I realize this probably won't be the most popular opinion you'll read attached to this article, but I'm going to step out on a limb. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction going on here, on two counts. First, the media, for seizing on violent computer games and the internet as a possible `cause' of this tragic event, but also, the slashdot community for dismissing this possibility out of hand.
Several of the (few) posts at this point make the following argument -- "I play violent video games, and I've never killed anyone, so that theory must be wrong!" This is a fundamental logical flaw. If the statement were "violent video games turn everyone into killers", then a simple counter example would be sufficient. However, merely stating that violent video games have no effect on you doesn't disprove a relationship. I'm not necessarily claiming that there is one; just that this argument is flawed.
Now, to claim that there is a relationship. Several people have pointed out that violence predates the internet and computer games by a large margin. This is certainly true. I could sit here and make the argument that violence has never been this realistic, but I don't think that's the point. I do think that mindless violence, which is being portrayed more and more, in many different forums, is problematic. I was recently playing Quake Team Fortress the other day. As I entered the game, I was greeted with the message "Kill, Kill, Kill!"
Just to refute one point, I'm running Linux SMP right now, and I've worked in labs where Linux SMP has been used extensively, and as of 2.1.x/2.2.x, SMP support is definitely not weak.
Interesting idea, being able to set the score of your own posts. Perhaps, as time goes on, your ceiling could be raised? When you start out, you can post up to 1 (if you've got an account), and as time passes, you have the option of posting at higher scores, but don't have to.
I'm not sure how well the ``soapbox'' idea would work - you might have people start to play with it, just to get a comment into the upper echelons. I could be completely wrong, though.
Regarding things being complicated - I haven't seen any problems, mainly because things are only as complicated as you make them. You can pretty much just set your threshold to 0 (or +1) and read everything, and act like there's no (or very little) moderation going on.
PS I'm with you on the commandline thing.
-- Ian Peters
When do we get to vote on the articles themselves?
on
Several Slashdot Notes
·
· Score: 1
Your vote is already taken care of; go to the user preferences page, and vote up or down for the different stories. I think voting on a duplicate is a little obvious, since it probably wasn't intentional. That's why we have categories. If you think something isn't worthwhile, just don't read that category.
First, I don't like the way the new alignment works. What happens if a user with alignment posts 50 comments, each at +3. They would then be posting at +5. Oops.
One assumes that this is taken care of. I would think that your alignment is only affected by your, if you will, delta-moderation. By this I mean, if you're automatically posting at +3, and you get moderated up by 1, your alignment is up 1, not 4. I could be wrong; if so, you're right, this is a flaw.
Second, this encourages frequent posters and discourages new users. This is the biggest problem IMHO. Why should a newbie post a good message if it will automatically be rated down?Second, this encourages frequent posters and discourages new users. This is the biggest problem IMHO. Why should a newbie post a good message if it will automatically be rated down?
I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, it encourages/quality/ frequent posts. Your alignment won't stay up forever if you're just throwing crap out there for others. With regards to new users, sure, they won't make the top 10 list right off the bat, but if they're registered users they'll at least be at +1. Since moderators read everything, if they're posting good stuff they'll get moderated up frequently. Since the guys who are posting at a default of +3 or so don't, I assume, get their alignment affected by their default posting status, this means that the new users alignment is rising at a relatively faster rate, giving them a chance to catch up.
I agree with you in some respects, but I don't see the negative side as much as you do. In the last few weeks the trend I've observed has been a return to the slashdot or yore, where the comments were mature, well thought out, and on topic. I'm sure that the underbelly of slashdot is still teaming with AC's striving for the first comment amongst themselves (I'm not sure, though; I haven't looked at score 0 comments but twice, and both times I've regretted it).
I tend to have more faith in the moderation system. I guess it all depends on whether people moderate because they agree with something, or because it's a/good comment/. I would have a problem if everyone was supposed to present the same view to the world, but I have no problem with expecting people to present a heterogeneous collection of viewpoints in a responsible manner.
Ahh, see, but that's the neat thing. I like and read articles by sengan and Jon Katz. You don't. I will continue to read them, and you don't have to. If Rob succeeds, you won't even have to see that they're there. And I won't have to see you bitch about them.
--
Libraries are LGPL'd. Apps are GPL'd.
on
GNOME 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
libgtop is under the GPL, because it's a non-essential component library that provides extra functionality to free applications.
