Slashdot Mirror
Update On "Voices From The Hellmouth"
The voices of many people who were hurt by this tragedy were heard loudly and clearly on Slashdot. We decided to use their comments in the construction of the story. As often happens though, good intentious can cloud things: in our haste to create the most powerful story possible, we neglected to get the permission of all of the writers. At this time, we've contacted a large number of the posters, and all the responses so far have been affirmative.
Legally speaking, we've been told that what we intended to do was just fine, provided we gave credit. We would be publishing words from a public forum: this 'fair use' thing is one of the basic principles that makes journalism possible.
This point is kinda irrelevant, though. We've decided that publishing this book without asking for permission wouldn't be the right thing to do. Instead we've decided to run the story as a serial on Slashdot: since these comments were already posted here, this will still allow the message to be sent to those who want to hear it, but without taking copyrighted materials off the place they were intended to be seen.
We've got permission from many of these people to publish their comments anywhere we like. But putting this on Slashdot will give people the ability to see if they are quoted. I've had hundreds of people e-mail to say that they have no problem with us using their content ... only one person actually e-mailed me to say that he would not allow his comment to be published: and he hadn't even posted in any of the Hellmouth stories.
If one of your comments is posted, we'll have an e-mail address that you can use to either give us permission to use it, or explicitly refuse it. At the conclusion of the series, we'll re-evaluate if this book will ever be published. What this means is that over the next couple of months, the serial presentation will allow you to help us determine the book's future -- linking to the original comments as quoted, allowing people to comment on and evaluate the text. And, if you are in there, and want to be removed, you'll be able to e-mail hemos.
We should have done this the first time around, but we're only human. We make mistakes, and we apologize for them. We hope that this is the right thing to do.
We may yet publish it - but I want to give everyone the opportunity to opt out, or opt in - like I said in the statement.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
IDENTIFY WITH THE KILLERS.
Blue, I beg to differ. The stories I read when the original series ran, were about people who WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THE KILLERS. That change to passive voice is important. I can't remember a single story where someone said they understood or really empathasized with the killers. People said they were suspended, harassed, beaten up, and otherwise scapegoated, because some third party decided that there was a resemblence to the killers.
Did you read the same series of posts that the rest of us did? Or are you just assuming you know what they probably said?
"The simplest solution is to ignore your dead children."
Too bad there's no integrity amongst readers. That cheapshot about NT is not only off-topic and irrelevant, but untrue.
I've got NT servers here at one of the largest railroads in North America with uptimes of over 280 days...
All I said was, I hope it is marked as "Katz" so I don't have to read it.
You don't, no matter how it's marked. Unless someone clicks on "Read More" for you, the article won't come up. (You do realize that it is a suggestion, not a command?)
If it upsets you that some people don't want to read Katz, then you honestly have an problem you need to deal with.
On the other side, some people seem to hate his articles so much that simply seeing a link to one on the front page causes them distress. That doesn't sound normal to me.
But the powers that be have given you additional freedom. Hooray!
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Here's a link about it.
I've learned a bit since then, but I think the one-to-one possibilities of the Net make it much easier than in times past. Just ask, man, just ask.
--
+&x
alleria wrote:
Nope. The e-mail said to write back if you granted permission to reprint in dead-tree form. "Hundreds" of people may have said OK. Which could be anything from 101 on up. But how many of those letters do you suppose Hemos sent out? The rest, who didn't reply, have not granted permission. Perhaps the number of "yes" replies were disappointing, a low enough percentage to make publication in print unappealing.
Oh come on guys..stop complaining!
Slashdot is trying to do a good thing by selling a book and raising money to help people. I'm sure that 99% of you couldn't pick your specific comment out of the book. This was a tragic event and we must document all sides to make sure it doesnt happen again. Lost of innocent people lost their lives and lots of you had good stuff to say about our society and what's wrong with it. These are good and should be published even if you dont get credit. So stop your bitching
Bowie you are the biggest whiner I have ever seen. When things don't go away you take the "burn all bridges" route. It's not surprising that VA kicked your ass off their server.
"What this means is that over the next couple of months, the serial presentation will allow you to help us determine the book's future"
What this means is that a bunch of selfish whiners are keeping a much need book from being published. A book that could actually do some good in the world.
"You can't quote me! That post is my property"
You guys are just as bad as the RIAA amd the MPAA.
Because the people that talk don't often think, and those that think don't often talk.
I don't care if my hellmouth comments are posted. I don't even remember if I posted any of substantial quality. As such, I didn't post to the article about the book, because I didn't have a problem. Unfortunately, people like complaining more than they like complimenting.
People apparently don't want to donate money to charity. People are also rabidly anti-MS. People also don't like Jon Katz. People are either too ignorant, or too stubborn, to deliniate between the two issues.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
For a group that worries so much about intellectual property rights, it's wierd how everyone assumes that having their name at the bottom of a post gives them some kind of right to do what you want with it.
Frankly, I'm pissed off that no one asked me. I do own all these posts, after all.
the Poster
If I relate my experience of mistreatment at the hands of my peers in high school, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, might be affected for the better by that tale, then why would I demand monetary compensation for it when someone decides to quote that tale and publish it to a wider audience? Was I initially motivated by altruism or the desire for personal gain?
www.alarmist.org
We the geeks do not condone what Eric and Dylan did. However, to correctly answer the more important question why they did what they did, as terrible as it was, would in fact place them among the ranks of the victims. The whole point of this exercise is to not let it happen again.
Eric and Dylan were two sick individuals. Sick of the abuse from their peers, sick of being ignored by teachers and parents alike. Sick and tired both of being bored out of their skulls, and being kicked around by a society that has grown incapable of handling them.
And so they went and did that terrible thing. And we the geeks said, scheisse, I remember feeling like that.... and so some of us tried to do something, and Katz got hold of it, and here we are. Not because we want to wallow in our own misery, gods no, enough of that. And heaven forbid we should cause more... gratuitously. We are standing up for our fellow human being, not to condone violence, but to stop it... the very subtle violence that we ourselves endured in silence for years, and to which we finally have a chance to say:
NO MORE!!!
And if in the process a few people Don't Qute Get It, Blue, well, that's just tough. We'll try our best to explain... once. And then we'll move on and find someone who will listen, and, gods willing, make sure the listener ends up in charge.
--
Never Again -- not-so-old Jewish saying
Better yet, a button right in plain view when posting that states whether or not you would allow that post to allow said actions.
You complain about the supposed content of Hellmouth, and then state that you want to filter out any posts regarding it.
Why should anybody listen to your posts when you aren't even willing to make an informed decision? How can you comment on anything that you don't read or don't want to? Isn't the first step in activism informing yourself?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
The point is, of course, that initially the posts were not going to be given credit, so what you were intending to do was not "just fine."
This point is kinda irrelevant, though. We've decided that publishing this book without asking for permission wouldn't be the right thing to do.
I'm glad you see the difference between ethical and legal - it is certainly commendable.
Yes. We've already had the Hellmouth discussion.
This is the meta-Hellmouth discussion.
Be watching, because soon we'll have the meta-meta-Hellmouth discussion, where we discuss wether we should even be having this discussion about the discussion about whatever the heck "Hellmouth" was in the first place. (btw, does Katz have a copyright on the term Hellmouth"??)
Don't forget to post a list of links. I'm sick and tired of sifting through 5 articles of crap in order to find the news I'd like to see.
Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
I just turned the Katz-Filter back off so I'll get a shot at reading the serial. If the htmlized version is a good read, I may just buy it.
Which begs the question... If I have the html, is there any need to kill a tree? Should I buy the book, or can I just Pay Lars?
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
Thus spake the spammer: "If you don't like spam, don't read it. Just delete it."
Maybe people overreact to this type of issue, and maybe they don't. The point is that we have computers these days, which should be excellent at filtering some things on our behalf, especially if the sender of the information (Slashdot) assists in categorizing things.
That's why we have story categories (and category filtering), author filtering, and moderation. Filtering is a Good Feature, and traditionally Slashdot has recognized and embraced it.
The appropriate thing for Slashdot to do is categorize this thing correctly, either by putting in the Katz category, or by creating a new meta-Katz category, or whatever. Let people filter it out. And look at the flip side: it will also make it easier for people to find it if they want to read it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you listen to fools -
The mob rules.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out... Just corrected it. I feel like an idiot now. *sheepish grin*
My English teacher once said to me, "Two double positives don't make a negative." Two words for her: Yeah, right.
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
Uh...yeah, it would. I'd yank it [the comment].
Yeah, I'm that guy.
It still says the same thing. Just a bit deeper now.
I see that repetition is working...;-)
--
+&x
This site is dedicated to Linux. We are supposed to LIKE information being free so that we can use it. So why are so many of us mad that the information we put out there is getting used. It is alright for us to use someone else's source code, but noone can quote us??? If we want to be given source, we should give quotes. It is the absolute least we can do. If we dont embrace our own philosophy, who will?
I understand that the site says that we own our posts, but why is everyone up set. Dont you want to be heard by the rest of the world?? If you dont, dont post a message!!
Slashdot isnt encouraging everyone to lead by example by telling us we own our posts. That directly contradicts the notion that everyone owns information. I do respect them for asking us, but i think most of us readers are be rather hippocritical.
--Read at your own risk, fell free to ingore
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
While this is a good policy for slashdot to observe, it isn't legally binding, is it? (Fair use and all.)
