Dear Slashdot,
I have been visiting this site for many years, and find the current version 2.0 decent (after a bumpy start). Slashdot has stayed mostly interesting while the user comments are sometimes funny and useful, insightful, etc. I have learned a lot from this site so I have a strong desire to see it stay healthy.
However, you risk losing exactly the types of users who make the site worth visiting. How would this new design appeal to a technical person who wants to quickly scan through to find a few stories or comments to contribute to? The answer from the above comments seems to be that these types of users won't bother fighting against this terrible design and will leave instead.
Biggest problem with the Beta: The new design forces too much scrolling which is a nightmare on a site where the the pages are long threads. It flies in the face of common sense. Even the BETA Classic View is clumsy and awkward to use with wasted space everywhere. Perhaps if you make the classic view much more compact - like the current version of the site - then you might keep a portion of the loyal users.
In short, if the new design is adopted without significant improvements, I will probably stop visiting Slashdot. And I fear many others will as well, and that would be a sad ending for a once great forum. Please don't ruin Slashdot!
Sincerely,
Jason
And they did a good job of it. Now someone (government, ofcom?) needs to keep the mobile operators in line, meaning they must fulfill their end of the deal to cover 99% of the UK with a good network and signal. It remains to be seen if the billions that the companies didn't spend on the spectrum auction are applied instead to network infrastructure - or corporate waste (executive wages).
There are many people in the USA who agree with your view. I'm one of them. I suspect you're getting a biased view from what you read on the internet.
If I had mod points, +1 Interesting.
Four years ago, I did battle with Japanese Knot Weed in the back garden of a house we rented in Cambridge. I tried to kill it for two years by digging it up and applying weed killer. It was very resilient, but I was winning the battle before we left that house.
This was a small area looked after by a pretty determined individual (me), I can't imagine what it would take to get rid of it from the the huge areas it occupies such as the valleys around Cardiff.
I see quite a few using it where I work (in a university). It's very fast, and stable as mentioned in the interview. I also like the private browsing mode.
It especially works well on my old slow laptop. Firefox is too heavy but Chrome runs.
I'd like to see a few Firefox extensions made available, but it's a great start.
Um, 19 dollars multiplied by 50 million = 950 million (just short of a billion)
your math needs help!
correct, only a fraction of the customers would buy the converter so the 1 billion seems a bit high, I'd say 500 million is better.
I'm annoyed with this too, I also think they are more distracting for oncoming drivers. I just found this about the glare:
http://www.mvlc.info/glare.html
However, they provide much better visibility and it is predicted that most/all cars will eventually have these headlights so best get used to them. At the moment they are more expensive so that's why luxury cars have them and others not. Boy racers who are modifying their lamps to look more blue might not be properly aligned or perhaps using systems that are too intense.
Peace!
I very much agree with the parent.
This really illustrates the importance of science education, especially chemistry and biology. If more people had a good understanding of these subjects they'd be able to better judge for themselves how they are being shamelessly manipulated by this kind of reporting. Shame on the journalists for making it seem like there's a serious problem here.
...the amount of resources the FBI uses on cyber crime could be smaller. It's good to see it number three on this list, I almost expected it to be further down.
The question is, are these resources being used appropriately? Whose interests are they trying to protect?
I think mashup is a great word. It originally started as a cool synonym for music sampling and has proved flexible like lots of great popular terms, such as cool itself. There are lots of other newish words out now that are annoying, but not this one.
But then again, such terms run the risk of being overused. Regardless, youngsters nowadays will probably say it lots (especially if they know that it bothers some grumpy older folk) and we all should get used to it!
Societies like the Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK and also the American Chemical Society are slightly different from the big publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, etc. The society publishers make a profit, yes, but much of the profits get put back into the field of chemistry for running conferences, research grants, public outreach, etc. It doesn't seem wrong for them to make money on the system as it gets reinvested into something useful and beneficial to science.
Also, these publishers have consistently high standards which is most welcome these days where quality can be quite variable.
Easy there, big guy, no need to be nasty. I'm referring to disagreement about the main climate change arguments, not about details. Of course there are disagreements about details of the mechanisms, but the fact that CO2 from anthropogenic sources is causing global climate to increase is nothing I've ever heard debated by the experts in this field.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any credible data that counters this claim? I ask sincerely, I really want to know.
I'm always amazed by the claim that there are some scientists who disagree about the causes of climate change. This doesn't hold any weight, and I work every day with "paleoclimatologists, geochemists, atmospheric chemists, etc, the ones that really study the field". Every time I read one of these claims that there is some sort of disagreement, I ask my colleagues if they have ever heard of such evidence and the answer is always no.
