Yep. How long before they come fed up with these protests and start deleting comments, or moderating them into oblivion? Please continue the fight, and also, pleace comment outside of their control here on reddit (where I may soon be moving to if classic goes away): http://www.reddit.com/r/social...
The real question will be how long before they become fed up with these protests and just shutdown slashdot?
Agreed, the little news blurbs on the page would be quite useless without the discussions.
You mean like they are, now? As somebody else pointed out, Dice is interested in revenue streams. All this beta hate does is make slashdot not viable. People may get their wish and the beta will be cancelled -- right about when Dice shuts down slashdot all together. Great way to win the battle and lose the war.
Let's be clear who the combatants are: Dice vs. Slashdot users.
I have yet to hear anyone defend Beta. (If you do, you might want to post AC to preserve your karma. I doubt the moderators will be kind to someone who is so wrong.)
Personally, I don't have a beef with Dice. Now all of the flaming "Fuck the Beta" posts, that's a different story. The beta is far more useable than classic mode is with all of these posts, so personally, if I'm going to go to war over slashdot it will be with the people messing it up -- and that isn't Dice.
And say I think that most of the community thinks Slashdot Beta sucks.
You can't tell that, since the vast majority of beta rants are by ACs. It could be the work of simply a small group. OTOH, if the people actually used their nicknames when posting, it might be possible to tell how many users are displeased.
Anonymous tips may be useful for the police, but in just about every other instance, they are ignored because they can't be validated or followed up with. Likewise with AC rants here.
We get it, you don't like the beta. Now will you quit with your rants? All you are doing is making slashdot unusable for everyone. If slashdot dies, it won't be from the beta, it will be from people not wanting to expend the effort to find real comments.
Enough already!
I have a proposal for the slashdot powers that be. How about all anonymous coward postings be automatically flagged for moderation and only those related to the article at hand be released?
I was approaching it from the same way that some linux distros look at proprietary drivers and won't ship them because they taint the purity of the project.
So while the plans might be open source, the vehicle itself won't be because even if you swap part a for part b, that individual part is not open. I don't really have a problem with that, as I'm not a purist (I am quite comfortable, for instance using MP3s in Linux or the Nvidia drivers). I was merely pointing out that at this time, you can't build an open-source vehicle because the parts them self are not open.
You bring up an interesting point about the drawings, too. If the drawings are encumbered, can the plans be considered open-source? I would tend to think that the format of the drawings, is just a medium and again using linux, the fact that I store it on a proprietary usb key doesn't change it's nature. But to tell the truth, I haven't ever really given it much thought until your post.
As for the beta comments, well, I notice all the people who are posting are anonymous cowards, so if they follow through and quit, it will be better for all of us!:)
I've read through the Wayland site and another half dozen pages that are obviously over my head and I just don't understand what Wayland is or what it's advantages are. I think it's suppose to be replacing X11, but I don't really understand X11 either, other than it's a method of getting things onto the screen. So I'm throwing my ignorance out there hoping I won't be flamed out of existence and someone can explain or point me to a laymen description of Wayland, and/or X11 and how one is better than the other. It seems like it should be a big deal since I've read there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with X11 for quite sometime and yet no one's ever done anything about it. That is until now, if Wayland is in fact a replacement
I'm sorry I realize this has been discussed several times and I'm sorry I'm just not getting it.
Think of it as X12, the new version of X11. X11 came out when COBOL was king and while it and COBOL still work, there have been many advances in hardware and software since then.
I'm curious as to what is the real impact of this? It is hard to fathom somebody running enterprise servers without support agreements. I'm sure it happens, but what is the percentage of HP's clients that would be impacted by this? If they have to prepare the service packs for, say, 80% of their clients, what is the extra cost involved in letting the others access to them?
If most of their customers have the agreements, then all this announcement does is create bad PR. Unlike Hollywood, the old adage of any PR is good PR does not apply in the tech industry. Just ask Target about how the PR over their credit card fiasco has helped them!
For this sort of thing it could reasonably be a subsidized transition, like the digital OTA transition.
With digital OTA, you had the option to not watch OTA broadcasts. If you had cable or satellite, you didn't need an overpriced converter box. I wonder why nobody noticed that you could get an add on tv card for your pc cheaper than the converters? Face it, digital tv in the US had nothing to do with improving tv for the consumer. It was, from the very start, a method to bail out the companies that produced tvs in America. The irony was that by the time it was in place, there weren't any left (the last was the Zenith plan in Springfield, Missouri).