People should be clear that clicking this box won't necessary stop 3rd parties from republishing it it won't...
but in the end to know your enemy is to become them, personally I feel Linux (especially, BSD lookin' sweeeter) is becoming weaker as it emulates MS more.
and now for something etc . . .
oh yeah, forgot for a mo there, are the dangers in schools really any greater than before, or is it that they are just more known?
What is at fault here.. the system, parents, X, ...
e.g. would perhaps smaller schools work better , where the teachers actually know the students names? I mean I took a bomb to school once, and I never even got detention.... (but hey I did go to the same school as Dick Wittington (?) - no lie)
maybe it's time to stop questioning, stop accusing and think up a few REAL answers???
~ppppppppö
At the risk of being redundant Id add my voice to the suggestion that permission to publish slashdot comments in other forms. However, Id remind that once you start putting in that permission choice, the lawyer types will have to ring round exactly what permissions are involved-- I think it would be one of those examples of a place where good fences make good neighbors.
I think you did a good thing for the whole community by dealing with these issues squarely.
Because the snark was a...
/. knows nothing of the word slience, and majority opinions are few. Hence, there is no "silent majority".
The flame wars shall rage on...
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!
what i don't understand is this book has already been published. has anyone read Geeks? a whole third of the book is reprints of the hellmouth series. what is the purpose of another book? this material has already been dealt with. w0rd.
Especially if the poll code can keep separate tallies for registered users and ACs.
* Publish it now, screw the credit
* Publish it soon, credit where possible (email candidates, timeout in 14 days)
* Publish it later, take excruciating care with credit
* I just like voting
* Don't publish it
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
YES! We also need a checkbox stating whether we consent to having our post deleted if it contains any copyright-infringing material.
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The lessons of Columbine are far too important to ignore. If we do so, all we'll be doing is guaranteeing more of the same.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I would like to point out one small problem with this scenario... There were individuals who posted to the Hellmouth stories and emailed Jon Katz who were not regular Slashdot readers (the cretons :)
But seriously, by saying you have to email Hemos to have the comment removed, you are saying that they have to take the initiative to remove the comment. Unfortunately, since some people might never hear about this serial, some people won't get the option to have their comments removed, which is not right.
I think the proper way to do it is only use the quotes that you have email confirmation from, or you have talked to on the phone. You just can't assume that 'no comment' means 'yes'.
But I am looking forward very much to reading your serial, and stuffing it in the face of a few parental figures around here... :)
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It still remains for Slashdot to clarify, for the future, what their exact stance is on copyright issues. Who [owns] posts here, and what does "ownership" refer to? I have faith that they will answer these questions too, and that most Slashdot users will be happy with their answers.
Ownership of a post means (to me) that the idea is owned by the person who writes it, and is really more of a statement of responsibility to the poster, for having proper information, structure etc., as well as a statement of responsibility to whomever looks at the post so they know who wrote it. This would mean to me that if it is used in a different format that there would need to be a direct citation of where the idea came from. This would probably be a citaton to the history on
Laugh, it's good for you!
While it may be true that posting it here is preaching to the converted, the useful purpose it can serve is to harvest permissions. It's all well and good to talk about setting up checkboxes or what have you for the future, but this time around, they want to quote people and don't have the express permission of those people. So, in a move that I personally am glad to see, they can publish here first, and as people see if they are quoted, those people can say "yes" or "no" about the use of their quote in the final, printed work. Then they can rework the final product and THEN publish.
The people who need to see it will see it, just not as soon. And when it does get published, they won't have taken the easy way out of being able to say, "well, it was legal!"
>> those I don't care what happens to them
:) I like credit.. but thats not the point...
> These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
I personally care about what happends to ALL my posts.
If you ask me if I want them reprinted I say "Yes yes yes"..
That was after all the whole idea of posting to start with.. I want my comments seen and read.
If they are posted in a newspaper I am happy...
If they make it in a book I am happy...
If they are record in the Slashdot archives I am happy..
If the vanish off the face of the earth and never seen again I am sad...
Posting on Slashdot you allready burn any market value so the only value they have the the impact they have when someone reads them.
So the more I am quoted the happyer I am....
I'm even happyer when I am credited with the quote but thats purly an ego issue
I don't actually exist.
Seems like this might be one time that you could
have a slashpoll.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
They're not connected to any network are they?
Or maybe- probably- you discounting scheduled
reboots (once a week?). And no- uptimes of a cluster as a whole do not count. When a UNIX Admin says uptime, its means something completely alien to NT Admins. And it doesnt take a zealot to relize this: Miscroft products are amazingly shoddy. If you use them you are stupid.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if all my comments were reprinted. I would like to be notified though. Maybe /. should add this as another option... Maybe /. should allow automating things like this using perlscripts... Maybe I'm just insane...
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
Push -vs- Pull. You COME to Slashdot of your own free will. Spammers PUSH email to you unsolicited. This is an incredibly huge difference.
I agree that filtering and moderation are good. But I also tend to view Slashdot as a community forum for people to discuss primarily that with Taco and Co. feel are important, so if they want to talk about Hellmouth and post it on THEIR page, more fscking power to them. Don't like Slashdot's story choice? Try Wired.com... *shrug* or any one of the other places.
But for the record, I'd support a Katz category. No need to piss people off if you can let them avoid it either.
- StaticLimit
The preference should be clearly displayed in the comment header, so that scavenging journalists who repurpose /. content for other publications will know upfront whether they are allowed to quote each comment, and whether they are required to provide attribution if they choose to do so, etc.
-- Adam
depending on whatever they put inbetween the posts, it's most likely they are right and can use all your posts as fair use. Maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes "bending to pressure" is the same thing as "listening". I didn't post to those threads but was disenheartened to see slashdot using them when they do specifically say you own your posts. that's not a legal issue however. -pyrrho
-pyrrho
By default, my posts:
[ ] Can be freely quoted
[ ] Can not be quoted
[ ] none of the above, ask permission first!
And you have the option to override that for individual posts.
You could give option 1 more granularity, and change it to "freely quoted by everyone," "freely quoted by slashdot," "freely quoted by noncommercial entities," "freely quoted by people who aren't Jon Katz" and so on...
Paul
First, any such preference ought to be loaded with all the legal disclaimers you can think of. Things like "only /. editors are obliged to honor this preference" and "the Fair Use doctrine still exists and /. will NOT enforce YOUR copyrights with outside media" (like if the NY Times decides to quote someone).
/. and I understand that the Fair Use doctrine may allow republication of my comments".
/. for what this guy said" (and even then, it didn't seem to work).
/. liable for enforcing such un-enforcable preferences.
/. adds this preference: ZDnet or someone will publish an "unreproducable" comment and we'll have to go through this whole damn controversy again.
To discourage this generally anti-social discussion behavior, I think users should also have a preference to NOT see posts that the owners feel are so proprietory that they aren't meant to leave slashdot.
I don't think AC's should have this right. In fact, I think the AC submission button should declare that the submission is Public Domain. If you can't prove that you even own a post, how do you intend to enforce your copyright of it?
You could also just change the text of the "Submit" button to "I authorize this post to be posted on
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you guys are reconsidering/clarifying your policy. I don't think all of the complaints were just "whining". But I think the most valid objection was that it says "comments owned by the poster," which is a kind of vague thing that somehow left others feeling that they could continue to control redistribution. My assumption is that the intention of the disclaimer was "don't sue
I do think it's "cricket" of you to ask people permission to reprint, but as your lawyers have already told you, you have no legal obligation. Adding preferences, I fear, will simply give the users more confidence that they can control their posts (which they can't), and possibly even make
My prediction for the future if
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Every third person on the street is armed? What country are you referring to? Somali? If that was true then crime would be lower in America then it already is. It's been shown (at least in America) that a armed populace, by way of fair concealed carry laws, helps reduce crime.
As for every third person that's bull. I know lots of people. Only one of them carries a gun and she does it because of her job (estate sales; carries large amounts of money). She's the last person you would think to be armed (fifty something, small woman, mother, really nice). So do I just not know the 1/3rd of people who carry weapons around or are you just a loud mouth troll? Remember that in Switzerland every citizen is armed and not just with handguns or hunting rifles. They have real assault rifles (not the kind they sell in the States to civilians but full auto)supplied by the government. They also have a low crime rate. Think about it. Or don't. I'm guessing the last option for you.
I ask, because I never received an email asking if publishing my post would be okay. I realize that you haven't contacted everyone, and I hope that's the case in my situation, rather than because my post wasn't set for publication.
I'm just a bit concerned, and I think with good reason, that the whole project is going to be a one-sided pity party along the lines of "those kind of guys picked on me when I was in school, so I don't blame Dylan and (whoever) for murdering 20+ people." I really hope that you aren't leaving out posts from those of us out in the real world familiar with both sides of the coin. For instance, NPR contacted me to add a counterpoint to the common sentiment around here. I hope Katz/Slashdot are planning to do the same thing instead of only giving one side of the story. And no, I don't mean by me necessarily, but by anyone who disagrees with the Slashdot mainstream on this subject.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
There IS a silent majority that support Katz and generally ignore those few, loud people who LIKE to HATE him. I think people tend to assume Jon's an adult, writing stuff for the public, and he can take the criticism like a man (which he generally does).
There was a poll a while back about whether or not to "Keep the gasbag". Maybe that should be run annually. I somehow doubt Katz stuffed the vote box on that one, partly because I doubt he's technically competent enough... no offense to him, because it's not his JOB to be a hacker...
