To me a reposity is strictly a reposity. It should be a nice clean database. No opinions, no user comments, no news, nothing but software packages. What Novel is trying to do here could be all that. A portal that binds the community together with the devs. Plus if it's platform independent (yes all repos are platform independent but they aren't used as such so hush) it could allow dist specific apps to get some attention across the borders. I don't know, but I see no harm in this.
History, physics, chemistry, social science. These are some examples of subjects that, if I didn't update myself about since school, would today be outdated data. Perhaps not completely useless, but I never claimed such either.
Still what kind of argument is that? I accept outdated data because it was a small price to pay for the hassle/cost of constantly updating hard copies. But internet changes that.
I agree to some level. It will take long before the oddysey is outdated, but this is old history. Not everything taught in school is old history. Sometimes it's something which happened last year. I'd tell you what. I never had a school book with any information about what happened last year. To me, as a person of the internet era, this is very strange.
Did you even read my post? I don't think so because you're making no sense. The parent said that text books are necessary due to the possibility of outage. I said they aren't because there are electronic fallback systems to electronic systems as well. Nobody was talking about cost but you.
To the mod who modded this up: Please punch yourself in the face twice.
Large schools sure, but these large schools also usually have the infrastructure not to have internet interruptions, etc.
Naturally the benefit is larger for larger schools, thus the solution goes kind of hand in hand with the problem. Still you're arguing that small schools are slaves to the publishers. I don't buy that.
You assume that there is no textbook monopoly, and that publishers actually care about the students. Honestly the textbook publishers are nothing more than the academic equivalent to the RIAA and MPAA. They just want to make a quick buck and if that means screwing taxpayers, they will do that, if that means screwing students, they have no problem with that, if that means planned obsolescence, they will do that too.
You assume that textbook is the only way. There are many sources of information. What stops the school from buying the service of a certain class from another school? Or any other method that internet allows. Your problem is this.
You have to remember these are organizations with as much sense as the RIAA/MPAA, their response to competition is to raise prices, sue competitors for little to no reason, and decrease quality.
While there are such organizations, far from all are this way. You have no proof of what you're claiming, because it's impossible to proove that all publishers are RIAA whores. I can prove to you that not all music labels are. They aren't as big as Sony or Warner, but they're labels nonetheless. What makes it impossible for publishers to do this as well?
No sir, your problem is fallancy of the single cause. Don't worry though, I recently read a case study where test subjects more often tend to defend their initial theory even though they've been proven wrong during the argument. Human behaviour at its basic form.
A school has big consumer power. I bet there are publishers that settle for such backup systems. After all it would strictly be for the sole purpose of maintaining studies for students. If you run into a publisher that has no interest in this then I see no reason why you'd have any interest in doing business with them, even if they wrote the best book about the subject there is. Fact is that book will, in five years time, be as shitty as the other outdated data in the world. Plus by expanding to internet you've already eliminated the dependency of books. Information can be fetched in numerous ways. If you're a publisher this is rather alarming and thus the power shifts to the favour of the consumer. Still these are only hypothetical scenarios but nonetheless I doubt it's that impossible as you describe it.
It's good to have a backup plan. It's bad to have a shitty backup plan. There are numerous ways you could maintain an electronic backup system without ever touching paper. So no, old ways aren't naturally fallback.
As the music and newspaper industries will attest, those who adapt quickly to changing consumer and business demands will thrive in our increasingly digital society and worldwide economy.
Is it just me or did anybody else parse this sentence as "Let's not fail in life like the music and newspaper industries and actually use internet for our gain instead of hopelessly fighting it"? Is he giving the music/news industry attitude!?:D
That, my friend, we will never find out. We would if these highly complex applications were OSS, but then again the complexity of these are so immense that 9/10 experienced programmers had their heads spontaneously explode upon viewing the first line of code. That or someone is bullshitting you.
I wasn't arguing for niether. The parent asked which scenario I would prefer and I merely pointed out that his argument didn't hold water. There is no either or as you say but chances are, and this changes the argument significantly. So unless there's a must then I see no reason to justify simulated rape. And no I don't think you can prevent actual rape by allowing people to simulate it. There is no proof of such so this theory should only be considered as speculation. And if it did prevent it I would consider it the wrong approach to solve the problem, amongst many other wrong approaches that also would prevent said crime such as castration, death penalty or suspended animation.
