I'm following trends. Right now it takes a lot of effort to follow the various threads of someones online (and indirectly offline) existence. It's getting easier by the day though. Sooner or later the process will be automated, with all the myriad of privacy concerns that goes with it.
Maybe it's sci-fi, but I believe that's going to provide a compelling historical archive. Not quite the Pepys diaries - but if we assume our future generations will continue to outnumber us, then I am confident these words will be parsed by human eyes again if not after decades then after centuries of lying unseen in the Slashdot archives.
Okay, but humanity has moved to a different plane of evolution. Assuming no great catastrophe, in which case all bets are off anyway, the Slashdot archives will remain. Meaning that all our inanity, including this example, will be preserved.
Now when Google Meme Search is invented, or something similar, and you can trace back ideas to their origins -- then it's quite possible that your memes will outlive your genes. Assuming you contribute good memes.
Of course, we could also use it to persecute the asshat that invented the "in soviet russia" meme. And that might be an altogether more positive use for the technology.
Ah - but do you as an individual care more if your ideas survive you, or the static strands of DNA which identify you less uniquely, and which you had no choice in defining anyway?
Evolution is, as you say, a game - but you do get to choose at which level you want to play it.
No. The earlier version of this thread had contradictory reports from both the BBC and The Guardian. I respect both sources, so it was obvious that the whole story was not out yet, but conclusions were being jumped to, and misinformation was being purported as fact.
So your sarcasm is misplaced, as sarcasm usually is.
While it looks suspicious, and certainly goes along with the current wave of anti-Russian sentiment, I have to agree with the GP - let's wait for more information instead of jumping to conclusions.
While a Slashdot thread has a minor effect on overall public opinion, every single increment brings us closer to "accepting the inevitability" of an actual conflict with Russia - something which Bush and Putin would both seem to benefit from wrt power consolidation.
We're geeks, we have brains if we choose to use them - we can do better. And yes, I am new here.
Of course, it might be that my "good" extremists are your "bad" extremists and so on.
That's why I don't think of it as a bell curve but more of a massively multidimensional continuum with all sorts of localised minima and maxima. And possibly the occasional wormhole, at least when projecting to a reduced set of criteria.
Which would sound like a rather obtuse argument for moral relativism, unless you accept that these deliberations are part of the process and cannot be meta. Which I just did.
I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.
As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.
I don't know. I mean, I'm as suspicious of Microsoft as the next geek, but I wonder if it's always warranted.
Towards that end though, Microsoft are complicit - what is their public relations dept actually doing? A POC who actually addressed the concerns and criticisms levelled at the company would go a long way towards reducing their 'evil empire' image.
The most basic economic truth, sad to say, of the last 100 years, seems to be that Convenience Trumps All.
You're quoting something more pervasive - the path of least resistance, emergence and evolution.
their favorite medium, replaced by something of inferior quality but greater convenience
"As so it once was, as much as it can never be again" - our challenge is to not weep over technology which can and will not survive in our current and future environment, but to find new ways to use new technology to perform those functions better. If we - the old - refuse, the next generation will happily take up that challenge.
Convenience Wins. Of course some might mention this in terms of Linux/Windows but I won't go into that..
I think it's apt - isn't this what the whole "Linux Desktop" conversation is about? When it becomes more convenient to use Linux, than Windows, then the latter will become obsolete.
Sure - but it is precisely the difference between it being a highly skilled task, and it being something anyone with a little experience using a graphics package can do, which is significant.
In the same light, you could hail email as being over-hyped since you could perform the same function with regular mail.
Making something a little bit easier can make it a lot more likely to adopted widely, and thus have interesting consequences.
But let's take your unproven hypothetical as given for a second. If these sorts of decisions are being made, which provide technically inferior solutions for the Linux kernel.. then over time it will become obsolete.
But way before then we'll all be using the nuLinux kernel which has all of "The Joker"s fancy code.
In other words, F/OSS can take care of itself; we're just the dumb monkeys hitting random keys.
Qualify "luck". It seems to me that any large distributed development effort is going to require some sort of process - the anarchic development model isn't terribly successful.
With that in mind, developing the Windows kernel requires you to be employed by Microsoft etc, whereas developing for the Linux kernel just requires you to follow some established open processes.
Keep using OpenOffice? I know, it sounds drastic but if everyone did and didn't give a damn about what ISO does, wouldn't that be enough?
Thing is, it OOXML were a good standard, or even a standard in the sense that it actually documented something which was implementable.. then there wouldn't be such an outcry.
ISO exists because of an information/communication bottleneck which no longer exists to quite the same extent today. The need to have a central repository of standards outweighed the requirement for fitness of those individual standards.
But, given the multiple documented abuses of process, ISO is actually propelling us rapidly towards a future where more standards are able to be created and maintained outside of the vast bureaucratic machine. I'd credit F/OSS before ISO, but the latter are accelerating the process.