--
The anti-aliased canvas display system?
on
GNOME 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Nope, the canvas really is cool. It's a generic object that support primitive shapes, text, and programmer defined objects which can be extensions of those primitives, includes built in antialiasing, rotation, scaling, zooming, etc. It's cool. Believe it or not, gnumeric, the spreadsheet, uses custom objects on a canvas for its display.
No no don't do this. You run gnome-session in your.xinitrc or whatever, and this will start up X. The first time you do this, you must then type enlightenment to start the window manager. But since enlightenment is session aware, it will just register with the session manager, which will take care of it subsequent times.
If you have a non-session aware window manager, there is a gnome capplet to control starting it, but again, all you should put in the.xinitrc is
StarOffice is broken. It uses internal libc symbols which aren't supposed to be used by applications, because they are constantly subject to change. The release note says that mechanisms have been put in place to avoid this in the future. However, this cannot fix older, broken applications. Thus, StarOffice will not work with glibc 2.1. Yet another example of why source code is important.
"This is the Unix way: the way which makes everything unnecessarily difficult because it keeps the unwashed masses bowing at our feet, begging us to use what we have rendered them unable to. Could anything be more immoral?"
This is ignorant. True, many things are more difficult to learn. This is not done to make others bow at our feet. This is done to make things easier to do once you know how. Vi and emacs are hard to learn, yes. A vi guru at work, however, is a marvel of efficiency and a sight to behold.
This has already been publically explained. Picture the 2.1 series as an alpha test. 2.2.0pre series is then the beta test, encouraging a wider audience to try out the kernel, because hey, it _almost_ says 2.2! With a wider range of machines testing the kernel, the last bugs are more likely to be flushed out, leaving 2.2.0 as perfect as possible. So the short version is, they _want_ more people using 2.2.0pre, so that's why they named it something other than 2.1.xxx.
Just for the record, in the late 2.1/2.2pre kernels, SMP has been very very happy for me. While I'm sure work always remains, the current code is excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize this probably won't be the most popular opinion you'll read attached to this article, but I'm going to step out on a limb. There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction going on here, on two counts. First, the media, for seizing on violent computer games and the internet as a possible `cause' of this tragic event, but also, the slashdot community for dismissing this possibility out of hand.
Several of the (few) posts at this point make the following argument -- "I play violent video games, and I've never killed anyone, so that theory must be wrong!" This is a fundamental logical flaw. If the statement were "violent video games turn everyone into killers", then a simple counter example would be sufficient. However, merely stating that violent video games have no effect on you doesn't disprove a relationship. I'm not necessarily claiming that there is one; just that this argument is flawed.
Now, to claim that there is a relationship. Several people have pointed out that violence predates the internet and computer games by a large margin. This is certainly true. I could sit here and make the argument that violence has never been this realistic, but I don't think that's the point. I do think that mindless violence, which is being portrayed more and more, in many different forums, is problematic. I was recently playing Quake Team Fortress the other day. As I entered the game, I was greeted with the message "Kill, Kill, Kill!"
--
Ian Peters
Just to refute one point, I'm running Linux SMP right now, and I've worked in labs where Linux SMP has been used extensively, and as of 2.1.x/2.2.x, SMP support is definitely not weak.
--
Ian Peters
Interesting idea, being able to set the score of your own posts. Perhaps, as time goes on, your ceiling could be raised? When you start out, you can post up to 1 (if you've got an account), and as time passes, you have the option of posting at higher scores, but don't have to.
I'm not sure how well the ``soapbox'' idea would work - you might have people start to play with it, just to get a comment into the upper echelons. I could be completely wrong, though.
Regarding things being complicated - I haven't seen any problems, mainly because things are only as complicated as you make them. You can pretty much just set your threshold to 0 (or +1) and read everything, and act like there's no (or very little) moderation going on.
PS I'm with you on the commandline thing.
--
Ian Peters
Your vote is already taken care of; go to the user preferences page, and vote up or down for the different stories. I think voting on a duplicate is a little obvious, since it probably wasn't intentional. That's why we have categories. If you think something isn't worthwhile, just don't read that category.
--
Ian Peters
First, I don't like the way the new alignment works. What happens if a user with alignment posts 50 comments, each at +3. They would then be posting at +5. Oops.
/quality/ frequent posts. Your alignment won't stay up forever if you're just throwing crap out there for others. With regards to new users, sure, they won't make the top 10 list right off the bat, but if they're registered users they'll at least be at +1. Since moderators read everything, if they're posting good stuff they'll get moderated up frequently. Since the guys who are posting at a default of +3 or so don't, I assume, get their alignment affected by their default posting status, this means that the new users alignment is rising at a relatively faster rate, giving them a chance to catch up.
