5-digiter here and avid reader since nearly the beginning. Few comments since there are far smarter people in the forum than me.:) I have to agree with keeping the old site (to me, this is actually a new site compared to the original). The current site is cleaner, leaner, and easier.
1. Comments are king. We can get the stories anywhere. 2. See #1. More whitespace = less comments we can get to. Kill the overkill on whitespace. 3. See #1. Eye-candy = more noise-to-signal. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the commentor's info stupid." 4. See# 1. Keep comments rankable, nestable, and filterable by rank. Don't want to see the trash. 5. To paraphrase God and/or Google "Don't be evil." Slashdot's ancestry is right there with the web itself, and the open source and Linux communities. Selling info and linking logins to FB, Twitter, etc. is an abomination.
I've been a long-term reader and like everyone else, am sad to read about Rob's departure./. was required reading early on in the.com boom days and the rise of Linux. If you weren't reading/., well, you were pretty much out of it. It's now 2011 and I'm still a loyal reader. That says alot with all the abundant distractions on the net.
Rob's biggest contribution by far is the community he and others created here. I mostly lurk given that I'm by far nowhere near the level of expert you encounter here so often, But I've learned more useful tips and been pointed in the right direction by/. commenters more times than I'd care to count.
Thanks to Rob and the entire community.
BTW, seeing your reference to John Katz made me LOL. That shared history (the good AND the bad) is an integral part of/.
Yeah right. A moon base and still no solid ISS?
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let me get this straight, NASA, along with the other nation-state space agencies who still can't get the International Space Station to work correctly or a regular shuttle service, now going to:
1) Develop a vehicle to get stuff back and forth from the moon, and 2) Put a permanent base on the moon?
Jehoozatz, if they can't do it in Earth orbit, how are they going to do it on the moon?
Somehow we seem to regulated broadcast content everyday in the US without worrying about who defines "adult content". As one justice said I believe, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."
Why not take the broadcast networks as an example and say anything that goes there, also goes w/children on the internet.
If NBC/ABC/CBS, etc. can do it, so can other content providers.
Americans were confronted with the same situation in the 1980's when the Japanese behemoth swamped American auto and steel production, leading to the "Rust Belt" throughout the American Northeast. America recovered via the IT and telecommunications industries.
We're now confronted with the same scenario as China and India move into IT industry, threatening American businesses and jobs much like the Japanese did in the 1980's.
And now, as in the 1980's, Americans worried about their jobs and their families, as would ANY culture facing the demise of industries. But we CHANGED then, and we'll do the same now.
It's called the process of creative destruction, and American industry will rise again, much like the Phoenix of lore. Contrast that with what Europe attempted by protecting its industries rather than letting them go and you'll see who had the better model.
The treaty addresses carbon emmissions and the like which != pollution in general. Some of the worst polluted areas in the world are in China.
America OTOH has seen its water and air quality increase astoundingly since the 1970's. We have higher emissions because we have, in total economic terms and per capita terms, more industry than any other country. And yes, we have many more cars. But car emissions can be addressed without gutting America industry in favor of allowing the Chinese and Indians to ramp up their industrial economies at our expense.
Check out The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
In 1989, Paul Kennedy documented this whole scenerio of a rising China vs. a economically and militarily over-extended USA, by documenting how the same happened to England when the US became economically strong, as so on throughout history.
You know, your comment was mildly interesting up to this point. But I have to ask, why the anger at the police? I hope the comment was a joke.
For every bad cop you can point to involved in something like the Rodney King beating or the Abner Louima torture, there are tens of thousands of professional police officers dedicated to preventing and solving crimes, as well as enforcing basic laws which help us survive as a peaceful society. Some of them even die for you while you're resting peacefully at night.
So if it wasn't a joke, lose the 'tude. It's disrespectful of a lot of hard-working people.
Shows how much you know about modern power. Almost all of our electrical power sans wind generated, dammed or solar, are "steam" powered as you say.
A nuclear plant is nothing but a fancy way of boiling water to turn, you guessed it, steam turbines to generate electricity. Same with gas and oil-fired power plants.
Democratizing knowledge so that anyone/everyone can benefit.
That's got to be the most asinine comment I've heard it a while.
Democracy is not about giving intellectual property rights of an (insert here: idea, song, book, etc.) to everyone.