Because having multiple "Mod up!", "No, mod down!" comments in response to every comment of actual content would:
1) Require moderation points to be spent quelling the "MOD XXX" comments. Increasing the number of available mod points in the system might work, but it's a delicately balanced ecosystem, and the social ramifications are somewhat unpredictable.
2) Increase the noise at the expense of signal.
3) Bastardise an otherwise elegant system of moderation by turning it into a shouting match.
4) Make the task of moderation less attractive (more weeding, less gardening), thereby lowering the quality of moderation by ensuring that only those with an agenda participate.
Moderation will never be 100% perfect, and the collective will of moderators will never agree 100% with you.
Neither of these things would suggest that the system is broken.
I browse at -1, and I simply don't believe that partisan groups play such a pivotal role in 'quashing the truth' as you fear.
If everyone without mod-points started doing what you do and posting "MOD UP/DOWN" all-caps requests according to whim.. then that would break the moderation system. So I ask you -- what makes you feel so superior such that you think that you should be one of the few whom moderators should pay special attention to?
I'm requesting moderation for the insighful comments, and downmodding for the trolls like you.
It is (mildly) interesting that you are requesting moderation - as an explicit endorsement of its significance, and also suggestive that you think that the moderation system would break down without your assistance. Thus making you a pivotal part of the process, even when the dumb machine hasn't handed you out your daily 15 modpoints. Delusions of grandeur perhaps?
As for labeling me a troll - I have karma to burn if you want to have a go, funny man.
Oh never mind, I just realised that you're going through this topic requesting positive moderation for things you agree with and requesting negative moderation for thing you don't:
For similar reasons as to why Fox News has a noteworthy market share.
Also, the level of hatred towards minority groups it is considered socially acceptable to display, increases proportionally with the need for a scapegoat - e.g. during times of social or economic upheaval.
Plus, whatever he decides to do in the last few days of his administration. Let's hope he only limits himself to the typical last-minute pardoning spree.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm following trends. Right now it takes a lot of effort to follow the various threads of someones online (and indirectly offline) existence. It's getting easier by the day though. Sooner or later the process will be automated, with all the myriad of privacy concerns that goes with it.
Maybe it's sci-fi, but I believe that's going to provide a compelling historical archive. Not quite the Pepys diaries - but if we assume our future generations will continue to outnumber us, then I am confident these words will be parsed by human eyes again if not after decades then after centuries of lying unseen in the Slashdot archives.
As for the meme-tracking - cheers!
Okay, but humanity has moved to a different plane of evolution. Assuming no great catastrophe, in which case all bets are off anyway, the Slashdot archives will remain. Meaning that all our inanity, including this example, will be preserved.
Now when Google Meme Search is invented, or something similar, and you can trace back ideas to their origins -- then it's quite possible that your memes will outlive your genes. Assuming you contribute good memes.
Of course, we could also use it to persecute the asshat that invented the "in soviet russia" meme. And that might be an altogether more positive use for the technology.
Ah - but do you as an individual care more if your ideas survive you, or the static strands of DNA which identify you less uniquely, and which you had no choice in defining anyway?
Evolution is, as you say, a game - but you do get to choose at which level you want to play it.
Dawkins argues against this. You're talking about genetic evolution competing with social evolution via memes and reproducing at a much faster rate.
No. The earlier version of this thread had contradictory reports from both the BBC and The Guardian. I respect both sources, so it was obvious that the whole story was not out yet, but conclusions were being jumped to, and misinformation was being purported as fact.
So your sarcasm is misplaced, as sarcasm usually is.
-1 naive
While it looks suspicious, and certainly goes along with the current wave of anti-Russian sentiment, I have to agree with the GP - let's wait for more information instead of jumping to conclusions.
While a Slashdot thread has a minor effect on overall public opinion, every single increment brings us closer to "accepting the inevitability" of an actual conflict with Russia - something which Bush and Putin would both seem to benefit from wrt power consolidation.
We're geeks, we have brains if we choose to use them - we can do better. And yes, I am new here.
Of course, it might be that my "good" extremists are your "bad" extremists and so on.
That's why I don't think of it as a bell curve but more of a massively multidimensional continuum with all sorts of localised minima and maxima. And possibly the occasional wormhole, at least when projecting to a reduced set of criteria.
Which would sound like a rather obtuse argument for moral relativism, unless you accept that these deliberations are part of the process and cannot be meta. Which I just did.
By that definition, we also need bad extremists too. Or even gooderer good extremists. But who can out-Stallman Stallman?
--
I saved my karma for this?
I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.
As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.
I don't know. I mean, I'm as suspicious of Microsoft as the next geek, but I wonder if it's always warranted.
Towards that end though, Microsoft are complicit - what is their public relations dept actually doing? A POC who actually addressed the concerns and criticisms levelled at the company would go a long way towards reducing their 'evil empire' image.
The most basic economic truth, sad to say, of the last 100 years, seems to be that Convenience Trumps All.
