The topic is fuck slash beta until it goes away. If it doesn't go away, then fuck this rob malda left it in terrible hands. He has lots o money and he didn't even leave the site in good hands. He left it in the hands a fucking content farm company. He might as well as sold it to answers.com.
He wanted/. to die in a fire so people would migrate to his new company, Trove.
Well, to answer your first question -- yes, there are some users who like the redesign. It's a bit of an echo chamber in the comments, but we've received some complimentary emails. (Which is not to say we weight those more heavily than uncomplimentary ones -- we don't.)
Commenting is certainly not an afterthought. It's at the top of our list for things that need more work. We know you come to the site for the comments (as we ourselves did back in the '90s).
"as we ourselves did back in the '90s" - interesting choice of words. Are you implying (either on purpose or by accident) that you don't come to the site for the comments anymore, or that you just don't come to the site (except for work)? Why?
The beta looks terribly cookie-cutter in its design, and the comment layout just feels off. It doesn't feel right. Sorry, but I'm not sure how else to explain myself in this case. But do keep in mind that Slashdot is Slashdot because of the users that participate in the comment sections (AC or not), not because of the stories posted. Experienced users know how to wade through the piles of shit posts (frosty piss, update your hosts file, you're a friend and a cosmonaut, etc) to get to the real discussions. Rather than overhauling the entire site, why not make it easier on newcomers to get to "good" comments and participate in a real discussion? Figure that out first and I think other needed improvements will become obvious.
*This may lead to being beaten around the head with a crowbar by an angry physicist. A fix will be implemented if we ever solve the problem (unlikely).
Nah, they'll just say the fix will be in the "Next update".
Wow - it takes a couple hours to get to the set point in our 2 bedroom apartment and multiple run cycles. It's all on one floor, but has bad windows, and air leaks right around the front door. The AC unit is 30+ years old. I'm in the midwest where space is a little cheaper, but my apt. isn't huge.
I also let the thermostat go up to about 85 when nobody's home. The humidity is high here in the summer, so I'm sure that's a factor.
Maybe I just got lucky in the apartments I've rented and the house I own as far as windows, insulation, and HVAC goes. I've spent most of my life in Michigan, so frigid winters and hot sticky summers are the norm for me. Sounds like you have a landlord that either doesn't care or isn't fully aware of how bad it is for you!
Do they? I never once remembered to turn down the thermostat when leaving for a trip.
And no - a fan is not enough for me against a humid warm apartment.
I always have turned down the thermostat when my family leaves the house for an extended period of time, it's just what I was taught to do I guess. As for the AC, I have never lived in an apartment that didn't take about 15 minutes to cool down with a wall or window AC (I've never had an apartment >1000 sq ft either). If you can't deal with it for that long then I suppose that sucks for you, but I think you're the exception and not the rule here.
When you're away from home for the weekend, and you didn't know when you'd get back. You can turn on the AC/Heat a couple hours before you get home. That way, you could go without paying for heating/cooling the entire time you're gone.
You could also do what most people have done forever - turn on the heat / AC when you get home and grab a blanket / fan while you're waiting for the house to heat up / cool down. Neat features, yes, but wholly unnecessary.
Yup. They're called, "people who believe that some sites should be supported by their primary revenue model."
I leave advertisements on when visiting/. Why? They're mostly harmless, and well targeted -- albeit a bit redundant. Someday I might actually see something I'm interested in and make these guys a few bucks.
Seems a fair thing to do in exchange for their services.
Sorry, but if the only way you can monetize whatever you are doing is by placing ads for other people / organizations on your page, then maybe what you're doing isn't worth much. Everyone wants to think that whatever they have is worth something, and unfortunately for them that's usually not the case. That aside, I appreciate Slashdot's optional ads and I don't use Adblock on their site, but I leave it on for basically everyone else.
I would like to go to Europe some day. Sure, I have the means to do it right now but that doesn't mean it's a good idea because it would seriously set back other goals I have. By putting off a trip to Europe for now, I can achieve all of my goals eventually. However, if I had a condition that would make long-term goals impossible, then sure, I would go to Europe now because I would no longer be sacrificing the now-impossible goals.
