I, too, liked Jason's design (the first link) better than Alex's, but it does have some problems. The main one, at least for a person in Taco's position, being that it isn't quite complete (and it's also reported to have been horribly broken in Opera). I'd also think that the different shades of green used (the winner only uses one) make the page a bit harder to read. They probably had to consider factors other than usability as well -- like the number and size of image files (both Jason and Lukasz appear to use more (and larger?) images than the winner), etc.
That said, I personally am ok with the winning design. I don't know why they picked this one, but I'm ok with it. Peter's design might be "sexier", but it seems to be one of those designs that only look good the first couple of times you look at them. I don't think I could use it on a day by day basis, though.
Oh, and wasn't there a key combo that let you bypass the age questions? I was definitely not 18 when I played it, and neither was I American enough to know the answers to many of the questions, so I cheated.
Taco himself pointed out that it is not feasible given how much the quotes and editor comments tend to be mixed. Perhaps he's changed his mind?
In that case, they'd also have to change the way stories are written. Some of the stories currently on the front page would look horrible and be a pain to read if this part of Alex's design was retained.
Slashdot is a part of/owned by OSTG, which is owned by VA Software. They used to state that this or that site was a part of the OSTG, but now, it seems that the VA (which, IIRC, stands for 'Value Added') brand has been brought back from the dead.
Actually, I didn't read it, but then again, I haven't read the rest of this discussion, either. In fact, I don't even know what it's all about;7 I did read your journal entry, though, and I thought I'd let you know that people do actually read what you write here.
Here are just a few of the extraordinary claims (in my opinion) that the offical theory makes that should require extraordinary evidence
I think you overestimate the competence, skill and luck needed to carry out such operations. One of the lessons, I think, you could draw from this is that it doesn't actually take much to do something like this -- at least under the right conditions. You don't need to be stronger or smarter than your victim if you manage to catch him unaware. And this is the state people are normally in -- they go about minding their own business. They hardly expect being shot in the back or something -- unless you constantly remind them that "the enemy never sleeps" or something like that. Border guards are not normally in the habit of considering everyone a terrorist trying to sneak into the country. Airplane pilots, whether ex-military or not, are not usually waiting for someone to attack them with box-cutters: they have more important things to concentrate on, like flying the plane for instance. I don't think any pilot could do more than go "Wha?!?" if attacked from behind. And so on. In the long run, being paranoid will not do anyone any good.
Also, from what I've seen and read (on and off the Internet), it doesn't take that much skill to pilot an airplane. I find it plausible: it has to be easy; otherwise it'd be damn dangerous. Flying one into a building doesn't seem to have been a precision operation, either: in fact, at least two of them (the one that hit the Pentagon and one of those that hit the WTC) nearly missed their targets. The attackers weren't supermen. They didn't have to be supermen. They didn't have to have the backing of large military organisations. They didn't even have to be supersmart or super-lucky to have crawled through all the "holes" in the security. Why? Because the real world isn't a James Bond movie where a single chain of events leads to a single possible outcome. It's more like having margins inside which you can safely operate without things going horribly wrong. Generally, these margins seem to be quite wide: I mean, all people are incompetent fools, yet we're still alive. Conversely, all criminals are incompetent fools, yet there's still an awful lot of crimes committed. It's probably not too easy to commit a crime without finally getting caught, but walking away from the crime scene is hardly what the perpetrators of this act of terror had in mind. I don't know for sure (although it seems quite plausible to me that there was a causal link between these two events) if the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the planes crashing into them, but I do believe that something like this happening without the use of explosives and controlled explosions isn't as improbable as many people make it to be.
I could see there was no way the official explanation was true
I, too, would expect the US government agencies to lie about what happened on 9/11. But not because they were somehow involved in it but simply in an attempt to make them look better, to hide the fact that they, too, are only human and were (still are) just as incompetent as you could expect them to be. They get away with being incompetent because that's how society works.
Actually, I'm quite aware of the fact that I have held onto beliefs I knew were wrong in the past. Like "I can't do it". Or "I have not been trolled". And so on. In such cases, I never tell myself "I know it's a lie but you should still keep insisting on it". More likely, I do it because I (unconsciously) refuse to let go of my old beliefs and habits. I cannot believe what's happening, so I tell myself that it's not happening. La-la-la-la.
