That's why we all need to put up web servers and be our own ISPs. Big corporations will have harder time bullying citizens excersizing their free speech. It doesn't look good on "60 Minutes".
Even if you put up your own Web server, you have to connect to the Internet somehow. Big corporations can still try to bully your upstream provider into pulling the plug on you, and since big corporations own virtually all of our mass media outlets, perhaps it won't ever get on "60 Minutes"...
It has nothing to do with being a young white male (for God's sake, Katz!) Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog!
May I refer you back to this Slashdot item from January 7th? The studies discussed in the linked newsletter debunk the myth that "nobody knows you're a dog."
Now, you might say that one's identity only becomes apparent only through one's online behavior. However, as the newsletter articles point out, it's only by the most concerted effort that one can disguise one's identity. Besides, why should others have to suppress their identities in order to fit in with this "roasting?" I agree with Katz, it is very much a young male behavior, so why should the young males be the only ones allowed to their identities online?
It's giving in to the idea that we can't change the fact that this country is a two-party country. It's hardly a repulbic under those circumstances and certainly not a democracy.
I don't quite agree with this point, quite simply because I advocate fusion as the means to change the fact that this country is a de facto two-party system. As my flaming friend who replied above points out, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that people don't vote for third-party candidates because they won't win. I think fusion would be a good way for other political parties to gain influence, and to get people feeling good about voting for third parties again. With enough exposure, a third party then could run their own candidate and actually have a chance of winning. (And do it without heaps and heaps of cash the way Perot did it.)
Also, we can be fairly certain that the person who won with x% of votes from the Greens, say, will all but ignore that when making their decisions. As it works now, candidates are virtually bought by corporations and are beholden to them and the major number of voters who voted them in.
Well, adjust the numbers in my little example, then. Say that Gore got 42% of the vote as a Democrat and 5% as a Green, versus 45% for George W. Bush. I don't think the fact would be lost on him that without the Green vote, he wouldn't be President.
It's really hard to say without trying it whether the third-party vote would be people who otherwise would have not voted versus the people who would have voted Democratic. However, a significant chunk of votes coming from a third party would at least get that party some exposure without the taint of corporate dollars on it.
Your system would be a small improvement, but I think that there are better things which should be done.
Seriously, though, you're flaming me for no real reason. I already know it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I noted that I did in fact vote for Nader in 1996. By saying that third parties have no chance of taking the Presidency, I was simply laying out what does, in fact, happen at the polls.
It's the mass of voters in the United States that you need to convince, instead of hurling agressive verbiage at me. And what's more, you'll get your point across much better without offending your listener.
You have three candidates, A, B and C: Now if I vote for candidate C, my vote ultimately goes to candidate A or B?
No; read a little more closely. Under a fusion system, parties X and Y nominate candidate A, and party Z nominates candidate B. You vote for candidate A on the ticket of either party X or party Y, or candidate B on the party Z ticket. That's three parties, but only two candidates. Your vote goes to the candidate you intended, but you get to pick the political party.
Personally, I would like to see the practice of "fusion" legalized and/or instituted in Presidential elections. "Fusion" is the practice whereby multiple political parties can nominate the same candidate. This is a highly useful tool for voters. Here's why:
Third-party candidates have no chance of winning the Presidency; therefore very few people will "waste" their votes on a third-party candidate; therefore... You get the idea. With fusion, a third party can nominate one of the major-party candidates that most closely represents their views. Then when at the polls, one can vote for a third-party ticket without "wasting" one's vote, because the candidate is also a major-party candidate and could win.
For example: Suppose that the Green Party also nominated Al Gore. Then on election day, Gore gets 47% of the vote as a Democrat, and 5% of the vote as a Green. These add up to 52% of the vote, and Gore wins. He also knows that he owes a good chunk of his victory to Greens, and he'd better pay attention to the issues they espouse.
I'd be happier with such a system, though I did vote for Nader in 1996.
I don't think it's likely that a provider of gratis software, Open Source or not, would be found liable for damages he explicitly disclaims.
Unless it has changed since last I read it, Microsoft's End-User License Agreement also disclaims any warranty on the software. It doesn't matter if the user had the power to check the program source or not, (s)he has accepted all risk of using the MS product by (implicit) agreement with the EULA. (While it may be true that the EULA is on shaky legal ground, Microsoft does have lots of lawyers...) Therefore you're going to have a tough time proving negligence, even though the source is closed.
On a tangent, since the user agrees via the EULA to accept all risks of using the software, then perhaps it is the users who are guilty of negligence in the Melissa virus case?
