Though you're entitled to your own opinion, I disagree. Katz and JP are the same breed. Neither are interested in "learning". I don't really care how acclimated Katz is to the "environment"--It is irrelevant to me. Though, Katz understands the "environment" on slashdot better than most, in a manipulative kind of way --that which ills slashdot. He knows which buttons to push on the longhair, psuedo communist/Open Source/intellectual, liberal, pro-geek crap.
What I care about is the fact that he ADDS nothing to this world. If he wishes to write books, that is his business. But when he is given a forum on slashdot regularly, I take issue. The fact of the matter is that he has an incentive to write for slashdot, I assure you. Maybe he wishes to "signal" to the publishers that his books are popular, by directing slashdot readership to it, thus creating further demand for his books. Quid Pro Quo. Or perhaps, he feels that he can better sell books by understanding and interacting with the slashdot mentality, his readership. I don't know what his motives are exactly, but they strike me as entirely based in self-interest.
In either case, I don't believe he is sincere. Even if he is, he isn't adding anything that I want to read or discuss at length. Every one his articles has provided an alarmist or "hypist" tone. He also turns on his words repeatedly. In short, I see no redeeming value to his writings, and many downsides.
It is a shame to see slashdot come to this, knowingly selecting highly inflamatory material with little to no redeeming value, for the sake of increasing banner revenues. I first noticed this with Katz, but now I'm seeing it with JP as well. Both are nothing but cheap hacks. It would be a waste of words to describe how and why, I believe the "editors" know full well what they're doing.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again; I believe slashdot may very well hurt themselves financially in the long run. Though these "articles" may create short term revenues, they detract from the site. I have little doubt that the real secret to slashdot is intelligent discussion. Katz and JP simply tear it apart--leading to flame and dogma. The people who participate vigorously in such discussions tend to be younger, immature, etc. People, such as myself, on the other hand, only have so much tolerance for this kind of behavior. When the more intelligent people (better contributors) leave, the heart and soul of slashdot will too. With out this certain intellectual vitality, slashdot will rapidly degenerate.
PS: I said I wouldn't, but I changed my mind...I knew JP a couple years ago on undernet (IRC) in #cha0s, and other such channels. He was, and always will be a clueless idiot. He is a horrible writer. He doesn't know the first thing about computer security. What he is, is an opportunist, and a not very intelligent one at that. The reason he is "popular", if you could call it that, is that he was in the right place at the right time. Namely, he acted as a conduit for the media when "Analyzer" (the moronic israeli hacker) did his thing. Since that time, he's been trying desperately to sensationalize everything and purporting himself to be an expert. In short, he's a hack.
"If you are in it for the sake of humanity and that of your idea, then you KNOW it is best off if you let it fly freely."
Sorry, I disagree strongly about this. While I respect GPL (et. al), I know that far many more innovations come into this world by force of personality -- effort and will. In order to get others behind your vision it is neccessary all too often have capital; capital requires intellectual property more often than not.
Open source doesn't see to this. Look at the empirical evidence. In the past year, just how many innovations have open source efforts made? Propietary?
Not every good idea is going to be adopted by the open source zealots. (e.g.: a new interface that is friendly for newbies -- geek antithesis). Even if the goals are deemed worthy, frequently the goals are also deemed unattainable. It is the leader, the primary risk taker, and the entreprenuer that MAKE it happen. How many people do you know that are willing to work on something for a couple years that is seemingly more than likely to completely fail? Damn few.
I suppose I've had the benefit of seeing this entreprenuerial process first hand; I _know_ Open Source simply is not a viable solution in many cases.
Agreed, though the point I'm trying to make is that, perhaps, being a corporate entity, their wallets might not be best served by this behavior. Though in the short run, it would appear to generate increased revenues, can this hold out? I don't think this is so obvious. I suppose it comes down to knowing the readership. Are the kids (yes, a generalization) and those who get caught up in Katz content (for lack of a better word) representive of the general readership? What happens when those with real insight and knowledge leave? Are the kids' comment traffic self-perpetuating? In other words, when the more substancial content has totally left slashdot, will these kids still be drawn to Katzian debates?....etc etc etc
Katz is such a hack. I can envision him right now, holding up a blade of grass trying to determine which way the geek wind is going to blow tomorrow. The moment he detects a movement, he proclaims it as his own. When the direction changes, he jumps the bandwagon yet again, hoping no one is the wiser....
I, and many others, tire of Katz and his routine. I suspect the powers that be on slashdot know this, yet they realize that his inflamatory trash generate increased traffic (look at how many comments he averages). It is a free country, and he does have the right to hear it. I don't blame slashdot for posting his articles. However, one thing they should be aware of is that it detracts from the site. Though I may occasionally click on his articles, there is only so many of these i'll tolerate. I suspect others share my view, maybe even enough to bite into their profits. I can hope, can't I?
I've seen "Geeks" (capital G) do wicked, dishonest, crappy, slipshod work before too. The public also saw "geeks" shooting up Columbine. This doesn't make the term any less valid.
I believe the point that the original poster was making, is that not everyone who is technically competent, or even excellent, is a "geek". Perhaps the word "professional" has better conotations? Both words carry a certain notional definition with it. That is all they are, notions...
GPL and propietary software have a lot in common. Neither restrict us from coding independently, with, perhaps, one exception: software patents. Both put restrictions on what we can and can not do with it. GPL restricts us, in the sense that it is "viral"; this is simply not 100% freedom. In RMS's opinion, less is more; he restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with his code, so that others can enjoy the fruits of your labor in the same way that you enjoy his.
