t just makes no sense to me why a surveillance camera would film at such a shitty rate especially at the PENTAGON for christs sake
It's quite simple, actually: the tape will last a lot longer if you shoot it at only one frame per one or two seconds. If you're trying to find out at what time did a car enter or exit the compound (which the cameras the footage was taken from seem to be there for, judging from their position), this will just about suffice; with any luck, you'll even see a blurry picture of the driver. You can see a police car in the videos; this is something the camera was meant to take pictures of. You cannot see the plane, but it's hardly surprising as a plane can move a lot faster than a car.
While none of the designs make me go "WOW!", there's one thing you have to remember: Slashdot is a news site and it's not so much the looks that matter here but the functionality. Its purpose (unlike that of, say, CSS Zen Garden) is not to impress you with the looks but to inform. The redesign doesn't have to make Slashdot visually impressive (<italian_accent>You are impressed</italian_accent>), but making it visually more pleasing will help to make it more readable and thus more functional. Ultimately, I think it'd be real nice if the facelift wouldn't end up being a thing to itself but a signal of other changes. Tagging and bookmarks are a good start in this respect, but the move would probably benefit from a few other structural changes as well. Like the new comment display thingy (I haven't seen it myself, so I'm in no position to judge if it's a good or a bad thing). If all the things that are now in beta were made public along with the introduction of the new design[1], it would actually feel as if things had changed.
[1] Who knows, this might actually be what Taco's planning to do.
Actually no, the point of CSS is to take all of the presentation layer out of the HTML. Unless the HTML isn't coded properly to begin with...
I think it's common knowledge by now that the/. HTML isn't really the best in the world. It has some shortcomings: for instance, I don't think it's possible to turn the menu on the left into a contracting one with using CSS only (I've tried this and failed). Peter Lada, for instance, has used some javascript and maybe something else as well. Michael Johnson's also made a few tweaks. Must be because it's easier to make a few small changes to the HTML than go nuts trying to code the CSS around it.
Actually, there have been some entries that have used other colors. Unfortunately, only one (I think) of these has been translated into CSS form -- namely, Lukasz Lukasiewicz's design, done in blue. In other respects, it's pretty much the same as the entries presented here, though.
Maybe there's something I don't understand, but why can't they ALL be winners?
I'm under the impression that they all change the HTML a bit, each one making different changes, meaning that each one would break the site in a different way. In other words, it'd be a mess to implement.
FWIW, you can have a skinnable interface in, say, Firefox. Just find an extension that lets you create custom CSS for a site. I've experimented with Stylish, and it seemed to work. I couldn't quite get my custom Slashdot skin to work, though (must be something to do with the order of the CSS files).
Another nifty thing you can find under Preferences is message settings. You could, say, mark Taco as a friend and set the messaging system to send you messages about friends' journals. It works great -- unless you have half the JE community friended, in which case you might have some trouble keeping up with journal updates...
Go to Preferences-> Homepage. You can set the date and time format there.
Next time, read the rules first
on
On The BBC 2.0
·
· Score: 1
You didn't read the contest page, did you? They will hire (or have already hired) proper web developers to build the new site. The competition most likely serves to get them some input on what the users would like to see. The winning entry will only be turned into the homepage for a (that is, one) day.
According to a Foreign Affairs article, Saddam fell victim to his own bluff. One one hand, he was desperate to prove that he had complied with the requests to destroy any WMD; on the other hand, however, he still kept playing the WMD card in regional matters. When he finally did decide that it was time to quit bluffing and prove that he really didn't have a WMD program anymore, these steps were intrepreted as an attempt to cover up existing WMD.
So they were 'forced' to post the critisms? Interesting indeed, interesting...
I suppose you could call it peer pressure: given the large number of such submissions, he was pretty much forced to post these stories to get all those people off his back. See also most of the hall of fame stories for more examples of such behaviour.
Of course there could be other explanations for these results. Maybe it is just more evidence for the sterotype that Sladhot readers don't RTFA. And I realize there are many other variables involved -- but the results surprised me.