Bravo! Thank you for a well-written, thoughtful post. I believe that this posting should appear as a Slashdot editorial, and not languish as merely a response to a comment on a story. Why? Simply, communication is important. The Internet, and moreso the World Wide Web, changed our society and economy by opening up fantastic new channels of communication. Its nature allows one person to be heard easily by millions. Among its other effects, the Internet fostered the ascendency of the free/open source software model. Honestly, would Linux have grown to its current power if we still had to pass its source code around via simple BBS or even Fidonet-type systems? I can't imagine so.
Proper communication is still important for the functioning of an open source project, or political movement, or simple exchange of ideas without flames. As somewhat of a linguistic geek myself, I've noted with dismay the declining quality of online writing. I can forgive simple confusion like it's/its or affect/effect, but lately I've seen more and more people pay little heed to proper sentence structure or legibility, instead using a stream-of-conciousness style that's very confusing. When the whole point of writing is to communicate a thought or an idea, I find it hard to understand why people can't take simple steps to facilitate the communication, rather than hindering it.
As all Slashdot readers are Internet users in one way or another, how people use the potential of the 'net is important, and good communication skills are part and parcel of it. Therefore, I think this essay needs a chance at the front page.
Scary? It's been done before (AT&T, Standard Oil), and it has not brought about the end of our society. You forget that the government (i.e. the people of the United States through their duly-elected representatives) created Microsoft through the granting of a corporate charter. If Microsoft goes and breaks that charter (i.e. working against the public good), they bring such legal action upon themselves.
Bill Joy is a "leading technology guru" for Sun, yet he apparently is unfamiliar with the shift key? Ouch! I don't mean to dismiss his argument based on grammar flames, but I find his text all but unreadable. I'm used to skipping/. posts because the poster obviously slept through English classes, but to get ee cummings affectations from somebody who really wants to be heard is, at least, disconcerting.
"We?re trapped between two useless states - alarm and euphoria."
How ironic, then, that this article is firmly trapped in the former useless state. The tone is very alarmist, but Mr. Katz fails to elaborate on *how* this "cyberclism" will occur. Why will it cause a cyberclism instead of just causing people to jettison their high-tech-and-overwhelming gadgets? Why will it affect the majority of the people in the world who don't have all the gadgetry? And just what the heck is a cyberclism, and why will it end Western civilization? (And why will it succeed when so many other disasters and calamaties have failed?)
I agree and disagree with this comment. I agree that the measure of success of an OS doesn't need to mean distribution to the masses. On the other hand, I disagree in that I think that Linux has already succeeded.
Look, it's a complete, robust, stable operating system that meets the needs of millions of users. If that ain't success, then I'm a crack-addled chimp.:-) The fact that it now has support from some of the industry's biggest players is icing on the cake; as long as Linux meets enough people's needs that they will take time to maintain and update it, it will stay a success.
Slashdot Mirror
May I refer you back to this Slashdot item from January 7th? The studies discussed in the linked newsletter debunk the myth that "nobody knows you're a dog."
Now, you might say that one's identity only becomes apparent only through one's online behavior. However, as the newsletter articles point out, it's only by the most concerted effort that one can disguise one's identity. Besides, why should others have to suppress their identities in order to fit in with this "roasting?" I agree with Katz, it is very much a young male behavior, so why should the young males be the only ones allowed to their identities online?
I don't quite agree with this point, quite simply because I advocate fusion as the means to change the fact that this country is a de facto two-party system. As my flaming friend who replied above points out, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that people don't vote for third-party candidates because they won't win. I think fusion would be a good way for other political parties to gain influence, and to get people feeling good about voting for third parties again. With enough exposure, a third party then could run their own candidate and actually have a chance of winning. (And do it without heaps and heaps of cash the way Perot did it.)
Well, adjust the numbers in my little example, then. Say that Gore got 42% of the vote as a Democrat and 5% as a Green, versus 45% for George W. Bush. I don't think the fact would be lost on him that without the Green vote, he wouldn't be President.
It's really hard to say without trying it whether the third-party vote would be people who otherwise would have not voted versus the people who would have voted Democratic. However, a significant chunk of votes coming from a third party would at least get that party some exposure without the taint of corporate dollars on it.
I'd like to hear it!
Go look up 'stick-up-the-ass'.
Seriously, though, you're flaming me for no real reason. I already know it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I noted that I did in fact vote for Nader in 1996. By saying that third parties have no chance of taking the Presidency, I was simply laying out what does, in fact, happen at the polls.
It's the mass of voters in the United States that you need to convince, instead of hurling agressive verbiage at me. And what's more, you'll get your point across much better without offending your listener.