I also think it's folly to separate Katz and Slashdot. It's been made abundantly clear by Taco and Co. that Katz is here for a reason... he's not just some gasbag that hacked his way in, posts when he feels like it, and Taco just hasn't found a way to keep him out. He posts as a member of the Slashdot editorial team.
Slashdot posts what they want when they want, miss some good stuff, filter out a whole lot of bad stuff... and leave the quality debate up to the unwashed masses (that's you and me)
- StaticLimit
In their haste to stop the violence they over reacted. In your haste to stop the over reaction you over reacted. I think everyone just needs to slow down and think things through. I think that was the whole problem from the begining from the kids who opened fire, to the schools that over reacted, to Slashdot who over reacted. Think before you act!
Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.
I just finished a Sociology class in college. It was a study of the various schools of thought in sociology. There are many schools of thought, but always one central theme. We shape our society, and our society shapes us. It's a feedback loop. We can't do something without changing society, and society can't change without doing something to us.
The shooters were fools. Period. They were wrong do to what they did. Period.
If people hear the stories and gain some understanding of how people can be screaming on the inside while remaining cold and distant on the outside. There are parents out there to need to hear these stories. There are children out there who need to hear these stories.
Ignoring what happened won't make society better.
The rational mind would wish that Columbine would never have happened. I can't change the past. I can change the future.
If parents and children hear these stories and learn to talk to one another and build relationships, things will be better. I would rather see some good come from all this rather than nothing at all.
It's the feedback I mentioned earlier. Society changed because of Columbine. The question is, did it change for the better or the worse?
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
One checkbox, in user preferences.
I don't see how a checkbox is gonna work.
Check one :
Take my thoughts without asking.
.or.
Leave my thoughts alone.
I still think just asking is an easier way to go. It's not an "we're all cool, maaan." suggestion. If you want to use my shit, just ask. If someone takes it without permission, raise a stink. This happened to me a while back with one of my posts reappearing in an MSNBC article. I ended up talking to the author of the article by phone the same day and he removed my comments.
This book deal is a bit more high profile, but I think their solution is adequate. I don't think a checkbox is worth the bits that create it.
--
+&x
It is good to some some integrity amongst journalists. That is a rare thing indeed, much like a one month uptime on a Windows NT server.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
Spel cheking isnt a basik princible, tho.
Part of the problem is that whether or not a given amount of quoting is "fair use" is very, very, murky, even in cases that look like they should be obvious.
Would I sue? No. If someone sued, would slashdot win? Maybe. Would the comment author win? Maybe.
I must say, though, that this is the most-fair way I can think of to resolve this. There is an open issue; what if someone's comment is in the book, and they *don't* know you're doing this, because they don't read slashdot? From a purist's perspective, perhaps, instead, you should use an opt-in thing; quote only comments you are told you *are* allowed to quote.
But I don't care that much; I think this is a reasonable compromise, and I'm very glad that slashdot backed down a little and is now taking the time to ask. Good job.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I would hope that "No Katz" in preferences will keep this series from appearing. He's seems to slip by sometimes on stuff like this.
- I like pudding.
Preferrably JK, so I can filter it out.
Thanks,
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Hmm.. Norway and Mr. Thorvalds, I don't really see the connection...
Feel free to remove the spam from email address if you want to
Give users a chance to be quoted on the "Post Comment" screen. Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium
You may also wish to add an "Ask me first" option, some may just not want to be quoted without knowing where their words are going
We all screw up from time to time, I guess that makes us human. Slashdot's intentions were, I'm certain, honourable but they failed to take all things into account.
c t-it techniques to that certain monopol^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinnovative company?
I think it's great to see how they responded to their community's comments and corrected the foul-up.
Care to teach some of these integrity/honesty/I-can-screw-up-but-I-will-corre
Thanks for your integrity and humility, /. crew. It's this attitude that keeps me coming back.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
"...a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
/., I'm glad you think my post is worthy of being put on paper and sold for money, but don't you think you should have gotten my permission first?"
No, that's not what he said. He said that everyone (with one exception) said it was OK to quote them--not that it would be ethical to do so without permission.
As an example of the difference, consider my hypothetical email had I been a Hellmouth contributor: "Hey
See how I would have been FOR publishing of my comments but AGAINST the ethicality of doing so without permission?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
If only they would set up an Anti-Katz Troll filter. I'm sick of trolls complaining about Katz even though he is one of the most widly read /. writers. Not to mention one of the few writers providing origional editorial content. Personally, I like reading things that I don't agree with more than stuff i do agree with.
Copyright law, it originally appeared, did not come out on the side of the publishers. So what? Since when does being law mean anything? Laws can be wrong -- slashdotters almost always hold that copyright law is wrong at least to some extent. Well what is the moral (not legal) justification for keeping this book out of stores?? For what moral reason should anyone ever have to ask permission to print publically available information, sell the printed copy, and give the profits to charity!??
Those of you who have objected to publication, ask yourself this: if public outcry was sufficient to stop this book from being published, would the world be better off? Would anyone's post actually be secret (rather than just obscure)? Would anyone receive more payment for the authorship of the post? The answer, I'm sure we all must agree, is no.
it's probably best to keep a low profile and do NOTHING that might appear to display an "ownership" of these posts. Then again, I've felt that way about /.'s actions already. It's not yours. What's yours is the cup, what's ours is the contents.
- real hackers don't have sigs -
> It's all about letting dissenters be heard
"I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it"
One sided quoting is a bad thing...
If anything is to be insightful it must be open to challange.
Otherwise it's a onesided rant....
I suspect I'd disagree with whatever it is you said but I think your comments should be included becouse they were a part of the overall responce.
Sillencing a voice makes the picture incompleate...
Your responder seems to be missing...
I don't actually exist.
I think we need a User Preference to be able to add more User Preferences for ourselves. Then, we can have a Light User Preferences option, like the light HTML.
I'm kinda disappointed that the book is gonna be delayed, although reading it on-line first does have its coolness. The audience that needs to see this won't, until its in print.
OrcSlicer
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Microsoft allready admits max server uptime on NT is just over a month.
You do not get 280 day uptime on NT servers...
Good admit reboot NTs weekly bad admin don't get the chance..
I suspect you may be looking at 280 day network uptime. Thats a bit diffrent. You have a max uptime of forever no matter what your operating system is as long as your sysadm is good.
Downtime on one box shouldn't make any diffrence..
In the long run thats what matters.. max network uptime.. not max server uptime...
However server uptime makes work easyer and grants bragging rights
I don't actually exist.
I did? Where? Seriously, can you read? I said nothing about needing my permission to include my post. I wondered aloud if, because I didn't receive an email asking for it, if that meant that my post wasn't included. In turn, leading to the second question, "Is it because I didn't join the pity party?"
Exactly which part of "And no, I don't mean by me necessarily [...]" do you not understand? It's all about letting dissenters be heard, whether I'm the dissenter in particular or not. If Katz wants to portray all these "outcast" kids (for lack of a better term) as innocent victims, then he's being dishonest. If he's going to portray to the world outside of Slashdot, by removing dissenting posts, that everyone here also feels that way, then he ought to be ashamed. And no, I'm not accusing him of doing it beforehand -- I expect him to have greater integrity than that -- I'd just like it cleared up, which was the reason for my original post, which didn't attack anyone.
Oh yeah, and I can remember posting some positive comments from time to time on Slashdot. Most of it was of the tough love genre, like pointing out subtle screwups which have lowered people's enjoyment of the site over the years, or how to make your point at this site or elsewhere without making Slashdotters look like a bunch of uninformed and rabid cretins to people on the outside looking in.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
That might hold up for true public forums like Usenet, but Slashdot makes the EXPLICIT statement on every page that "Comments are owned by the poster" That precludes Slashdot from being a true "public forum" by maintianing that comments are not public domain but remain the sole and private property of the poster.
/. comments without explicit permission? We shall see.
Katz, you're backpeddling because you're feeling the heat of potential lawsuits and are now trying to play Mr. Richeous for PR purposes.
You mailed me for permission to use some of my comments (posted as my logged in screen name). So just to be an asshole, and to question your intentions (because I don't believe what you're saying now), I'm going to do like I did with the US Census and fail to reply. Not a yes. Not a no. Just deafening silence. We'll see what you do and where all that journalistic integrity talk really stands.
The test: Will you publish
Oops did I just publish your comment without explicit permission? Sorry about that one--I guess if you don't speak up for your rights, you'll lose them.
Moderators: Please chuck a point or so of "Insightful" at this guy. (He also makes the sensible point about the ACs, period.)
(Hopefully Mr. TheCarp will find it in his heart not to sue me for quoting him without permission! ;-)
Rule of thumb: "fair use" is exactly what it sounds like.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
> those I never want reprinted
/. preference to really keep your post from showing up on the front page of the NY Times.
/.'s not going to go around and sue others on your behalf, and Fair Use will still apply giving others a perfectly legal right to quote at least a portion of your comments. The *only* one that I would really expect this to apply to would be /. itself. They can promise that they won't reprint your comment, but they can't make a promise for anyone else.
Simple. Don't post. Seriously. If you really mean "never", don't rely on some
> those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications
Same answer.
> those I don't care what happens to them
These are really the only things you should post. If you "care" what happens, you'd best realize that you don't have control...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
According to the homepage the posts are owned by the users not by /. Now you cannot ethicaly use these comments and strip off their owner's identities and still make the pretense that they really belong to the poster. I don't know if you legaly have to give credit when quoting or reproducing in full with "fair use," but it would be very ethical to do so, not to mention giving proper credit where credit os due.