I guess it's the same with the people who keep on insisting that 9/11 was an "inside job". They woke up that day in a world that was a safe place and they went to sleep in one that wasn't. Their illusion of safety (for safety is always an illusion, albeit one that it's quite beneficient to maintain) had been shattered. Yet, they'd still keep on insisting that the illusion hadn't been one, that noone from the outside could possibly have hurt the most powerful country on Earth. So, to maintain the illusion, they create a myth of The Government arranging the attack or letting it to happen on purpose.
I understand that 9/11 was a significant event in American (and World) history. I also find that it's important to properly analyse the events leading to and taking place on and after that day. The official investigation, I think, hasn't attempted to do this, and this is a mistake. The conspiracy theorists haven't attempted to do this, either -- they isolate bits and pieces of the events from what happened before and after, and then try to reconstruct the events according to their own beliefs. There are, no doubt, many unanswered questions (there will always be unanswered questions); unfortunately, I don't think you're asking the right ones.
Clear video evidence shows explosions in the WTC tower during the plane impact well away from the impact point and during the collapse well below the demolition wave falling at the speed of gravity. Also clear video evidence shows white smoke from the bottom of WTC 2 start to rise minutes before the collapse.
I watched the Loose Change video of the collapse which had all those puffs of smoke nicely highlighted, but these looked rather random (ie uncontrolled) to me and I cannot see how could they have caused the building to collapse. I find it more likely that you and all those other people are simply looking in the wrong place for the cause of the collapse. The two towers started to crumble pretty much where the planes hit, so they must have collapsed because of something that happened there. The official report tries to explain the collapse in the light of the known factors -- the buildings being hit, jet fuel burning etc. I'm not educated enough in these matters (I'm but a lowly Humanities student) to judge how plausible their explanation is. I can only point to a fundamental difference between the official explanation and the explosives theory: while the former tries to explain what happened by internal causes, the latter does this by way of external causes, or a Deus ex machina. But while it would be nice to have a Deus running things, as it'd make life a lot simpler for us lowly humans (I can imagine that a controlled explosion is a lot easier to explain and model than a building crumbling because of, say, a fire or an earthquake), there is no evidence of the existence of one. I'm yet to see anyone offering actual proof of use of explosives -- all they have to offer is witness statements vague enough to be interpreted as supporting the claim, puffs of smoke (or is it dust?), and a lot of fuzzy videos. All this could just as well be used to prove that it was in fact the hand of God that smashed the buildings. Which is just as well, as you cannot prove or disprove neither, not even for a million dollars.
It's derived from fanboy/fanboi and it means pretty much the same, but is even more derogatory (at least I think it is; I generally use it to denote the irony of my statement myself). I've never seen it used outside Slashdot, though, which leads me to assume that it originates from Trolltalk.
Alright, I just watched the video and what I can say is that 1) the building is quite clearly veering to the right, but 2) the video is a montage of two clips filmed at two different angles, creating an illlusion of it coming straight down. Of course this still gives no explanation as to why it collapsed but it's still an interesting fact.
although perhaps the reason theres so many is that it makes sense?
The reason why there's so many of them is that people can sometimes hold strange beliefs and stubbornly hold onto them, even if they're smart and educated enough to know better. I'd venture that it's the same with the physics professor you quoted: he's so deeply convinced that "the government" was behind the attacks that he's willing to lie to himself in order to prove that he's right.
are you saying that they didnt collapse straight down
I'm not saying anything as I'm really not educated at all in these matters (construction engineering etc). You clearly seem to be more knowledgeable than me, which is why I'm a bit surprised that you've failed to notice how, in the second picture, the collapsed building has dealt quite significant damage to at least one building next to it. But that's all I'm saying, as I can only comment on what I can see and I can see only what I know to look for.