No; read a little more closely. Under a fusion system, parties X and Y nominate candidate A, and party Z nominates candidate B. You vote for candidate A on the ticket of either party X or party Y, or candidate B on the party Z ticket. That's three parties, but only two candidates. Your vote goes to the candidate you intended, but you get to pick the political party.
Personally, I would like to see the practice of "fusion" legalized and/or instituted in Presidential elections. "Fusion" is the practice whereby multiple political parties can nominate the same candidate. This is a highly useful tool for voters. Here's why:
Third-party candidates have no chance of winning the Presidency; therefore very few people will "waste" their votes on a third-party candidate; therefore... You get the idea. With fusion, a third party can nominate one of the major-party candidates that most closely represents their views. Then when at the polls, one can vote for a third-party ticket without "wasting" one's vote, because the candidate is also a major-party candidate and could win.
For example: Suppose that the Green Party also nominated Al Gore. Then on election day, Gore gets 47% of the vote as a Democrat, and 5% of the vote as a Green. These add up to 52% of the vote, and Gore wins. He also knows that he owes a good chunk of his victory to Greens, and he'd better pay attention to the issues they espouse.
I'd be happier with such a system, though I did vote for Nader in 1996.
Unless it has changed since last I read it, Microsoft's End-User License Agreement also disclaims any warranty on the software. It doesn't matter if the user had the power to check the program source or not, (s)he has accepted all risk of using the MS product by (implicit) agreement with the EULA. (While it may be true that the EULA is on shaky legal ground, Microsoft does have lots of lawyers...) Therefore you're going to have a tough time proving negligence, even though the source is closed.
On a tangent, since the user agrees via the EULA to accept all risks of using the software, then perhaps it is the users who are guilty of negligence in the Melissa virus case?
Bravo! Thank you for a well-written, thoughtful post. I believe that this posting should appear as a Slashdot editorial, and not languish as merely a response to a comment on a story. Why? Simply, communication is important. The Internet, and moreso the World Wide Web, changed our society and economy by opening up fantastic new channels of communication. Its nature allows one person to be heard easily by millions. Among its other effects, the Internet fostered the ascendency of the free/open source software model. Honestly, would Linux have grown to its current power if we still had to pass its source code around via simple BBS or even Fidonet-type systems? I can't imagine so.
Proper communication is still important for the functioning of an open source project, or political movement, or simple exchange of ideas without flames. As somewhat of a linguistic geek myself, I've noted with dismay the declining quality of online writing. I can forgive simple confusion like it's/its or affect/effect, but lately I've seen more and more people pay little heed to proper sentence structure or legibility, instead using a stream-of-conciousness style that's very confusing. When the whole point of writing is to communicate a thought or an idea, I find it hard to understand why people can't take simple steps to facilitate the communication, rather than hindering it.
As all Slashdot readers are Internet users in one way or another, how people use the potential of the 'net is important, and good communication skills are part and parcel of it. Therefore, I think this essay needs a chance at the front page.
Scary? It's been done before (AT&T, Standard Oil), and it has not brought about the end of our society. You forget that the government (i.e. the people of the United States through their duly-elected representatives) created Microsoft through the granting of a corporate charter. If Microsoft goes and breaks that charter (i.e. working against the public good), they bring such legal action upon themselves.
Bill Joy is a "leading technology guru" for Sun, yet he apparently is unfamiliar with the shift key? Ouch! /. posts because the poster obviously slept through English classes, but to get ee cummings affectations from somebody who really wants to be heard is, at least, disconcerting.
I don't mean to dismiss his argument based on grammar flames, but I find his text all but unreadable. I'm used to skipping
How ironic, then, that this article is firmly trapped in the former useless state. The tone is very alarmist, but Mr. Katz fails to elaborate on *how* this "cyberclism" will occur. Why will it cause a cyberclism instead of just causing people to jettison their high-tech-and-overwhelming gadgets? Why will it affect the majority of the people in the world who don't have all the gadgetry? And just what the heck is a cyberclism, and why will it end Western civilization? (And why will it succeed when so many other disasters and calamaties have failed?)
I agree and disagree with this comment. I agree that the measure of success of an OS doesn't need to mean distribution to the masses. On the other hand, I disagree in that I think that Linux has already succeeded.
Look, it's a complete, robust, stable operating system that meets the needs of millions of users. If that ain't success, then I'm a crack-addled chimp. :-) The fact that it now has support from some of the industry's biggest players is icing on the cake; as long as Linux meets enough people's needs that they will take time to maintain and update it, it will stay a success.