Well, again there's about seven billion of us around. Someone, someday is bound to not like what you enjoy without it ever harming them or someone else. Would you think it fair to have that banned? Because, make no mistake, this thing could be everything from something you like to eat, some sport you like to watch to some sexual preferences you enjoy with your significant other.
You clearly have a different approach than the parent so I'll be fair and answer to your point of view as well. The problem with your argument is that you put equal weight on that innocent someone as you do on the not so innocent ones. It's a matter of cost. If by not allowing 100 people to play rape games you manage to prevent one out of those 100 to rape a person in reality then to me it's a small cost to pay. The impact of each action is different so naturally they must be weighed against each other. Mind you I'm not trying to prove to you why we should or shouldn't ban rape games, I'm merely pointing out why I think your argument fails. I'm not impossible to convince but I need more than speculation to change opinions.
One thing is for certain though, no discussion even needed. If any of us had been the victim of a rape crime we would have a significantly different view of the matter. Perhaps it's important not to forget that, and at the same time try to challenge the matter from that side as well.
I'm a bit confused because it seems like you're fighting for two different things at the same time. In the beginning of your post you're stating that no other category of crime has its own tax, and that there's no reason that internet crime should be treated differently.
After this your concern seems to be about police funds in general and you quickly drop the subject about separate taxing. If I understand you correctly it's no longer about specific taxes for crimes but instead about why the police, with their current funds, are unable to fight certain types of crime that are relatively new.
OK let's break down why your entire argument fails horribly.
First of all let's say you have 5 tasks, all which must be done with maximum $5 funding. Let's keep it simple and say that you conclude that each task would cost you $1 to perform. After some time a new task is assigned to you, leaving you with 6 tasks. You've already concluded that each task would cost $5, so naturally you'd have to request for additional funding. I'm not going to draw the parallels to the real case at hand, I'll leave that for you.
This is why you need additional funding when a new type of crime comes along (I'm aware of the fact that internet crime is not new in one sense, but apparently it is in the sense of funding it). The same rule applies to the opposite. If a type of crime gets committed less frequent, the budget for that type of crime should naturally get cut in relation to the frequency.
So you see it kind of makes sense why you need more money to perform more work, and less money to perform less work.
It seems like you have an issue with law enforcement in general, correct me if I'm wrong. You say "Not my problem", which clearly states your view of the police in general. Whatever it has become law enforcement was created in order for everybody to have less problems.
To sum it all up, if your dissatisfaction lies within how the police spends their fundings you should focus on that.
But then again if you would focus on that and reply to the same post that you did, it wouldn't make sense without bringing this:
Traffic Cops - Are they funded by Car Tax? No
Homoicide Detectives - Are they funded by Death Tax? No
into the "argument", now would it?
Thus we conclude that your problem lies within the police in general and that it has nothing to do with this particular tax more than any other tax. So your reply to my post about how crime funding is done in general was just an entry point for you to complain about the police funding. That's called offtopic and is modded -1, which I guess you understood when you clicked "post anonymously".
So it would be perfectly ok if they would instead add this (according to them new and necessary) sum to your income tax making no economic difference for you at all? Is it the name that bothers you? Am I the idiot here? Because I really don't get it.
It seemed more like flamebait and I didn't realise it was a joke, I apologize for that. However in my defense idiots posting such comments seriously aren't rare to find on/.
Before commenting on OSS development process you could, I don't know, do something as wild and crazy as perhaps READING how it's usually done. If you would have used your eyes before your itchy fingers you'd understand that OSS development is more often done behind open doors. Naturally the project has to start somewhere, right? Or did you think the stork delivered software as well?
On the other hand the man that spends several months of salary just to get a few extra inches on the already-massive new TV doesn't deserve to have a penis. Equation solved.
Insightful, but I can't take credit for "additional bandwitdth requirements from home users", that was you. I merely pointed out that the global "problem" with a flooded internet caused by BitTorrent traffic is not going to get solved by streaming the contents instead.:)
it implies that the more technologically advanced an ancient culture was, the less evidence there will be that they ever existed.
Woah easy there cowboy. This "rule" only applies to historical data of the society, not general evidence. If my hard drive crashes or gets wiped, the drive itself, in its sturdy metal casing, will be around for many, many years to come. So no, L. Ron Hubbard remains a douche.