The data is overwhelmingly convincing, and no one has supplied any credible proof to the contrary. It's time to stop confusing the debate simply because it is the right thing to do for the whole planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Slashdot, I have been visiting this site for many years, and find the current version 2.0 decent (after a bumpy start). Slashdot has stayed mostly interesting while the user comments are sometimes funny and useful, insightful, etc. I have learned a lot from this site so I have a strong desire to see it stay healthy. However, you risk losing exactly the types of users who make the site worth visiting. How would this new design appeal to a technical person who wants to quickly scan through to find a few stories or comments to contribute to? The answer from the above comments seems to be that these types of users won't bother fighting against this terrible design and will leave instead. Biggest problem with the Beta: The new design forces too much scrolling which is a nightmare on a site where the the pages are long threads. It flies in the face of common sense. Even the BETA Classic View is clumsy and awkward to use with wasted space everywhere. Perhaps if you make the classic view much more compact - like the current version of the site - then you might keep a portion of the loyal users. In short, if the new design is adopted without significant improvements, I will probably stop visiting Slashdot. And I fear many others will as well, and that would be a sad ending for a once great forum. Please don't ruin Slashdot! Sincerely, Jason
And they did a good job of it. Now someone (government, ofcom?) needs to keep the mobile operators in line, meaning they must fulfill their end of the deal to cover 99% of the UK with a good network and signal. It remains to be seen if the billions that the companies didn't spend on the spectrum auction are applied instead to network infrastructure - or corporate waste (executive wages).
Inigo maybe? You killed my father...
Prepare to die! Good one, man :-)
There are many people in the USA who agree with your view. I'm one of them. I suspect you're getting a biased view from what you read on the internet. If I had mod points, +1 Interesting.
Ha, I hope you're joking. Sad thing is that nukes probably wouldn't even do the job, it has spread so far and is so tough to kill.
Four years ago, I did battle with Japanese Knot Weed in the back garden of a house we rented in Cambridge. I tried to kill it for two years by digging it up and applying weed killer. It was very resilient, but I was winning the battle before we left that house. This was a small area looked after by a pretty determined individual (me), I can't imagine what it would take to get rid of it from the the huge areas it occupies such as the valleys around Cardiff.
I see quite a few using it where I work (in a university). It's very fast, and stable as mentioned in the interview. I also like the private browsing mode. It especially works well on my old slow laptop. Firefox is too heavy but Chrome runs. I'd like to see a few Firefox extensions made available, but it's a great start.
Um, 19 dollars multiplied by 50 million = 950 million (just short of a billion) your math needs help! correct, only a fraction of the customers would buy the converter so the 1 billion seems a bit high, I'd say 500 million is better.
This makes me trust Google even more as my search engine of choice. Is their psychology working?
I'm annoyed with this too, I also think they are more distracting for oncoming drivers. I just found this about the glare: http://www.mvlc.info/glare.html However, they provide much better visibility and it is predicted that most/all cars will eventually have these headlights so best get used to them. At the moment they are more expensive so that's why luxury cars have them and others not. Boy racers who are modifying their lamps to look more blue might not be properly aligned or perhaps using systems that are too intense. Peace!
I very much agree with the parent. This really illustrates the importance of science education, especially chemistry and biology. If more people had a good understanding of these subjects they'd be able to better judge for themselves how they are being shamelessly manipulated by this kind of reporting. Shame on the journalists for making it seem like there's a serious problem here.
but the foxit reader has a big problem, the search function doesn't always work http://www.foxitsoftware.com/support/techsupport/showfaq.htm#phnm_02 and the copy/paste function is unreliable http://www.foxitsoftware.com/support/techsupport/showfaq.htm#phnm_01
...the amount of resources the FBI uses on cyber crime could be smaller. It's good to see it number three on this list, I almost expected it to be further down. The question is, are these resources being used appropriately? Whose interests are they trying to protect?
for making such useful, interesting software for free. Keep up the good work.
I use Kubuntu every day and it's fine. I prefer it to normal ubuntu by a long shot.
I think mashup is a great word. It originally started as a cool synonym for music sampling and has proved flexible like lots of great popular terms, such as cool itself. There are lots of other newish words out now that are annoying, but not this one. But then again, such terms run the risk of being overused. Regardless, youngsters nowadays will probably say it lots (especially if they know that it bothers some grumpy older folk) and we all should get used to it!
Societies like the Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK and also the American Chemical Society are slightly different from the big publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley, etc. The society publishers make a profit, yes, but much of the profits get put back into the field of chemistry for running conferences, research grants, public outreach, etc. It doesn't seem wrong for them to make money on the system as it gets reinvested into something useful and beneficial to science.
Also, these publishers have consistently high standards which is most welcome these days where quality can be quite variable.
It might be a corrupted image file.
Download again.
I find the Ubuntu live CD works really well.
Easy there, big guy, no need to be nasty. I'm referring to disagreement about the main climate change arguments, not about details. Of course there are disagreements about details of the mechanisms, but the fact that CO2 from anthropogenic sources is causing global climate to increase is nothing I've ever heard debated by the experts in this field. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any credible data that counters this claim? I ask sincerely, I really want to know.
I'm always amazed by the claim that there are some scientists who disagree about the causes of climate change. This doesn't hold any weight, and I work every day with "paleoclimatologists, geochemists, atmospheric chemists, etc, the ones that really study the field". Every time I read one of these claims that there is some sort of disagreement, I ask my colleagues if they have ever heard of such evidence and the answer is always no.
The data is overwhelmingly convincing, and no one has supplied any credible proof to the contrary. It's time to stop confusing the debate simply because it is the right thing to do for the whole planet.