I respect the FSF's view, just as I respect propietary software's rights. The two camps can operate unimpeded by one another. Both formulas have their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, they can, and do, push each other on -- they're better for it.
However, while I respect GPL, I take exception with some of the myopic statements of RMS and company. Within his own camp (for lack of a better word) he is well within his rights to crusade against the other "open source" licenses. He finds them threatening, in that, they have the potential to dillute the power of his movement. This, however, does not mean that the other licenses do not have the right to exist -- they are yet another formula. Past a certain point, he must recognize this: That, they too, have the right to exist -- despite the threat to his own movement....
First off, most private schools currently recieve NO government funding. I've seen many private schools loosen up over the years, but its not nearly as out of control as public schools are (in general), nor will they ever be. The difference between private schools and public schools, is that in private school the controls are in the hands of parents (a far more singular voice) and the board/principle. In public school, you've got 50k voices, and a particularly loud voice, the teachers' union -- no real leadership. For private schools it is simply a matter of taking control of the reigns, and deciding WHAT the objectives are (barring civil litigation and the like).
That being said though, this kind of random violence is bound to happen at private schools as well. The problem has between little and nothing to do with discipline. Private schools do have other more significant advantages, but I don't believe this is one of them. Kids such as the ones at Columbine aren't neccessarily going to set off any blips.
Futhermore, this "random violence" problem is statistically not that big of a problem, for public and private schools alike. There have always been kids with serious emotional issues at all schools. I, for one, believe that if we could somehow get the media to not DWELL (eg: one hour -- people shot -- end of story) on such acts we'd never see such spikes in violence -- they're clearly "inspired" by one another. Kids have not fundamentally changed in the past 20 years. It is the media. Forcing the media to ignore the situation would be best; I suspect the ACLU might object.;)
Ok, a few points. First off, an individual in the AU gov't is on record confirming "Echelon", a global information monitoring system. He does not confirm that it is anything near the scale that the paranoids believe: All communications (e.g.: local and long distance phone traffic, internet, radio, sattelite, etc).
I, for one, believe there is a kernel of truth in the Echelon rumors; that there is the technology and the network to spy on unfriendly nations. Like Iraq for example, instead of depending on sattelites to notify of military mobilization, you listen to radio intercepts and the like. This is probably highly effective, and I have no problem with it.
I do not believe that Echelon is possible on the scale the conspiracy theorists believe. Even if you assume the NSA is "evil", you must factor economics into it. They may have a multi-billion dollar budget, but its simply not sufficient to do the kind of work that they describe. Even if you assume that the speach recognition hardware and the like came for free and is possible, think of the man hours and the sheer logistics of it. To monitor phone networks alone, you would need a basically parallel "secure" infrastructure (e.g.: data lines running your local phone calls to NSA intercept stations). You would need as many servicemen as all the phone networks combined (e.g.: AT&T, baby bells, sprint, etc). Not only that, but they would need to be kept reasonably secure......Man hours alone would cost hundreds of billions. Far more than any possible NSA budget (though we don't have the exact number, we do know gov't revenues and how much could be left in theory). There is just no way.....
You are correct about the first two classications; however, there is a third one: Distributor (eg: book store). Most internet services would have fallen in the distributor classification before 1996. In other words, like a bookstore, they have no responsibility for the content; unless they were put on notice that a particular book is not kosher. It got complicated in that, if an ISP (such as AOL (et. al)) claimed to first review/edit content before it would made available for the general public, they could be held responsible in theory. Thus most ISPs, took a hands off approach.
In 1996, the CDA changed this. In an attempt to 'clean up' the net. Congress, in their infinite wisom (sarcasm), made a provision for liabel. It occurred to them that, if ISPs were to cooperate in removing obscene material, they would need to be protected, so as not fall into the "publisher" category, thus exposing themselves to massive liability. This provision is basically "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It provided further language, to the effect, that no state or local law shall cross it. The CDA, in effect, created a wide protective blanket against all kinds of defamation suits. Though the majority of the CDA was struck down in 1997, these key parts remained. It has been tested a number of times in very broad scope, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and stood. In fact, some courts have held that an ISP is not liable even if they're put on notice of defamative content.
That being said though, providers like Slashdot (not too familiar with Yahoo's content) are possibly in murky waters, despite these precedents. It could be argued that slashdot promotes certain content (eg: the articles), as in basically creating it. Or that certain slashdot figures (e.g.: Jon Katz) are in business with slashdot, and thus slashdot is effectively creating the content.
I've not run out of ammo, far from it. I read and post on slashdot for entertainment; I'm not under the illusion that I, nor anyone else, can "prove" anything like this. Such threads can go on into infinity -- I simply don't have the time. However, what I can do is point out some of the realities. I may not win you over, but I can get you and others thinking. I can challenge your thought process, point out some of the more aggregious errors, compare our legal system to other countries, and show some of the harm (particularly that it is not just "rich" companies that are hurt).
There have been some cases in which a playground has been rebuilt. From experience though, I know that for every one of those, you have fifty that are simply torn down or replaced with joyless substitutes. I won't argue this into infinity either...
While I agree with you, that both criminal and civil juries have a bad time with technical cases; both trials are vastly different, namely the standard of proof is different. Convicting someone of murder (for example) is a very serious matter, and is highly inflamatory. Our tolerance for wrongful convictions is very low. The system is designed to insure this happens very rarely (e.g.: "beyond a shadow of a doubt", "jury of peers", etc).