Democracy is about giving everyone the chance to VOTE on how they will be RULED.
As for intellectual property, the idea is that A PERSON who DEVELOPS an IDEA can give it to EVERYONE.
Or THAT PERSON can RESTRICT IT to WHOMEVER they choose, be it a friend or a CUSTOMER.
That's the whole idea of PROPERTY in general.
If Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) of allowing people TO GIVE away IDEAS, no problem.
But if Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) TO SEIZE the IDEAS of UNWILLING PERSONS and give them to EVERYONE, then there's a big problem, and that's called CONFISCATION.
If you begin to confiscate IP and give it away without the approval of the originator of the IP, then you remove the monetary incentive for them to create. And you'll decrease the overall total creativity in a society. (see COMMUNISM, EFFECTS OF in Wickipedia or Google. Or read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand).
Personally, I think the cybersquatting shows a lack of class. I voted against Van Hollen in the last election, but I don't condone what his opponent is doing for one reason, in that you shouldn't work to silence your opponent in a political election in a republic.
Floyd is wrong on this one, big time. By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.
Did, somehow (gasp!) miss my entire point, by making it again?
The original poster was byatching about managers micro-managing every little detail (and incorrectly requiring coders to do dumb things).
My point was, given a manager's new responsibilities (and maybe, just maybe, their at home reading management literature), they don't get as much face time with the tech.
And I think it's incumbent upon technicians to help with this to some degree (not tutoring the manager, you're right, they should read up some, but helping where they can.)
Having been on both sides (technical and management) I can assure you the truth is somewhere in between.
You're right in that often technical managers don't have a clue about the technology being implemented and often "manage what they know" and force programmers into coding inside a new platform using methods the manager once used in an old platform.
That said, I've often seen programmers (and network administrators, and DB admins, and...) get a demo copy of a technology and run with it, proclaiming how the new software is close to the second coming, the manager looks at it and takes the word of the technical staff and voila, instant gulf in knowledge created.
Why? The manager's juggling two balls, one of learning (and actually) managing people and projects, as well as trying to keep up with the latest technology.
And as you move higher up the management chain, the less "hands on" time you have with the actual technology, and the gulf grows wider between what a manager knows (or knew) and the actual details of the technology they are being called upon to manage.
So, it does cut both ways. It's as much the programmers responsibility to "educate" the manager on new technologies as it is for the manager to "learn" them. Remember, managers don't have as much "keyboard" time as you do. Cut them some slack.
The infrastructure, personnel and procedures needed to MAINTAIN orbiters is ENTIRELY different from those need to BUILD shuttles. The shuttle building program has been shut down for over a decade.
My bet is the contractors that built the shuttles wouldn't even TOUCH a contract to try to build another set of them. The engineers and other staff involved in the shuttle building have probably retired or died by now.
Manned space programs take many years to develop. Even if Bush 43 had made it his biggest priority, even 4 years later we wouldn't have a new orbiter ready yet.
A replacement orbiter should have been appropriated for and begun development during the Bush 41 or Clinton administrations. If they had done that, we'd have a new class of orbiters by now.
Stipe42, you may be right, but I have to wonder sometimes if comments like yours are, for lack of a better word, defensive blogging by marketing people.
You know, someone paid to sit around all day and defend a company's product online in high-profile blogs and review sites like Slashdot, using legitimate user profiles (or in this case, maybe as a marketroid for cable companies looking to slam DirectTV).
Does anyone know if "defensive blogging" happens? I googled for pages on this topic but couldn't find any stories about it, but I'm sure it happens.
Actually, I disagree. The story from Ingres' perspective is that they're looking to puff up their database via open source techniques.
However, from an open source perspective, you've got a major database open sourced AND a corporation pumping money (via a bounty) into the open source community.
That money, if you're a good coder and have the right team, is there for the taking.
This is a good thing. Not a yawn by any stretch of the imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
5-digiter here and avid reader since nearly the beginning. Few comments since there are far smarter people in the forum than me. :) I have to agree with keeping the old site (to me, this is actually a new site compared to the original). The current site is cleaner, leaner, and easier.
1. Comments are king. We can get the stories anywhere.
2. See #1. More whitespace = less comments we can get to. Kill the overkill on whitespace.
3. See #1. Eye-candy = more noise-to-signal. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the commentor's info stupid."