If those converter boxes were priced appropriately, millions would have been sold and there wouldn't have been a need for a subsidy. Then again, if the government didn't force the networks to use a different part of the spectrum, there wouldn't have been the need for the boxes, in the first place.
The take away on this, as it relates to cars that communicate with each other, is that when the government interferes with the free market, there are always unintended consequences -- and they are usually not inexpensive, at that!
How would this system work on older vehicles beyond maybe just beeping at the driver? It won't. And no way would mandating a device that costs in the hundreds of dollars be installed in peoples cars get past just discussion. A majority of the drivers on the road cannot afford even fixing their cars to be road worthy, which in itself would probably reduce the amount of single-car accidents on the road.
Or they could just outlaw older cars. They already had cash for clunkers, once. What's to stop them from doing it again, but this time mandating it?
Just think if your vehicle is broadcasting it's unique ID and speed, etc., all the highway patrol needs to do is grab it. Heck, in this world where we want to automate everything currently done by humans, you wouldn't even need the highway patrol. You could just have roadside scanners. Or think of the red light cameras in use today. Now, they can show you in the intersection and showing how you didn't slow down when the light turned yellow.
Does the public really believe this is just for safety? Just like with autonomous vehicles, this only makes sense once a critical mass is reached for cars having the the new technology. Until then, the majority of other vehicles still won't have a clue as to what the other vehicle is doing. That is unless, the government is going to require retrofitting existing vehicles. All in the name of national security. Oops, I mean highway safety.
Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though -- browser choice is a pretty small arm of the octopus.
Microsoft's stock is 20.89% higher than it was on this date in 2002. That is an average yearly increase of 1.74%. US Savings Bonds had a greater return over that time period! So, if their shareholders aren't upset, they should be.
Regardless on the accuracy of the final value (9%), the reality is that unless the methodology has changed, there has been a significant decrease in IE based on the metrics they are using. The downward trend is more problematic than the actual percentage.
I wonder if linking silicon neurons together to mimic the functioning of actual neurons in the human brain will lead to the same inaccuracies and false assumptions that humans make all of the time?
I agree with what you are saying. But to win his case, he has to have a standing and the only grounds he can use is the Freedom of Information Act. You can't sue the government to do something it is not required by law to do. At least you can't sue them and win.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge?
Of course they can, would, and have done. All governments have export restrictions, and apply them to Universities as well as all other groups, and are not fooled by "I didn't do it, it was that other group". If Coursera was sending money or satellite images could they simply setup a "partner" outside the US? If you think that teaching is not comparable... the politicians don't agree with you, and they've made it clear they don't by forcing Coursera to exclude these countries.
US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.
International sanctions are approved and enforced by the majority of countries in the world, although often at the behest of the US. If a member of Coursera tried to make the material available to a restricted country, regardless of how they obfuscate the transfer, they're liable (and likely) to be charged with a crime.
Are you suggesting that people move to Iran and start a Coursera clone? (Even if they did, how would they get the new material?) Are you suggesting that people working with Coursera stay in the US and defy export restrictions with some fig leaf excuse? The idea that "there is a simple solution" to ignoring the government is, again, either naive or trolling.
If you read the my original post, it stated that working through a foreign company does not make you responsible for that company's action unless the whole intent was to circumvent the US law (paraphrased). US universities share info with European ones all the time. If the European university did something the US didn't like, they can't charge the US university over it. They could and probably would apply pressure to the foreign government to do something, but ultimately it would be that government imposing a restriction, not the US.
International sanctions are different, and are not part of the discussion with Coursera. International sanctions are already agreed to by the countries involved and as such it is still be the foreign government enforcing the restriction on their entities, not the US.
People wouldn't have to move to Iran to start their own Coursera, France, which is friendly to Iran would be good enough. Unless you are thinking that the US will boycott France (in which case the Saudis would be happy to host Coursera and we want their oil, so we won't boycott them), there isn't anything the US can do about it.
There truly is a simple solution and that is to do this under international law. It is the same reason why a lot of companies off-shore all sorts of operations. It doesn't mean it is an inexpensive solution, just a simple one.
The 90 day mission has stretched to 10 years. They somehow found money to keep these guys employed all those years, they are on the payroll till the rover dies.
