Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!



Microsoft Says IE Faster Than Chrome and Firefox

N3wsByt3 Re:"Marketshare sets the standard" (532 comments)

I think the analogy is a bit misleading here. The main point you are trying to make with your analogy, is that the drive-thru wouldn't make it 5" if 7" has 75% of the market. Which is true on itself, but it wouldn't make that decision based on the 'only' 25% share (which is quite big, actually), but because of the trouble adjusting the drive-thru, while there is no benefit whatsoever in it (since one looses the other 75%).

To make your error more clear: imagine I repeat *all* that you said in your analogy, but switch the 5" and the 7". Then your end-question becomes: "Do you build it to 7' just because some international body (and 25% marketshare) said that was the "standard" or do you recognize the REAL standard and build it to at least 5'?"

Well, yes, if you are smart, you do. that's because a 7" drive-thru will also accomodate a car that is smaller, while a 5" obviously won't do for the 7" cars. Therefor, making a 7" drive-through will be fine for 100% of the market (in the given example), with minimal extra costs for the owner. One would be a complete fool to not do it.

Thus, as one can see, the answer to your question isn't really based on what standard is being proclaimed, but by who you give the 7" too, and the possible benefit one would get if you make your drive-tru bigger or smaller.

In ALL cases (as long as it's worth it), the 7" one would be preferred, so the analogy doesn't really say anything about what's better: to choose a set standard, or the 'real' standard.

In fact, with the browser(s) it's mostly the same as what I said; websites that can adapt their website to accommodate both browsers, would be foolish not to do so. And, exept for some special cases, most websites DO support them. Will webmasters make their site ONLY available for IE, if they can make it available to firefox too and gain another 25%? I very much doubt it.

Your analogy only works if you accept the premise it's 'IE-cars' that has the 7" (but that's arbitrarily chosen), and that it is impossible for the drive-thru builder to accommodate for cars of 5" and 7" of clearance.

Both premises are, when compared with browsers, highly doubtful to be true, and thus the analogy fails due to those differences.

more than 5 years ago

Cold-War Era Naval Vessels Up For Grabs

N3wsByt3 right (165 comments)

first post?

Anyway, it's not "giving" it away, if they ask 25 million for it...

more than 5 years ago

DARPA Creates Remote Controlled Insects

N3wsByt3 Resistence is futile! (101 comments)

I, for one, welcome our new cybernetic-cockroaches Overlords!

more than 5 years ago



Wikileaks wins!

N3wsByt3 N3wsByt3 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

N3wsByt3 writes "As I already pointed out in my blog, big news has just come in: a certain naughty Swiss bank has dropped all charges towards a certain whistleblowing site. Well, we all know the story, and yes, it ends well, thus: "A Swiss bank that successfully sued to yank the Wikileaks.org domain name, and then faced a severe setback in a subsequent court ruling, has given up for now. Bank Julius Baer filed a brief note with a court in San Francisco Wednesday saying it would voluntarily dismiss its own case, while reserving the right to file it again in the future or pursue it "in an alternate court, jurisdiction, or venue.""

Oh, yes, by all means, pursue us further! I'm sure the additional media-attention will be welcomed! Unless they're really stupid, I think we won't hear from them again. At least, not in regard with free speech, though some case of money-laundering is always possible..."

Link to Original Source

Swiss bank drops lawsuit against Wikileaks

N3wsByt3 N3wsByt3 writes  |  more than 6 years ago

N3wsByt3 writes "Word had just come out: Lawyers for Bank Julius Baer filed court papers Wednesday in San Francisco that officially ended the case. The lawsuit sought to prevent the renegade Web site from posting secret documents the bank alleged were stolen by a disgruntled ex-employee, but that plan backfired, as previously discussed on slashdot. They probably wizened up after that, saw they had no case and much extra or bad (well, both, in their case) publicity on the horizon, and decided to pull the plug. Hopefully, this is the last we hear from them trying to shut down our Wikileaks domainnames!"
Link to Original Source



N3wsByt3 N3wsByt3 writes  |  more than 10 years ago

It's strange how trolls are capable of making you answer them, even when knowing very well you shouldn't and are only feeding them. There is little reasoning nor argumentation possible with a true troll; mostly they go 'blahblah' mixed with some provocative crap.

"Don't feed the trolls" is something that should be enshrined on slashdot, somewhere.

And yet... I also think some of those trolls are just people that react out of anger or some other emotional response. They often lack the ability of either responding in an eloquent way (not comming out of their words, not knowing how to write it), or they just feel powerless to argument something in a rational way (mostly because, somewhere deep down, they realise their arguments are purely based on emotions, not rational reasoning).

It's funny to see how some ppl revert to basic trolling, once they realise they don't have a leg to stand on.

Of course, I have been accused of being a troll myself, sometimes (mostly when I try to make a funny remark that some moderater didn't think was funny ;-).

I personally never reverted to a 'blahblah - all what you say is BS' sort of response when I was argumenting something, however. I think all responses to me deserve an equal thoughtful response back, according to what the worth of that response was. (Ofcourse, troll-flamebaits do not deserve much, in this regard).

But that has nothing to do whether people agree with me or not (though I may question their reasoning for reaching a particular conclusion). In fact, on one of my more succesfull posts, about human space-exploration, I got some really useful responses, even though I did not, or not always completely agreed with their line of reasoning (at which point I always try to demonstrate where a contradiction is apparent).

Sometimes, this has to do with the basic premise one takes, and those are the most difficult ones to counter. For instance, in the above example, if one starts with the premise that the ratio cost/science output or the economic benefit of spacetravel as being of overruling importance above all other possible goals and considerations, one can very rationally argument that human spacetravel should be abolished.

Are they wrong, then? Well, their reasoning is not. It makes perfect sense, even. But only if you accept the basic tenet they started with.

This is fundamentally different then an error in reasoning, which can be pointed out fairly easily (and is the common mistake of ppl that try to argument purely on emotional drives). Such contradictions in ones' reasoning lead to internal contradictions, which makes the argumentation itself worthless, and even hypocritical, when persevered.

With 'premise-errors' it's something else; the error there can not be demonstrated through logic reasoning, since it is a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. The only thing possible here, is to either agree on a particular premise, or agreeing that other premises are possible, and look at the conclusions one can make on those.

Ah well...the trolls won't care either way :-).

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?