Slashdot Mirror
To me a reposity is strictly a reposity. It should be a nice clean database. No opinions, no user comments, no news, nothing but software packages. What Novel is trying to do here could be all that. A portal that binds the community together with the devs. Plus if it's platform independent (yes all repos are platform independent but they aren't used as such so hush) it could allow dist specific apps to get some attention across the borders. I don't know, but I see no harm in this.
Perhaps that's the case. I don't know but to me, and I guess most /.-ers, the word success is not directly associated with the music/news industry. :)
History, physics, chemistry, social science. These are some examples of subjects that, if I didn't update myself about since school, would today be outdated data. Perhaps not completely useless, but I never claimed such either.
Still what kind of argument is that? I accept outdated data because it was a small price to pay for the hassle/cost of constantly updating hard copies. But internet changes that.
I agree to some level. It will take long before the oddysey is outdated, but this is old history. Not everything taught in school is old history. Sometimes it's something which happened last year. I'd tell you what. I never had a school book with any information about what happened last year. To me, as a person of the internet era, this is very strange.
Did you even read my post? I don't think so because you're making no sense. The parent said that text books are necessary due to the possibility of outage. I said they aren't because there are electronic fallback systems to electronic systems as well. Nobody was talking about cost but you.
To the mod who modded this up: Please punch yourself in the face twice.
Large schools sure, but these large schools also usually have the infrastructure not to have internet interruptions, etc.
Naturally the benefit is larger for larger schools, thus the solution goes kind of hand in hand with the problem. Still you're arguing that small schools are slaves to the publishers. I don't buy that.
You assume that there is no textbook monopoly, and that publishers actually care about the students. Honestly the textbook publishers are nothing more than the academic equivalent to the RIAA and MPAA. They just want to make a quick buck and if that means screwing taxpayers, they will do that, if that means screwing students, they have no problem with that, if that means planned obsolescence, they will do that too.
You assume that textbook is the only way. There are many sources of information. What stops the school from buying the service of a certain class from another school? Or any other method that internet allows. Your problem is this.
You have to remember these are organizations with as much sense as the RIAA/MPAA, their response to competition is to raise prices, sue competitors for little to no reason, and decrease quality.
While there are such organizations, far from all are this way. You have no proof of what you're claiming, because it's impossible to proove that all publishers are RIAA whores. I can prove to you that not all music labels are. They aren't as big as Sony or Warner, but they're labels nonetheless. What makes it impossible for publishers to do this as well?
No sir, your problem is fallancy of the single cause. Don't worry though, I recently read a case study where test subjects more often tend to defend their initial theory even though they've been proven wrong during the argument. Human behaviour at its basic form.
A school has big consumer power. I bet there are publishers that settle for such backup systems. After all it would strictly be for the sole purpose of maintaining studies for students. If you run into a publisher that has no interest in this then I see no reason why you'd have any interest in doing business with them, even if they wrote the best book about the subject there is. Fact is that book will, in five years time, be as shitty as the other outdated data in the world. Plus by expanding to internet you've already eliminated the dependency of books. Information can be fetched in numerous ways. If you're a publisher this is rather alarming and thus the power shifts to the favour of the consumer. Still these are only hypothetical scenarios but nonetheless I doubt it's that impossible as you describe it.
It's good to have a backup plan. It's bad to have a shitty backup plan. There are numerous ways you could maintain an electronic backup system without ever touching paper. So no, old ways aren't naturally fallback.
As the music and newspaper industries will attest, those who adapt quickly to changing consumer and business demands will thrive in our increasingly digital society and worldwide economy.
Is it just me or did anybody else parse this sentence as "Let's not fail in life like the music and newspaper industries and actually use internet for our gain instead of hopelessly fighting it"? Is he giving the music/news industry attitude!? :D
Wrong, saying that speculation is pointless also implies that you're only interested in the truth. Actually it implies many things so here you go.
What's going on here?
That, my friend, we will never find out. We would if these highly complex applications were OSS, but then again the complexity of these are so immense that 9/10 experienced programmers had their heads spontaneously explode upon viewing the first line of code. That or someone is bullshitting you.
Fact is different things are important to different people. It doesn't make them an idiot.
So where do you draw the line? I don't give a shit about fashion. Would you consider me an idiot if I'd wear my pants with the ass on the front?
The messed up part is that now these obese black holes are entitled 2 seats when traveling by wormhole.
You know what's hard to see? Someone using Yahoo. (badumpish)
Well, again there's about seven billion of us around. Someone, someday is bound to not like what you enjoy without it ever harming them or someone else. Would you think it fair to have that banned? Because, make no mistake, this thing could be everything from something you like to eat, some sport you like to watch to some sexual preferences you enjoy with your significant other.
