberLink, makers of PowerDVD have a product called PowerVCR -- however I don't think this has the TV guide and record-what-you-might-like features of TiVo.
Submitting your comments is apparently a two step
process -- the first is to fill out the form with
your personal information (the "proceeding" heading at the title should have 00-67 put in there)
Next, you use your browser to send the file. I
put my comments in ASCII text, and pretty much
took the boilerplate letter from here:
Regardless of how high-powered the card is, the card is effectively useless for any market beyond the kid playing games who doesn't mind having to reboot every hour or two because the card locks up. ATI never produced a card with a stable video driver for WinNT4 (BSOD anyone?) and they won't provide specs for a stable driver to be written by the community (Linux/BSD/Windows/Whatever). Moderate this down.
AGREED: ATI's drivers = BSOD!
on
ATI Radeon 256
·
· Score: 1
On three different systems (2 laptop, 1 desktop) running varieties of ATI Rage chipset cards under NT4.0, I lived in constant fear of STOP errors caused by ATIRAGE32.DLL... Thank God for GNU Screen and NTFS' journaling...
Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
This was definitely the case in 1985, and still applies to some extent today. However with the advent of the year 2000's systems (and the primary target has changed from 68000-type multiuser boxes to individual PC's), how do you feel about the idea that Microsoft's Windows 2000 environment has several key things "done right" that the Free software community still is significantly lacking for having a reliable Free-software based solution for everyone's needs? In today's world, would not a Windows user / programmer experience be the most "convenient for many other people to adopt"?
While D&D is the hot topic -- I might point out that Gary Gygax, author of D&D, has a new game out. Pick up a copy and give feedback to help it develop into a good game!
I've lost large amounts of work due to Rage DLL (ATI video card driver) crashes (Blue screens) under NT4, both on a Dell Inspiron 7000 series laptop, and a Dell Dimension XPST500 desktop. I would not recommend anyone purchase an ATI card. Other posters have already commented that ATI has no plans to release the card's specifications to enable a Free driver... ...and I have no reason to doubt that this new card will be as bug ridden as its predecessors.
DustPuppy83 reports: "Scott Kurtz, creator of the game-centric comic strip PvP, said something bad about User Friendly on his web site. Let us know when you spot him."
It's nice to see that I can still buy the Zork set (for $15!), and I'm sure with a little twiddling the Z-code could be run on Your Favorite Platform... (I ordered the Infocom Masterpieces from here. Search for Infocom on http://store.activision.com/ if the link is broken)
Slashdot Mirror
Or aliens might accidentally upset our planet or solar system while carrying out some grandiose interstellar construction project.
;-)
Golly, where have I heard this before?!
"Yeah, but it's just a stupid Mac!"
OK -- here's my thoughts on moderation (please hear this out)
... (I'd guess slashdot did initially, and I think Technocrat did until recently.) Let's call this "cathedral" style moderation.
/kinda/ works. However, many potentially good "AC" posts may be overlooked, and many posts later saying the same thing (or saying it less well) from higher karma ppl may "float up".
Traditional media's handling of feedback (such as a newspaper's "Letters" page) has been "moderated" by the editors. People reading the publication have provided some level of trust to the publisher. I'd assume most small weblogs run like this
A key problem with this is accusations of bias on the part of the moderator. (E.g.: Rob Malda moderating down or deleting a post that says "Rob/Slashdot/Andover/VA sucks" because he has Evil Self-Interest at heart and silences the anonymous whistleblower's voice.)
To escape from accusations of bias, we create a new moderation system -- randomly give moderation power out to the readers! This relieves the burden from the operator's shoulders of being called 'evil censors'. Call this "Bazaar style" moderation.
But the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. So -- we have a system, "bazaar-style", that
Proposed solution: Reader-chosen trusted editors. Give the readers choice by leveraging the database-nature of the discussion sites. Keep a policy like slashdot -- no censorship, no matter what. But give me 3 (or 4?) choices when reading the comments on a story instead of 2. Currently I get to choose 1) read the comments that are at or above my chosen 'score'. 2) Read them all at -1. Add a 3rd choice -- read the comments scored up by editors I trust. (In slashdot's case, have some ppl on staff at VA/Andover/Slashdot, with good knowledge of journalism ethics, whose jobs it is to read and score EVERY comment.) Give me the choice to place my trust in those editors, so I can see the good AC-posted followups, without the fifty trolls.
The bazaar-style moderation may save the operators from censorship accusations, but the random public are not necessarily the most qualified moderators.
-jon "karma whore in training"
OK -- here's my thoughts on moderation (please hear this out)
... (I'd guess slashdot did initially, and I think Technocrat did until recently.) Let's call this "cathedral" style moderation.
/kinda/ works. However, many potentially good "AC" posts may be overlooked, and many posts later saying the same thing (or saying it less well) from higher karma ppl may "float up".
Traditional media's handling of feedback (such as a newspaper's "Letters" page) has been "moderated" by the editors. People reading the publication have provided some level of trust to the publisher. I'd assume most small weblogs run like this
A key problem with this is accusations of bias on the part of the moderator. (E.g.: Rob Malda moderating down or deleting a post that says "Rob/Slashdot/Andover/VA sucks" because he has Evil Self-Interest at heart and silences the anonymous whistleblower's voice.)
