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!



A New Use For Drones: Traffic Scouting

gallondr00nk Re:Kill Beta! (144 comments)

One of the absolute core tenets of Slashdot has always been that they don't delete things (unless someone sues them for a billion dollars, and even then, only once). It's important to be able to prove it if it happens.

Indeed, which is why talk of post deletions is so important to verify. Has it really become that kind of site? Just another barely concealed attempt to exploit an actual community into providing advertising impressions?

Deleting posts would be the death knell for me. The way we use the site is important, but the ethos of it is moreso. A Slashdot that arbitrarily deletes things it deems unwanted isn't one I'd like to contribute to.

I'm sure we'll find out, one way of another.

about a year ago

Slashdot Tries Something New; Audience Responds!

gallondr00nk At the risk of sounding cynical.. (2219 comments)

But this doesn't actually concede anything, does it?

Main points in this statement:

1: One in four users are still being redirected to the new beta.

2: The current Slashdot layout is still disappearing, to be replaced by the beta.

3: The beta needs development.

So what's so groundbreaking about this announcement? Where's the concession? I'm supposed to be happy about this, I suppose?

This is the part that bothers me:

We want to take our current content and all the stuff that matters to this community and deliver it on a site that still speaks to the interests and habits of our current audience, but that is, at the same time, more accessible and shareable by a wider audience.

So Dice wants the best of both worlds; the tech oriented, intelligent userbase contributions, and a wide audience to monetise those contributions to? It isn't going to work.

about a year ago

5 Tech Letdowns In 2013

gallondr00nk I know this one! (2 comments)

The slashdot beta!

Bet you didn't see that one coming..

about a year ago

Target's Data Breach Started With an HVAC Account

gallondr00nk Re:"...as we migrate our audience..." (232 comments)

This is very true. Please keep the feedback coming. The more constructive, the better.

I admire you actually coming out and posting, but I'd point out that there has been a plethora of constructive, detailed feedback on the beta already, seemingly to no avail.

But since you asked, I'd recommend:

Keep the Classic Slashdot.

about a year ago

Target's Data Breach Started With an HVAC Account

gallondr00nk Re:"...as we migrate our audience..." (232 comments)

Since Slashdot without comments is more or less pointless, we actually are paying, it just isn't with money.

If a website is a commodity, then our user generated content and comments are likewise a commodity. On some sites this contribution is pretty marginal, but on Slashdot it's the basis of the entire business model.

Since Slashdot profits from the userbase contributions, that means those contributions have a value.

So yes, I pay, though the contributions are probably not worth a lot ;)

about a year ago

QuakeNet: Government-Sponsored Attacks On IRC Networks

gallondr00nk C'mon editors (197 comments)

Open up a story for all of this. There's been dozens of red marked stories in the firehose, and you're all going on like nothing is happening. It's your job, I can appreciate that, but as site staff you need to address this at some point.

If Dice are wanting to turn /. into another me-too Cloud/Biz/TV news aggregation garbage, it's your jobs that are on the line too. The slashdot you know will get eaten alive.

Ask yourselves, what will the site have left if nobody contributes?

about a year ago

How Edward Snowden's Actions Have Impacted Defense Contractors

gallondr00nk Slashdot beta and defence contractors? (180 comments)

It's funny, but since yesterday and the javascript popup, I find myself unable to type any comment that isn't directly about the beta.

about a year ago

Why the Latest FISA Release By Google Et Al. Means Squat

gallondr00nk Re:Classic Slashdot (131 comments)

I'll stop posting, but not stop visiting.

It's all so unnecessary. They don't have to ditch classic at all and plenty of other sites carry a legacy mode. That'd be all I'd ask - that way I wouldn't need javascript just to load comments, or put up with the sidebar taking up half of my screen width.

It's a shame. The editing is sometimes sketchy and occasionally completely incorrect, the stories can be hysterical or just plain rubbish, but it doesn't matter. The point is that /. often has brilliant contributions from people involved in a wide range of fields. Driving those contributions away will be the death of this site.

I'm certainly not of their caliber, but I feel that if enough of us simply stopped posting Dice might reconsider.

about a year ago

How loud is your primary computer?

gallondr00nk Just the one? (371 comments)

My primary computer is quiet enough, it's the other four in the room that make all the noise.

about a year ago

CmdrTaco Launches Trove, a Curated News Startup

gallondr00nk This new Slashdot site sounds great. (221 comments)

Slashdot combines editor quality control and insight with crowd-sourced harvesting to cover the 'News for Nerds' space.

God, I wish the editors were like that here ;)

1 year,6 days

Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

gallondr00nk Re:Spell it out the first time (279 comments)

Or mention the problem people have with the Canonical CLA in the first place, which according to TFA is the requirement that contributers sign an agreement that gives Canonical the right to relicense their contribution under a proprietary licence.