What other random thing in the drive-able vicinity is likely to be MORE interesting? This Rover has accomplished just about all it can possibly do with its worn out tools, aging batteries, lame wheels, etc. There is probably nothing more interesting than this rock, and spending the effort (which surely they must be very well practiced and efficient at, considering the ten years they have had to perfect their craft) to evaluate it and release the data is no big deal.
When you obtain government records under the Freedom of Information Act, you still have to pay the cost to produce the records, even though the cost of the original record is a sunk cost. So, if you want additional information from Mars, there is the satellite time, the technician time and a whole slew of other costs associated with it. And, yes, those costs are quite expensive and legal to charge.
... there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.
Poe's Law: are you sincere and politically naive, or are you trolling? Do you think the US Government will just give-up and admit defeat if Coursera tries to break international trade sanctions? Since your comment was modded +5 Insightful, I also have to wonder about the moderators. Is this really how people think politics and the law work?
Not at all. For instance, what if one of the major European universities published this information? Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge? US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.
Wrong. The basic principle is that all people are "endowed by their Creator" with these inalienable rights. It is better that society recognizes and protects these rights rather than violating them, but the rights themselves are not granted by society to be removed on a whim.
Hmmm, I find that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the actual Constitution.
Did you even read the summary, never mind the article?
If so, kindly explain how a bit of the Curiosity landing system suddenly appeared in front of Opportunity.
Because it was made in the USA? I mean, how did a suitcase size piece of foam fall off the shuttle and hit a wing? It's not a smooth ride getting there or landing there and there are winds on Mars. It is quite conceivable that something was loosened and between the martian wind and the vibrations of the rover itself, it fell off.
Wouldn't that be a simpler and more reasonable explanation than NASA is covering up some huge discovery which would certainly get it all the funding it would ever want?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. How long before they come fed up with these protests and start deleting comments, or moderating them into oblivion? Please continue the fight, and also, pleace comment outside of their control here on reddit (where I may soon be moving to if classic goes away): http://www.reddit.com/r/social...
The real question will be how long before they become fed up with these protests and just shutdown slashdot?
Agreed, the little news blurbs on the page would be quite useless without the discussions.
You mean like they are, now? As somebody else pointed out, Dice is interested in revenue streams. All this beta hate does is make slashdot not viable. People may get their wish and the beta will be cancelled -- right about when Dice shuts down slashdot all together. Great way to win the battle and lose the war.
Let's be clear who the combatants are: Dice vs. Slashdot users.
I have yet to hear anyone defend Beta. (If you do, you might want to post AC to preserve your karma. I doubt the moderators will be kind to someone who is so wrong.)
Personally, I don't have a beef with Dice. Now all of the flaming "Fuck the Beta" posts, that's a different story. The beta is far more useable than classic mode is with all of these posts, so personally, if I'm going to go to war over slashdot it will be with the people messing it up -- and that isn't Dice.
And say I think that most of the community thinks Slashdot Beta sucks.
You can't tell that, since the vast majority of beta rants are by ACs. It could be the work of simply a small group. OTOH, if the people actually used their nicknames when posting, it might be possible to tell how many users are displeased.
Anonymous tips may be useful for the police, but in just about every other instance, they are ignored because they can't be validated or followed up with. Likewise with AC rants here.
We get it, you don't like the beta. Now will you quit with your rants? All you are doing is making slashdot unusable for everyone. If slashdot dies, it won't be from the beta, it will be from people not wanting to expend the effort to find real comments.
Enough already!
I have a proposal for the slashdot powers that be. How about all anonymous coward postings be automatically flagged for moderation and only those related to the article at hand be released?
Oh, wait, it's in a black hole.
I was approaching it from the same way that some linux distros look at proprietary drivers and won't ship them because they taint the purity of the project.
So while the plans might be open source, the vehicle itself won't be because even if you swap part a for part b, that individual part is not open. I don't really have a problem with that, as I'm not a purist (I am quite comfortable, for instance using MP3s in Linux or the Nvidia drivers). I was merely pointing out that at this time, you can't build an open-source vehicle because the parts them self are not open.
You bring up an interesting point about the drawings, too. If the drawings are encumbered, can the plans be considered open-source? I would tend to think that the format of the drawings, is just a medium and again using linux, the fact that I store it on a proprietary usb key doesn't change it's nature. But to tell the truth, I haven't ever really given it much thought until your post.