PS: Bold letters and fancy titles don't intimidate me. Way back when, it may have added some credibility to a conspiracy theory, but these days, there's so many professors and Academy members in the conspiracy crowd that the title hardly gives any cred to you anymore.
then 3 steel and concrete buildings completely collapse symetrically into their own footprint from a few small* fires (*see other fires that COMPLETELY ENGULFED BUILDINGS yet they didnt fall down for my definition of large fires) despite this never having occured before, even once, let alone three times, in the history of steel and concrete skyscrapers
Maybe it didn't happen this time, either? Just because you read it on the internet it doesn't mean it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
(Likewise, I've always wanted to use this in a post)
That said, I personally am ok with the winning design. I don't know why they picked this one, but I'm ok with it. Peter's design might be "sexier", but it seems to be one of those designs that only look good the first couple of times you look at them. I don't think I could use it on a day by day basis, though.
So you want a lubricated, mint flavor, lubber? WHAT A PERVERT!!
Oh, and wasn't there a key combo that let you bypass the age questions? I was definitely not 18 when I played it, and neither was I American enough to know the answers to many of the questions, so I cheated.
Collapsible threads? Something like this?
In that case, they'd also have to change the way stories are written. Some of the stories currently on the front page would look horrible and be a pain to read if this part of Alex's design was retained.
Yeah. It'd be the perfect job for students and backpackers :7
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185819&cid=153 55319
Quite a difference, isn't it?
If Slashdot's image server hadn't been slashdotted, you'd probably see small white triangels in the headers. And gradients and rounded corners.
The solution's actually quite simple: you just don't tell them that there's no "real" pilot.
Which came first, the Scientist or the Philosopher?
Slashdot is a part of/owned by OSTG, which is owned by VA Software. They used to state that this or that site was a part of the OSTG, but now, it seems that the VA (which, IIRC, stands for 'Value Added') brand has been brought back from the dead.
Actually, I didn't read it, but then again, I haven't read the rest of this discussion, either. In fact, I don't even know what it's all about ;7 I did read your journal entry, though, and I thought I'd let you know that people do actually read what you write here.
I did not find your first comment worth reading. That is all.
I think you overestimate the competence, skill and luck needed to carry out such operations. One of the lessons, I think, you could draw from this is that it doesn't actually take much to do something like this -- at least under the right conditions. You don't need to be stronger or smarter than your victim if you manage to catch him unaware. And this is the state people are normally in -- they go about minding their own business. They hardly expect being shot in the back or something -- unless you constantly remind them that "the enemy never sleeps" or something like that. Border guards are not normally in the habit of considering everyone a terrorist trying to sneak into the country. Airplane pilots, whether ex-military or not, are not usually waiting for someone to attack them with box-cutters: they have more important things to concentrate on, like flying the plane for instance. I don't think any pilot could do more than go "Wha?!?" if attacked from behind. And so on. In the long run, being paranoid will not do anyone any good.
Also, from what I've seen and read (on and off the Internet), it doesn't take that much skill to pilot an airplane. I find it plausible: it has to be easy; otherwise it'd be damn dangerous. Flying one into a building doesn't seem to have been a precision operation, either: in fact, at least two of them (the one that hit the Pentagon and one of those that hit the WTC) nearly missed their targets. The attackers weren't supermen. They didn't have to be supermen. They didn't have to have the backing of large military organisations. They didn't even have to be supersmart or super-lucky to have crawled through all the "holes" in the security. Why? Because the real world isn't a James Bond movie where a single chain of events leads to a single possible outcome. It's more like having margins inside which you can safely operate without things going horribly wrong. Generally, these margins seem to be quite wide: I mean, all people are incompetent fools, yet we're still alive. Conversely, all criminals are incompetent fools, yet there's still an awful lot of crimes committed. It's probably not too easy to commit a crime without finally getting caught, but walking away from the crime scene is hardly what the perpetrators of this act of terror had in mind. I don't know for sure (although it seems quite plausible to me that there was a causal link between these two events) if the WTC towers collapsed as a result of the planes crashing into them, but I do believe that something like this happening without the use of explosives and controlled explosions isn't as improbable as many people make it to be.
I could see there was no way the official explanation was true
I, too, would expect the US government agencies to lie about what happened on 9/11. But not because they were somehow involved in it but simply in an attempt to make them look better, to hide the fact that they, too, are only human and were (still are) just as incompetent as you could expect them to be. They get away with being incompetent because that's how society works.