Civil trials are vastly different by design. They're supposed to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently. We have a higher tolerance for error (e.g.: the preponderance of evidence). Thus a poorly chosen judge is not the end of the world, we look more at the aggregate affect. Futhermore, the motives are different. Wealth redistribution is the primary scheme of todays tort system. This makes professional witnessing a very lucrative activity. While people will lie for money, they won't necessarily risk their hide in a less lucrative criminal trial.
"That is what lawyers are there to do; to make their point. If highly paid corporate lawyers fail in their job they have no one else to blame." Ok, I hate people who cut and paste or paraphrase,but in this case i'll make an exception for myself. The point that I'm trying to drive home is that you can have the most ethical management team and the best lawyers and still get the sued for all you're worth. You talk to any litigator worth his weight, and he'll tell you this. The juries make such decisions based on biases. There is a pretty large bias against "big business". Juries have been known to award next to nothing in compensatory damages, yet award million in punitive damages just because they feel sorry for the plaintiff...
Which brings me back full circle. This is largely experience talking here, I can't imprint it on you by force or words. You need to live it yourself. Maybe you're young (despite what you say), or maybe you live in an academia. I don't know what the case is here. But in either case, my words are largely wasted on you (not trying to be catty). Now if you excuse me, I've got some work to get done.
You like to paint the world in black and white, good and bad, left and right, up and down; what results is a grey drab world. Over the years, I've observed the world becoming "safer", or people such as yourself like to say "erring to the side of safety". Well, I call it a greyer, more joyless existence.
In the name of that one in a million freak accident, we can't live our lives out as we see fit. In recent years, this trend has been growing. Our children are that much poorer for it. You ever wonder where that diving board went at your local swimming pool? How about the slide? The swings? You name it, they're disappearing fast across the country. Childrens' blocks? We can't have those, they might hit one another with it. Hot coffee, nope can't have that either. Silicon encased medical devices? Nope. Private conversations with teachers? Nope, can't have those either too much liability. It just doesn't end...
It is a shame. Quite frankly, ignoring the economic costs, this is all I need to throw my hands up in disgust; that you can advocate playing Russian Rullete with our companies, lives, and well being never ceases to amaze me. Every time a tort goes to trial, you would pull the trigger. Our tort system isn't equitable for anyone, regardless of your leanings, left or right. It is slow, inefficient, inaccurate, and highly costly.
Jury trials have their place, such as in criminal trials. They don't belong in highly technical tort trials. The juries aren't pursueded by the facts, they're pursued by the lawyers and so called "experts". Whomever has the most pitifull case wins. Nor should they be given the power to determine a company's future when it is clearly unreasonable.
I love my country, but the tort system is sick. We are one of the only countries in the world which still uses juries to adjudicate. We are certainly one of the only countries which awards over a billion dollars to an individual. Would you have us believe that the US is the only country where customers aren't trampled on, or that they're tampled on less? I, and many others would disagree. Infact, there is a strong argument that it is actually more hurtful than helpful....Products and services certainly are disappearing.
Anyhow, I could go on all day long, but I've got better things to do than argue with a naive kid with out practical experience or legal training. No amount of words will change your mind, you'll just have to learn the hard way. No offense intended.
I, nor anyone else, is going to "prove" anything in a single slashdot post. However, it doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in the system. My personal examples aren't proof, but they're NOT anecdotes to me. I know it from personal experience, intellect, knowledge, and intuition; it just amazes me how individuals such as yourself can be so blind to it. I don't mean to be catty, but it is clear to me that you're not familiar with the courts or running a business.
You have to look at each specific case. Ford and GM may have been liable at various times, but >billion dollar awards to an individual in a case where there is no clear malice, malpractice, disregard for human life, etc; is just absurd. Futhermore, these were rewarded to individuals. The juries arrive at these numbers arbitrarily, with NO understanding of business. To them, 1 million is the same as 15 billion, they're both "huge".
McDonalds was sued recently because some old lady spilt hot coffee on her lap; it was "hot" imagine that. They didn't have a "warning", you'd think a lady of her years would be aware that "hot coffee" is hot. Or how about the guy who sued a lawnmower company for having his hands mangled; he tried to cut his hedges with his lawnmower by picking up. No warning, gasp, imagine a lawnmower with a blade spinning underneath it. Multimillion-multibillion dollar lawsuits. Where does this stop? You'll never have enough warnings.
Give me a good reason why the plaintiff deserves punitive damages. The point of punitive damages is to PUNISH the party at fault; not to make the plaintiff rich. I realize that punitive damages have some functionality, but they're doing far more harm than good. They should be restricted. But if not restricted, they should be awarded to a third party instead (e.g.: charity). The effect would be the same, except the ambulance chasers and company would have less incentive to bring fraudulent cases.
Sometimes the companies are deserving of such awards against them, but it is one in fifty. The circumstances are different in each case. With some evaluation in many of these cases, it becomes clear: who is at fault, how responsible the party is, etc. Read the Cesna case -- tell me otherwise, please. And read that URL that I gave you.
The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I have a complete picture of the Toshiba case. One thing I do know, however, is that NO ONE claimed to have been hurt by it. One million computers sold, and not one complaint. That gives you some idea of just how minor a problem it is. Given this, perhaps some low level management person simply overlooked it. Perhaps they weren't really informed properly. You simply don't know. A lot of these factors affect responsibility. As such, the rewards shouldn't be the same. For all you know, this company could be highly principled through and through. Yet you're willing to play judge, jury, and executioner. Whats a mere 2.1billion? It may or may not put toshiba under, or near to it. Just because they settled doesn't mean anything in today's legal system. Does a good company deserve this? And perhaps more importantly, can our country survive this behavior?