About this "town hall - public forum" crap. I post here knowing exactly what I'm getting into, banner ads and all, not to mention a disclaimer on how I own my post. Waking up to find one's post used in a different medium that I am not at all familiar with or consented too may or may not be legal but I sure as heck don't own my post anymore. Its unethical, unexpected, and violates the agreement on the homepage. I'm glad the slashdot crew realized this and is doing the right thing. Though I'm certain a possible class-action against them is probably the main reason for the sudden change of heart.
Well the default unchecked option would mean more like "Please dont reprint this comment unless you somehow get explicit permission from me to do so" in which case slashdot could contact you, etc etc. The other option would be 'this is fine to print anywhere'.
Nice though that you guys at /. finally came around and saw that your initial plan was fucked up. The proverb "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" wasn't coined just because it sounded neat, and I would hope that you in the future aren't as naive to do something that is very wrong simply because you think it is well-intentioned. But let's give credit where credit is due, and /. is to be applauded for recognizing the error of their ways. It is sad though that such recognitions are rare.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
-John Lennon
This may just be me, but how is this different than Microsoft wanting their copyrighted works not being posted? I believe that letter from MS asking that their copyrighted works be removed is about the same as posters not wanting their posts included in this book.
I just can't see how some people don't want their posts included in this book and then decry MS as an "evil empire" for wanting the exact same thing.
Why should it fall upon the users to constanly decide if x is reprintable. Let the potential publishers contact the users with some information about how their post is going to be used, when, possible compensation, etc...
> This is the part of this whole thing I don't
> understand. What are the lessons we've learned?
> A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did
> something really terrible. But what did this
> teach us?
That, in and of itself, has nothing to teach us.
Unstable people will do nasty things. People can
be hurt. We knew that.
The real lesson is in what happend AFTER columbine
which is what the articles were really about. The
lesson is that we can't just easily "Explain away"
bad things that happen. The lesson is that it is
wrong to punish anyone who is "different" because
they "scare us".
The worst atrocities happend not at columbine,
but all over the country. It was the reactonary
measures to "Protect the children" where innocent
kids were punished to satisfy some parents, and
educators need to "feel safe".
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Isn't the book /already/ published?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I agree that this should definately be published.
If a few poeple don't want their comments included, then that is their right... Don't include them. On the whole, though, it seems that most people don't mind. Publish it with whatever the posters allow. It might not be as strong as if it had been published with all that you wanted, but at least it got published.
Remember when news used to be reported instead of created?
I think this one little slip is the scariest thing I've seen so far related to the whole "hellmouth" incident.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Reread what I wrote - we may, at some point, actually do a print form. This is a way to get the maximum number of people bought in - and also means that those who can't buy it/pay for it can read it.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
just ask.
I've quoted a number of slashdot comments. Most people are very nice if you just ask them first.
Pretyy simple really.
--
+&x
As one of those who was outspokenly critical of Slashdot in this matter, let me be one of the first say that I think Hemos, Katz, and company are doing the right thing here. In particular I'm happy to see that they weren't concerned so much with the nuts-and-bolts legality of publishing the book, as with the larger question of whether it was the right thing for them to do. If they had wanted nothing more than to keep the lawyers happy, they could have published anyway but that would have alienated many of the Slashdot faithful and would have been contrary to the spirit of the "little guy" that Slashdot so often seeks to defend.
I know this decision can't have been easy for Slashdot. In e-mail exchanges with Hemos and Jon Katz following my "Slashmouth" editorial, I came to appreciate the deep commitment they have to the people that Hellmouth is by and about. I know that they wanted the Hellmouth stories to reach as many people as possible, and I recognize that a book would probably have reached more people than a serialization will. But they also care about doing the right thing, and in this compromise I think they have done that.
It still remains for Slashdot to clarify, for the future, what their exact stance is on copyright issues. Who posts here, and what does "ownership" refer to? I have faith that they will answer these questions too, and that most Slashdot users will be happy with their answers.
Carry on, guys.
--Jim
It doesn't matter to me. Use all of my posts. I want to get sued. I download and ditribute Metallica mp3's on a daily basis. I released Microsoft trade secrets. I coded DeCSS. I threw the pie in Bill Gate's face.
Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium. Have the boxes unchecked by default.
I'm not sure what box you're saying should be unchecked by default since it could be done with only one, but I think that it should default to 'can be quoted in a different medium' unless a user specifically says otherwise.
It's far more likely that people who don't want their comments quoted would say no than people who don't care would bother to say yes.
I read every posting in it. Then I read the next story in the series. And then the final one. And I could feel what the posters had felt. Because I'd experienced much of the same myself.
I was kinda haunted by the Hellmouth series. I remember watching the newsclips on TV (I was in a hotel in New York, for some training for work). I saw the fear and the confusion on the faces that appeared before me on the screen. I knew that things must have been horrible there, and I thanked God that that never happened at my school.
But I didn't think about the "other" angle until I read the Hellmouth trilogy. I had no idea that that sort of witchhunt was going on in schools around the country. I just turned 22 last month, so I was only a couple years out of high school when the whole thing happened. And I can't help but be haunted by the thought that were I still in school, my life might've been made a living hell.
<ficticious possibility>
Random school teacher/administrator: So how does everyone feel about the tragedy at Columbine?
Me: I think it's terrible. I feel badly for the victims. But I can also understand how the shooters must've been feeling, because I've heard that they were teased constantly.
</fictitious possibility>
This needs to be heard. The story is begging to be told. Don't confine it to our own little intellectually-inbred mentally-masturbating clique. We already know this stuff; it's the rest of the world that must hear this. To confine this to Slashdot is to effectively silence the very Voices that are screaming to be heard.
Rob, Jeff, and the rest of you:
Please don't silence the Voices.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
The question Hotaine should be asking here is "why?" What is it that makes an above-average mind so angry it wants to wreak death and destruction on its peers? What is it that makes other brilliant kids take their own lives, or otherwise render themselves incapable of functioning in polite society?
The answer, while two-pronged, is pretty damn simple. "Average" kids hate smart kids. Gives'em an inferiority complex. So the smart kids get picked on. That's the "A" part.
The "B" part is the degeneration of the government-run schools. Teachers can no longer open a can of whoop-ass on a miscreant when he deserves it.... if s/he bothers to care enough to want to do so. Teachers these days come from the lower end of the educational spectrum (not my own blathering, but results from the guys who give the SAT's), and are often only interested in getting thru the day and cashing the paycheck. The idea of putting in some extra work to make sure Einstein Junior over there stays interested is anathema to this mentality. Far easier to put this overactive kid on Ritalin....
Boom.
Frankly, I think it should have been up to the parents to step in and make sure the kids' needs were being addressed. But when Uncle Sugar all but decrees that Mom must work to pay the taxes on the fruits of Dad's labor, it becomes very easy to shirk that responsibility. So whose responsibility does it become?
Mine. And yours. Even if it's nothing more than flapping our yaps, or pounding our fingers on the keyboard. Just getting the word out will help... If we can get this topic, properly explained, before parents (and it's going to be geeky parents who are more likely to have geeky kids) maybe hopefully a couple of them will remember and get just pissed off enough to go in and thump some heads in a school system that really needs it.... or just maybe start one of their own....
Yeah, bot, you keep dreaming. It just might happen.
"The worst atrocities happend not at columbine"
no dude, the worst happened at columbine, that's where children were massacured. the reactionary measures were just a pain in the ass for some people, not a mass murder.
Don't be mean or my friend Oog will smash your head
Umm, hope that makes sense.
He said that it would be published if response remained as positive after posting the articles in Slashdot. I think this is an excellent idea, and largely adresses most of the difficulties of the people who were upset.
I think publishing after the 'unscientific' survey would give more fuel to the people who were upset.
I think the people who are upset about it are making more of a deal out of things than they should. OTOH, it's annoying to see large corps trample on people while trying to enforce their copyrights while individual's copyright rights are largely ignored, so I can understand why they were upset.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You know, I wonder how many hundreds of stories got rejected so we could hear about Jon Katz this morning..
First I ignored him. That didn't work.
Then I got aggrevated by his stupidity.
Then I put up with him. That didn't work either.
Then I filtered his ass out. And even that didn't work.
Then I wrote Rob and asked him why Katz has post access in the first place.
I've been reading Slashdot since the Chips & Dips days, and in all of that time, I've seen absolutely no reason to give a soapbox and spotlight to a print author, let alone a clueless, patently irritating author with questionable talent like Jon Katz.
Now other Slashdot authors starting doing Katz' posting for him. So, in my book, that's enough.
After submitting this post, I'll be nuking my Slashdot bookmark and switch over getting my daily fodder from GeekNews.net. I'm so sick of Katz' repeated HELLMOUTH HELLMOUTH HELLMOUTH crap that I could squat and blast out a Buick.
In recent weeks, Slashdot has gone from bad to worse because of this sort of thing. Interesting things, fun things, and enjoyable things have been replaced with hidden agendas, frothing trolls, and politics. As someone pointed out not too long ago, Slashdot is now officially lame. If you step back and look at it all, nowadays its mostly news written by a number of clueless VA/Andover goons, and mostly a steaming heap of crap that nobody really cares about. Rob & Hemos only post occasionally. In their absence, we get to hear the luminary wisdom of Timothy, and other equally clueless tots who probably couldn't find the power switch on an IMac with both hands. To me, Slashdot just isn't worth reading anymore. I know what it used to be like, and from what I see of Slashdot today, its nowhere near the same.
