Indeed. What they're doing to Slashdot is so symptomatic of the way web developers work, and indeed the whole modern software industry works. There's no notion of evolutionary change, of fixing bugs, adding enhancements in a controlled manner but with an eye towards familiarity and ease of use.
My biggest concern is that frankly, the beta just plain sucks. It sucks in every single possible way. I get that they're saying it isn't ready, but the concern for many of us isn't just that the beta is just bloody horrible now, but that the direction its going suggests that it will never be an adequate replacement for the current "classic" Slashdot.
"Former US president (and everyone's favorite funny man) Richard M. Nixon announced his approval of the Slashdot Beta site.
"I was just telling Pat this morning as I made sweet Nixon love to her that what the web needed was a whitespace-riddled atrocity. Slashdot Beta is the Tet Offensive of discussion sites, so screw you, you stupid hippies."
Henry Kissinger was said to have been very pleased as well. Dr. Kissinger was quoted as saying "In Soviet Russia, Slashdot betas you!""
No. For a small fee, you can get a Republican to do unspeakable things to you in a public washroom. It takes a bit more money to give up the rest of their "core values".
So the editors should give us a proper venue to vent. Until they do, we'll just keep using the mediums made available to use. The Beta site must die or Slashdot will be a lot quieter place.
But from what I can tell of the little message that came up, at some point they intend to shut down the classic site. That's why I sent them an email telling them I'm gone once they do that.
I have to agree. If there is a "professional" gameshow, Jeopardy is it. Trebeck comes off as bright and calm, and never plays to the camera. Even during tense or exciting moments, he keeps things cool. I find, at least as far as atmosphere, Jeopardy is,more like a chess match.
I don't give a damn what parents teach their kids (well, within limits, I wouldn't want parents teaching their kids eating their fellow humans is fine). The issue isn't about that, it is about Creationists attempting to have their long debunked nonsense taught as science in classrooms.
How many Creatonists do you suppose even pay attention to such debates. Believe me, I spent a fifteen years debating Creationists on talk.origins, and I saw maybe one Creationist in all that time start to question their world view. The rest were proof against any evidence, and even after a claim was debunked, the very same person would, a few weeks or months later, trot it out again.
Debating Creationists does no good, and in some ways probably does harm.
I never said ignore them. I'm just saying debating them is the wrong way to go about it. On the first score, Duane Gish's infamous approach to debating; the Gish Gallop, is used by a lot of Creationists. A large number of claims are thrown out, almost all spurious, but so thoroughly overwhelm the other debater that the Creationist seems to have won. On the other score, it gives them the venue and legitimacy they crave.
Anyone with a web browser can see the falsity (indeed the sheer inanity) of Ham's claims. Debating people like Ham only gives them a platform, and in a peculiar way gives them legitimacy. It would be rather like a historian debating a Holocaust denier. Sure, the historian will probably be able to trounce such a person, but at the expense of giving the denier a platform and the inherent legitimacy that goes along with "I want you to be an interlocutor."
Ham's nonsense was debunked long ago (in many cases long before Ham was even born). At this point I doubt even Ham believes it any more, but it's a way to make some cash.
Most people are not pedants or morons, so when carbon is used in climate discussions, folks can sort out you're not talking about graphite or diamonds. Besides there is some legitimacy to using the generic term carbon as many fossil fuels start out with fairly complex organic compounds, the commonality being CO2 emissions.
Just curious, what specific features are needed for writing prose that aren't available in MS Office or LibreOffice? What does Word 2000 do right that later versions do wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. What they're doing to Slashdot is so symptomatic of the way web developers work, and indeed the whole modern software industry works. There's no notion of evolutionary change, of fixing bugs, adding enhancements in a controlled manner but with an eye towards familiarity and ease of use.
Why this need for a radical departure?
My biggest concern is that frankly, the beta just plain sucks. It sucks in every single possible way. I get that they're saying it isn't ready, but the concern for many of us isn't just that the beta is just bloody horrible now, but that the direction its going suggests that it will never be an adequate replacement for the current "classic" Slashdot.
"Former US president (and everyone's favorite funny man) Richard M. Nixon announced his approval of the Slashdot Beta site.