What happens if you spend all that money now and a perfect cure is found in 10 years for whatever condition you have? Where would that leave you?
I think too many aren't aware of any "market rate". And they also don't truly appreciate having a talented developer on their payroll, which is why they would rather get one of few barely qualified employees and hope the dev does something right while getting paid 20% below market (or worse) than have to sift through a stack of resumes, pick out the most qualified applicants, take time to properly interview them, and make decisions that to them all seem like expenses with no return. And if not to whoever is doing the hiring, then to that person's superior.
tl;dr: it's my opinion that so many companies don't appreciate paying for or retaining a great development team.
Right now it's all just talk, so yeah... that would be a start.
As of Today; I have no Google fiber, and Google fiber is nowhere even near my state.... all of the broadband providers in may area forbid running servers without buying an uber-overpriced "business" service that increases the monthly price tag from the residential $120/month for 3 Megabit cable from Charter to a minimum of about $800/month
Where on earth do you live? Our office in the Detroit area pays about $180/mo for 100Mbit down/10Mbit up (cable modem), with a static IP, and we can run pretty much whatever we want on it (I say pretty much because if we started e-mail spamming, for example, I'm sure they'd cut us off). My residential service costs $75/mo for 30Mbit down/3Mbit up (also cable), and I have never once been scolded for running any kind of server.
Why should I really be too upset about Google restricting the use of its bandwidth to non-commercial purposes for the 5 or 6 people they are serving, again?
I believe the point is that Google is now publically arguing against net neutrality after championing it for so many years. It's not about their customers, it's about their lobbying power and money and how it could adversely affect us in the not-so-distant future.
You do realize you're being more of a bigot than he is?
I have never heard of "intolerance of intolerance" being described as bigotry before. Card is actively campaigning against (i.e. spending money to oppress or support the oppression of) a whole group of people. h4rr4r's MetaIntolerance (if you want to call it that) is simply choosing not to support someone he/she sees as a bigot. There is a big difference there.
I wonder how long it will be before we can clone our own body, grow it in a vat, and get our head strapped to it in order to beat old age. Disposable designer bodies, anyone?
Yes you record everything on a 10 minute loop, you stop the recording 30 s after an accident occurs. That way you only ever have 10 minutes of data but you capture all accidents. SImple solution to the issue.
How about you record... nothing? My privacy is worth more to me than some insurance company's agenda. Of course they want to have all the best data, it makes their actuarial tables that much more precise. Then they'll know *exactly* who to insure and who not to insure (or do so at a predatory rate). And it wouldn't be an issue at all if the insurance companies weren't so damned greedy that they thought they could get away with this. (though frankly one of the few reasons the politicians are trying to block it is probably because they wouldn't have a way around the cameras)
Makes you wonder what's wrong with the Great Lakes route which is presumably much shorter.
My guess would be the waves on the lake are too choppy to keep the magnet ring level. The waves are far choppier (higher frequency) on the Great Lakes than they are in the ocean.
Except CD's are drastically overpriced. Also, you have to deal with purchasing an entire disc for maybe only two songs you actually want to listen to. No, don't buy the CD if it isn't what you really want, because then you're supporting the mediocrity of the artists and the overpowered corporations behind them.
Somewhere at my last job, there was a Solaris 8 machine with over 4000 days uptime, that everybody hated to do anything with, but one person loved it and refused to migrate the last service that was still on it to something more modern.
Uptime is irrelevant for an individual server, anyway. If there's fail over (and there should be if uptime is important), take it down and update the kernel for security reasons, who cares?
Ok, this is the last response I'm making, because arguing on the internet is retarded. You don't know me, so you have no idea what my idea of "normal" is; you don't have superpowers, so you can't infer my thoughts from a discussion on Slashdot. I'm not giving up anything. Class action lawsuits against video game companies, in my opinion, only happen because of a false sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have these days. As an individual, you stand to gain very little from a class action suit. The lawyers, oh, they'll clean up, but you'll get nothing in comparison. And you'll have temporarily hurt the company you sued, sure. But in the end, all you did was flick them in the nose and get nothing in return, which is funny because you (as an end user) don't have to do shit in a class action lawsuit. So be happy knowing you follow the pattern of a bully, and that I dislike you for it.