From now on i'll get my news from somewhere more interested in actual news for nerds, and stuff that actually matters, instead of going to a place more interested in legal activism, rehashed boring stories, and promotion of book sales for a talentless author who insists on milking the Columbine cow until its udders bleed from wear & tear.
You're right. If I dont like it, I dont have to come here. Thats why I wont come here anymore unless things go back to the way they truly used to be.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
> Slashdot ought (although is not legally obliged) to seek permission to reuse posts.
On this, I completely agree. But the original post said things like "never want reprinted", and it was to this that I was replying. I you mean never, don't rely on a button click to save you.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
just do this then...
You're pretty good at whining aren't you? And checking facts isn't really you're strong side either is it? Oh well. Have you actually tried to make /. a better place. Tried to submit good stories? Sent in any editorials on the subject? Tried to post a comment where you DON'T whine? Thought not. So shut up and go away.
Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.
Blue--
What you say would be true--should be true--had not a good number of skittish administrators started looking for the Dylans and the Erics among their own kind.
Guess who they found.
Go read the Hellmouth stories. Dylan and Eric didn't just traumatize kids in their own school; the backlash from their actions engulfed unquestionably innocent geeks for no cause that could ever be considered as fair. Consider the rather intriguing fact that Dylan and Eric weren't even *part* of the "Trenchcoat Mafia"--did you know that, Blue? Did you realize that was all a media invention because, well, they wore Trenchcoats, and, like, so did this other group that *hated these kids too*?
I don't think a single one of those kids from the Trenchcoat Mafia was allowed back into that school. It was apparently believed that their mere presence would be traumatic to the survivors, regardless of their total lack of involvement.
At its most extreme, that was probably what the entire Hellmouth rage was about--
1) Something must be done!
2) This is something.
Therefore,
3) This must be done.
Those kids over there looked like The Killers. Get 'em out! That group over there, we don't understand him. Get 'em out! That clique has a tradition of verbally harassing people? Ah. They're kids. And they're cheerleaders/football players/"boys will be boys".
Blue, people were SUSPENDED FOR THEIR BELIEFS. People were feared for no other reason than the games they played! Go read the Hellmouth responses--it was never really about people complaining about how they'd been victimized for all these years ad nauseum. It was how schools across the country started looking inward to find the secret "Most Likely to Kill Us All" award winners, and the slots kept on ringing up, "Isolated Computer Geek", "Dungeons and Dragons Player", and "That Guy Who Sits Alone In Lunch And Hates PE."
No administrator wanted to be liable for letting the school get shot up. So a veritable Lord Of The Flies environment sprouted up in schools across the country. Geeks still in school reported the harassment they were subject to, and stood back in awe as Slashdot spit back hundreds of similar stories from everywhere and anywhere inbetween. Geeks out of school shuddered--they(and *I*) knew deep down that we got out just in time, but there were those we left behind.
Would you have survived the Purge from Columbine? Would I? How many were harassed to make the popular feel safe? How many were exiled?
I honestly believe the greatest thing to come out of the Hellmouth series was that it was *so* quick to come out and *so* topical that it *had* to amount of something of a defense infrastructure for those being considered for extreme punishment.
I don't know this for sure, but I can hope: The Hellmouth series had the direct effect of making it much more expensive for administrators to eliminate subversive though entirely innocent elements from schools across the country. It made kids bolder in defending themselves, it gave parents a window into something they could only vaguely remember, and it made administrators know there'd be a heavy PR price for eliminating the "inconvenient" rather than the truly dangerous. That's why I want this book published, incidentally: For all the non-geek exposure this series got, it was most likely limited to short emails read for short periods of time by the people who could and should Make That Difference.
The publication of this book needs to happen--the bottom line is that there's a *reason* it's legal to quote, and Slashdot should not feel guilty about doing so--especially when most readers enthusiastically support the printing of this material! The people who would be quoted overwhelmingly support such a printing--they wrote what they wrote to be *read*, *understood*, and *acted upon*. Hemos, Taco, and even you, Katz, you've *done* that.
Do the authors proud! Release this book.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This is not about Columbine, it just so happens that that was the epitome. This book was meant to show people that bad shit does happen to kids in school. I seriously doubt that the editors would allow posts like, "Go Dylan!" or "Too bad they didn't get more people..." to go into this book.
So I reiterate. It is not a book about Columbine, it's a book about what really occurs in school.
I'm a 21st century digital boy.
I don't know how to read, but I got a lot of toys.
I can't help it that you're stupid enough to listen to me! I'm an idiot!
-- einstein (slashdot user 10761)
Point well taken. I didn't thoroughly read the Hellmouth articles, since I usually only enjoy the responses to Katz articles, not the articles themselves ;).
dont like slashdot? LEAVE
Dont like America? LEAVE
Please?
Seeming how you dont fucking understand the concept of a PUBLIC FORUM...you talk shit on the street...people can print it up as much as they damn well please...so maybe...instead of being some self-centered ignorant whiny bitch...you should learn to think before you speak and post.
Go back and read your post...not an ounce of intelligence to be found.
We may yet publish it - but I want to give everyone the opportunity to opt out, or opt in - like I said in the statement.
I'm glad you may still publish it. Part of my worry is that this thing will end up having its legs cut out from under it as people try to edit it. What they said back then may not be what they'd say now. But what they said back then is what the story's all about. Every comment currently in the book is there for a good reason, presumably. Taking some out because of "morning after" regrets will only serve to compromise the book's impact.
The other part of my concern with serializing it is that the book will end up being published so long after Columbine and so many other major news events (the other killings we've heard about since then, the Elian thing, etc.) that no one will care any more.
I want them to care. Please don't let the window of opportunity pass!
This means that other media could use /. comments under the fair use clause but that /. editors could not. So Microsoft could include any comments they wished in their press releases but JK couldn't include counter examples in his press release. How odd.
Dyslexics Untie!
DUH! That's why they are posting the series back here...so you can consent (if your comments are used) or not.
Wake up!
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
The lessons of Columbine are far too important to ignore.
This is the part of this whole thing I don't understand. What are the lessons we've learned? A couple of unstable wackos went bonkers and did something really terrible. But what did this teach us? To be suspicious of people who are different? To not be suspicious of people who are different? That anyone could go bonkers at any time and kill a bunch of people?
Not trying to flame (really, seriously, not). I just don't understand what should be learned from this. I can't see what difference it makes who these kids were, or where it happened. They were clearly deeply disturbed. I seriously believe this could happen anywhere at any time. I just hope I'm not there when it does.
I guess I don't understand all the tossing around of ideas to solve this or fix that. I don't see what there is to solve or fix. Sometimes people lose their shit. Not good, but I believe they're disturbed individuals, and would have found an excuse at some point to lose it. They were clearly not living in the same reality as the rest of us.
Whatever it is, if it is a problem that can be "solved" (or at least minimized), it's clearly not solely an American problem, as has been hypothesized repeatedly (not by the above post, just ranting now).
Really, I don't see why. What are the differences between web-based text and print media?
--Web-based is dynamic within certain limits, print much less so.
--Web-based is available only with certain equipment (computers, web access, etc.). Print is accessible to anyone that can read the language it's printed in.
These are the basic differences. There may be some legal differences, but this is more an artifact of our legal system having failed to catch up to new technology.
Why is the change of media important?
And, perhaps what my real question is, why do these people care? People wrote in with their own stories of abuse at the hands of their peers; they wrote in with opinions, diatribes, and sometimes incoherent or off-topic rambling. They did this in a semi-public forum that is commonly frequented by others of their kind, an informal kind of clubhouse for the technically proficient. Preaching to the choir, you might say.
However, the instant that there is some possibility that a wider audience (perhaps less-technically inclined, perhaps less sympathetic) can see these remarks, then people come out of the woodwork crying about intellectual property and "my permission wasn't asked!"
The point I am trying (somewhat disjointedly) to make is this: The people who could benefit most from reading these remarks (i.e. anyone who cares to pick up the book) are being denied that insight by the people who have the information (i.e. the Slashdot posters--some of them, anyway). It is as if a repressed minority lashes out against a largely ignorant majority with "You don't understand us! You are oppressing us!" and then refuses to give that majority the insight that would prevent oppression from ignorance.
This is a step towards social suicide.
www.alarmist.org
Ya mean FAIR use, and yes, anything ya say in a public place can be considered fair game to be reposted if done appropriately. Ie., ya can't quote a whole damn chapter of someones book and put it out on the net, but ya might be able to publish a paragraph here or there depending on the context.
If ya don't want something ya said reproduced, don't say it in a public place.
clif
Because they want their post read in the context of the particular forum. If they knew that the post would appear in another forum, they might post differently or not at all. Audience, context, and control differ and matter.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Ignore all of these whiny hypocrites; a huge disservice is being done by sitting on this book.
I don't understand why everyone is raising a fuss, and meanwhile a book is being held up by all of this squabbling. They are inside their legal and moral rights, so let's not let politics hold back progress. That is not the geek way. We're supposed to be better than that.
This is exactly the same thing as the space station being held back while the government makes sure noone gets their feelings hurt by being left out. The plans just sit and sit and nothing actually gets done.
thank you slashdot crew for listening to us! - noy -
you guys rock! no I mean that.
It's been said by a lot of other people but this shows how much you guys care about this community and we(I) really appreciate it.
keep up the good work!