"I was just telling Pat this morning as I made sweet Nixon love to her that what the web needed was a whitespace-riddled atrocity. Slashdot Beta is the Tet Offensive of discussion sites, so screw you, you stupid hippies."
Henry Kissinger was said to have been very pleased as well. Dr. Kissinger was quoted as saying "In Soviet Russia, Slashdot betas you!""
That is if they didn't die of a cerebral hemorrhage after actually trying to read Stinkdot Beta.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Slashdot Beta deals,
Like fetid monkey poo.
Tulips are pink,
Bumstains are brown,
Bury Slashdot Beta,
Deep underground.
No. For a small fee, you can get a Republican to do unspeakable things to you in a public washroom. It takes a bit more money to give up the rest of their "core values".
As am I! Kill this abomination. You fucked up Slashdot/Dice. Admit it, kill the beast, and we can all get back to beating on ACs.
Argentina having an economic crisis... Making impotent threats over the Falklands didn't work, let's try burning all the bank records.
In Soviet Russia, Slashdot betas you!
So the editors should give us a proper venue to vent. Until they do, we'll just keep using the mediums made available to use. The Beta site must die or Slashdot will be a lot quieter place.
I just got downmodded. Apparently the posting public has no right to comment on the horror that is the Slashdot Beta.
But from what I can tell of the little message that came up, at some point they intend to shut down the classic site. That's why I sent them an email telling them I'm gone once they do that.
I've sent them an email telling them that the minute they make it mandatory, I'm gone.
Maybe someone should submit this a story. Let's see if the editors are willing to let the community do a little "meta" bitching.
I have to agree. If there is a "professional" gameshow, Jeopardy is it. Trebeck comes off as bright and calm, and never plays to the camera. Even during tense or exciting moments, he keeps things cool. I find, at least as far as atmosphere, Jeopardy is,more like a chess match.
Oh noes, engineers as Creationism! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S...
What has evolution got to do with atheism? Be specific here.
I don't give a damn what parents teach their kids (well, within limits, I wouldn't want parents teaching their kids eating their fellow humans is fine). The issue isn't about that, it is about Creationists attempting to have their long debunked nonsense taught as science in classrooms.
How many Creatonists do you suppose even pay attention to such debates. Believe me, I spent a fifteen years debating Creationists on talk.origins, and I saw maybe one Creationist in all that time start to question their world view. The rest were proof against any evidence, and even after a claim was debunked, the very same person would, a few weeks or months later, trot it out again.
Debating Creationists does no good, and in some ways probably does harm.
I never said ignore them. I'm just saying debating them is the wrong way to go about it. On the first score, Duane Gish's infamous approach to debating; the Gish Gallop, is used by a lot of Creationists. A large number of claims are thrown out, almost all spurious, but so thoroughly overwhelm the other debater that the Creationist seems to have won. On the other score, it gives them the venue and legitimacy they crave.
Anyone with a web browser can see the falsity (indeed the sheer inanity) of Ham's claims. Debating people like Ham only gives them a platform, and in a peculiar way gives them legitimacy. It would be rather like a historian debating a Holocaust denier. Sure, the historian will probably be able to trounce such a person, but at the expense of giving the denier a platform and the inherent legitimacy that goes along with "I want you to be an interlocutor."
Ham's nonsense was debunked long ago (in many cases long before Ham was even born). At this point I doubt even Ham believes it any more, but it's a way to make some cash.
Most people are not pedants or morons, so when carbon is used in climate discussions, folks can sort out you're not talking about graphite or diamonds. Besides there is some legitimacy to using the generic term carbon as many fossil fuels start out with fairly complex organic compounds, the commonality being CO2 emissions.
Virtually any substance can be a potential pollutant if it sufficiently alters the environment.
Wouldn't you say, form instance, acidification of the oceans is a byproduct of CO2 emissions, and thus CO2 is a pollutant.
Nitrogen is major constituent of the atmosphere. Now go sit for an hour in a room that is pure nitrogen and let me know how it turns out.
And, if you're in a car accident, if we just let you bleed on the street, we'll have saved a few bucks too.
The talent and inspiration modules?