Speaking of fallacy, you just took my words to the other extreme. Class action lawsuits HAVE been hurting Valve, and have been doing so even when they're not in the wrong. If you want to sue them as an individual, go ahead. If you don't want to deal with them, don't use their service. If you are angry because you have invested money into their company by buying games through them and feel that this one issue is too much to bear, I'm sorry you feel that way. I felt that way at first when I read the TOS changes. I was pissed about it for a week - I didn't accept the agreement and didn't play anything on Steam. Then I realized that I'd rather play my games than stay angry over this whole issue.
tl;dr: you still have plenty of remedies, just not the ability to bully them via class action suit. If they do something truly worthy of class action, then I suppose I'll have to eat my words. I'm comfortable with that.
I don't consider a one-time $50 loss the end of the world (and I doubt you do either). You might not sue them for the $50, but I assume you wouldn't give them any more of your money after you got burned once. If they really, truly screwed $50 each out of a million people, they'd likely only get away with it once. I think Valve, at least, has been around long enough to realize that would be a really stupid move. They would get blasted on all the gaming news outlets and would see their revenues drop sharply. That doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the company.
But what have they done to you that's worthy of a lawsuit? Or to anyone else, for that matter? Just because Valve is a corporation doesn't make them "evil". And just because they might slight an individual user doesn't mean they're doing it to their entire (or a large chunk of) their userbase.
Slashdot Mirror
The topic is fuck slash beta until it goes away. If it doesn't go away, then fuck this rob malda left it in terrible hands. He has lots o money and he didn't even leave the site in good hands. He left it in the hands a fucking content farm company. He might as well as sold it to answers.com.
He wanted /. to die in a fire so people would migrate to his new company, Trove.
Well, to answer your first question -- yes, there are some users who like the redesign. It's a bit of an echo chamber in the comments, but we've received some complimentary emails. (Which is not to say we weight those more heavily than uncomplimentary ones -- we don't.)
Commenting is certainly not an afterthought. It's at the top of our list for things that need more work. We know you come to the site for the comments (as we ourselves did back in the '90s).
"as we ourselves did back in the '90s" - interesting choice of words. Are you implying (either on purpose or by accident) that you don't come to the site for the comments anymore, or that you just don't come to the site (except for work)? Why?
The beta looks terribly cookie-cutter in its design, and the comment layout just feels off. It doesn't feel right. Sorry, but I'm not sure how else to explain myself in this case. But do keep in mind that Slashdot is Slashdot because of the users that participate in the comment sections (AC or not), not because of the stories posted. Experienced users know how to wade through the piles of shit posts (frosty piss, update your hosts file, you're a friend and a cosmonaut, etc) to get to the real discussions. Rather than overhauling the entire site, why not make it easier on newcomers to get to "good" comments and participate in a real discussion? Figure that out first and I think other needed improvements will become obvious.
*This may lead to being beaten around the head with a crowbar by an angry physicist. A fix will be implemented if we ever solve the problem (unlikely).
Nah, they'll just say the fix will be in the "Next update".
Heheh, your former landlord knew what he was talking about. =)
Wow - it takes a couple hours to get to the set point in our 2 bedroom apartment and multiple run cycles. It's all on one floor, but has bad windows, and air leaks right around the front door. The AC unit is 30+ years old. I'm in the midwest where space is a little cheaper, but my apt. isn't huge.
I also let the thermostat go up to about 85 when nobody's home. The humidity is high here in the summer, so I'm sure that's a factor.
Maybe I just got lucky in the apartments I've rented and the house I own as far as windows, insulation, and HVAC goes. I've spent most of my life in Michigan, so frigid winters and hot sticky summers are the norm for me. Sounds like you have a landlord that either doesn't care or isn't fully aware of how bad it is for you!
Do they? I never once remembered to turn down the thermostat when leaving for a trip.
And no - a fan is not enough for me against a humid warm apartment.