I agree, lawsuits are necessary. What I do have a problem with is our (US) tort system. It is wildely expensive for both parties, even if one party is clearly in the right. It is very time consuming. Juries are technically incompetent (e.g.: law, medicine, science, business, etc), many times they're functionally illerate. And last, but not least, the awards are all too often far too high.
I don't regard billion dollar awards against billion dollar companies to be anecdotal. It would be equivalent to calling TB and the bubonic plague an anecdote when talking about the dangers of diseases. Sure, they're both singular cases, but you have to look at the costs.
None the less, there are plenty of high dollar awards that I can name in the past 5 years. These are things that any business man is all too well aware of. Beyond Ford and GM, billion dollar awards in California, we have other more aggregious cases. For example, Dow Corning (not to mention other silicon producers) who was sued successfully for producing breast implants; they're no longer in business. In this case, it was never proven that they even leaked in the case. Futhermore, it has been proven repeatedly that such nominal leakage has no such effects on the human body. Yet, you have billion dollar awards against multiple companies, and hundreds of millions in legal fees (even today). I can tell you from personal experience, that these manufactuers that are still in business REFUSE to allow their silicon products to be used in implantable medical devices, even if they have no direct involvement in its usage. The result? Silicon, the superior and safer product, can't be used in such devices cost effectively. These are real costs, in many areas. There is also Cesna aircraft, now brankrupt, in an even more absurd case.....
I can also point to multiple cases against my parents', family's. and friends' companies. Cases in which, they've been told by their lawyers that it would be cheaper to settle than it would be to WIN. Cases in which the plantiff is clearly a fraud, who has been in and out of the courts on similar yet seperate cases, yet the courts refuse to allow this piece of information in the courtroom. Cases in which even the judge sent the award back to the jury, saying it wasn't high enough to warrant the time involved....I can go on.
There is nothing anecdotal about this. They are huge costs of doing business. They discourage people and products from entering various markets. People lose their jobs. Frauds get recieve huge awards and settlements all the time. The costs are far too high, win or lose; they're not an effective means of settling disputes. Anyone who runs a sizable business, or really any organization, is painfully aware of this. There is A LOT of room for improvement, my ideas are some of them.
Toshiba might be partially at fault. However, the fact of the matter is of more than a million laptops shipped, not one complaint was filled. We have no evidence that anyone was actually hurt. Toshiba is an OEM, and this part was purchased. It could very well have been an innocent mistake. You don't have any evidence to the contrary. Many companies are placed in such situations for more absurd cases.
PS: If you wish read a good essay on tort reforms, try this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n1e.html
I couldn't disagree more. 2.1 billion is not chump change, even for a company of Compaq's size. Smaller firms are hit harder, but big business is hit hard all the time (eg: Ford, Cesna, GM, etc) -- they're running scared. In fact, settlements such as there are proof. The fact that they'd rather CERTAINLY shell out 2.1 billion, than go all the way and risk god knows how much to an uncertain jury. The fact of the matter is that, despite selling more than a million such machines, not one person has actually filed a complaint as a result of actual damages. No one has proven that Compaq acted with malice, disregard, etc.
Civil lawsuits are out of control in the US. They need to be curbed. I recognize that they have their place, but I see far many more abuses than legitimate cases (for reasonable dollar sum). Some cases just shouldn't have layman (non-technical, non-legal, etc) juries. But in lieu of that, they need to cap punitive damages, or simply demand that they go to charity instead. That would eliminate a great deal of these suits. Not only would we see fewer frauds being awarded the big bucks, but you would get secondary and tertiary effects. Namely, companies would be more willing to litigate these cases, rather than settling anything with the potential for high dollar awards -- serving to further cut back on fraudulent cases. It would create a more equitable system.
I believe this is correct. I'm curious though, it sounds like we had the same professor. Granted, there is a lot of common ground between most introductory courses, but it sounds like the exact same course. Where do/did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking?:)
I can tell you that quake ping times (playability in general), is less a matter of bandwidth than it is latency. All electrical signals travel at the speed of light (well near to it). The slowness involved in modems comes not from the "slowness" of the line itself, but rather from the digital->analog (phone line) ->digital process. If 3com created a chip which can do the conversion process faster, it'll speed things up marginally everything else being equal. Of course, noisy phone lines and the answering ISP play a large role, so you'll never be get a 20ms ping.....that is my understanding of it atleast.
I think RagDot is wonderful. I can offend both the feminazis and the stereotypical slashdotter (leftish, anti-capitalist, etc) in one foul swoop. Rag works in so many different ways.... 1) Its rag like, think newspaper 2) Think Women (bitching and moaning) - Think Red (need I explain?) -Think Commie (well duh)....
I'm studying actually. Taking a few breaks in between thoughts to check up on replies on Rag Dot (Inside Joke: Slashdot). One thing I'm definetly not doing is extolling Free software as the be all and end all, nor am I telling others what they can and can't do with . Though most likely, my words are lost on deaf ears....:)
There is a world of difference between commiting your people to a project, and trying to change the world by shouting at anyone who will listen. Slashdot is mostly the latter.
In my experience, the people who DO the most are those who SAY the least. Words are cheap. Action is not. In short, put your money where your mouth is. Make it work; others will follow. That is the real nature of man.
Perhaps the energies of Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate pirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
PS: I took the liberty of cut and pasting this from another of my replies in this thread.