As for the beta comments, well, I notice all the people who are posting are anonymous cowards, so if they follow through and quit, it will be better for all of us! :)
Tabby may be open source, but I'm pretty sure that all of the components going into it are propietary and patent encumbered.
f you move me to the beta slashdot abortion i'll add this place to the block list and never visit again.
Hmmm, one less AC. That sounds like a positive development.
Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer?
That is the wrong question. If jQuery is a hack, then ask them what Panasonic's preferred method is.
Say, forever? MATE with Xorg is much more suitable than either Gnome or Wayland.
Ummm, even MATE is planning on switching to Wayland, so evidently the developers of MATE would disagree with you.
I've read through the Wayland site and another half dozen pages that are obviously over my head and I just don't understand what Wayland is or what it's advantages are. I think it's suppose to be replacing X11, but I don't really understand X11 either, other than it's a method of getting things onto the screen. So I'm throwing my ignorance out there hoping I won't be flamed out of existence and someone can explain or point me to a laymen description of Wayland, and/or X11 and how one is better than the other. It seems like it should be a big deal since I've read there's been a lot of dissatisfaction with X11 for quite sometime and yet no one's ever done anything about it. That is until now, if Wayland is in fact a replacement
I'm sorry I realize this has been discussed several times and I'm sorry I'm just not getting it.
Think of it as X12, the new version of X11. X11 came out when COBOL was king and while it and COBOL still work, there have been many advances in hardware and software since then.
I'm curious as to what is the real impact of this? It is hard to fathom somebody running enterprise servers without support agreements. I'm sure it happens, but what is the percentage of HP's clients that would be impacted by this? If they have to prepare the service packs for, say, 80% of their clients, what is the extra cost involved in letting the others access to them?
If most of their customers have the agreements, then all this announcement does is create bad PR. Unlike Hollywood, the old adage of any PR is good PR does not apply in the tech industry. Just ask Target about how the PR over their credit card fiasco has helped them!
For this sort of thing it could reasonably be a subsidized transition, like the digital OTA transition.
With digital OTA, you had the option to not watch OTA broadcasts. If you had cable or satellite, you didn't need an overpriced converter box. I wonder why nobody noticed that you could get an add on tv card for your pc cheaper than the converters? Face it, digital tv in the US had nothing to do with improving tv for the consumer. It was, from the very start, a method to bail out the companies that produced tvs in America. The irony was that by the time it was in place, there weren't any left (the last was the Zenith plan in Springfield, Missouri).
If those converter boxes were priced appropriately, millions would have been sold and there wouldn't have been a need for a subsidy. Then again, if the government didn't force the networks to use a different part of the spectrum, there wouldn't have been the need for the boxes, in the first place.
The take away on this, as it relates to cars that communicate with each other, is that when the government interferes with the free market, there are always unintended consequences -- and they are usually not inexpensive, at that!
How would this system work on older vehicles beyond maybe just beeping at the driver? It won't. And no way would mandating a device that costs in the hundreds of dollars be installed in peoples cars get past just discussion. A majority of the drivers on the road cannot afford even fixing their cars to be road worthy, which in itself would probably reduce the amount of single-car accidents on the road.
Or they could just outlaw older cars. They already had cash for clunkers, once. What's to stop them from doing it again, but this time mandating it?
Just think if your vehicle is broadcasting it's unique ID and speed, etc., all the highway patrol needs to do is grab it. Heck, in this world where we want to automate everything currently done by humans, you wouldn't even need the highway patrol. You could just have roadside scanners. Or think of the red light cameras in use today. Now, they can show you in the intersection and showing how you didn't slow down when the light turned yellow.
Does the public really believe this is just for safety? Just like with autonomous vehicles, this only makes sense once a critical mass is reached for cars having the the new technology. Until then, the majority of other vehicles still won't have a clue as to what the other vehicle is doing. That is unless, the government is going to require retrofitting existing vehicles. All in the name of national security. Oops, I mean highway safety.
Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though -- browser choice is a pretty small arm of the octopus.
Microsoft's stock is 20.89% higher than it was on this date in 2002. That is an average yearly increase of 1.74%. US Savings Bonds had a greater return over that time period! So, if their shareholders aren't upset, they should be.
