What is /.? Beyond an excuse to sexually abuse your grammar checker, /. (slashdot) is a tech news site. With the recent boom of Web 2.0 many people have seen the future heading away from sites like slashdot where editors determine the content of the site and towards social websites with user generated content.

Of course, the arguments for and against Web 2.0 are numerous and varied. Pretending like I have the definitive answer is absurd, but I do find that historically the solution to most problems is found between the two extremes. Which is why slashdot’s “Fire Hose”  — which allows user generated content to be voted on by anyone but still requires editor’s to officially upgrade it to the front page — is the closest I’ve seen to the best of both worlds.

Of course, people have said for a few years now “go to Digg for the stories, go to slashdot for the comments” which is true for two reasons. Firstly, comments on Digg are frequently stupid, ignorant, racist, prejudiced, or all of these and many more. Their comments are so offensive at times that I no longer go to the site at all because I was simply disgusted by the comments I was seeing on a daily basis. Slashdot, on the other hand, tends to have more comments per story but because of their moderation technique you tend to get really smart or really funny stuff bubbling to the top. Granted, the know-it-alls on slashdot know that they know it all, but if you’re willing to suffer through a bit of conceit you’re almost guaranteed to learn something new or at the very least be given another perspective on something you already know.

Slashdot has an antiquated perception among the younger internet dwellers but I think that slashdot will survive at least as long as Digg and most likely outlive it because of its ability to grow into a new internet experience (social networking, et. al.) while retaining its original goals and experiences. But the real reason slashdot is still relevant is a simple one: quotes like this in random user’s signatures:

“Sisko > Picard > Kirk > Archer > null > Janeway”

Granted, I would have swapped Picard and Sisko but to see another person judge Janeway accurately warms the ventricles of my heart.

Well, many of you have read, I’m sure by now, that Jerry Seinfeld has signed to advertise Windows Vista for a tidy sum. Hence the lame joke in the post title.

But what this post is really about is stupid language. Over on slashdot, they had a post discussing the acquisition of Jerry Seinfeld by Microsoft and they quoted somebody saying “Mac users might be quite amused, considering that (like many other TV shows) the set of Seinfeld always had a Macintosh prominently displayed in the background.”

Nothing is prominently displayed in the background. Now, I don’t consider this an oxymoron, because dictionaries tend to describe oxymora as phrases which are seemingly self-contradicting. There’s nothing seeming about this. It is impossible for something to be prominently displayed in the background. Something can be prominent in the background, but “prominently displayed” implies that it’s the visual target of a given landscape and things in the background are never that.

The real problem here is that the context was ignored. “Prominently displayed” is a common phrase but connecting it to “background” belies its original intention. Context is everything when it comes to language. That’s why the spell checker in Office 2007 is so much better than any previous one: it verifies the words in the sentence in relation to each other to see if the words make sense in that order and in that context. It’s something people should try more often.