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sycophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.;)
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sychophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Though you're entitled to your own opinion, I disagree. Katz and JP are the same breed. Neither are interested in "learning". I don't really care how acclimated Katz is to the "environment"--It is irrelevant to me. Though, Katz understands the "environment" on slashdot better than most, in a manipulative kind of way --that which ills slashdot. He knows which buttons to push on the longhair, psuedo communist/Open Source/intellectual, liberal, pro-geek crap.
What I care about is the fact that he ADDS nothing to this world. If he wishes to write books, that is his business. But when he is given a forum on slashdot regularly, I take issue. The fact of the matter is that he has an incentive to write for slashdot, I assure you. Maybe he wishes to "signal" to the publishers that his books are popular, by directing slashdot readership to it, thus creating further demand for his books. Quid Pro Quo. Or perhaps, he feels that he can better sell books by understanding and interacting with the slashdot mentality, his readership. I don't know what his motives are exactly, but they strike me as entirely based in self-interest.
In either case, I don't believe he is sincere. Even if he is, he isn't adding anything that I want to read or discuss at length. Every one his articles has provided an alarmist or "hypist" tone. He also turns on his words repeatedly. In short, I see no redeeming value to his writings, and many downsides.
It is a shame to see slashdot come to this, knowingly selecting highly inflamatory material with little to no redeeming value, for the sake of increasing banner revenues. I first noticed this with Katz, but now I'm seeing it with JP as well. Both are nothing but cheap hacks. It would be a waste of words to describe how and why, I believe the "editors" know full well what they're doing.
I've said it before, and i'll say it again; I believe slashdot may very well hurt themselves financially in the long run. Though these "articles" may create short term revenues, they detract from the site. I have little doubt that the real secret to slashdot is intelligent discussion. Katz and JP simply tear it apart--leading to flame and dogma. The people who participate vigorously in such discussions tend to be younger, immature, etc. People, such as myself, on the other hand, only have so much tolerance for this kind of behavior. When the more intelligent people (better contributors) leave, the heart and soul of slashdot will too. With out this certain intellectual vitality, slashdot will rapidly degenerate.
PS: I said I wouldn't, but I changed my mind...I knew JP a couple years ago on undernet (IRC) in #cha0s, and other such channels. He was, and always will be a clueless idiot. He is a horrible writer. He doesn't know the first thing about computer security. What he is, is an opportunist, and a not very intelligent one at that. The reason he is "popular", if you could call it that, is that he was in the right place at the right time. Namely, he acted as a conduit for the media when "Analyzer" (the moronic israeli hacker) did his thing. Since that time, he's been trying desperately to sensationalize everything and purporting himself to be an expert. In short, he's a hack.
"If you are in it for the sake of humanity and that of your idea, then you KNOW it is best off if you let it fly freely."
Sorry, I disagree strongly about this. While I respect GPL (et. al), I know that far many more innovations come into this world by force of personality -- effort and will. In order to get others behind your vision it is neccessary all too often have capital; capital requires intellectual property more often than not.
Open source doesn't see to this. Look at the empirical evidence. In the past year, just how many innovations have open source efforts made? Propietary?
Not every good idea is going to be adopted by the open source zealots. (e.g.: a new interface that is friendly for newbies -- geek antithesis). Even if the goals are deemed worthy, frequently the goals are also deemed unattainable. It is the leader, the primary risk taker, and the entreprenuer that MAKE it happen. How many people do you know that are willing to work on something for a couple years that is seemingly more than likely to completely fail? Damn few.
I suppose I've had the benefit of seeing this entreprenuerial process first hand; I _know_ Open Source simply is not a viable solution in many cases.
Agreed, though the point I'm trying to make is that, perhaps, being a corporate entity, their wallets might not be best served by this behavior. Though in the short run, it would appear to generate increased revenues, can this hold out? I don't think this is so obvious. I suppose it comes down to knowing the readership. Are the kids (yes, a generalization) and those who get caught up in Katz content (for lack of a better word) representive of the general readership? What happens when those with real insight and knowledge leave? Are the kids' comment traffic self-perpetuating? In other words, when the more substancial content has totally left slashdot, will these kids still be drawn to Katzian debates?....etc etc etc
Katz is such a hack. I can envision him right now, holding up a blade of grass trying to determine which way the geek wind is going to blow tomorrow. The moment he detects a movement, he proclaims it as his own. When the direction changes, he jumps the bandwagon yet again, hoping no one is the wiser....
I, and many others, tire of Katz and his routine. I suspect the powers that be on slashdot know this, yet they realize that his inflamatory trash generate increased traffic (look at how many comments he averages). It is a free country, and he does have the right to hear it. I don't blame slashdot for posting his articles. However, one thing they should be aware of is that it detracts from the site. Though I may occasionally click on his articles, there is only so many of these i'll tolerate. I suspect others share my view, maybe even enough to bite into their profits. I can hope, can't I?
I've seen "Geeks" (capital G) do wicked, dishonest, crappy, slipshod work before too. The public also saw "geeks" shooting up Columbine. This doesn't make the term any less valid.
I believe the point that the original poster was making, is that not everyone who is technically competent, or even excellent, is a "geek". Perhaps the word "professional" has better conotations? Both words carry a certain notional definition with it. That is all they are, notions...
GPL and propietary software have a lot in common. Neither restrict us from coding independently, with, perhaps, one exception: software patents. Both put restrictions on what we can and can not do with it. GPL restricts us, in the sense that it is "viral"; this is simply not 100% freedom. In RMS's opinion, less is more; he restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with his code, so that others can enjoy the fruits of your labor in the same way that you enjoy his.