---
I wear pants.
If you don't want it quoted, don't say it. (Or write it down. Anywhere.)
This holds especially true in a public forum. Anything posted to Slashdot falls under the category of fair use for reprint. They should go ahead and publish.
Obasan
If a tree falls in the forest, and kills a mime, does anyone care?
Ups forgot one thing. If you actually HAVE read /. since the Chips & Dips days, how come you have a userid 22 times as high as I? I didn't start reading it until it just hade become slashdot.
BRAVO!
What he said!
Please...publish it. People who don't read slashdot NEED to read this book.
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
If you don't want your posts used in any way the /. editors see fit, don't post. That should be final. Don't like that, go somewhere else.
Personally, I think if you use something I wrote, you ought to give me 5 or 6 Karma points.
I know Karma doesn't actually have an international exchange rate, but it does make me feel interesting, and sometimes, well, downright insightful.
And if someone won't give you their post for Karma alone, you could always try sending them a free AdultCheck password, or maybe a big steaming bowl of...
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I have to admit I am very disappointed that a good, useful helpful book is not oging to be printed because everyone complained. Software and music and information should all be free, but just try to "take" something worth very little monetarily from the spoiled whiners on /.
If you only concentrate on a single long term end, all manner of horrible short term means may be employed. If you will not adhere to principles when adherence is inconvenient, then you don't really have any to begin with.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
So...what's the point in failing to respond to the U.S. Census again? Doesn't really sound like one thing has any to do with the other...and while you may feel you have a valid complaint about the book, I don't understand why you wouldn't answer the census.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
> Not just a user preference. This doesn't help
> people that post anonymously. Make it an option
> on the form, and (very important)
Thats simple to solve. Post anonymously...you
don't get to specify...it should be assumed that
quoting is ok...
afterall, you have dissassociated your name from
the comment, that act, to me, disavows any
connection to the comment, you shouldn't care
if it is quoted elsewhere.
But seriously....Slashdot is a public forum. If
you don't want people to quote you, then don't
say it in public.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
He's right that we have a degree of socialism in this country, but better that than the pure corporatism we're offered as an alternative. I'd like to keep a mix of many forms: treat them as tools to fix whichever problem they fit best.
Of course, that may not be simple enough for prime time.
-jpowers
-jpowers
There isn't nearly as much violence in our country as people would like to believe. You see it on the news because they need to compete with the violent entertainment we like here. I've lived in and visited some of the most unpleasant places on the East Coast, and it's just not as bad as they say.
-jpowers
-jpowers
I agree. There are alot of public school teachers and administrators who just don't care enough. Often times, they will punish the victim, or more commonly, everyone*, rather than deal with the problem student.
But often times the teachers/administrators hands are tied. Believe it or not, at one time students who broke the rules (severely or repeatedly) were suspended from school. Now schools don't commonly do that because many parents get bent out of shape. "My son would NEVER do that!" "How dare you deny my child an education!" (despite the fact that what he/she was doing resulted in disrupting the education of the rest of the class).
My office-mate has tells me horror stories about his wife (a music teacher in a public school). Apparently, her school has a policy where the first time a student does something wrong, they can not be punished, only warned. Last month, while she was writing something on the board, one of the students said "F**k you, B***h". When she turned around to confront the student, he said "You can't do anything. You have to give me a warning". And he was right. Her hands were tied.
* Did you every wonder why a every high school student must get a "bathroom-pass"? This rediculous idea comes about because mabye 2-3% of the students who ask to go to the bathroom would probably go off and do somethig else. Solution? Make everyone suffer!
When you post, you get a three-choice radio-button box, like:
[o] Yes, you can reprint this
[ ] No, you can't reprint this--don't even ask
[ ] Ask before reprinting
Put something into the user preferences, so that people can choose a default (like the plain/html/extrans selector), and we're set.
This would really cut down on the work that someone has to do when looking for things that they can quote.
-rozzin.
It's the change of media that irritates some people.
Could you elaborate on this a little? Do you mean new media sources or simply a change in format?
There's a sig around here that says something like... "The Internet makes control of digital media impossible. Deal with it." While we can agrue forever over whether that should be the case, it's already obvious that it *is* the case.
Imho, we should just let it go. We can't control what other people say, and imho, we shouldn't try. Freedom of speech and fair use are a double-edged sword - sometimes they don't work in our favour.
Well if they are quoting you...then you can't
really call them guilty of slander (unless
perhaps they purposfully distorted your words)
Aftrall, its a quote, you said it, not them.
You can't exactly blame someone for spreading
lies about you, when you are the one that told
them the lie to begin with.
Now private documents, or things said in private
may be different. However, if you say it in public
you sure can be quoted.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
i dunno if i posted in the hellmouth articles. i don't much care either. i think a lot of people had an outlet on slashdot, and i think that's great. it's obvious the mainstream media generally ignored those people so it's good that there was an outlet.
however it's an outlet that has a very limited audience. many people who should have heard from the people posting in the hellmouth articles will never visit a web site in general, and those that do probably will never see slashdot.
will the book be biased? i have no doubt that it will, but it's a point of view that was not raised very often or very well in the public discussions following the shootings.
i hope the slashdot developers add whatever buttons people want for allowing comments to be published. i hope they can get some agreement on how to publish their book since i think it would be good for other people outside of the geek community to hear their voices.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
In what way does this book hurt the victims of the Columbine shootings? Deification of the shooters is far from any comment I saw posted on the original series (although I did have my threshhold on 2). The "worst" I saw in that respect was sympathy for them, not vindication of their actions.
The point of the book is to point out an injustice. What better way than to use ACTUAL EXAMPLES of injustice (ie. those stories that were submitted). The correlation with Columbine is merely that the backlash from shootings there caused a bad situation to become worse in an intolerable way. *You* may wish that the stories were completely unrelated, but that does not make it so. Wrong is wrong, whether it's out of the blue, because of traditional teenager callousness, or because of a some pretty sick people taking out a bunch of their classmates.
Don't read into these stories something that isn't there. This isn't about Columbine, it's about kids getting smacked down for being different.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
This was also my first impression, but i think if it gets published in august or early september, just when all the parents, teachers, administrators, etc will be getting tied in knots over starting school again, the window of opportunity will still be there.
And maybe it doesnt matter when its published (within reason). The book isnt really about columbine itself, its about issues that were present long before columbine and will probably still be around long after. Tho I'd like it to get attention by almost any means necessary, it would be infitely better if it could stand on its own instead of feeding off hype and hysteria.
end rambling.
wisconsin does not exist.
well - the book itself has not yet been published, so i won't give ya points for what it might or might not be - but i will admit that i overlooked the 'backlash' aspect of the incident.
/. - but that's an entirely different issue.
i still don't feel good about or want to have anything to do with JK's coverage of the issue, and i still espouse activism as opposed to whiningism - the people who feel suppressed should stand DIRECTLY up to those oppressing them, not whine on
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Well, since Jeff appears to be reading this thread, I think it's time for a good ol' fashioned rant, and an explanation of why I posted saying that I don't want to see the book published.
/. readers.
/. wants to publish a bunch of stories about how we all got our lunch money ganked when we were six, that's cool with me - making miserable people more miserable is not. It is their place to stand up and vocalize their pain, not ours.
There are true victims involved in the Columbine shootings, and I doubt that any of them are active
If you were a parent or lover of someone killed in the shootings, how would you feel about all of this? Is it our place, our responsiblity to continue to harp and pound on someone else's tragedy? Don't you think that maybe all we're doing it prolonging the suffering of those who just want to move on with their lives and heal?
Also, the idea that we, as geeks, or outcasts, or the formerly societally abused should use the shootings as a sounding point to 'stand up' for other people who don't 'fit in' is WAY wrong. It's sick.
If you have something to say about how you were treated - if you feel that your natural views and actions have brought you pain from people more societally attuned, then, great, write about it - become an activist. Stand up for YOU, not in defense of the actions of some whacko fucknuts with guns.
But to use someone else's pain and suffering to make yourself feel better - to diefy the SHOOTERS as being the victims, is absolute BULLSHIT. It makes me completely ill.
And, so, my point is, if
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Remember, "Information wants to be free" unless it's my information. Then I want to keep control of it. No one is allowed to see my information unless they have our permission and I get paid for its use. None the less, I insist on my right to see, use, and abuse everyone else's information beacuse..
Whining hypocritical bastards.
And it isn't about whether or not money is going to be made on a magazine article or book. /. isn't a charity (even though it is a .org). It's a business. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have sold for the money that it sold for. Those banner ads up at the top are the reason the site is allowed to exist. They pay for the bandwidth and the boxes.
If you don't want people to associate you with what you've said, post as an AC. If you don't trust the journalists that run the site, don't post at all.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
So, we would be adding a checkbox to grant /. permission to republish a specific comment, and a checkbox to grant them permission to delete a comment if required on a messsage-by-message basis? Excellent idea. I will have to incorporate that into my own php-based /.-like code (http://www.omphalos.net). Great ideas all....
By default these would have to be unchecked, but there could be a preferences panel option to automatically check them if the user so desires - assuming that this would not be challengable legally somehow. Perhaps we need to require a user to explicitly check their comments when submitting (so as to avoid the same criticisms that are applied to most software license agreements - which most folk do not read I am sure)...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
So what happens if someone e-mails /. and says "That post by Anonymous Coward, the fourth one in serial no.2, that one is mine and it can't be used without my permission"? Do they get taken out or left in? It would be unfair if someone wrote in and said that it couldn't be used in the book if they weren't the true poster of the comment. Are all ACs going to be left in no matter what, because of the anonymous nature of posting as AC?