Actually, I'm quite aware of the fact that I have held onto beliefs I knew were wrong in the past. Like "I can't do it". Or "I have not been trolled". And so on. In such cases, I never tell myself "I know it's a lie but you should still keep insisting on it". More likely, I do it because I (unconsciously) refuse to let go of my old beliefs and habits. I cannot believe what's happening, so I tell myself that it's not happening. La-la-la-la.
I guess it's the same with the people who keep on insisting that 9/11 was an "inside job". They woke up that day in a world that was a safe place and they went to sleep in one that wasn't. Their illusion of safety (for safety is always an illusion, albeit one that it's quite beneficient to maintain) had been shattered. Yet, they'd still keep on insisting that the illusion hadn't been one, that noone from the outside could possibly have hurt the most powerful country on Earth. So, to maintain the illusion, they create a myth of The Government arranging the attack or letting it to happen on purpose.
I understand that 9/11 was a significant event in American (and World) history. I also find that it's important to properly analyse the events leading to and taking place on and after that day. The official investigation, I think, hasn't attempted to do this, and this is a mistake. The conspiracy theorists haven't attempted to do this, either -- they isolate bits and pieces of the events from what happened before and after, and then try to reconstruct the events according to their own beliefs. There are, no doubt, many unanswered questions (there will always be unanswered questions); unfortunately, I don't think you're asking the right ones.
I watched the Loose Change video of the collapse which had all those puffs of smoke nicely highlighted, but these looked rather random (ie uncontrolled) to me and I cannot see how could they have caused the building to collapse. I find it more likely that you and all those other people are simply looking in the wrong place for the cause of the collapse. The two towers started to crumble pretty much where the planes hit, so they must have collapsed because of something that happened there. The official report tries to explain the collapse in the light of the known factors -- the buildings being hit, jet fuel burning etc. I'm not educated enough in these matters (I'm but a lowly Humanities student) to judge how plausible their explanation is. I can only point to a fundamental difference between the official explanation and the explosives theory: while the former tries to explain what happened by internal causes, the latter does this by way of external causes, or a Deus ex machina. But while it would be nice to have a Deus running things, as it'd make life a lot simpler for us lowly humans (I can imagine that a controlled explosion is a lot easier to explain and model than a building crumbling because of, say, a fire or an earthquake), there is no evidence of the existence of one. I'm yet to see anyone offering actual proof of use of explosives -- all they have to offer is witness statements vague enough to be interpreted as supporting the claim, puffs of smoke (or is it dust?), and a lot of fuzzy videos. All this could just as well be used to prove that it was in fact the hand of God that smashed the buildings. Which is just as well, as you cannot prove or disprove neither, not even for a million dollars.
It's derived from fanboy/fanboi and it means pretty much the same, but is even more derogatory (at least I think it is; I generally use it to denote the irony of my statement myself). I've never seen it used outside Slashdot, though, which leads me to assume that it originates from Trolltalk.
Alright, I just watched the video and what I can say is that 1) the building is quite clearly veering to the right, but 2) the video is a montage of two clips filmed at two different angles, creating an illlusion of it coming straight down. Of course this still gives no explanation as to why it collapsed but it's still an interesting fact.
And yes, I guess you could call me one.
s/fanboy/fanbox
The reason why there's so many of them is that people can sometimes hold strange beliefs and stubbornly hold onto them, even if they're smart and educated enough to know better. I'd venture that it's the same with the physics professor you quoted: he's so deeply convinced that "the government" was behind the attacks that he's willing to lie to himself in order to prove that he's right.
I'm not saying anything as I'm really not educated at all in these matters (construction engineering etc). You clearly seem to be more knowledgeable than me, which is why I'm a bit surprised that you've failed to notice how, in the second picture, the collapsed building has dealt quite significant damage to at least one building next to it. But that's all I'm saying, as I can only comment on what I can see and I can see only what I know to look for.
PS: Bold letters and fancy titles don't intimidate me. Way back when, it may have added some credibility to a conspiracy theory, but these days, there's so many professors and Academy members in the conspiracy crowd that the title hardly gives any cred to you anymore.
Maybe it didn't happen this time, either? Just because you read it on the internet it doesn't mean it's true.