I always have turned down the thermostat when my family leaves the house for an extended period of time, it's just what I was taught to do I guess. As for the AC, I have never lived in an apartment that didn't take about 15 minutes to cool down with a wall or window AC (I've never had an apartment >1000 sq ft either). If you can't deal with it for that long then I suppose that sucks for you, but I think you're the exception and not the rule here.
When you're away from home for the weekend, and you didn't know when you'd get back. You can turn on the AC/Heat a couple hours before you get home. That way, you could go without paying for heating/cooling the entire time you're gone.
You could also do what most people have done forever - turn on the heat / AC when you get home and grab a blanket / fan while you're waiting for the house to heat up / cool down. Neat features, yes, but wholly unnecessary.
Then you should equally have no problem with PETA destroying the hunters' trucks and ATVs. Freedom and all.
If the hunters used those things to trespass and harass PETA folks on their own turf, then sure, that's fine. But your argument is a straw man.
Yup. They're called, "people who believe that some sites should be supported by their primary revenue model."
I leave advertisements on when visiting /. Why? They're mostly harmless, and well targeted -- albeit a bit redundant. Someday I might actually see something I'm interested in and make these guys a few bucks.
Seems a fair thing to do in exchange for their services.
Sorry, but if the only way you can monetize whatever you are doing is by placing ads for other people / organizations on your page, then maybe what you're doing isn't worth much. Everyone wants to think that whatever they have is worth something, and unfortunately for them that's usually not the case. That aside, I appreciate Slashdot's optional ads and I don't use Adblock on their site, but I leave it on for basically everyone else.
I would like to go to Europe some day. Sure, I have the means to do it right now but that doesn't mean it's a good idea because it would seriously set back other goals I have. By putting off a trip to Europe for now, I can achieve all of my goals eventually. However, if I had a condition that would make long-term goals impossible, then sure, I would go to Europe now because I would no longer be sacrificing the now-impossible goals.
What happens if you spend all that money now and a perfect cure is found in 10 years for whatever condition you have? Where would that leave you?
I think too many aren't aware of any "market rate". And they also don't truly appreciate having a talented developer on their payroll, which is why they would rather get one of few barely qualified employees and hope the dev does something right while getting paid 20% below market (or worse) than have to sift through a stack of resumes, pick out the most qualified applicants, take time to properly interview them, and make decisions that to them all seem like expenses with no return. And if not to whoever is doing the hiring, then to that person's superior.
tl;dr: it's my opinion that so many companies don't appreciate paying for or retaining a great development team.
Right now it's all just talk, so yeah... that would be a start.
As of Today; I have no Google fiber, and Google fiber is nowhere even near my state.... all of the broadband providers in may area forbid running servers without buying an uber-overpriced "business" service that increases the monthly price tag from the residential $120/month for 3 Megabit cable from Charter to a minimum of about $800/month
Where on earth do you live? Our office in the Detroit area pays about $180/mo for 100Mbit down/10Mbit up (cable modem), with a static IP, and we can run pretty much whatever we want on it (I say pretty much because if we started e-mail spamming, for example, I'm sure they'd cut us off). My residential service costs $75/mo for 30Mbit down/3Mbit up (also cable), and I have never once been scolded for running any kind of server.
Why should I really be too upset about Google restricting the use of its bandwidth to non-commercial purposes for the 5 or 6 people they are serving, again?
I believe the point is that Google is now publically arguing against net neutrality after championing it for so many years. It's not about their customers, it's about their lobbying power and money and how it could adversely affect us in the not-so-distant future.
You do realize you're being more of a bigot than he is?
I have never heard of "intolerance of intolerance" being described as bigotry before. Card is actively campaigning against (i.e. spending money to oppress or support the oppression of) a whole group of people. h4rr4r's MetaIntolerance (if you want to call it that) is simply choosing not to support someone he/she sees as a bigot. There is a big difference there.
I imagine a little (ok, maybe a lot of) plastic surgery will keep the head looking ok. =)
I wonder how long it will be before we can clone our own body, grow it in a vat, and get our head strapped to it in order to beat old age. Disposable designer bodies, anyone?