As my English teacher said to me, "Two double negatives don't make a postive." Two words for her: Yeah, right.
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
That might hold up for true public forums like Usenet, but Slashdot makes the EXPLICIT statement on every page that "Comments are owned by the poster" That precludes Slashdot from being a true "public forum" by maintianing that comments are not public domain but remain the sole and private property of the poster.
Katz, you're backpeddling because you're feeling the heat of potential lawsuits and are now trying to play Mr. Richeous for PR purposes.
You mailed me for permission to use some of my comments (posted as my logged in screen name). So just to be an asshole, and to question your intentions (because I don't believe what you're saying now), I'm going to do like I did with the US Census and fail to reply. Not a yes. Not a no. Just deafening silence. We'll see what you do and where all that journalistic integrity talk really stands.
The test: Will you publish /. comments without explicit permission? We shall see.
Because asking "may I?" does wonders to smooth the workings of society.
If you ask "may I borrow your stapler?" I will invariably say "yes" and happily let you take it. If you just take it I'll get pissed at you.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Reread the part about "Fair Use". Anyone can use them - they have to give credit.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
When you post anonymously, you are giving up all rights to what you've said. You don't want to be associated with those words, or you would have logged in. (or you hate cookies.. or whatever). The point is, if you post via AC, it's not attached to you, so all reprinting rights are up to /. at that point. If you care, log in.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Of course, all trolls will be duly compensated for their contributions, and with any luck the proceeds will go to the remedial education of Signal 11, to prevent future uninformed posts.
Exactly! I never did understand what all the hooraw was about anyway. Probably I'm missing something important about the issue, but it seemed that a community of people professing to believe in open source...the gifting of your work to the common good, etc. were suddenly disturbed that someone might make a little money off their responses to a story. Huh?!
Greed is apparently a strong instinct, even here. Not to mention that it is unlikely that anybody is going to make money on this book, in any case.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Know why? We never ask anything of them. All our real work gets done on SPARCs (And one Linux box for SMBFS).
-jpowers
-jpowers
Has anyone looked into what really came out of the massacre? Have you looked at where people got their comfort, and where those messed up kids might have turned to find real truth? An amazing amount of the kids started going to church again. I *think* over a third of the entire school rededicated their lives to Christ, and the whole christian community has banded together and become more tight knit. The answer to violence is not police, or laws, or post-tragedy ANYTHING. The answer is to raise your children with a sense of right and wrong. Teach them to respect human life, starting with unborn babies, and moving up to the elderly. There is a sickness in america, and the world for that matter, that stems from people being so afraid to discipline, strengthen and mold their children using strict guidelines that were designed to keep a family together. like it or not, the bible carries some incredible information that actually works when it comes to raising a family, and living a life that enriches others, not just taking what you can out of life, and then dying. I can't say those kids would have acted any different in another situation, but i know that if children today were raised the way they were when we founded this country, there would be a lot less problems. No, they would not be perfect, and there would still be violence, destruction, and every other tragedy the world faces today, but we would be much more able to handle it.
I know i'm screaming for flames here, but i don't care, it's time that america recognized it's destructive ways, and attemted some sort of repair. (yes, the children ARE our future) That repair can only be found in Christ, and the bible. And yes, I am extremely narrow minded when it comes to that fact. If you want to know more, then write me.
-Shawn Crull
Husband, Daddy, Christian.
Pro-life, Pro-family, and certainly not perfect.
sub@4byte4.com
Really appreciate this. While none of my comments were being used I really do appreciate seeing some integrity amongst you guys. thanks.
I see alot of people mentioning how Slashdot is buckling to the "beast", referring to the law and becoming a typical web sterotype. I see this as completely the opposite. Had it been Microsoft faced with a similar situation, they would have tried to cover it up, and quite possibly have been right in doing so as most people would love to have the oppurtunity to sue such a rich, disrespected company. But here, out comes some people, admitting their mistakes, and people critize it? I believe that Slashdot witheld its reputation by accepting the responsibility and apologizing and shouldn't have much problems following this. After all, making a mistake is human, making the same mistake twice is stupidity.
I suggest that there be added to the per-user preferences an option specifying whether you want Slashdot (or other people) to feel free to use your posts (with attribution) in books or other works.
Good.
Agreed, this is what should have been done at the very start... It's unfortunate that they had to go through all of this first, but.. Learn from your mistakes, I suppose.
Mind you, I'd really like to see the publishing of this book go through. It would get a good message out to a lot of people, I'd just like the rights of those involved to be respected. Good job to the Slashdot crew on fixing this up, it was more than many of us expected.
Jairus Pryor
Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian.
Personally, I never gave a second thought to that silly disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It's just a bone to throw to rabid, lawsuit-happy people. When I say something on Slashdot, which is a public forum, it's in the public domain. I may wish I hadn't said it, I may want to keep control of it, but I have no right to, and no ability.
What am I going to do? Sue somebody? That'd make me as bad as the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, etc...
Thank you Hemos for doing the right thing, but the vast majority of /. posters would have no problem with being quoted in a book and (oh horror!) not getting paid for it...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
The US is many things, but one thing it is not is socialist. Socialist countries generally try not to grind their poor quite so badly. Sometimes they even give them free healthcare.
Hehehe.. Maybe its because the only entertainment value left these days occurs when Timothy and the other tots screw the pooch.
Dontcha just love it, by the way? I crank shit out for these people for 2 years straight. I decide to stop. Now i'm a whipping-boy..Hehehe.. Gratitude is too much to ask from these people.. I'd settle for something simple, like sanity.
Triple-dog dare ya,
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Like most on /., I feel it it perfectly fine to quote from the posts for articles, books and such. I do think that a can of worms can be open inadvertantly by makin use of a preferences option. It woudl be very easy to see Microsoft saying "So-and-so posted this, and gave you permission to use as you please. We want you to remove it because of..." If a preference option is not worded properly it can give the impression that /. is undertaking editorial license.
It would be far simplier to display a disclaimer when posting. The disclaimer could be like the following: "All posts remain the intellectual property of the poster. By submitting this post you are giving consent to have you comments published." Simple, no mess, and covers everything.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
Never bothered to early on, really. Half the time I would have preferred that nobody know who I was anyway. Nowadays I just dont care. :)
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Blow it out your ass. (-1 Flaimbait...*wave byebye to Karma*).
This level of integrity is rarely seen in a public forum, and even far less in geekdom. I applaud their honesty and rapid and directed response to community input.
True integrity and responsibility is NOT always getting it right the first time, but making sure to quickly and decisively fix it WHEN you get it wrong.
Kudos,
-fp
You might not. Then again, Someone else might.
That said, /. may lose anonymous writership if it publishes AC posts w/o permission, so a preference-defaulted checkbox to allow or disallow republication on other media is a good idea. On the other hand, if people write on such fora, it is in the hope of being read; publication on other media only enhances the public; hence, the default should be to allow republication (with proper authorship acknowledgement, of course), since it only amplifies the displayed goal of the poster.
Anyway, down with intellectual property! Long live acknowledgement of authorship!
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
-- Faré @ TUNES.org
Reflection & Cybernet
Seems like an appropriate place to mention: Tonight on Nightline, Ted Koppel will apparently be interviewing "friends" of the gunmen of Columbine. I suspect they will likely support or discredit the "alienated geeks" motive for the shooting, in case anyone is still interested in the Columbine-Hellmouth issue. Might be a pertinent follow to the Hellmouth series (more so than strictly topic to this story.)
"We should have done this the first time around, but we're only human. We make mistakes, and we apologize for them. We hope that this is the right thing to do."
Kudos for the public apology and the efforts to make up for the initial error in judgement.
Well I know I speak for at least FIVE PEOPLE ;-) when I say this:
To hell with these people that have their panties in a knot over copyright issues. You have no basis for complaint. You posted in a public forum. I am one of those posters - I had a longish comment in the original discussion that was moderated to 4 so there's a good chance it'll be used. You know what? It wouldn't bother me a bit if they posted it with NO COMPENSATION and didn't ask for permission. In fact, I'd be a little flattered.
Now publish the book already! I want to see the book! What's the holdup?!?!????
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Jesus fucking christ. If people like you would actually leave instead of just saying you will 20 or 50 or 100 times, we'd all be better off. Go on! Beat it! I dare you to never post with this user id again. I double-DOG dare you, hahah.
I think this re-thinking of attitudes on behalf of the editors is a good thing. In the future. tje editors may want to consider this idea:
Give users a chance to be quoted on the "Post Comment" screen. Two checkboxes saying "this can" or "this can NOT" be quoted in a different medium. Have the boxes unchecked by default. Allow the users to decide AS they are posting; not before or after. For registered users, this may even be set to a default.
If neither is selected, the editors may make some sort of announcement that such a republication of ideas is being considered, and remind people that they can opt in or out when they post.
And Slashdot should have an EDITORIAL POLICY as to the disposition of those comments that have neither of those selections made.
This is all hindsight, of course, but mistakes like this are good if people learn from them. If you want to retain copyright, there is a simple method. And if you don't care if your comments are posted, you can either give explicit permission or not select either choice.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
am i expected to really believe this is an
"honest change of heart"?
seems pretty obvious that you guys
just decided to go this route due to the
disaggreement with microsoft, and your
lawyers have advised you to take this
measure.
which is perfectly fine, but jeez,
you rank on folks for doing this
kind of jazz all the time.