Maybe it's because certain allegations keep popping up whenever your name is mentioned?;)
I haven't read the article and I've only scanned the Slashdot blurb, but I don't think their aim is to find any new talent. It's not a reality show. Their aim is to create something like a huge superhuman brain: a large number of braincells working together will be able to solve problems a single brain cell would never be capable of solving; similarly, a large number of people working together [on a wiki] should be capable of solving problems a single human could not even dream of solving. Of course you'd still have to ask if a wiki really does make this kind of "collective consciousness" possible (I guess we'll find out soon enough). Another thing you'd have to ask is, can a human even conceive of any of these problems that the "collective consciousness" could solve?
This won't really work. See, 'a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters' is a metaphor for random text generation. There's never been any real monkeys in this parable. If they were real monkeys, they wouldn't by far behave randomly enough. They wouldn't type like "asjfd jk o 94 To be or not to be?" It'd be more like dldskfdslfldlddddddddddddddddddllddldldldldldldldl dldldldldldldld" Eventually, you'd end up with a million bored monkeys and a million broken typewriters -- but not a single work of Will Shakespeare.
I do wonder, though, how close to the original would a page of text have to be to count as a page of the complete works of Shakespeare? Would even one typo disqualify it, or would it simply have to be identifiable, despite missing a couple of words that can be derived from the context?
I'd say there's a difference being addicted to the net and being dependant on it. And I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to the net. Neither am I addicted to Slashdot -- I had stayed away from here for quite a long time, until I fell ill a few weeks ago. I couldn't just lie in bed the whole day long, but was unable to do anything productive, so I decided to have some fun on Slashdot. Now that I'm feeling better, I don't need it anymore and it's a good chance this is the last comment I'll post here.
I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to the Internet -- I can live and have lived without it. I haven't lost any sleep over it, haven't skipped school (I don't have a job...yeah, I'm a loser) because of it. I spend my days mostly offline, away from the computer. However, I do depend on it for many things. First of all, communication: I have several friends that I can mostly only speak to over the Internet. I do quite a lot of research on the 'net. Mostly it's a problem of my lifestyle and the place I live -- if I lived in the city, not five miles away, I would need to use the Internet a lot less.
I'm guessing that I'm not the only one with such 'problems'. The 'net has made life easier for many people, and it's something they just can't give up unless they change their lifestyle. They don't need the 'fix' (of Slashdot, MetaFilter, DailyKos or LGF, etc); they do need, however, the services that the Internet provides. Yes, they could probably make do without these conveniences, but it wouldn't be the same anymore. Life wouldn't be what it used to be before the Internet era.
Or is it still possible to live without using the Internet? I would certainly think so. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any turning back for me (or any other Slashdotter, for that matter). I can only change my Internet usage habits, but I can't stop using it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite simple, actually: the tape will last a lot longer if you shoot it at only one frame per one or two seconds. If you're trying to find out at what time did a car enter or exit the compound (which the cameras the footage was taken from seem to be there for, judging from their position), this will just about suffice; with any luck, you'll even see a blurry picture of the driver. You can see a police car in the videos; this is something the camera was meant to take pictures of. You cannot see the plane, but it's hardly surprising as a plane can move a lot faster than a car.
Right under your nose, perhaps?
While none of the designs make me go "WOW!", there's one thing you have to remember: Slashdot is a news site and it's not so much the looks that matter here but the functionality. Its purpose (unlike that of, say, CSS Zen Garden) is not to impress you with the looks but to inform. The redesign doesn't have to make Slashdot visually impressive (<italian_accent>You are impressed</italian_accent>), but making it visually more pleasing will help to make it more readable and thus more functional. Ultimately, I think it'd be real nice if the facelift wouldn't end up being a thing to itself but a signal of other changes. Tagging and bookmarks are a good start in this respect, but the move would probably benefit from a few other structural changes as well. Like the new comment display thingy (I haven't seen it myself, so I'm in no position to judge if it's a good or a bad thing). If all the things that are now in beta were made public along with the introduction of the new design[1], it would actually feel as if things had changed.
[1] Who knows, this might actually be what Taco's planning to do.
That's seriously cool. I'm so voting for this design.