One assumes that this is taken care of. I would think that your alignment is only affected by your, if you will, delta-moderation. By this I mean, if you're automatically posting at +3, and you get moderated up by 1, your alignment is up 1, not 4. I could be wrong; if so, you're right, this is a flaw.
Second, this encourages frequent posters and discourages new users. This is the biggest problem IMHO. Why should a newbie post a good message if it will automatically be rated down?Second, this encourages frequent posters and discourages new users. This is the biggest problem IMHO. Why should a newbie post a good message if it will automatically be rated down?
I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, it encourages
--
Ian Peters
I agree with you in some respects, but I don't see the negative side as much as you do. In the last few weeks the trend I've observed has been a return to the slashdot or yore, where the comments were mature, well thought out, and on topic. I'm sure that the underbelly of slashdot is still teaming with AC's striving for the first comment amongst themselves (I'm not sure, though; I haven't looked at score 0 comments but twice, and both times I've regretted it).
/good comment/. I would have a problem if everyone was supposed to present the same view to the world, but I have no problem with expecting people to present a heterogeneous collection of viewpoints in a responsible manner.
I tend to have more faith in the moderation system. I guess it all depends on whether people moderate because they agree with something, or because it's a
--
Ian Peters
AND, most telling - No links to actual stories in the articles.
Click on the link to metalab, and read their news bulletins. Not that this isn't a hoax, just that this one actually has a basis.
--
Ian Peters
Heh...try a window. :-)
--
Alas, no, I am a nerd, and yet my University limits me to just one computer. A travesty, I say.
--
If anyone is looking for a copy, you can get one at:
ftp://geodesic.res.cmu.edu/pub/menace_480.mov
--
Ahh, see, but that's the neat thing. I like and read articles by sengan and Jon Katz. You don't. I will continue to read them, and you don't have to. If Rob succeeds, you won't even have to see that they're there. And I won't have to see you bitch about them.
--
libgtop is under the GPL, because it's a non-essential component library that provides extra functionality to free applications.
--
Nope, the canvas really is cool. It's a generic object that support primitive shapes, text, and programmer defined objects which can be extensions of those primitives, includes built in antialiasing, rotation, scaling, zooming, etc. It's cool. Believe it or not, gnumeric, the spreadsheet, uses custom objects on a canvas for its display.
--
You were incorrect.
--
No no don't do this. You run gnome-session in your .xinitrc or whatever, and this will start up X. The first time you do this, you must then type enlightenment to start the window manager. But since enlightenment is session aware, it will just register with the session manager, which will take care of it subsequent times.
.xinitrc is
If you have a non-session aware window manager, there is a gnome capplet to control starting it, but again, all you should put in the
exec gnome-session
--
and Smack said:
"They're allowed to screw up -- they included a disclaimer..."
Heh, I tried this in school with my papers. It didn't work.
--
StarOffice is broken. It uses internal libc symbols which aren't supposed to be used by applications, because they are constantly subject to change. The release note says that mechanisms have been put in place to avoid this in the future. However, this cannot fix older, broken applications. Thus, StarOffice will not work with glibc 2.1. Yet another example of why source code is important.
--
Where else have we seen this:
"It's a best-of-breed Unix," Noxon added.
--
Or, for the conspiracy minded...
How do we know Microsoft wasn't responsible?
--
"This is the Unix way: the way which makes everything unnecessarily difficult because it keeps the unwashed masses bowing at our feet, begging us to use what we have rendered them unable to. Could anything be more immoral?"
This is ignorant. True, many things are more difficult to learn. This is not done to make others bow at our feet. This is done to make things easier to do once you know how. Vi and emacs are hard to learn, yes. A vi guru at work, however, is a marvel of efficiency and a sight to behold.
--
This has already been publically explained. Picture the 2.1 series as an alpha test. 2.2.0pre series is then the beta test, encouraging a wider audience to try out the kernel, because hey, it _almost_ says 2.2! With a wider range of machines testing the kernel, the last bugs are more likely to be flushed out, leaving 2.2.0 as perfect as possible. So the short version is, they _want_ more people using 2.2.0pre, so that's why they named it something other than 2.1.xxx.
--
Just for the record, in the late 2.1/2.2pre kernels, SMP has been very very happy for me. While I'm sure work always remains, the current code is excellent.
--
Commercial and proprietary are very different, just so you know...
--
Forgive me for asking, but why is he a moron for pointing this out? It seems to me that he is correct, or at least that his interpretation is valid.
--