To escape from accusations of bias, we create a new moderation system -- randomly give moderation power out to the readers! This relieves the burden from the operator's shoulders of being called 'evil censors'. Call this "Bazaar style" moderation.
But the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. So -- we have a system, "bazaar-style", that
Proposed solution: Reader-chosen trusted editors. Give the readers choice by leveraging the database-nature of the discussion sites. Keep a policy like slashdot -- no censorship, no matter what. But give me 3 (or 4?) choices when reading the comments on a story instead of 2. Currently I get to choose 1) read the comments that are at or above my chosen 'score'. 2) Read them all at -1. Add a 3rd choice -- read the comments scored up by editors I trust. (In slashdot's case, have some ppl on staff at VA/Andover/Slashdot, with good knowledge of journalism ethics, whose jobs it is to read and score EVERY comment.) Give me the choice to place my trust in those editors, so I can see the good AC-posted followups, without the fifty trolls.
The bazaar-style moderation may save the operators from censorship accusations, but the random public are not necessarily the most qualified moderators.
-jon "karma whore in training"
http://www.penny-a rcade.c om/view.php3?date=2000-09-04&res=l
EFNET May Be Forced To Open IRC
The Internet | Posted by Hobart on 3:15 PM September 13th, 2000
from the script-kiddies-dream dept.
IRCop writes: "Apparently, EFNET might have to open up their IRC protocal, according to a IRCNews article. The FCC seems to be concerned about their IRC dominance. Imagine that." This has been rumored several times before, with no action from the government. Meanwhile, EFNET continues to dominate the scene.
CyberLink, makers of PowerDVD have a product called PowerVCR -- however I don't think this has the TV guide and record-what-you-might-like features of TiVo.
Submit your comments via the two step process into the FCC's automated system for recieving comments from the public -- ECFS:
r =hrrc&comptype=agency&agency=1 12&message=101
http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html
Submitting your comments is apparently a two step process -- the first is to fill out the form with your personal information (the "proceeding" heading at the title should have 00-67 put in there)
Next, you use your browser to send the file. I put my comments in ASCII text, and pretty much took the boilerplate letter from here:
http://congress.nw.dc.us/cgi-bin/oo_compose.pl?di
and added my signature to the bottom.
Then there's a confirmation page, and your comments are on file with the FCC.
(I think this will work better than bulkmailing the inboxes of the FCC comissioners, which will likely be tuned out.)
Wao -- Lara Croft painted platinum ...
You sure this isn't the Naked and Petrified Guy?
That's actually 1210Mhz ... ;-)
Regardless of how high-powered the card is,
the card is effectively useless for any market
beyond the kid playing games who doesn't mind
having to reboot every hour or two because the
card locks up. ATI never produced a card with
a stable video driver for WinNT4 (BSOD anyone?)
and they won't provide specs for a stable driver
to be written by the community (Linux/BSD/Windows/Whatever).
Moderate this down.
On three different systems (2 laptop, 1 desktop) running varieties of ATI Rage chipset cards under NT4.0, I lived in constant fear of STOP errors caused by ATIRAGE32.DLL ... Thank God for GNU Screen and NTFS' journaling...
Check out Philip and Alex's guide to web publishing. This the book you were looking for?
- Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
This was definitely the case in 1985, and still applies to some extent today. However with the advent of the year 2000's systems (and the primary target has changed from 68000-type multiuser boxes to individual PC's), how do you feel about the idea that Microsoft's Windows 2000 environment has several key things "done right" that the Free software community still is significantly lacking for having a reliable Free-software based solution for everyone's needs? In today's world, would not a Windows user / programmer experience be the most "convenient for many other people to adopt"?Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
Found while looking for info on SSH over UDP:
/devel/cipe.html
http://sites.inka.de/sites/bigred
While D&D is the hot topic -- I might point out that Gary Gygax, author of D&D, has a new game out. Pick up a copy and give feedback to help it develop into a good game!
I've lost large amounts of work due to Rage DLL (ATI video card driver) crashes (Blue screens) under NT4, both on a Dell Inspiron 7000 series laptop, and a Dell Dimension XPST500 desktop.
I would not recommend anyone purchase an ATI card.
Other posters have already commented that ATI has no plans to release the card's specifications to enable a Free driver...
...and I have no reason to doubt that this new card will be as bug ridden as its predecessors.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
...
If Verne "Mini-Me" Troyer can make it into a many-page pictoral for Christmas as "Mini-Hef"
...why can't we have "St IGNUcius' Happy Happy hacking run"?
Starring the girls of the mansion as the The Techno-Talking Babes(TM)?
from the jihad!-jihad! dept.
DustPuppy83 reports: "Scott Kurtz, creator of the game-centric comic strip PvP, said something bad about User Friendly on his web site. Let us know when you spot him."
Isn't this exactly the sort of article that should get the "Jihad! JIHAD!" penguin icon from Suckdot? :-)
Looking at the specs though, the Barbie PC comes with a Digital Camera, whereas the Hot Wheels simply comes with more games...
It's nice to see that I can still buy the Zork set (for $15!), and I'm sure with a little twiddling the Z-code could be run on Your Favorite Platform... (I ordered the Infocom Masterpieces from here. Search for Infocom on http://store.activision.com/ if the link is broken)