I respect the FSF's view, just as I respect propietary software's rights. The two camps can operate unimpeded by one another. Both formulas have their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, they can, and do, push each other on -- they're better for it.
However, while I respect GPL, I take exception with some of the myopic statements of RMS and company. Within his own camp (for lack of a better word) he is well within his rights to crusade against the other "open source" licenses. He finds them threatening, in that, they have the potential to dillute the power of his movement. This, however, does not mean that the other licenses do not have the right to exist -- they are yet another formula. Past a certain point, he must recognize this: That, they too, have the right to exist -- despite the threat to his own movement....
First off, most private schools currently recieve NO government funding. I've seen many private schools loosen up over the years, but its not nearly as out of control as public schools are (in general), nor will they ever be. The difference between private schools and public schools, is that in private school the controls are in the hands of parents (a far more singular voice) and the board/principle. In public school, you've got 50k voices, and a particularly loud voice, the teachers' union -- no real leadership. For private schools it is simply a matter of taking control of the reigns, and deciding WHAT the objectives are (barring civil litigation and the like).
;)
That being said though, this kind of random violence is bound to happen at private schools as well. The problem has between little and nothing to do with discipline. Private schools do have other more significant advantages, but I don't believe this is one of them. Kids such as the ones at Columbine aren't neccessarily going to set off any blips.
Futhermore, this "random violence" problem is statistically not that big of a problem, for public and private schools alike. There have always been kids with serious emotional issues at all schools. I, for one, believe that if we could somehow get the media to not DWELL (eg: one hour -- people shot -- end of story) on such acts we'd never see such spikes in violence -- they're clearly "inspired" by one another. Kids have not fundamentally changed in the past 20 years. It is the media. Forcing the media to ignore the situation would be best; I suspect the ACLU might object.
Funny, and I agree. Someone moderate this AC comment up.
Ok, a few points. First off, an individual in the AU gov't is on record confirming "Echelon", a global information monitoring system. He does not confirm that it is anything near the scale that the paranoids believe: All communications (e.g.: local and long distance phone traffic, internet, radio, sattelite, etc).
I, for one, believe there is a kernel of truth in the Echelon rumors; that there is the technology and the network to spy on unfriendly nations. Like Iraq for example, instead of depending on sattelites to notify of military mobilization, you listen to radio intercepts and the like. This is probably highly effective, and I have no problem with it.
I do not believe that Echelon is possible on the scale the conspiracy theorists believe. Even if you assume the NSA is "evil", you must factor economics into it. They may have a multi-billion dollar budget, but its simply not sufficient to do the kind of work that they describe. Even if you assume that the speach recognition hardware and the like came for free and is possible, think of the man hours and the sheer logistics of it. To monitor phone networks alone, you would need a basically parallel "secure" infrastructure (e.g.: data lines running your local phone calls to NSA intercept stations). You would need as many servicemen as all the phone networks combined (e.g.: AT&T, baby bells, sprint, etc). Not only that, but they would need to be kept reasonably secure......Man hours alone would cost hundreds of billions. Far more than any possible NSA budget (though we don't have the exact number, we do know gov't revenues and how much could be left in theory). There is just no way.....
You are correct about the first two classications; however, there is a third one: Distributor (eg: book store). Most internet services would have fallen in the distributor classification before 1996. In other words, like a bookstore, they have no responsibility for the content; unless they were put on notice that a particular book is not kosher. It got complicated in that, if an ISP (such as AOL (et. al)) claimed to first review/edit content before it would made available for the general public, they could be held responsible in theory. Thus most ISPs, took a hands off approach.
In 1996, the CDA changed this. In an attempt to 'clean up' the net. Congress, in their infinite wisom (sarcasm), made a provision for liabel. It occurred to them that, if ISPs were to cooperate in removing obscene material, they would need to be protected, so as not fall into the "publisher" category, thus exposing themselves to massive liability. This provision is basically "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." It provided further language, to the effect, that no state or local law shall cross it. The CDA, in effect, created a wide protective blanket against all kinds of defamation suits. Though the majority of the CDA was struck down in 1997, these key parts remained. It has been tested a number of times in very broad scope, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and stood. In fact, some courts have held that an ISP is not liable even if they're put on notice of defamative content.
That being said though, providers like Slashdot (not too familiar with Yahoo's content) are possibly in murky waters, despite these precedents. It could be argued that slashdot promotes certain content (eg: the articles), as in basically creating it. Or that certain slashdot figures (e.g.: Jon Katz) are in business with slashdot, and thus slashdot is effectively creating the content.
I've not run out of ammo, far from it. I read and post on slashdot for entertainment; I'm not under the illusion that I, nor anyone else, can "prove" anything like this. Such threads can go on into infinity -- I simply don't have the time. However, what I can do is point out some of the realities. I may not win you over, but I can get you and others thinking. I can challenge your thought process, point out some of the more aggregious errors, compare our legal system to other countries, and show some of the harm (particularly that it is not just "rich" companies that are hurt).
There have been some cases in which a playground has been rebuilt. From experience though, I know that for every one of those, you have fifty that are simply torn down or replaced with joyless substitutes. I won't argue this into infinity either...
While I agree with you, that both criminal and civil juries have a bad time with technical cases; both trials are vastly different, namely the standard of proof is different. Convicting someone of murder (for example) is a very serious matter, and is highly inflamatory. Our tolerance for wrongful convictions is very low. The system is designed to insure this happens very rarely (e.g.: "beyond a shadow of a doubt", "jury of peers", etc).