Regardless on the accuracy of the final value (9%), the reality is that unless the methodology has changed, there has been a significant decrease in IE based on the metrics they are using. The downward trend is more problematic than the actual percentage.
I wonder if linking silicon neurons together to mimic the functioning of actual neurons in the human brain will lead to the same inaccuracies and false assumptions that humans make all of the time?
I agree with what you are saying. But to win his case, he has to have a standing and the only grounds he can use is the Freedom of Information Act. You can't sue the government to do something it is not required by law to do. At least you can't sue them and win.
Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge?
Of course they can, would, and have done. All governments have export restrictions, and apply them to Universities as well as all other groups, and are not fooled by "I didn't do it, it was that other group". If Coursera was sending money or satellite images could they simply setup a "partner" outside the US? If you think that teaching is not comparable... the politicians don't agree with you, and they've made it clear they don't by forcing Coursera to exclude these countries.
US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.
International sanctions are approved and enforced by the majority of countries in the world, although often at the behest of the US. If a member of Coursera tried to make the material available to a restricted country, regardless of how they obfuscate the transfer, they're liable (and likely) to be charged with a crime.
Are you suggesting that people move to Iran and start a Coursera clone? (Even if they did, how would they get the new material?) Are you suggesting that people working with Coursera stay in the US and defy export restrictions with some fig leaf excuse? The idea that "there is a simple solution" to ignoring the government is, again, either naive or trolling.
If you read the my original post, it stated that working through a foreign company does not make you responsible for that company's action unless the whole intent was to circumvent the US law (paraphrased). US universities share info with European ones all the time. If the European university did something the US didn't like, they can't charge the US university over it. They could and probably would apply pressure to the foreign government to do something, but ultimately it would be that government imposing a restriction, not the US.
International sanctions are different, and are not part of the discussion with Coursera. International sanctions are already agreed to by the countries involved and as such it is still be the foreign government enforcing the restriction on their entities, not the US.
People wouldn't have to move to Iran to start their own Coursera, France, which is friendly to Iran would be good enough. Unless you are thinking that the US will boycott France (in which case the Saudis would be happy to host Coursera and we want their oil, so we won't boycott them), there isn't anything the US can do about it.
There truly is a simple solution and that is to do this under international law. It is the same reason why a lot of companies off-shore all sorts of operations. It doesn't mean it is an inexpensive solution, just a simple one.
Costly and time consuming?
Really, you are going with that?
The 90 day mission has stretched to 10 years. They somehow found money to keep these guys employed all those years, they are on the payroll till the rover dies.
What other random thing in the drive-able vicinity is likely to be MORE interesting? This Rover has accomplished just about all it can possibly do with its worn out tools, aging batteries, lame wheels, etc. There is probably nothing more interesting than this rock, and spending the effort (which surely they must be very well practiced and efficient at, considering the ten years they have had to perfect their craft) to evaluate it and release the data is no big deal.
You can go to the JPL site and search all the photos, so its not like they don't have more to give.
When you obtain government records under the Freedom of Information Act, you still have to pay the cost to produce the records, even though the cost of the original record is a sunk cost. So, if you want additional information from Mars, there is the satellite time, the technician time and a whole slew of other costs associated with it. And, yes, those costs are quite expensive and legal to charge.
... there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.
Poe's Law: are you sincere and politically naive, or are you trolling? Do you think the US Government will just give-up and admit defeat if Coursera tries to break international trade sanctions? Since your comment was modded +5 Insightful, I also have to wonder about the moderators. Is this really how people think politics and the law work?
Not at all. For instance, what if one of the major European universities published this information? Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge? US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.
Wrong. The basic principle is that all people are "endowed by their Creator" with these inalienable rights. It is better that society recognizes and protects these rights rather than violating them, but the rights themselves are not granted by society to be removed on a whim.
Hmmm, I find that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the actual Constitution.
Did you even read the summary, never mind the article?
If so, kindly explain how a bit of the Curiosity landing system suddenly appeared in front of Opportunity.
Because it was made in the USA? I mean, how did a suitcase size piece of foam fall off the shuttle and hit a wing? It's not a smooth ride getting there or landing there and there are winds on Mars. It is quite conceivable that something was loosened and between the martian wind and the vibrations of the rover itself, it fell off.
Wouldn't that be a simpler and more reasonable explanation than NASA is covering up some huge discovery which would certainly get it all the funding it would ever want?