Yes you record everything on a 10 minute loop, you stop the recording 30 s after an accident occurs. That way you only ever have 10 minutes of data but you capture all accidents. SImple solution to the issue.
How about you record... nothing? My privacy is worth more to me than some insurance company's agenda. Of course they want to have all the best data, it makes their actuarial tables that much more precise. Then they'll know *exactly* who to insure and who not to insure (or do so at a predatory rate). And it wouldn't be an issue at all if the insurance companies weren't so damned greedy that they thought they could get away with this. (though frankly one of the few reasons the politicians are trying to block it is probably because they wouldn't have a way around the cameras)
Makes you wonder what's wrong with the Great Lakes route which is presumably much shorter.
My guess would be the waves on the lake are too choppy to keep the magnet ring level. The waves are far choppier (higher frequency) on the Great Lakes than they are in the ocean.
...it could be a case of "you start from the top and we'll start from the bottom" scenario.
Didn't work so well for East Germany for 40ish years or so, though.
It's not an either/or.. BOTH MP3 and CD can be overpriced.
I agree very much.
Except CD's are drastically overpriced. Also, you have to deal with purchasing an entire disc for maybe only two songs you actually want to listen to. No, don't buy the CD if it isn't what you really want, because then you're supporting the mediocrity of the artists and the overpowered corporations behind them.
Somewhere at my last job, there was a Solaris 8 machine with over 4000 days uptime, that everybody hated to do anything with, but one person loved it and refused to migrate the last service that was still on it to something more modern.
Uptime is irrelevant for an individual server, anyway. If there's fail over (and there should be if uptime is important), take it down and update the kernel for security reasons, who cares?
It's like Cory Doctorow said in When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth:
“Greedo will rise again,” Felix said. “I’ve got a 486 downstairs with over five years of uptime. It’s going to break my heart to reboot it.”
“What the everlasting shit do you use a 486 for?”
“Nothing. But who shuts down a machine with five years uptime? That’s like euthanizing your grandmother.”
Ok, this is the last response I'm making, because arguing on the internet is retarded. You don't know me, so you have no idea what my idea of "normal" is; you don't have superpowers, so you can't infer my thoughts from a discussion on Slashdot. I'm not giving up anything. Class action lawsuits against video game companies, in my opinion, only happen because of a false sense of entitlement that so many people seem to have these days. As an individual, you stand to gain very little from a class action suit. The lawyers, oh, they'll clean up, but you'll get nothing in comparison. And you'll have temporarily hurt the company you sued, sure. But in the end, all you did was flick them in the nose and get nothing in return, which is funny because you (as an end user) don't have to do shit in a class action lawsuit. So be happy knowing you follow the pattern of a bully, and that I dislike you for it.
Speaking of fallacy, you just took my words to the other extreme. Class action lawsuits HAVE been hurting Valve, and have been doing so even when they're not in the wrong. If you want to sue them as an individual, go ahead. If you don't want to deal with them, don't use their service. If you are angry because you have invested money into their company by buying games through them and feel that this one issue is too much to bear, I'm sorry you feel that way. I felt that way at first when I read the TOS changes. I was pissed about it for a week - I didn't accept the agreement and didn't play anything on Steam. Then I realized that I'd rather play my games than stay angry over this whole issue.
tl;dr: you still have plenty of remedies, just not the ability to bully them via class action suit. If they do something truly worthy of class action, then I suppose I'll have to eat my words. I'm comfortable with that.
I don't consider a one-time $50 loss the end of the world (and I doubt you do either). You might not sue them for the $50, but I assume you wouldn't give them any more of your money after you got burned once. If they really, truly screwed $50 each out of a million people, they'd likely only get away with it once. I think Valve, at least, has been around long enough to realize that would be a really stupid move. They would get blasted on all the gaming news outlets and would see their revenues drop sharply. That doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the company.
But what have they done to you that's worthy of a lawsuit? Or to anyone else, for that matter? Just because Valve is a corporation doesn't make them "evil". And just because they might slight an individual user doesn't mean they're doing it to their entire (or a large chunk of) their userbase.