You clearly have a different approach than the parent so I'll be fair and answer to your point of view as well. The problem with your argument is that you put equal weight on that innocent someone as you do on the not so innocent ones. It's a matter of cost. If by not allowing 100 people to play rape games you manage to prevent one out of those 100 to rape a person in reality then to me it's a small cost to pay. The impact of each action is different so naturally they must be weighed against each other. Mind you I'm not trying to prove to you why we should or shouldn't ban rape games, I'm merely pointing out why I think your argument fails. I'm not impossible to convince but I need more than speculation to change opinions.
One thing is for certain though, no discussion even needed. If any of us had been the victim of a rape crime we would have a significantly different view of the matter. Perhaps it's important not to forget that, and at the same time try to challenge the matter from that side as well.
Which would you pick, Slashdot - a (creepy) guy getting his rocks off to a simulation, or the real thing?
So you're saying that we as humans, or at least some of us, must inevitably enjoy(?) some form of rape?
After this your concern seems to be about police funds in general and you quickly drop the subject about separate taxing. If I understand you correctly it's no longer about specific taxes for crimes but instead about why the police, with their current funds, are unable to fight certain types of crime that are relatively new.
OK let's break down why your entire argument fails horribly.
First of all let's say you have 5 tasks, all which must be done with maximum $5 funding. Let's keep it simple and say that you conclude that each task would cost you $1 to perform. After some time a new task is assigned to you, leaving you with 6 tasks. You've already concluded that each task would cost $5, so naturally you'd have to request for additional funding. I'm not going to draw the parallels to the real case at hand, I'll leave that for you.
This is why you need additional funding when a new type of crime comes along (I'm aware of the fact that internet crime is not new in one sense, but apparently it is in the sense of funding it). The same rule applies to the opposite. If a type of crime gets committed less frequent, the budget for that type of crime should naturally get cut in relation to the frequency.
So you see it kind of makes sense why you need more money to perform more work, and less money to perform less work.
It seems like you have an issue with law enforcement in general, correct me if I'm wrong. You say "Not my problem", which clearly states your view of the police in general. Whatever it has become law enforcement was created in order for everybody to have less problems.
To sum it all up, if your dissatisfaction lies within how the police spends their fundings you should focus on that.
But then again if you would focus on that and reply to the same post that you did, it wouldn't make sense without bringing this:
Traffic Cops - Are they funded by Car Tax? No Homoicide Detectives - Are they funded by Death Tax? No
into the "argument", now would it?
Thus we conclude that your problem lies within the police in general and that it has nothing to do with this particular tax more than any other tax. So your reply to my post about how crime funding is done in general was just an entry point for you to complain about the police funding. That's called offtopic and is modded -1, which I guess you understood when you clicked "post anonymously".
So it would be perfectly ok if they would instead add this (according to them new and necessary) sum to your income tax making no economic difference for you at all? Is it the name that bothers you? Am I the idiot here? Because I really don't get it.
Let's disregard the article for one second here. How do you think crime fighting is funded in general?
It seemed more like flamebait and I didn't realise it was a joke, I apologize for that. However in my defense idiots posting such comments seriously aren't rare to find on /.
:)
Again, my apologies.
Before commenting on OSS development process you could, I don't know, do something as wild and crazy as perhaps READING how it's usually done. If you would have used your eyes before your itchy fingers you'd understand that OSS development is more often done behind open doors. Naturally the project has to start somewhere, right? Or did you think the stork delivered software as well?
That's no moon!
On the other hand the man that spends several months of salary just to get a few extra inches on the already-massive new TV doesn't deserve to have a penis. Equation solved.
"Noah wanted to get married in space but he came to his senses and built an ark instead."
Fixed it for ya.
Insightful, but I can't take credit for "additional bandwitdth requirements from home users", that was you. I merely pointed out that the global "problem" with a flooded internet caused by BitTorrent traffic is not going to get solved by streaming the contents instead. :)
it implies that the more technologically advanced an ancient culture was, the less evidence there will be that they ever existed.
Woah easy there cowboy. This "rule" only applies to historical data of the society, not general evidence. If my hard drive crashes or gets wiped, the drive itself, in its sturdy metal casing, will be around for many, many years to come. So no, L. Ron Hubbard remains a douche.