I agree that C++ is far from perfect, but I do think that we should strive for one language that is the only one you need to know. It may be a long ways off, but I think the inefficiencies of having to learn multiple languages, and having to port code between them, is one of the biggest things holding back progress. I'm sure everyone will disagree with me, but I'd be willing to bet that 25 years from now, 99% of programming (for computers, phones, and whatever devices they have then) will be done in a single language.
To me, it's like the metric system. Sure, using fractional inches might be better for some things, but that is far outweighed by the benefits of having a single unit for length (etc).
That said, I don't think any language in existence today would do it, since none is flexible enough to do both operating systems and dynamic web pages and everything in between. But saying that no language could do both, and do them well, simply shows a lack of imagination.
they are *real* comments that tell us what people really think
I disagree. The problem is that comments in such places are not at all a realistic representation of what most people who read the articles think.
There is a vicious circle involved, where only the most hateful tend to be likely to comment, because so many of the other commenters are posting vile stuff. This is not the same thing that happens in "real world" environments, where social pressures that have evolved over centuries tend to keep things in check -- rewarding those who are diplomatic and follow decorum, and punishing those who aren't/don't. This is a GOOD THING....imagine if the discussion in a university class always degenerated into the sort of things you find in unmoderated, anonymous comments threads.
Even people who are nice in other environments may end up posting hateful comments. The Stanford Prison Experiment can give insight into why.
I guess what the community as a whole decides is. Good moderation systems can do a pretty good job of predicting what you will consider trash and what you will consider worthwhile (or at least worthwile enough to keep visible). Although people's tastes differ, this does not mean that there is no reasonably objective standard for what is a well thought out, diplomatic post versus one that is inane, vile or spammy.
They just need lots of layers of indirection. That is, it can probably tell that a post is "pretty good", if that post is rated highly by a people who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who....and so on. The more layers of indirection, the more credible.
Likewise, prior to a post getting ratings, it can guess that it might be high quality if the person posting it has a history of posting things that are rated highly be people who have a history of....yada yada yada.
Slashdot's moderation system is simple, and barely scratches the surface of this. And even simpler systems, that simply promote posts that are rated highly, without remembering the history of the posters nor the raters, will do especially poorly.
It's hard to say, but I think the fact that windows users now get a place to choose their browsers can make a real difference over time. Imagine if new pc users got a choice of OS (say, windows as well as a selection of 3 or 4 flavors of linux) when they started their computer for the first time.
Negative attack campaigns are one thing....but filing an antitrust complaint is another. We need healthy competition, and I don't think we have it. I think Opera did the right thing, and partially as a result of that, we have a lot healthier competition in browsers these days.
So you are saying that if I had supported open platforms, we'd all have them?
That seems a bit counterintuitive to me. Seems more likely that if I had done that, nothing would be substantially different except that I had hurt myself a bit.
(or is it possible that you making the all-too-common mistake of thinking that "everyone" is a single entity that makes decisions all together and should be rewarded and punished as such?)
I agree that what you describe is the worst thing about Slashdots system, it took my a year to get good karma (although I don't think mine was ever bad). I would like to see someone design a system that works better in that regard, and others.
Only a poorly designed karma system would allow that. For instance, if they have multiple accounts, how did all those accounts acquire a good enough reputation to be able to mod things down?
This problem is not so different from that of how search engines (e.g. PageRank) deal with link farms.
Regardless I don't think that is as big a problem as people suggest it is. I'd be interested to see which of your posts caused this....I'm guessing it was pretty inflammatory stuff.
As I said, its not a completely trivial problem. (BTW, sorry for the first sentence in my post which was garbled. I meant to say something like: "You really believe that slashdot wouldn't have spam, if people were able to freely post spam on slashdot and have it reach more than a few eyeballs?")
First off, I think signatures that can be changed later are seriously problematic. (I hate sigs, personally) If people find that feature so important, it would have to be handled separately. (e.g. users with a reputation could mark a sig as being spam, and the sigs on all posts by that user would be immediately disabled)
Low traffic sites or old threads aren't that big a problem either. If anyone is viewing it, the spam will be found and killed immediately. Even users with no reputation could mark something as spam, but those would be reviewed by another member before action would be taken. If the system is global (like Disqus or the like), the whole process can be smoother because truly "new" posters are pretty rare....if they don't have history of posting benign posts (even on other sites), the posts can be flagged as "needing review" before large numbers of people view them.
