I have to say that I agree with those who have said that there is no way to pin down exactly what is and isn't slashdot. Here are some options I thought of for things that could acurately be described as a "/. thing"
1. Things that people who visit/. want to read. 2. Things that the folks who run and moderate/. want to provide. 3. Things that get a response, and provoke interesting debate. 4. Things about technology, in the broad definition of the word. 5. Things commonly associated with the geek/nerd/tech/hacker/whatever subculture.
So, where does that leave Mr. Katz?
Right in the damn middle of what can be reasonably considered/. Neil Gaiman wrote a story (the name escapes me) about Victorian England, it was reveiwed in the pop culture section of a magazine. When he asked why a fairy tale set in victorian England was considered pop culture, the reviewer told him "because you wrote it".
Take a look around, Jon Katz is a part of/. and things he writes are too. Because he's a part of/. so are the things he writes. Would you rip into the other writers of/. for posting something you considered off topic? Since when did abusing someone for being different become a/. thing? Liz
If you played Quake on a server run off an @home cable account then the customer was in direct violation of @home's acceptable use policy. They do not allow servers run off their network.
Regular People are losers. Define regular people please. What do you mean here? Non technical people, people of average intelligence, people of mainstream lifestyle?
Phone Techs are misunderstood. Well, I like User Friendly and I don't agree with this premise. I think that phone techs are like any other group, there are smart ones and stupid ones, mean ones and nice ones and it usually takes only a few minutes to figure which group one falls into. (Like users, don't you think)
Managers are unnecessary idiots. There are good and bad managers in the world, some can make your job nearly unlivable, some can help you work effectively. My current boss is a great guy, and his presence in the office does help me.
Microsoft Sucks. Oh and here's my unpopular opinion. I really couldn't give a shit about Microsoft sucking. I have Windows and Solaris on my desk at work, and at home I have Red Hat Linux, Several flavors of Unix and a Windows machine. I use each operating system when I need it. Each one has strengths, and each weaknesses. I can laugh at the ridiculousness of Microsoft, and the rest of the computer industry, but I hold no animosity.
Quake rules. Um, I really don't care for video games at all, I've never even played Quake. I've seen it played and my only thought was that it looked just like Doom.
So I don't understand one of your premises and disagree with the other four. Yet I do find Userfriendly funny, and it has a great deal to say to me. First of all, User friendly really spends a pretty small percentage of it's time making fun of customers.... Go through the archives, you'll see what I mean. User Friendly (Unlike Dilbert IMO) is also at heart an optomistic and sweet cartoon. I've been reading it for years and plan to keep reading it. I'll also buy a dust puppy doll when they come out.
Quite a few people have used the gun manufacturer analogy, and I agree that it's an acuurate one
The disturbing thing is that many people are blaiming gun manufacturers when their guns are used in violent crime. They've accused the companies of targeting advertising to criminals, offering instruction on potentially illegal modifications of guns, etc.
They've sued, and they've won. Since the conection between this problem and the software problem is an obvious one, the connection could easily be made in law. I don't think it's likely that comapanies will begin suing software manufacturers because the were hacked using the manufacturers software, they don't have the kind of sympathy vote from the jury that the gun cases do. But if they did, there is precedent. Have I mentioned my dislike for the disease ridden corpse that is civil law?
It seems to me that in an attempt to be equitable, and equally an attempt to avoid the stigma attached to "hacking" as much of the world things of it, we've become much to vague in our definitions. From reading some of the suggested entries the only common theme seems to be things that are man made and (in the submitters opinion) interesting. I do agree that creativity is an important element, but it seems to be that we need to narrow our field of search somewhat. Was the creation of the atom bomb a hack? How about the Wright brothers building a plane?
What really constitutes hacking? I've always thought of hacking as inventive uses of preexisting conditions to create an unusual and interesting result.
Some of the ideas listed in other comments strike me more as inventions than hacks. Where does the delineation lie? When does something become a hack?
Three years is a long time isn't it. It would take a drooling idiot not to know that a person could barely be a part of society if completely cut off from computers. Especially if that person's skills lie in the realm of computers. As much as I would prefer to think otherwise, I must recognize that the Government is not composed of drooling idiots. Backwards often, stubborn always but not complete idiots. They aren't quite smart enough to know that they're wasting too much time on this kid, but they are smart enough to realize that taking computers away from him for three years will be devastating. So, what they're are doing will ruin his life. They must be aware of that, and thus can't we assume that it's their aim? The government, after having a major hand in the creation of computers, took up a long standing policy of hatred and fear of those who can use them. So, being the reactionary bastards they go straight for the jugular when provided the opportunity. They've got it and they did. They're doing all they can to screw this guy, and they'll keep doing it. Can we do anything about it? Probably not, you won't find much overlap in the type of people who want to be politicians with the type of people who are pro technology.
Hmm, so the question is, would it really be better if Microsoft was broken up into smaller companies?
In my job I spend a great deal of my time dealing with phone companies and I would be hard pressed to say that any of the baby bells are any better than ma bell used to be.
Did they lose power when they were split up? I suppose they did, but it didn't improve their service. How much power did they really lose anyway.
Is there a way to split Microsoft up that is both sensible and removes some of the awesome power they currently wield over the market?
Personally, my political beliefs make me feel that the behavior of Microsoft should be handled by the consumer, not by the government. I don't want the government making decisions for me, how can I in good conscious ask it to make decisions for a company?