_________________________________________________
Now, far be it from me to be cynical but this comes only days after Microsoft's lawyers asked /. to remove some posts which were deemed to be a breach of copyright. If I remember correctly, Hemos's replying mail made the point that /. had no ownership of and took no responsibility for its readers' posts - which left us with the little paradox surrounding posts being used in Jon Katz's separately published tome Geeks and consequently those in Hellmouth.
/.'s intentions with regard to the publication of Hellmouth are of course honourable but at the same time you should realise that the boys at Andover are, more than likely, simply clearing their house before they and M$ do battle in the courts.
:-)
Whether anything can/will be done about Geeks is another question...how ironic it would be if JK of all people were responsible for the closure of Slashdot (and that's speaking as someone who has a fair bit of time for the man)
Make me proud lads
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
Boy, it must be difficult to track that Anonymous Coward guy down, he is such a prolific poster. I mean, he posts almost as
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
I've often seen people quote email and say they can do so under fair use. Is this legal? I've always considered email private corrispondance. If I write a paper letter to somebody, can that be reprinted under fair use to incriminate/humiliate me?
those I never want reprinted
those I would only want reprinted in certain situations or publications
those I don't care what happens to them
I suppose we could have a check box form to fill out every time we post... but I think that's going a bit far. In the second situation, how could I really specify where I wouldn't mind my comment being reprinted? If taken out of context, an innocent seeming conmment could be made to say something you never intended. I think it makes more sense to have the interested parties contact the posters concerned and allow them to make up their mind when actually confronted with the possibility.
Disclaimer: Yes, this is just an opinion, I could always check the "Don't reprint this" box, and just ignore it. But maybe if the right party approached me, I might want my comment reprinted.
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
All I have to say is... "Slashdot, thanks."
You've once again shown why you're the best. Doing the Right Thing took a lot of guts as well as the humility to eat a little crow. Congrats. :)
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
First,my hats off to /. for caring enough to apologise for what they perceived to be a slight to their readership,whether there actually was one or not. I wish all the news media would hold themselves to your standards.
>>It's the change of media that irritates some people.
>Why is the change of media important?
This is the whole thing I don't understand. What does it matter _how_ a comment is posted,if it's done in a public forum? Whether it's posted on a BBS,printed in a newspaper,or read aloud on TV,as long as it is accurately reproduced,I don't see the problem. Especially in the case of AC's. They're *anonymous*. Why should they care how their comments are used if they don't even claim ownership in the first place?
==== Warning:this poster contains subject matter that may be offensive. Flaming discretion is advised.
Consider adding in the user pref's page a mechanism to allow the reader to give co-copyright of material to slashdot.org. Bruce Perens is the appropriate wiseman to speak to regarding this technique.
--The web is ephemeral, put something in a book and it will be around forever.
--Nobody pays to read Slashdot.
Your response might be that Slashdot is a commercial organization, supported by ads, like TV right?
What if you worte a play and performed it in the park for everyone to see. If you were covered on the TV news you would probably be happy. If someone saw your play (in public) and made a TV movie out of and gave all the profits to charity you probably would be unhappy.
Apparantly there is a profit to be made on this book, at least the publisher thinks so or they wouldn't be publishing it. Jon Katz has pledged his cut to charity, good for him, others might have chosen to keep the money, and they might be upset that they didn't get the chance.
The bottom line is that you don't have to understand the author's reasoning, but it is their right to determine how their words are used.
Hemos claims that they have(possibly good) lawyers who have told them to publish the book. A good lawyer would never make such a statement. A good lawyer would probably tell you that you probably would win in court, but that is still up to a judge or jury as you could still be sued by the author. While Slashdot _may_ have the right to reprint comments, there are other issues, like how important the comments are to the book, marketing etc. that are not black letter law.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
I'm trying to figure out what "the lessons of Columbine" would be about.
The Weekly Standard magazine did a one year retrospective with an article about the Columbine Massacre a few weeks back. It's not been widely reported that the teacher inside the building who called 911 was told to keep the students inside the building. Further, the SWAT teams adopted a "play it safe, hands off" policy. They were ORDERED to not enter the school building. A dozen police officers stood outside at an entry that was within fifteen steps of the library and did nothing. This gave the killers the time to taunt and kill with impunity.
Good job on part of the /. team for following up on this and respecting your reader's opinions on the matter.
Takes guts to admit to something when you're wrong. You guys deserve resepect for stepping up on this one.
Failure isn't falling. Failure is staying down.
"Me spell chucker work great. Need Grandma chicken."
Sorry, I'm being sarcastic today.
We the true users of slashdot must act to prevent this. We must not allow a Slashdot full of nude pictures of Natalie Portman or petrification fanatasies. We must anti-troll slashdot as I am doing now.
/., and I don't want this book published, and I don't ever want to see Columbine discussed on /. again - and especially not by JK.
I am a true user of
Trolls rule.
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Good grief. Rumour exists to help us assess trust & truth. News is the same. Spread the words. If people don't want to be quoted or printed, then they shouldn't say things in the first place.
/. post would be "private" is just wrong.
The only real exception is where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are in affect tapped. That does not apply here - expecting that a
Even so I'd be happy if it's never published. More mass media BS. "Some adolescent are unhappy" - who knew?
IMHO, the controversy wasn't about individuals fanaticly defending their rights over their "published works" but something more complex that struck a nerve with many of the Slashdot readership whether they posted to that discussion or not. (I'll try to explain my view)
/. announced that they were distributing 20,000 copies in "note-pack" bindings at this year's Comdex instead of bumper stickers, etc. there may have been only praise. - But, when you publish a "real" book for ThinkGeek, an Andover company, to sell for $14.95 - you're inevitably going to alienate some readers.
/. is doing the right thing now and I hope they're successful in getting the book to press. I hope this somehow helps some understand the tension here. I think I'm stating the obvious, but from a lot of other posts I've read, maybe not.
WHO
I think some folks are still uneasy with the thought that Slashdot is now a very much for-profit public company. As a public company they have a lawful obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders.
Despite this, we think of Slashdot as being different and they are. If the NY Times had published the entire discussion in a special Columbine One Year Later insert, we'ld be glad to have been heard, and their use of our "copyright" material wouldn't have surprised anyone. We expect Slashdot to exist on a higher moral plane than the rest of the media, and even if it can legally be done doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. We expected to be asked our feeling on the use of readers' comments before any kind of deals were signed.
Personlly, I think asking the overall readership their opinion on the matter in a Slashdot Poll *before* announcing the book as a done deal would have resulted in an overwelming positive response and given you the informal permission you needed to proceed without getting PR whacked. After the fact now, you've got all this greif and the publication of a good book is in limbo.
HOW
If Slashdot had announced that the comments were going to be published in a $1 edition of Wired magazine there would have been less upheavel. Had
As legal as it may be, Slashdot readers don't want to be used to help Andover's bottom line without being asked nicely first. It helps us maintain our suspension-of-disbelief that your not really a for-profit concern.
I thinkg
--Aaron Greenberg
Good lord; please read the articles. It's the most worthwhile Katz I've seen.
I really wish you wouldn't serialize it. You said that what you originally planned to do had no legal hang-ups attached. This is just going to slow the process down. I would prefer that the world have an opportunity to read the stuff that came out of those Hellmouth articles, rather than continuing to keep it within our community.
Publish it! Get it out there! Forget about the hypocrites who whine about corporate intellectual property ownership while jealously guarding their own supposed intellectual property!
We've gone over why posting on Slashdot just isn't as effective in this instance:
you/Jon Katz/whoever would just be preaching to the converted. Yes, Slashdot is a very popular electronic magazine. No, the people who really need to see these stories probably don't visit us here!
IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!
You also weaken your own point, by telling us that the only person who'd emailed you negatively so far is someone who didn't even post on that series of stories! Considering that publishing the book would be a legally sound action, and your (admittedly non-scientific) report above of a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
So why not publish?
slashdot may feel like an exclusive little country club for geeks, but it is a press conference.
Here is an idea I had. At the moment whenever people have something they want to winge, or flame about, they do it offtopic in some almost abitrary thread. How about having a regular Flame Box, or Flames to Slash (thinking analogy to Slashback, In box, letters to editor)? Maybe have this once every 2 weeks or once a month, or off in a side box somewhere. This way we all get to discuss how we would like certain things changed, and get responses from the "management".
No, jackass, apparently you've forgotten that JK's stories hellmouth center around people coming out and telling stories about how they
IDENTIFY WITH THE KILLERS.
see?
The killers are not the victims.
Some days, it's not even worth posting. I did get a massive kick out of having a post I signed with 'trolls rule' modded as 'troll.'
--
blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I'm glad /. is still responsive enough to change it's mind and human enough to admit a potential mistake. Good intentions are wonderful things, but there's a very true cliche about them and the road to hell... While I had thought the proposed book was falling in the legal grey area of copyright issues not well clarified by the courts, I personally felt the usage of other's writings was (just) over the line. Doing the hard work of "opt-in" is clearly the right choice. Good for /.
It's the change of media that irritates some people.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
First do no harm...
~ppppppppö
I understand the concern about the use of comments without permission, even though it would have been perfectly legal to do so. But at the same time I have no doubt whatsoever that anyone who had a comment used in the book would have been pleased to see it there; to see that their voice was being heard - whether or not their name was attached.
--- Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people.