I could go on and on, but the gist is, the system needs to spread the work of marking spam among many, make it very easy and quick, and make sure that spam messages are viewed by very few before they are killed. Slashdot's system is designed for a high traffic site, but there is nothing that says a system can't work on low traffic sites as well. Spam messages may stick around longer on very low traffic sites, but if no one sees them, that's not such a problem.
That's fine that you do, but I don't consider it a big problem that those who want to read at that level are exposed to crap. As far as I'm concerned, the spam problem on slashdot is solved. I think slashdot's system could be a lot better (for instance, I think that those with good karma should ALWAYS be able to mark something as spam...not only when they have mod privileges), but at least there is little incentive to spam slashdot. I seriously doubt anyone who tries it is rewarded with any revenue from their efforts.
Well that's just stupid. Although what do you expect, given the name?
There are lots of smart ways to handle it that don't require extreme measures like charging to post, or having vigilantes out there hacking accounts. It amazes me this problem hasn't been addressed well yet.
You really believe that the reason that slashdot wouldn't have spam if people were able to post spam on slashdot and have it reach more than a few eyeballs?
Anyway, slashdots system isn't perfect, and is designed to do more than kill spam. Regardless I think it works fairly well for what it does.
For eliminating spam in forums and comments, all you need to do is this:
Give the readers the ability to mark comments as spam with one click, and, as long as the reader has a decent history of not abusing the priviledge, the message will disappear immediately.
This isn't that hard, but to do it well isn't trivial either. Probably best done by a company like Disqus where it is their business.
There would need to be some checks and balances, where a person can get reported for erroneously marking something as spam. The system needs to be scalable, so that the admin of the forum doesn't have to deal with much, as all the work is done by users, and there is a checks and balances system to determine how much to trust users.
The nice thing is that over time it reduces the incentive to bother spamming the forums, since (typically) the first person who sees a message, eliminates it. Also, on a system like disqus, where you have a global identity with some history, it could be smarter about how prominent to make posts if the person has no history of posting without being marked as spam.
Forum spam is best solved with good forum software. A good karma system is probably the best solution. I've never seen spam on slashdot (unless I dig through the low rated posts).
Well netflix has its own way for charging for content. This is an alternative to the netflix "all you can eat but you can't have it till later" plan There's room for many different ways of delivering content and providing revenue to those who make the content.
I haven't read the patent, but I suspect that the $2 figure quoted is nothing more than an example figure. Until this is actually on the market, complaining about its price seems rather silly.
Can you propose another revenue model for Google? Maybe they should charge people for each search? Make you buy eStamps to send mail through gmail? Be supported through federal grants?
Regardless, their plan here is actually to find an alternative to advertising....you have the option to just pay for the content. And you are complaining why again?
Yeah and the internet was invented to allow the military to communicate after a nuclear war. Or something. Doesn't matter. It is what it is, now. What it was initially is irrelevant.
I'm sure all programming could be supported by cable fees, and we wouldn't need ads, but I'm sure those fees would be a lot higher.
I'm all for any plan that reduces advertising for those who prefer spend more money to avoid commercials. All it is is choice, and the more choices we have, the more the market can sort things out. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
They didn't mention this, but laptops can get WAY hotter when doing things like playing games, compared to more general use. Just something to consider.
No, I'm not a spammer and am not defending spammers. If I'm defending anyone, it's the pragmatic people who pressed for the "rules" (or whatever they are) that say that mass emailings should have unsubscribe links.
I have gmail, so I get almost no "real" spam. I get several spam's per hour in my spam folder, but I never look there --and as much as it may bother me that spam is costing ISP's and Google money, I can't say I lose a lot of sleep over it.
I do get a fair number of mass emails from various companies I've done business with (Borders, Target, Apple, Walgreens, Amazon, etc), and they all tend to have "unsubscribe" links, which I appreciate (and use!). So I am glad that whoever pushed for such things did so, rather than just lumped those companies in with the "true" spammers. The system as it is isn't perfect (I still find most mass emails to be annoying, even if they have unsubscribe links and even if it is a company I like), but things are better than they could be.
Everyone should boycott any product that's advertised in annoying ways.
Boycotts don't work. "Everyone" is not a single individual with a single shared interest. It is a lot of separate people, each with their own interests, acting independently. Expecting anything different is doomed to failure.
Unless you can convince people that their individual interest will be served by participating in your boycott (regardless of whether or not other's participate), you can expect the boycot to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that C++ is far from perfect, but I do think that we should strive for one language that is the only one you need to know. It may be a long ways off, but I think the inefficiencies of having to learn multiple languages, and having to port code between them, is one of the biggest things holding back progress. I'm sure everyone will disagree with me, but I'd be willing to bet that 25 years from now, 99% of programming (for computers, phones, and whatever devices they have then) will be done in a single language.
