Yes but when the discussion consists almost exclusively of (circa) 10 regurgitated ideas about how we could avoid dupe posts, I think that's a rather stupid policy. There's no 'lively debate' going on, and they could still keep the story active so the discussion could continue, and just not link to it from the front page.
and it is/. policy not to delete duplicate articles that are generating a lot of comments
Why? They're pretty much all negative, unhelpful comments anyway, and they could merely remove the story's link from the front page, whilst keeping the story accessible, so the people posting all their comments could continue to participate.
How about a somewhat more simple solution: allow the deletion of stories by editors. They always seem to notice that it's a dupe *after* they post it... so allow them to delete it when they do notice! End of problem.
I do not only have animosity for Fox. I admit that stations like CNN are slightly liberally biased. However, 3 points:-
1) You never hear people saying 'Go watch CNN. They're more fair and balanced than Fox'. It's always the other way round.
2) I don't think they're ANYTHING LIKE as liberally biased as Fox is conservatively biased.
3) CNN et al don't constantly make the ludicrous, bold statement that they are 'the network America trusts for fair and balanced news'. They are what they are.
It doesn't so much scare me and irritate me as make me laugh. They claim to be fair and balanced, but everyone knows that's total BS. Even you admit it. They're right leaning; why don't they just come out and say it?? And anyone pretending that you are getting a good summary of the news by watching FOX is sadly mistaken.
Refuse to accept payment into the escrow account until the item has been shipped and a valid tracking # has been provided
What's the point of that. If they're a legit escrow, they should definately accept payment into the escrow account at any time. They can always refund it back with a wire transfer later, if need be.
From what I've experienced, CNN is about the best non-internet news source in America. Name one which is less biased? And if you say Fox News, it will make my day:-)
It's a bank account associated with an escrow service, which is a service which holds a buyer's money in trust, until they have received the item from the seller, and then forwards the money on to the seller. This protects the buyer, but not the seller. The account is the one which the buyer pays in to.
I never understood why escrows weren't 2-way things - ie. the seller also sends the item to the escrow, and when the escrow has received both parties' payment, they forward them along. I guess it's just a bit harder/more expensive to do.
Escrow services suck, and nobody should use them; here's why.
I buy something at an auction. I pay the escrow, and the seller sends the item and I receive it. However, I tell the escrow that I haven't received the item. I get my money back, and the item for free!
Escrows still rely on the truthfulness of the buyer.
I apologise in advance if this point has already been made, but I can't see it anywhere.
Will AOL sue themselves now, for the horrendus amount of spam they inflict on everybody? Let's see, they've got TV ads, internet ads, billboard ads, CDs in the mail, radio ads.... they seem to have stopped just short of e-mail spam. That doesn't mean that all their other endless advertisements aren't annoying, though.
I was unaware of this, but one of my clients has used AOL for about 8 months and has recieved a grand total of two spams, likely because of her fairly common name. (common name + email list generator).
The e-mail may not get much spam (I don't know as I don't personally own an AOL e-mail account) but, as AOL's e-mail is propietary, you must use their client to access your e-mail. And guess what? Their client is *CRAMMED* with advertisements. I know this because of the few times I have had to use my dad's computer to connect to the internet. You connect, you get several popup dialogs with adverts. The client has inbuilt advertisements. 'Keyword' anything will have an inbuilt advertisement. Viewing e-mail will give you an advertisement. I couldn't believe this one, it looked like a goddamn parody but it was in fact the actual AOL client, but even the SIGN OFF dialog had 3 (THREE) adverts on it!!! I mean, how much bandwidth is this wasting, especially on a 56k modem???
but I'd say AOL provides a friendly and easy method of getting online for people who don't know the difference between "the internet" and Internet Explorer
It's interesting that you seem to see this as a good thing. Many, including me, wouldn't. I don't think it's that vital that EVERYONE is rushed onto the internet as quickly as possible. It would be very nice if they had to learn a little bit about it before they went online. If they did, I guarentee that we wouldnt have many of the problems we do today!
