+1 Funny should negate one negative mod on the same post. I agree jokes need to be protected from troll troll mods, but I also understand it makes no sense for humor to get rewarded the same as an insightful comment. Most of my posts that get modded up (or down) are jokes, but I'd rather earn my karma with the occasional serious post.
Sorry if I'm missing sarcasm, but there are two kinds of free: free as in no cost (free as in beer), and free as in freedom (free as in speech). Yes, speech doesn't cost you anything, but "free as in speech" refers to the freedom to say what you will. Saying "free as in beer" to specify free as in no cost is both to clarify from free as in speech and it is a joke since we all want free beer but never expect there to be any.
I don't anticipate it would work but if there are few advertisers so far maybe complain to those companies instead? Pitting companies against each other is often a good way to get someone to back down in a beneficial way. The game company can't monetize on the advertisements if word spreads that it just gets you negative PR. If anyone has heard of such a strategy working it'd be interesting to hear but I'm not too hopeful. I don't have a PS3 but I'll be affected if this idea spreads.
It does make sense to have IE first as long as it has the largest market share, but my concern is if it autoselects the first option so you can click 'next' and never make a choice. Most installers these days work by just clicking next six times and ignoring the prompts (often they are designed that way so people install 'helper bars' and other annoying programs). I would not be surprised if IE could keep a significant market share if only due to people who never knew it asked for their input.
NB: My post was written with the standard cellphone bans in mind. I fully agree that the jammer idea is stupid. Almost as stupid as my above lack of clarification.
How about actually -allowing- them and designing the curriculum around them?
Because too many teenagers will abuse their cellphone rights as long as they have them. Sure, you can have one on vibrate and call people when you have time, but I seriously doubt enough high school students are getting important calls to have to take them in the middle of class. I doubt even more that in-class texting involves important information that cannot wait until later.
While it is true you work in a connected environment, you have to be able to use the technology appropriately. If students never learn that sometimes they have to work instead of text, they'll end up crashing trains for a living. Reminds me of my high school lifting the ban on gum with the stipulation that the ban goes back into effect if they fill this one bucket with gum that "missed" the trash. Gum was banned again after about a month. I don't think I need more experiments like that to trust the situation won't change whether the ban is on cellphones or the next disruptive device. There will always be that minority of teens that can act like adults who are hurt by these policies, but they can live with it much better than those teens who force schools to implement rules like this in the first place.
For each violation a teacher can decide whether to let it slide or dismiss the student from the classroom. Miss enough classes and you fail the class. In college there is more leniency with letting you step out and take a call, but otherwise professors will still kick you out if you're disruptive or blatantly don't pay attention. Jamming the phones now just means professors have to play daycare more when the students haven't learned how to turn the things off.
I guess I sound somewhat "get off my lawn"-ish (I don't use my cellphone for much and rarely text), but if you aren't paying attention due to your cellphone you aren't benefitting from being in the classroom and you aren't helping anyone who may be distracted by you. And turning off your cellphone (or setting it to vibrate) at appropriate times is a common courtesy students should learn.
The warning on the cigarette boxes keep first-timers wary. Put that warning on music and the next generation of consumers will become better educated and more will avoid "buying" the media.
I thought the headline was implying the RIAA was admitting DRM on music won't work forever as an anti-piracy measure and they're advocating for content producers to stop using it.
On a side note, I completely agree with him that content producers should not be required to perpetually provide access to the content. Once they decide to stop supporting the content, it can be claimed by the public domain and no longer be the responsiblity of the corporations. Now we just need some sort of law that guides the process of content being moved to the public domain in a reasonable time.
I am assuming you can produce a list of candidate sites that may be benefitting from this by tracking for sudden rapid growth in links. From there you should be able to come up with an algorithm that looks at what the beneficiary site is about and what the linking sites are about. I would assume the hacked sites will have a random distribution of topics and sources- or a highly clustered distribution if a certain type of site is most often hacked. Regardless the distribution should be markedly different from a typical site.
NB: I am not very familiar with search engine algorithms so there is sure to be room for +5 comments whether you explain why this can work or can't work.
Looks like you've unwittingly made dozens of people submit posts pretending they're clippy, would you like to:
-Mod them all troll
-Go insane
-Nuke them from orbit
-Ignore every one of them, including this one
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Funny should negate one negative mod on the same post. I agree jokes need to be protected from troll troll mods, but I also understand it makes no sense for humor to get rewarded the same as an insightful comment. Most of my posts that get modded up (or down) are jokes, but I'd rather earn my karma with the occasional serious post.
Sorry if I'm missing sarcasm, but there are two kinds of free: free as in no cost (free as in beer), and free as in freedom (free as in speech). Yes, speech doesn't cost you anything, but "free as in speech" refers to the freedom to say what you will. Saying "free as in beer" to specify free as in no cost is both to clarify from free as in speech and it is a joke since we all want free beer but never expect there to be any.