You're quoting something more pervasive - the path of least resistance, emergence and evolution.
their favorite medium, replaced by something of inferior quality but greater convenience
"As so it once was, as much as it can never be again" - our challenge is to not weep over technology which can and will not survive in our current and future environment, but to find new ways to use new technology to perform those functions better. If we - the old - refuse, the next generation will happily take up that challenge.
Convenience Wins. Of course some might mention this in terms of Linux/Windows but I won't go into that..
I think it's apt - isn't this what the whole "Linux Desktop" conversation is about? When it becomes more convenient to use Linux, than Windows, then the latter will become obsolete.
Ah - you mean the "What I'm comfortable with, should be the boundary of human progress" thought process?
Sure - but it is precisely the difference between it being a highly skilled task, and it being something anyone with a little experience using a graphics package can do, which is significant.
In the same light, you could hail email as being over-hyped since you could perform the same function with regular mail.
Making something a little bit easier can make it a lot more likely to adopted widely, and thus have interesting consequences.
Am I right or am I right?
You're a tautology.
But let's take your unproven hypothetical as given for a second. If these sorts of decisions are being made, which provide technically inferior solutions for the Linux kernel.. then over time it will become obsolete.
But way before then we'll all be using the nuLinux kernel which has all of "The Joker"s fancy code.
In other words, F/OSS can take care of itself; we're just the dumb monkeys hitting random keys.
Qualify "luck". It seems to me that any large distributed development effort is going to require some sort of process - the anarchic development model isn't terribly successful.
With that in mind, developing the Windows kernel requires you to be employed by Microsoft etc, whereas developing for the Linux kernel just requires you to follow some established open processes.
What's the problem with that?
Keep using OpenOffice? I know, it sounds drastic but if everyone did and didn't give a damn about what ISO does, wouldn't that be enough?
Thing is, it OOXML were a good standard, or even a standard in the sense that it actually documented something which was implementable.. then there wouldn't be such an outcry.
ISO exists because of an information/communication bottleneck which no longer exists to quite the same extent today. The need to have a central repository of standards outweighed the requirement for fitness of those individual standards.
But, given the multiple documented abuses of process, ISO is actually propelling us rapidly towards a future where more standards are able to be created and maintained outside of the vast bureaucratic machine. I'd credit F/OSS before ISO, but the latter are accelerating the process.
Because having multiple "Mod up!", "No, mod down!" comments in response to every comment of actual content would:
1) Require moderation points to be spent quelling the "MOD XXX" comments. Increasing the number of available mod points in the system might work, but it's a delicately balanced ecosystem, and the social ramifications are somewhat unpredictable.
2) Increase the noise at the expense of signal.
3) Bastardise an otherwise elegant system of moderation by turning it into a shouting match.
4) Make the task of moderation less attractive (more weeding, less gardening), thereby lowering the quality of moderation by ensuring that only those with an agenda participate.
Take your pick.
Moderation will never be 100% perfect, and the collective will of moderators will never agree 100% with you.
Neither of these things would suggest that the system is broken.
I browse at -1, and I simply don't believe that partisan groups play such a pivotal role in 'quashing the truth' as you fear.
If everyone without mod-points started doing what you do and posting "MOD UP/DOWN" all-caps requests according to whim.. then that would break the moderation system. So I ask you -- what makes you feel so superior such that you think that you should be one of the few whom moderators should pay special attention to?
I'm requesting moderation for the insighful comments, and downmodding for the trolls like you.
It is (mildly) interesting that you are requesting moderation - as an explicit endorsement of its significance, and also suggestive that you think that the moderation system would break down without your assistance. Thus making you a pivotal part of the process, even when the dumb machine hasn't handed you out your daily 15 modpoints. Delusions of grandeur perhaps?
As for labeling me a troll - I have karma to burn if you want to have a go, funny man.
Oh never mind, I just realised that you're going through this topic requesting positive moderation for things you agree with and requesting negative moderation for thing you don't:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=640053&cid=24527239
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=640053&cid=24527427
You obviously have an agenda here, my mistake for trying to engage you in a rational discussion.
This is "insightful"? Far from it, it's just a post insulting parent. MOD DOWN.
While I don't agree with either Lou Dobbs or Moryath, I can see why they think the way they do, and they appear to share a common philosophy.
It is insulting to suggest that they share the same spirit?
Anyone who agrees with Moryath, will probably really enjoy CNN at 7pm Eastern. I know I don't.
For similar reasons as to why Fox News has a noteworthy market share.
Also, the level of hatred towards minority groups it is considered socially acceptable to display, increases proportionally with the need for a scapegoat - e.g. during times of social or economic upheaval.
You appear to be channeling Lou Dobbs.
Plus, whatever he decides to do in the last few days of his administration. Let's hope he only limits himself to the typical last-minute pardoning spree.
That exception to the rule is just an uncommon act of mercy. Trust me.