I'll launch a complaint. They don't allow you to have a standard internet connection, which can be configured straight from your OS. Instead, they use propriatory protocols, and force you to install and run THEIR software in order to connect. Combine that with the facts that that software then uses up a big chunk of bandwidth downloading ads, and that *.aol.* is banned from quite a few services such as IRC, and you've got a pretty crappy ISP. How anyone who seriously uses the internet can stay with them is beyond me.
Yahoo, granted, but MSN Messenger? I wish most people didn't use it, I dislike it, but am forced to keep it on my system because it's almost a requirement with winXP, but more importantly, there are PLENTY of people who use it and stick to it religiously, no matter how hard I try to persuade em to switch:-) I think MSN Messenger will be a big competitor to ICQ/AIM.
I probably would have done around 6 hours of Windows coding throughout my 4 year degree at UWA, and a lot of that was in VB (not a real language) for Graphics (not a real unit).
Whereas for the most part you used Linux (not a real OS) on your 486 (not a real CPU).:-)
That's just great. I submit a load of perfectly good stories, and they are immediately rejected. But you submit some crappy Australian Uni Linux-switching story with a self-confessed stupid comment, and it gets posted. What do Slashdot editors do, use Rnd()???
Slashdot Mirror
The only exceptions so far have been Jean Carnahan recording during the elections
Wait wait, I'm getting something wrong here. You picked up the phone and got a recording of a politician??? Or something else?
Yes but when the discussion consists almost exclusively of (circa) 10 regurgitated ideas about how we could avoid dupe posts, I think that's a rather stupid policy. There's no 'lively debate' going on, and they could still keep the story active so the discussion could continue, and just not link to it from the front page.
and it is /. policy not to delete duplicate articles that are generating a lot of comments
Why? They're pretty much all negative, unhelpful comments anyway, and they could merely remove the story's link from the front page, whilst keeping the story accessible, so the people posting all their comments could continue to participate.
How about a somewhat more simple solution: allow the deletion of stories by editors. They always seem to notice that it's a dupe *after* they post it... so allow them to delete it when they do notice! End of problem.
I do not only have animosity for Fox. I admit that stations like CNN are slightly liberally biased. However, 3 points:-
1) You never hear people saying 'Go watch CNN. They're more fair and balanced than Fox'. It's always the other way round.
2) I don't think they're ANYTHING LIKE as liberally biased as Fox is conservatively biased.
3) CNN et al don't constantly make the ludicrous, bold statement that they are 'the network America trusts for fair and balanced news'. They are what they are.
It doesn't so much scare me and irritate me as make me laugh. They claim to be fair and balanced, but everyone knows that's total BS. Even you admit it. They're right leaning; why don't they just come out and say it?? And anyone pretending that you are getting a good summary of the news by watching FOX is sadly mistaken.
Refuse to accept payment into the escrow account until the item has been shipped and a valid tracking # has been provided
What's the point of that. If they're a legit escrow, they should definately accept payment into the escrow account at any time. They can always refund it back with a wire transfer later, if need be.
After that, might as well go after Borders & FYE, because of those machines that let you listen to the music before you buy.
I bet those stores pay extra money in licensing for the use of those machines.
And which music sharing network is this? I see no reason to leave it nameless.
From what I've experienced, CNN is about the best non-internet news source in America. Name one which is less biased? And if you say Fox News, it will make my day :-)
I love the way people nowadays identify their country of origin using its domain extension, rather than its name :-)
It's a bank account associated with an escrow service, which is a service which holds a buyer's money in trust, until they have received the item from the seller, and then forwards the money on to the seller. This protects the buyer, but not the seller. The account is the one which the buyer pays in to.
I never understood why escrows weren't 2-way things - ie. the seller also sends the item to the escrow, and when the escrow has received both parties' payment, they forward them along. I guess it's just a bit harder/more expensive to do.