So readers, here's a challenge: Microsoft has finally and for the last time been ruled a monopoly. You've been asked to handle it, what do you do with Microsoft (within the bounds of the law and common sense) to prevent their monopolistic behavior. If you split them up, how, what kind of companies do you create, handling what products.
Liz
Re:No wonder... TRUE..oh so true.
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
I believe the point of interest is that this will be the last odd day for over one thousand years... Which is indeed true.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to say that I agree with those who have said that there is no way to pin down exactly what is and isn't slashdot. Here are some options I thought of for things that could acurately be described as a "/. thing"
1. Things that people who visit /. want to read. /. want to provide.
2. Things that the folks who run and moderate
3. Things that get a response, and provoke interesting debate.
4. Things about technology, in the broad definition of the word.
5. Things commonly associated with the geek/nerd/tech/hacker/whatever subculture.
So, where does that leave Mr. Katz?
Right in the damn middle of what can be reasonably considered /.
Neil Gaiman wrote a story (the name escapes me) about Victorian England, it was reveiwed in the pop culture section of a magazine. When he asked why a fairy tale set in victorian England was considered pop culture, the reviewer told him "because you wrote it".
Take a look around, Jon Katz is a part of /. and things he writes are too. Because he's a part of /. so are the things he writes. Would you rip into the other writers of /. for posting something you considered off topic? /. thing?
Since when did abusing someone for being different become a
Liz
Trust me I know, I work there.
Let's examine your five premises:
Regular People are losers.
Define regular people please. What do you mean here? Non technical people, people of average intelligence, people of mainstream lifestyle?
Phone Techs are misunderstood.
Well, I like User Friendly and I don't agree with this premise. I think that phone techs are like any other group, there are smart ones and stupid ones, mean ones and nice ones and it usually takes only a few minutes to figure which group one falls into. (Like users, don't you think)
Managers are unnecessary idiots.
There are good and bad managers in the world, some can make your job nearly unlivable, some can help you work effectively. My current boss is a great guy, and his presence in the office does help me.
Microsoft Sucks.
Oh and here's my unpopular opinion. I really couldn't give a shit about Microsoft sucking. I have Windows and Solaris on my desk at work, and at home I have Red Hat Linux, Several flavors of Unix and a Windows machine. I use each operating system when I need it. Each one has strengths, and each weaknesses. I can laugh at the ridiculousness of Microsoft, and the rest of the computer industry, but I hold no animosity.
Quake rules.
Um, I really don't care for video games at all, I've never even played Quake. I've seen it played and my only thought was that it looked just like Doom.
So I don't understand one of your premises and disagree with the other four. Yet I do find Userfriendly funny, and it has a great deal to say to me. First of all, User friendly really spends a pretty small percentage of it's time making fun of customers.... Go through the archives, you'll see what I mean. User Friendly (Unlike Dilbert IMO) is also at heart an optomistic and sweet cartoon. I've been reading it for years and plan to keep reading it. I'll also buy a dust puppy doll when they come out.
Liz
The disturbing thing is that many people are blaiming gun manufacturers when their guns are used in violent crime. They've accused the companies of targeting advertising to criminals, offering instruction on potentially illegal modifications of guns, etc.
They've sued, and they've won. Since the conection between this problem and the software problem is an obvious one, the connection could easily be made in law. I don't think it's likely that comapanies will begin suing software manufacturers because the were hacked using the manufacturers software, they don't have the kind of sympathy vote from the jury that the gun cases do. But if they did, there is precedent. Have I mentioned my dislike for the disease ridden corpse that is civil law?
Liz
What really constitutes hacking? I've always thought of hacking as inventive uses of preexisting conditions to create an unusual and interesting result.
Some of the ideas listed in other comments strike me more as inventions than hacks. Where does the delineation lie? When does something become a hack?
Liz
As much as I would prefer to think otherwise, I must recognize that the Government is not composed of drooling idiots. Backwards often, stubborn always but not complete idiots. They aren't quite smart enough to know that they're wasting too much time on this kid, but they are smart enough to realize that taking computers away from him for three years will be devastating. So, what they're are doing will ruin his life. They must be aware of that, and thus can't we assume that it's their aim?
The government, after having a major hand in the creation of computers, took up a long standing policy of hatred and fear of those who can use them. So, being the reactionary bastards they go straight for the jugular when provided the opportunity. They've got it and they did.
They're doing all they can to screw this guy, and they'll keep doing it. Can we do anything about it? Probably not, you won't find much overlap in the type of people who want to be politicians with the type of people who are pro technology.
In my job I spend a great deal of my time dealing with phone companies and I would be hard pressed to say that any of the baby bells are any better than ma bell used to be.
Did they lose power when they were split up? I suppose they did, but it didn't improve their service. How much power did they really lose anyway.
Is there a way to split Microsoft up that is both sensible and removes some of the awesome power they currently wield over the market?
Personally, my political beliefs make me feel that the behavior of Microsoft should be handled by the consumer, not by the government. I don't want the government making decisions for me, how can I in good conscious ask it to make decisions for a company?
So readers, here's a challenge: Microsoft has finally and for the last time been ruled a monopoly. You've been asked to handle it, what do you do with Microsoft (within the bounds of the law and common sense) to prevent their monopolistic behavior. If you split them up, how, what kind of companies do you create, handling what products.
Liz
I believe the point of interest is that this will be the last odd day for over one thousand years... Which is indeed true.