4. See# 1. Keep comments rankable, nestable, and filterable by rank. Don't want to see the trash.
5. To paraphrase God and/or Google "Don't be evil." Slashdot's ancestry is right there with the web itself, and the open source and Linux communities. Selling info and linking logins to FB, Twitter, etc. is an abomination.
Just leave? Love the quote about Google Glass voyeurs: "already facing a preemptively hostile environment"
Some people think secretly filming people is a pre-emptively hostile act.
I've been a long-term reader and like everyone else, am sad to read about Rob's departure. /. was required reading early on in the .com boom days and the rise of Linux. If you weren't reading /., well, you were pretty much out of it. It's now 2011 and I'm still a loyal reader. That says alot with all the abundant distractions on the net.
Rob's biggest contribution by far is the community he and others created here. I mostly lurk given that I'm by far nowhere near the level of expert you encounter here so often, But I've learned more useful tips and been pointed in the right direction by /. commenters more times than I'd care to count.
Thanks to Rob and the entire community.
BTW, seeing your reference to John Katz made me LOL. That shared history (the good AND the bad) is an integral part of /.
Let me get this straight, NASA, along with the other nation-state space agencies who still can't get the International Space Station to work correctly or a regular shuttle service, now going to:
1) Develop a vehicle to get stuff back and forth from the moon, and
2) Put a permanent base on the moon?
Jehoozatz, if they can't do it in Earth orbit, how are they going to do it on the moon?
Somehow we seem to regulated broadcast content everyday in the US without worrying about who defines "adult content". As one justice said I believe, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."
Why not take the broadcast networks as an example and say anything that goes there, also goes w/children on the internet.
If NBC/ABC/CBS, etc. can do it, so can other content providers.
Then you are pretty ignorant of American history.
Americans were confronted with the same situation in the 1980's when the Japanese behemoth swamped American auto and steel production, leading to the "Rust Belt" throughout the American Northeast. America recovered via the IT and telecommunications industries.
We're now confronted with the same scenario as China and India move into IT industry, threatening American businesses and jobs much like the Japanese did in the 1980's.
And now, as in the 1980's, Americans worried about their jobs and their families, as would ANY culture facing the demise of industries. But we CHANGED then, and we'll do the same now.
It's called the process of creative destruction, and American industry will rise again, much like the Phoenix of lore. Contrast that with what Europe attempted by protecting its industries rather than letting them go and you'll see who had the better model.
The treaty addresses carbon emmissions and the like which != pollution in general. Some of the worst polluted areas in the world are in China.
America OTOH has seen its water and air quality increase astoundingly since the 1970's. We have higher emissions because we have, in total economic terms and per capita terms, more industry than any other country. And yes, we have many more cars. But car emissions can be addressed without gutting America industry in favor of allowing the Chinese and Indians to ramp up their industrial economies at our expense.
Check out The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. In 1989, Paul Kennedy documented this whole scenerio of a rising China vs. a economically and militarily over-extended USA, by documenting how the same happened to England when the US became economically strong, as so on throughout history.
"Fuck You Pigs"
You know, your comment was mildly interesting up to this point. But I have to ask, why the anger at the police? I hope the comment was a joke.
For every bad cop you can point to involved in something like the Rodney King beating or the Abner Louima torture, there are tens of thousands of professional police officers dedicated to preventing and solving crimes, as well as enforcing basic laws which help us survive as a peaceful society. Some of them even die for you while you're resting peacefully at night.
So if it wasn't a joke, lose the 'tude. It's disrespectful of a lot of hard-working people.
The Tronguy!
Dude, you're comparing digital rights to slavery?
That is, the rights of an enslaved individual to liberty vs. the rights for you to pirate someone's copyrighted work?
Let's get real here.
Shows how much you know about modern power. Almost all of our electrical power sans wind generated, dammed or solar, are "steam" powered as you say.
A nuclear plant is nothing but a fancy way of boiling water to turn, you guessed it, steam turbines to generate electricity. Same with gas and oil-fired power plants.
Democratizing knowledge so that anyone/everyone can benefit.
That's got to be the most asinine comment I've heard it a while.
Democracy is not about giving intellectual property rights of an (insert here: idea, song, book, etc.) to everyone.
Democracy is about giving everyone the chance to VOTE on how they will be RULED.
