Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: SCO, COPA, AllofMP3, Navier-Stokes, and More
IBM speaks about the SCO suit.. MasterOfGoingFaster brings to our attention Groklaw's detailed analysis and complete transcript of IBM's 10-point response to SCO's claims that Unix code showed up in Linux. From the article: "We've listened to SCO for more than three years tell its side of the story, and the media printed its every word. IBM, when asked to comment, invariably said nothing. Now it tells the court in detail how truly wronged it has been by The SCO Group, and why the court should bring this wrong to an end by granting IBM's motion for summary judgment on SCO's contract claims."
Another angle on COPA. segphault writes to point out an Ars Technica article that discusses in depth the ACLU-vs.-DoD COPA case. The article includes an interview with plaintiff Aaron Peckham, a free speech advocate and the creator of the popular Urban Dictionary web site. Peckham says that if the Internet censorship law were to go into effect, Urban Dictionary might have to shut down or move overseas.
AllofMP3 followups. Two pieces of news after Visa shut off AllofMP3.com. ColinPL writes, "According to Ars Technica, the IFPI lobbied Visa to reject payments from AllofMP3.com. The plan worked, and an IFPI spokesperson said the plug was pulled in early September. AllofMP3.com has resumed its public relations blitz, claiming Visa and MasterCard's decision to discontinue its relationship has no legal justification." And bjoeg writes, "Today Tele2 (a large Danish telco and ISP) received judgment from civil court to block their customers' access to AllofMP3.com. Tele2 has appealed the verdict, and for now access to the site is still open."
Navier-Stokes solution withdrawn. nherm writes, "So I finally decided to take a look at the solution of the millennium problem on the Navier-Stokes equation (previously discussed on Slashdot) and found that the entry on arXiv.org says 'This paper is being withdrawn by the author due to a serious flaw.' So I suppose that the rest of us still have a chance on it? From the arXiv.org page I found this interesting weblog entry with some comments on the issue, pointing to another weblog entry: 'I would not be surprised to learn later that her work, even if flawed, has led the way to helping solve this long-standing problem.'"
A librarian's guided tour of Wikipedia. tiltowait writes, "With the potential rise of Citizendium and the continued media circus surrounding Wikipedia's foibles, it's a good time to review the current state of Wikimania and consider what these disruptive technologies mean for the future of 'authoritative' information sources. If you've ever wanted for a general overview of Wikipedia or needed something to point to when asked, 'Wikipedia? Isn't that just a bunch of lies?' then the 1-hour screencast titled 'Why Wiki?' is for you. The online video is my perspective on the pros and cons of Wikipedia and how it stacks up to traditional publication formats."
The iPod's 5th anniversary. This one should perhaps be filed under "SlashWAYback." buddhaunderthetree writes, "Five years ago today Slashdot was introduced to the iPod and the reviews were mixed to say the least. CmdrTaco set the tone when he opined, 'No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.' Many of the 1044 comments that followed weren't much more enthusiastic. If anyone had dared to predict that in 5 years the iPod would have 70% of the mp3 player market, they would have been derided as an Apple zombie. Here's the original thread: Apple Introduces iPod."
It might continue to exist in some neutered form, but Wikipedia being the "encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit," in any meaningful sense, is dead. Anyone outside the inner circle who tries to add anything gets an immediate revert...the reason given is either "failure to cite sources," (even if you actually did) or "use of weasel words," which is a bullshit subjective abstraction that doesn't mean anything. The translation of both of the above is, "You're outside the clique, and this site is no longer write access enabled for people outside the clique."
The 9/11 article is a major case in point...there was a time when it was extremely balanced, presenting both the official story, and a number of different hypotheses put forward by the various independent investigative groups, as well as links to the websites of both the government and said other groups. Pretty much everyone got covered...it was remarkable. Now, however, it's pure whitewash. The government account is all that's there, word for word. There might be a few links to independent groups at the bottom of the page, but that's about it.
Wikipedia have completely and entirely sold out. In their perpetual, gnawing insecurity about "credibility," and making sure that they're a place where schoolchildren can do project research, they've given up any desire whatsoever for content that is genuinely meaningful. As far as individuality or uniqueness is concerned, the site truly is dead.
I find it difficult to adequately verbalise the level of grief and anger I feel over this...not only with the site's resident "community," but also with its' founder that he has allowed such a situation to come to pass. Wikipedia could have remained something infinitely more valuable than that which it has become.