Civil trials are vastly different by design. They're supposed to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently. We have a higher tolerance for error (e.g.: the preponderance of evidence). Thus a poorly chosen judge is not the end of the world, we look more at the aggregate affect. Futhermore, the motives are different. Wealth redistribution is the primary scheme of todays tort system. This makes professional witnessing a very lucrative activity. While people will lie for money, they won't necessarily risk their hide in a less lucrative criminal trial.
"That is what lawyers are there to do; to make their point. If highly paid corporate lawyers fail in their job they have no one else to blame." Ok, I hate people who cut and paste or paraphrase,but in this case i'll make an exception for myself. The point that I'm trying to drive home is that you can have the most ethical management team and the best lawyers and still get the sued for all you're worth. You talk to any litigator worth his weight, and he'll tell you this. The juries make such decisions based on biases. There is a pretty large bias against "big business". Juries have been known to award next to nothing in compensatory damages, yet award million in punitive damages just because they feel sorry for the plaintiff...
Which brings me back full circle. This is largely experience talking here, I can't imprint it on you by force or words. You need to live it yourself. Maybe you're young (despite what you say), or maybe you live in an academia. I don't know what the case is here. But in either case, my words are largely wasted on you (not trying to be catty). Now if you excuse me, I've got some work to get done.
You like to paint the world in black and white, good and bad, left and right, up and down; what results is a grey drab world. Over the years, I've observed the world becoming "safer", or people such as yourself like to say "erring to the side of safety". Well, I call it a greyer, more joyless existence.
In the name of that one in a million freak accident, we can't live our lives out as we see fit. In recent years, this trend has been growing. Our children are that much poorer for it. You ever wonder where that diving board went at your local swimming pool? How about the slide? The swings? You name it, they're disappearing fast across the country. Childrens' blocks? We can't have those, they might hit one another with it. Hot coffee, nope can't have that either. Silicon encased medical devices? Nope. Private conversations with teachers? Nope, can't have those either too much liability. It just doesn't end...
It is a shame. Quite frankly, ignoring the economic costs, this is all I need to throw my hands up in disgust; that you can advocate playing Russian Rullete with our companies, lives, and well being never ceases to amaze me. Every time a tort goes to trial, you would pull the trigger. Our tort system isn't equitable for anyone, regardless of your leanings, left or right. It is slow, inefficient, inaccurate, and highly costly.
Jury trials have their place, such as in criminal trials. They don't belong in highly technical tort trials. The juries aren't pursueded by the facts, they're pursued by the lawyers and so called "experts". Whomever has the most pitifull case wins. Nor should they be given the power to determine a company's future when it is clearly unreasonable.
I love my country, but the tort system is sick. We are one of the only countries in the world which still uses juries to adjudicate. We are certainly one of the only countries which awards over a billion dollars to an individual. Would you have us believe that the US is the only country where customers aren't trampled on, or that they're tampled on less? I, and many others would disagree. Infact, there is a strong argument that it is actually more hurtful than helpful....Products and services certainly are disappearing.
Anyhow, I could go on all day long, but I've got better things to do than argue with a naive kid with out practical experience or legal training. No amount of words will change your mind, you'll just have to learn the hard way. No offense intended.
I, nor anyone else, is going to "prove" anything in a single slashdot post. However, it doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in the system. My personal examples aren't proof, but they're NOT anecdotes to me. I know it from personal experience, intellect, knowledge, and intuition; it just amazes me how individuals such as yourself can be so blind to it. I don't mean to be catty, but it is clear to me that you're not familiar with the courts or running a business.
You have to look at each specific case. Ford and GM may have been liable at various times, but >billion dollar awards to an individual in a case where there is no clear malice, malpractice, disregard for human life, etc; is just absurd. Futhermore, these were rewarded to individuals. The juries arrive at these numbers arbitrarily, with NO understanding of business. To them, 1 million is the same as 15 billion, they're both "huge".
McDonalds was sued recently because some old lady spilt hot coffee on her lap; it was "hot" imagine that. They didn't have a "warning", you'd think a lady of her years would be aware that "hot coffee" is hot. Or how about the guy who sued a lawnmower company for having his hands mangled; he tried to cut his hedges with his lawnmower by picking up. No warning, gasp, imagine a lawnmower with a blade spinning underneath it. Multimillion-multibillion dollar lawsuits. Where does this stop? You'll never have enough warnings.
Give me a good reason why the plaintiff deserves punitive damages. The point of punitive damages is to PUNISH the party at fault; not to make the plaintiff rich. I realize that punitive damages have some functionality, but they're doing far more harm than good. They should be restricted. But if not restricted, they should be awarded to a third party instead (e.g.: charity). The effect would be the same, except the ambulance chasers and company would have less incentive to bring fraudulent cases.
Sometimes the companies are deserving of such awards against them, but it is one in fifty. The circumstances are different in each case. With some evaluation in many of these cases, it becomes clear: who is at fault, how responsible the party is, etc. Read the Cesna case -- tell me otherwise, please. And read that URL that I gave you.
The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I have a complete picture of the Toshiba case. One thing I do know, however, is that NO ONE claimed to have been hurt by it. One million computers sold, and not one complaint. That gives you some idea of just how minor a problem it is. Given this, perhaps some low level management person simply overlooked it. Perhaps they weren't really informed properly. You simply don't know. A lot of these factors affect responsibility. As such, the rewards shouldn't be the same. For all you know, this company could be highly principled through and through. Yet you're willing to play judge, jury, and executioner. Whats a mere 2.1billion? It may or may not put toshiba under, or near to it. Just because they settled doesn't mean anything in today's legal system. Does a good company deserve this? And perhaps more importantly, can our country survive this behavior?