I think it's common knowledge by now that the /. HTML isn't really the best in the world. It has some shortcomings: for instance, I don't think it's possible to turn the menu on the left into a contracting one with using CSS only (I've tried this and failed). Peter Lada, for instance, has used some javascript and maybe something else as well. Michael Johnson's also made a few tweaks. Must be because it's easier to make a few small changes to the HTML than go nuts trying to code the CSS around it.
Actually, there have been some entries that have used other colors. Unfortunately, only one (I think) of these has been translated into CSS form -- namely, Lukasz Lukasiewicz's design, done in blue. In other respects, it's pretty much the same as the entries presented here, though.
I'm under the impression that they all change the HTML a bit, each one making different changes, meaning that each one would break the site in a different way. In other words, it'd be a mess to implement.
FWIW, you can have a skinnable interface in, say, Firefox. Just find an extension that lets you create custom CSS for a site. I've experimented with Stylish, and it seemed to work. I couldn't quite get my custom Slashdot skin to work, though (must be something to do with the order of the CSS files).
Another nifty thing you can find under Preferences is message settings. You could, say, mark Taco as a friend and set the messaging system to send you messages about friends' journals. It works great -- unless you have half the JE community friended, in which case you might have some trouble keeping up with journal updates...
Go to Preferences-> Homepage. You can set the date and time format there.
You didn't read the contest page, did you? They will hire (or have already hired) proper web developers to build the new site. The competition most likely serves to get them some input on what the users would like to see. The winning entry will only be turned into the homepage for a (that is, one) day.
In your dreams. Come to think of it, not even there.
According to a Foreign Affairs article, Saddam fell victim to his own bluff. One one hand, he was desperate to prove that he had complied with the requests to destroy any WMD; on the other hand, however, he still kept playing the WMD card in regional matters. When he finally did decide that it was time to quit bluffing and prove that he really didn't have a WMD program anymore, these steps were intrepreted as an attempt to cover up existing WMD.
Note that I wasn't attempting to troll here; I was merely trying, but failed, to be funny. I regret having posted that comment.
I suppose you could call it peer pressure: given the large number of such submissions, he was pretty much forced to post these stories to get all those people off his back. See also most of the hall of fame stories for more examples of such behaviour.
Maybe it's because certain allegations keep popping up whenever your name is mentioned? ;)
I may be crazy, but I'm not that crazy.
No doubt about it.
You're trying to be funny, aren't you?
I haven't read the article and I've only scanned the Slashdot blurb, but I don't think their aim is to find any new talent. It's not a reality show. Their aim is to create something like a huge superhuman brain: a large number of braincells working together will be able to solve problems a single brain cell would never be capable of solving; similarly, a large number of people working together [on a wiki] should be capable of solving problems a single human could not even dream of solving. Of course you'd still have to ask if a wiki really does make this kind of "collective consciousness" possible (I guess we'll find out soon enough). Another thing you'd have to ask is, can a human even conceive of any of these problems that the "collective consciousness" could solve?
Your comment appears to be practically devoid of any content. Was it, by any chance, written by a group of open source thinkers?
I do wonder, though, how close to the original would a page of text have to be to count as a page of the complete works of Shakespeare? Would even one typo disqualify it, or would it simply have to be identifiable, despite missing a couple of words that can be derived from the context?
Well, we haven't exactly tried, have we?
I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to the Internet -- I can live and have lived without it. I haven't lost any sleep over it, haven't skipped school (I don't have a job...yeah, I'm a loser) because of it. I spend my days mostly offline, away from the computer. However, I do depend on it for many things. First of all, communication: I have several friends that I can mostly only speak to over the Internet. I do quite a lot of research on the 'net. Mostly it's a problem of my lifestyle and the place I live -- if I lived in the city, not five miles away, I would need to use the Internet a lot less.
I'm guessing that I'm not the only one with such 'problems'. The 'net has made life easier for many people, and it's something they just can't give up unless they change their lifestyle. They don't need the 'fix' (of Slashdot, MetaFilter, DailyKos or LGF, etc); they do need, however, the services that the Internet provides. Yes, they could probably make do without these conveniences, but it wouldn't be the same anymore. Life wouldn't be what it used to be before the Internet era.
Or is it still possible to live without using the Internet? I would certainly think so. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any turning back for me (or any other Slashdotter, for that matter). I can only change my Internet usage habits, but I can't stop using it.