Escrow services suck, and nobody should use them; here's why.
I buy something at an auction. I pay the escrow, and the seller sends the item and I receive it. However, I tell the escrow that I haven't received the item. I get my money back, and the item for free!
Escrows still rely on the truthfulness of the buyer.
And there's this fake escrow thing, too.
I didn't know the BOFH perused the Slashdot discussions! :-)
You sound like Ned Flanders.
Homer: I thought you had cable!?
Ned: Yup, 120 channels, ALL locked out!
Why use the name of a defunct mp3 sharing service as a general term for p2p apps when you could say 'Kazaa' or even 'p2p'?
Yeah, except here, we're talking about CS students, and they should not be limited in this fashion.
I apologise in advance if this point has already been made, but I can't see it anywhere.
Will AOL sue themselves now, for the horrendus amount of spam they inflict on everybody? Let's see, they've got TV ads, internet ads, billboard ads, CDs in the mail, radio ads.... they seem to have stopped just short of e-mail spam. That doesn't mean that all their other endless advertisements aren't annoying, though.
I was unaware of this, but one of my clients has used AOL for about 8 months and has recieved a grand total of two spams, likely because of her fairly common name. (common name + email list generator).
The e-mail may not get much spam (I don't know as I don't personally own an AOL e-mail account) but, as AOL's e-mail is propietary, you must use their client to access your e-mail. And guess what? Their client is *CRAMMED* with advertisements. I know this because of the few times I have had to use my dad's computer to connect to the internet. You connect, you get several popup dialogs with adverts. The client has inbuilt advertisements. 'Keyword' anything will have an inbuilt advertisement. Viewing e-mail will give you an advertisement. I couldn't believe this one, it looked like a goddamn parody but it was in fact the actual AOL client, but even the SIGN OFF dialog had 3 (THREE) adverts on it!!! I mean, how much bandwidth is this wasting, especially on a 56k modem???
but I'd say AOL provides a friendly and easy method of getting online for people who don't know the difference between "the internet" and Internet Explorer
It's interesting that you seem to see this as a good thing. Many, including me, wouldn't. I don't think it's that vital that EVERYONE is rushed onto the internet as quickly as possible. It would be very nice if they had to learn a little bit about it before they went online. If they did, I guarentee that we wouldnt have many of the problems we do today!
I'll launch a complaint. They don't allow you to have a standard internet connection, which can be configured straight from your OS. Instead, they use propriatory protocols, and force you to install and run THEIR software in order to connect. Combine that with the facts that that software then uses up a big chunk of bandwidth downloading ads, and that *.aol.* is banned from quite a few services such as IRC, and you've got a pretty crappy ISP. How anyone who seriously uses the internet can stay with them is beyond me.
(damn few people use MSN Messenger or Yahoo)
:-) I think MSN Messenger will be a big competitor to ICQ/AIM.
Yahoo, granted, but MSN Messenger? I wish most people didn't use it, I dislike it, but am forced to keep it on my system because it's almost a requirement with winXP, but more importantly, there are PLENTY of people who use it and stick to it religiously, no matter how hard I try to persuade em to switch
I probably would have done around 6 hours of Windows coding throughout my 4 year degree at UWA, and a lot of that was in VB (not a real language) for Graphics (not a real unit).
:-)
Whereas for the most part you used Linux (not a real OS) on your 486 (not a real CPU).
That's just great. I submit a load of perfectly good stories, and they are immediately rejected. But you submit some crappy Australian Uni Linux-switching story with a self-confessed stupid comment, and it gets posted. What do Slashdot editors do, use Rnd()???
Don't give them write/change AND execute access in the same dir. Then you can be pretty sure that they arent renaming or getting their own .exe's.
... wha? It says I can't run it!
OK, and what good is that to a class of students trying to learn C++? I'll just compile the program and