As for intellectual property, the idea is that A PERSON who DEVELOPS an IDEA can give it to EVERYONE.
Or THAT PERSON can RESTRICT IT to WHOMEVER they choose, be it a friend or a CUSTOMER.
That's the whole idea of PROPERTY in general.
If Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) of allowing people TO GIVE away IDEAS, no problem.
But if Brazil wants to create a means (or adopt a means) TO SEIZE the IDEAS of UNWILLING PERSONS and give them to EVERYONE, then there's a big problem, and that's called CONFISCATION.
If you begin to confiscate IP and give it away without the approval of the originator of the IP, then you remove the monetary incentive for them to create. And you'll decrease the overall total creativity in a society. (see COMMUNISM, EFFECTS OF in Wickipedia or Google. Or read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand).
Let me get this straight. Some users might not choose Firefox because they have an awkward MS keyboard?
.0001% of all broswer users? Talk about a non-issue.
What's that like?
Personally, I think the cybersquatting shows a lack of class. I voted against Van Hollen in the last election, but I don't condone what his opponent is doing for one reason, in that you shouldn't work to silence your opponent in a political election in a republic.
Floyd is wrong on this one, big time. By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.
Did, somehow (gasp!) miss my entire point, by making it again? The original poster was byatching about managers micro-managing every little detail (and incorrectly requiring coders to do dumb things). My point was, given a manager's new responsibilities (and maybe, just maybe, their at home reading management literature), they don't get as much face time with the tech. And I think it's incumbent upon technicians to help with this to some degree (not tutoring the manager, you're right, they should read up some, but helping where they can.)
Having been on both sides (technical and management) I can assure you the truth is somewhere in between.
...) get a demo copy of a technology and run with it, proclaiming how the new software is close to the second coming, the manager looks at it and takes the word of the technical staff and voila, instant gulf in knowledge created.
You're right in that often technical managers don't have a clue about the technology being implemented and often "manage what they know" and force programmers into coding inside a new platform using methods the manager once used in an old platform.
That said, I've often seen programmers (and network administrators, and DB admins, and
Why? The manager's juggling two balls, one of learning (and actually) managing people and projects, as well as trying to keep up with the latest technology.
And as you move higher up the management chain, the less "hands on" time you have with the actual technology, and the gulf grows wider between what a manager knows (or knew) and the actual details of the technology they are being called upon to manage.
So, it does cut both ways. It's as much the programmers responsibility to "educate" the manager on new technologies as it is for the manager to "learn" them. Remember, managers don't have as much "keyboard" time as you do. Cut them some slack.
http://www.service-architecture.com/
That would be like buying a Maserati and replacing its engine with that of a Ford Escort.
I think they were called "shutters". :)
The infrastructure, personnel and procedures needed to MAINTAIN orbiters is ENTIRELY different from those need to BUILD shuttles. The shuttle building program has been shut down for over a decade.
My bet is the contractors that built the shuttles wouldn't even TOUCH a contract to try to build another set of them. The engineers and other staff involved in the shuttle building have probably retired or died by now.
Manned space programs take many years to develop. Even if Bush 43 had made it his biggest priority, even 4 years later we wouldn't have a new orbiter ready yet.
A replacement orbiter should have been appropriated for and begun development during the Bush 41 or Clinton administrations. If they had done that, we'd have a new class of orbiters by now.
Thanks. As soon as I googled on "astroturfing blogs," I the topic had even been on Slashdot before:
3 20 6
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/18/204
Question is, can it be reduced? I doubt it.
Stipe42, you may be right, but I have to wonder sometimes if comments like yours are, for lack of a better word, defensive blogging by marketing people.
You know, someone paid to sit around all day and defend a company's product online in high-profile blogs and review sites like Slashdot, using legitimate user profiles (or in this case, maybe as a marketroid for cable companies looking to slam DirectTV).
Does anyone know if "defensive blogging" happens? I googled for pages on this topic but couldn't find any stories about it, but I'm sure it happens.
Actually, I disagree. The story from Ingres' perspective is that they're looking to puff up their database via open source techniques.
However, from an open source perspective, you've got a major database open sourced AND a corporation pumping money (via a bounty) into the open source community.
That money, if you're a good coder and have the right team, is there for the taking.
This is a good thing. Not a yawn by any stretch of the imagination.