To me, it's like the metric system. Sure, using fractional inches might be better for some things, but that is far outweighed by the benefits of having a single unit for length (etc).
That said, I don't think any language in existence today would do it, since none is flexible enough to do both operating systems and dynamic web pages and everything in between. But saying that no language could do both, and do them well, simply shows a lack of imagination.
But comments keep readers sticking around and engaged. Its just when it gets out of control that its a problem.
I disagree. The problem is that comments in such places are not at all a realistic representation of what most people who read the articles think.
There is a vicious circle involved, where only the most hateful tend to be likely to comment, because so many of the other commenters are posting vile stuff. This is not the same thing that happens in "real world" environments, where social pressures that have evolved over centuries tend to keep things in check -- rewarding those who are diplomatic and follow decorum, and punishing those who aren't/don't. This is a GOOD THING....imagine if the discussion in a university class always degenerated into the sort of things you find in unmoderated, anonymous comments threads.
Even people who are nice in other environments may end up posting hateful comments. The Stanford Prison Experiment can give insight into why.
I guess what the community as a whole decides is. Good moderation systems can do a pretty good job of predicting what you will consider trash and what you will consider worthwhile (or at least worthwile enough to keep visible). Although people's tastes differ, this does not mean that there is no reasonably objective standard for what is a well thought out, diplomatic post versus one that is inane, vile or spammy.
They just need lots of layers of indirection. That is, it can probably tell that a post is "pretty good", if that post is rated highly by a people who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who....and so on. The more layers of indirection, the more credible.
Likewise, prior to a post getting ratings, it can guess that it might be high quality if the person posting it has a history of posting things that are rated highly be people who have a history of....yada yada yada.
Slashdot's moderation system is simple, and barely scratches the surface of this. And even simpler systems, that simply promote posts that are rated highly, without remembering the history of the posters nor the raters, will do especially poorly.
Some things are more scratch resistant than others. Apple customers have high expectations. Deal with it.
It's hard to say, but I think the fact that windows users now get a place to choose their browsers can make a real difference over time. Imagine if new pc users got a choice of OS (say, windows as well as a selection of 3 or 4 flavors of linux) when they started their computer for the first time.
Negative attack campaigns are one thing....but filing an antitrust complaint is another. We need healthy competition, and I don't think we have it. I think Opera did the right thing, and partially as a result of that, we have a lot healthier competition in browsers these days.
Change is unlikely on the consumer level, there's too many of them.
Where change can happen is in the media or in companies that have a lot of power. Google might be able to do something. Individuals, not so much.
So you are saying that if I had supported open platforms, we'd all have them?
That seems a bit counterintuitive to me. Seems more likely that if I had done that, nothing would be substantially different except that I had hurt myself a bit.
(or is it possible that you making the all-too-common mistake of thinking that "everyone" is a single entity that makes decisions all together and should be rewarded and punished as such?)
Well here you go. You got modded up.
I agree that what you describe is the worst thing about Slashdots system, it took my a year to get good karma (although I don't think mine was ever bad). I would like to see someone design a system that works better in that regard, and others.
Only a poorly designed karma system would allow that. For instance, if they have multiple accounts, how did all those accounts acquire a good enough reputation to be able to mod things down?
This problem is not so different from that of how search engines (e.g. PageRank) deal with link farms.
Regardless I don't think that is as big a problem as people suggest it is. I'd be interested to see which of your posts caused this....I'm guessing it was pretty inflammatory stuff.
As I said, its not a completely trivial problem. (BTW, sorry for the first sentence in my post which was garbled. I meant to say something like: "You really believe that slashdot wouldn't have spam, if people were able to freely post spam on slashdot and have it reach more than a few eyeballs?")
First off, I think signatures that can be changed later are seriously problematic. (I hate sigs, personally) If people find that feature so important, it would have to be handled separately. (e.g. users with a reputation could mark a sig as being spam, and the sigs on all posts by that user would be immediately disabled)
Low traffic sites or old threads aren't that big a problem either. If anyone is viewing it, the spam will be found and killed immediately. Even users with no reputation could mark something as spam, but those would be reviewed by another member before action would be taken. If the system is global (like Disqus or the like), the whole process can be smoother because truly "new" posters are pretty rare....if they don't have history of posting benign posts (even on other sites), the posts can be flagged as "needing review" before large numbers of people view them.