1 year,8 days

Ask Slashdot: Are AdBlock's Days Numbered?

gallondr00nk Dnsmasq and pixelserv. (731 comments)

Your move, bitches.

It's amusing that advertisers are talking of ethics, as if they're some sort of moral guardian. Remember, these people want to sell you things. They don't give a shit whether you can afford it, or whether it might harm you, or whether it causes damage or loss somewhere down the line. Going back to Edward Bernays, advertisers have used psychology to essentially manipulate the customer into buying their goods.

Look at the lengths that advertising platforms have gone to in order to make their ads relevant. Facebook, Google and the like have all gone to extraordinary lengths to maximise their ad revenues, often to the detriment of user privacy. Mining emails and messages for keywords to use in advertising isn't ethical in my opinion. Nor is tracking me with third party cookies, or with Google's new adID system.

I'm not saying they're all that bad, or even that I object to minimal, low overhead text based advertising. If an advertising agency was launched that only served simple text ads without incessant tracking I would unblock them quite readily. I understand that sites need revenue. However, suggesting I have an ethical obligation to expose myself to such an unethical industry in exchange for content doesn't wash with me.

Introduce advertising with a better ethical compass, and I will respond in kind by viewing it. Until then, the adblockers stay.

1 year,11 days

Microsoft Remotely Deleted Tor From Windows Machines To Stop Botnet

gallondr00nk Microsoft malicious software removal tool.. (214 comments)

Removes malicious software, that just happens to use Tor.

Come on /., you can do better than this.

1 year,12 days

Winamp Purchased By Radionomy

gallondr00nk Re:Here's hoping... (188 comments)

This FLAC plugin works for me with Winamp 5.24 (admittedly an old release), though I can't vouch for 24/192 files.

1 year,13 days

How would you use science to innovate upon sports?

gallondr00nk Missing option: (253 comments)

Inventing Speedball.

1 year,13 days

Tweets and Threats: Gangs Find New Home On the Net

gallondr00nk Re: That's nice, but... (144 comments)

It's not stupidity that motivates them to show off AK's, pounds of weed and fuckloads of money. It's linked strongly to status, ego and hierarchy.

These are gangs remember. Their image is absolutely vital to their status. No-one is going to fear or respect you if you don't show off. If there's three or four big street gangs in a major city, you need to stand out and show yourself to be higher in the pack than the others.

Think of old school pimps and their massive chrome encrusted Impalas. Looking in from the outside, you might be tempted to say "you're fucking stupid, drawing attention to yourself like that". But that's the entire point. It's showing you, not someone else, is top dog around here. That you can protect your posessions, that you have enough status to drive such an outrageous car in a neighbourhood where it sticks out. Others don't touch it because they know who you are, you're that fucking important. No one is going to believe that you're shit if you drive a fifteen year old Saturn.

It's like a celebrity lifestyle in so much that it isn't enough just to be rich, you have to *show* that you are. Same with street gangs, it isn't enough to be bad ass, you have to demonstrate it. Gangs don't just work by their acts, they work by the way people percieve them.

They might be uneducated, but I wouldn't call them stupid.

1 year,16 days

It's Official: Registrars Cannot Hold Domains Hostage Without a Court Order

gallondr00nk Alternative summary? (112 comments)

The summary and some of the replies seem a little misguided. I've probably got it wrong as well, but here goes.

Essentially, the City of London (the borough, not Londinium itself) emailed or wrote to domain registrars asking that they suspend the domain of what they alleged to be copyright infringing sites. This was a request, not an order. As we know a lot of domain registrars really don't give a toss and suspended the domains, probably without investigating whether the takedown request was accurate at all. EasyDNS, as reported before, didn't take down or suspend the domains.

Said suspended domain owners wished to take their business from their old registrars to EasyDNS, but their old registrars wouldn't transfer the domains. EasyDNS wasn't happy and petitioned ICANN, who ruled that the registrars were against policy for refusing to transfer them unless a court order was involved.

It sounds more sinister than it is. Anyone can submit a takedown request like that for a perceived TOS violation.

Captcha: Debunk. I hope so!

1 year,18 days

Bitcoin Payments Go Live At Overstock — Two Quarters Early

gallondr00nk Re:Charlie Stross was right! (182 comments)

..same buttons as their gold fetish and it doesn't look like a "Fiat currency".

Libertarians are certainly know for their disdain for currencies issued by car manufacturers.

1 year,18 days

David Pogue and Yahoo's "Normals" Problem

gallondr00nk Re:More Yahoo nonsense (213 comments)

The big boxy thing? That's the PSU!

1 year,20 days


gallondr00nk hasn't submitted any stories.


gallondr00nk has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?