I agree, lawsuits are necessary. What I do have a problem with is our (US) tort system. It is wildely expensive for both parties, even if one party is clearly in the right. It is very time consuming. Juries are technically incompetent (e.g.: law, medicine, science, business, etc), many times they're functionally illerate. And last, but not least, the awards are all too often far too high.
...I can go on.
I don't regard billion dollar awards against billion dollar companies to be anecdotal. It would be equivalent to calling TB and the bubonic plague an anecdote when talking about the dangers of diseases. Sure, they're both singular cases, but you have to look at the costs.
None the less, there are plenty of high dollar awards that I can name in the past 5 years. These are things that any business man is all too well aware of. Beyond Ford and GM, billion dollar awards in California, we have other more aggregious cases. For example, Dow Corning (not to mention other silicon producers) who was sued successfully for producing breast implants; they're no longer in business. In this case, it was never proven that they even leaked in the case. Futhermore, it has been proven repeatedly that such nominal leakage has no such effects on the human body. Yet, you have billion dollar awards against multiple companies, and hundreds of millions in legal fees (even today). I can tell you from personal experience, that these manufactuers that are still in business REFUSE to allow their silicon products to be used in implantable medical devices, even if they have no direct involvement in its usage. The result? Silicon, the superior and safer product, can't be used in such devices cost effectively. These are real costs, in many areas. There is also Cesna aircraft, now brankrupt, in an even more absurd case.....
I can also point to multiple cases against my parents', family's. and friends' companies. Cases in which, they've been told by their lawyers that it would be cheaper to settle than it would be to WIN. Cases in which the plantiff is clearly a fraud, who has been in and out of the courts on similar yet seperate cases, yet the courts refuse to allow this piece of information in the courtroom. Cases in which even the judge sent the award back to the jury, saying it wasn't high enough to warrant the time involved.
There is nothing anecdotal about this. They are huge costs of doing business. They discourage people and products from entering various markets. People lose their jobs. Frauds get recieve huge awards and settlements all the time. The costs are far too high, win or lose; they're not an effective means of settling disputes. Anyone who runs a sizable business, or really any organization, is painfully aware of this. There is A LOT of room for improvement, my ideas are some of them.
Toshiba might be partially at fault. However, the fact of the matter is of more than a million laptops shipped, not one complaint was filled. We have no evidence that anyone was actually hurt. Toshiba is an OEM, and this part was purchased. It could very well have been an innocent mistake. You don't have any evidence to the contrary. Many companies are placed in such situations for more absurd cases.
PS: If you wish read a good essay on tort reforms, try this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n1e.html
I couldn't disagree more. 2.1 billion is not chump change, even for a company of Compaq's size. Smaller firms are hit harder, but big business is hit hard all the time (eg: Ford, Cesna, GM, etc) -- they're running scared. In fact, settlements such as there are proof. The fact that they'd rather CERTAINLY shell out 2.1 billion, than go all the way and risk god knows how much to an uncertain jury. The fact of the matter is that, despite selling more than a million such machines, not one person has actually filed a complaint as a result of actual damages. No one has proven that Compaq acted with malice, disregard, etc.
Civil lawsuits are out of control in the US. They need to be curbed. I recognize that they have their place, but I see far many more abuses than legitimate cases (for reasonable dollar sum). Some cases just shouldn't have layman (non-technical, non-legal, etc) juries. But in lieu of that, they need to cap punitive damages, or simply demand that they go to charity instead. That would eliminate a great deal of these suits. Not only would we see fewer frauds being awarded the big bucks, but you would get secondary and tertiary effects. Namely, companies would be more willing to litigate these cases, rather than settling anything with the potential for high dollar awards -- serving to further cut back on fraudulent cases. It would create a more equitable system.
I believe this is correct. I'm curious though, it sounds like we had the same professor. Granted, there is a lot of common ground between most introductory courses, but it sounds like the exact same course. Where do/did you go to school, if you don't mind my asking? :)
I can tell you that quake ping times (playability in general), is less a matter of bandwidth than it is latency. All electrical signals travel at the speed of light (well near to it). The slowness involved in modems comes not from the "slowness" of the line itself, but rather from the digital->analog (phone line) ->digital process. If 3com created a chip which can do the conversion process faster, it'll speed things up marginally everything else being equal. Of course, noisy phone lines and the answering ISP play a large role, so you'll never be get a 20ms ping.....that is my understanding of it atleast.
I think RagDot is wonderful. I can offend both the feminazis and the stereotypical slashdotter (leftish, anti-capitalist, etc) in one foul swoop. Rag works in so many different ways....
1) Its rag like, think newspaper
2) Think Women (bitching and moaning)
- Think Red (need I explain?)
-Think Commie (well duh)....
...I said it, now watch me get flamed... hehe =)
I'm studying actually. Taking a few breaks in between thoughts to check up on replies on Rag Dot (Inside Joke: Slashdot). One thing I'm definetly not doing is extolling Free software as the be all and end all, nor am I telling others what they can and can't do with . Though most likely, my words are lost on deaf ears.... :)
There is a world of difference between commiting your people to a project, and trying to change the world by shouting at anyone who will listen. Slashdot is mostly the latter.
In my experience, the people who DO the most are those who SAY the least. Words are cheap. Action is not. In short, put your money where your mouth is. Make it work; others will follow. That is the real nature of man.
Perhaps the energies of Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate pirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
PS: I took the liberty of cut and pasting this from another of my replies in this thread.
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
;)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sycophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
;)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sychophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
topic.