I don't anticipate it would work but if there are few advertisers so far maybe complain to those companies instead? Pitting companies against each other is often a good way to get someone to back down in a beneficial way. The game company can't monetize on the advertisements if word spreads that it just gets you negative PR. If anyone has heard of such a strategy working it'd be interesting to hear but I'm not too hopeful. I don't have a PS3 but I'll be affected if this idea spreads.
At least using "free as in beer" stays free as in beer.
It does make sense to have IE first as long as it has the largest market share, but my concern is if it autoselects the first option so you can click 'next' and never make a choice. Most installers these days work by just clicking next six times and ignoring the prompts (often they are designed that way so people install 'helper bars' and other annoying programs). I would not be surprised if IE could keep a significant market share if only due to people who never knew it asked for their input.
If you don't get the joke you might mistake my post for a troll: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/07/31/131249
reportedly bankrolled by a single investor
...until he's finally extradited to the US.
I'm trying to come up with a joke here but I can't come up with something absurd enough that the pointy-hairs wouldn't try it.
He'll get sued for copying the music on his album. Sonata Arctica already wrote the song Weballergy.
Can six lanes of rush hour traffic on icy roads be communicated through a combination of sound and touch?
Screech! *crunch*
NB: My post was written with the standard cellphone bans in mind. I fully agree that the jammer idea is stupid. Almost as stupid as my above lack of clarification.
How about actually -allowing- them and designing the curriculum around them?
Because too many teenagers will abuse their cellphone rights as long as they have them. Sure, you can have one on vibrate and call people when you have time, but I seriously doubt enough high school students are getting important calls to have to take them in the middle of class. I doubt even more that in-class texting involves important information that cannot wait until later.
While it is true you work in a connected environment, you have to be able to use the technology appropriately. If students never learn that sometimes they have to work instead of text, they'll end up crashing trains for a living. Reminds me of my high school lifting the ban on gum with the stipulation that the ban goes back into effect if they fill this one bucket with gum that "missed" the trash. Gum was banned again after about a month. I don't think I need more experiments like that to trust the situation won't change whether the ban is on cellphones or the next disruptive device. There will always be that minority of teens that can act like adults who are hurt by these policies, but they can live with it much better than those teens who force schools to implement rules like this in the first place.
Or forgetting to turn it off during parent orientation or teacher conferences with one too many lawyer parents present.
For each violation a teacher can decide whether to let it slide or dismiss the student from the classroom. Miss enough classes and you fail the class. In college there is more leniency with letting you step out and take a call, but otherwise professors will still kick you out if you're disruptive or blatantly don't pay attention. Jamming the phones now just means professors have to play daycare more when the students haven't learned how to turn the things off.
I guess I sound somewhat "get off my lawn"-ish (I don't use my cellphone for much and rarely text), but if you aren't paying attention due to your cellphone you aren't benefitting from being in the classroom and you aren't helping anyone who may be distracted by you. And turning off your cellphone (or setting it to vibrate) at appropriate times is a common courtesy students should learn.
If it makes their hair look even bigger I'm all for it... or their eyes, or a bit lower down...
Just use a self-expanding hard drive.
This opens Pandora's box like you wouldn't believe.
Hey, that means Pandora owns all of that music, and no longer the RIAA. This could be revolutionary!
Just mash all the buttons to be sure. The worst that can happen is you beep back at the person for beeping at you. It'd serve them right anyways.
The warning on the cigarette boxes keep first-timers wary. Put that warning on music and the next generation of consumers will become better educated and more will avoid "buying" the media.
We like to use the term IP. Imaginary Property. If you go to submit a story there is no other tag in the dropdown menu when looking for IP.
I thought the headline was implying the RIAA was admitting DRM on music won't work forever as an anti-piracy measure and they're advocating for content producers to stop using it.
On a side note, I completely agree with him that content producers should not be required to perpetually provide access to the content. Once they decide to stop supporting the content, it can be claimed by the public domain and no longer be the responsiblity of the corporations. Now we just need some sort of law that guides the process of content being moved to the public domain in a reasonable time.
I am assuming you can produce a list of candidate sites that may be benefitting from this by tracking for sudden rapid growth in links. From there you should be able to come up with an algorithm that looks at what the beneficiary site is about and what the linking sites are about. I would assume the hacked sites will have a random distribution of topics and sources- or a highly clustered distribution if a certain type of site is most often hacked. Regardless the distribution should be markedly different from a typical site.
NB: I am not very familiar with search engine algorithms so there is sure to be room for +5 comments whether you explain why this can work or can't work.
Looks like you've unwittingly made dozens of people submit posts pretending they're clippy, would you like to:
-Mod them all troll
-Go insane
-Nuke them from orbit
-Ignore every one of them, including this one
some idiot (presumably a government-employed idiot, but that would be redundant)
As an idiot, I take offense at the notion that I am on the same level as a government employee!
They'll never open the store since they won't dare cut the ribbon.