I could go on and on, but the gist is, the system needs to spread the work of marking spam among many, make it very easy and quick, and make sure that spam messages are viewed by very few before they are killed. Slashdot's system is designed for a high traffic site, but there is nothing that says a system can't work on low traffic sites as well. Spam messages may stick around longer on very low traffic sites, but if no one sees them, that's not such a problem.
That's fine that you do, but I don't consider it a big problem that those who want to read at that level are exposed to crap. As far as I'm concerned, the spam problem on slashdot is solved. I think slashdot's system could be a lot better (for instance, I think that those with good karma should ALWAYS be able to mark something as spam...not only when they have mod privileges), but at least there is little incentive to spam slashdot. I seriously doubt anyone who tries it is rewarded with any revenue from their efforts.
Well that's just stupid. Although what do you expect, given the name?
There are lots of smart ways to handle it that don't require extreme measures like charging to post, or having vigilantes out there hacking accounts. It amazes me this problem hasn't been addressed well yet.
Yes but a good system will eliminate the incentive to bother spamming it.
You really believe that the reason that slashdot wouldn't have spam if people were able to post spam on slashdot and have it reach more than a few eyeballs?
Anyway, slashdots system isn't perfect, and is designed to do more than kill spam. Regardless I think it works fairly well for what it does.
For eliminating spam in forums and comments, all you need to do is this:
Give the readers the ability to mark comments as spam with one click, and, as long as the reader has a decent history of not abusing the priviledge, the message will disappear immediately.
This isn't that hard, but to do it well isn't trivial either. Probably best done by a company like Disqus where it is their business.
There would need to be some checks and balances, where a person can get reported for erroneously marking something as spam. The system needs to be scalable, so that the admin of the forum doesn't have to deal with much, as all the work is done by users, and there is a checks and balances system to determine how much to trust users.
The nice thing is that over time it reduces the incentive to bother spamming the forums, since (typically) the first person who sees a message, eliminates it. Also, on a system like disqus, where you have a global identity with some history, it could be smarter about how prominent to make posts if the person has no history of posting without being marked as spam.
Forum spam is best solved with good forum software. A good karma system is probably the best solution. I've never seen spam on slashdot (unless I dig through the low rated posts).
Well netflix has its own way for charging for content. This is an alternative to the netflix "all you can eat but you can't have it till later" plan There's room for many different ways of delivering content and providing revenue to those who make the content.
I haven't read the patent, but I suspect that the $2 figure quoted is nothing more than an example figure. Until this is actually on the market, complaining about its price seems rather silly.
I'm sure it could be, it would just cost more.
Actually, Google's plan sounds a lot closer to that model.
Can you propose another revenue model for Google? Maybe they should charge people for each search? Make you buy eStamps to send mail through gmail? Be supported through federal grants?
Regardless, their plan here is actually to find an alternative to advertising....you have the option to just pay for the content. And you are complaining why again?
Yeah and the internet was invented to allow the military to communicate after a nuclear war. Or something. Doesn't matter. It is what it is, now. What it was initially is irrelevant.
I'm sure all programming could be supported by cable fees, and we wouldn't need ads, but I'm sure those fees would be a lot higher.
I'm all for any plan that reduces advertising for those who prefer spend more money to avoid commercials. All it is is choice, and the more choices we have, the more the market can sort things out. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
They didn't mention this, but laptops can get WAY hotter when doing things like playing games, compared to more general use. Just something to consider.
No, I'm not a spammer and am not defending spammers. If I'm defending anyone, it's the pragmatic people who pressed for the "rules" (or whatever they are) that say that mass emailings should have unsubscribe links.
I have gmail, so I get almost no "real" spam. I get several spam's per hour in my spam folder, but I never look there --and as much as it may bother me that spam is costing ISP's and Google money, I can't say I lose a lot of sleep over it.
I do get a fair number of mass emails from various companies I've done business with (Borders, Target, Apple, Walgreens, Amazon, etc), and they all tend to have "unsubscribe" links, which I appreciate (and use!). So I am glad that whoever pushed for such things did so, rather than just lumped those companies in with the "true" spammers. The system as it is isn't perfect (I still find most mass emails to be annoying, even if they have unsubscribe links and even if it is a company I like), but things are better than they could be.
Boycotts don't work. "Everyone" is not a single individual with a single shared interest. It is a lot of separate people, each with their own interests, acting independently. Expecting anything different is doomed to failure.
Unless you can convince people that their individual interest will be served by participating in your boycott (regardless of whether or not other's participate), you can expect the boycot to fail.