We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials. Want to learn about communism? Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations. Want to learn about capitalism? Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics. Want to learn about evolution? Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news.
The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?
Seriously, there are only a few ways you can make a decent UI that is familiar. Sharing user interfaces is a -good thing- when it comes down to it, the more familiar an application is, the easier it is to use. Imagine if every single program had a radically different UI. You opened up Firefox and it looked nothing like IE, which looked nothing like Opera which looked nothing like Chrome, if this happened probably everyone would still be using Mosaic. The more UIs borrow from one another, the easier they are to use and the better the UI becomes.
Myouterspace.com is, in the captain's own words, '... a Sci Fi Social Network for those with a passion for the arts.'
But that is exactly why it won't catch on. The reason why Facebook is so popular is because -everyone- can use it. You, the people who you went to high school with, your mom, your grandma, your college classmates, your boss. Everyone can use it. No one feels alienated. That is why it is successful. Shatner's site seems more like a glorified forum, a great place to find people who share the same interest, but that isn't what Facebook is for.
If things like this were public knowledge similar to "most wanted" lists, perhaps abuses like this wouldn't happen. Secret lists will only lead to more abuses the more we rely on them.
Obviously he doesn't feel the need to find viewers of his films, they are seeking him out. So to release it into a proper channel, such as it's own website, would give it far more respect than youtubing it.
Yeah, and I'm sure -anyone- would be thrilled with having loads of bandwidth used up. The main perk about YouTube is A) You don't have to make a cross-platform player and B) You don't have to pay for bandwidth. A popular video isn't going to be cheap to host.
As an artist, I wouldn't want a film released to theaters, before a Star Wars feature no less, shown on a site famous for baseballs to the crotch. (I realize there are legitimate artists on youtube, but again like I said originally, those artists are seeking out viewers.)
Um, I'm not really seeing the difference here. Its a bit like putting a work of art in a very popular publicly funded museum rather than opening up a separate one. Yes, some people's art may be different than your own, but its a lot easier, cheaper and nearly cost-free.
YOU do not get to decide what I, as an artist, or anyone but yourself for that matter, consider good enough to release to the general public. That is for the artist to decide on their own
Um, he thought it was good enough to release back in theatres, this should be reason alone to release it again.
That is for the artist to decide on their own. Slashdot is all about personal freedoms, and this should be just as important. As a photographer, 95% to 99% of my photography isn't worth uploading to the internet, let alone worth printing. I don't care how many people it may provide insight or entertainment to, if I think it's crap, I'm not releasing it. To me, it lessens the quality of the rest that are actually worth releasing.
So? Don't publish it in the first place. This is akin to you uploading a picture everyone thought was really good, then suddenly taking it down, and there are no copies left. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick to your fans.
Yeah, its a personal freedom to choose not to release something, but once you've released it, if you have fans, you should release it again.
Back in the days before copyright it was very simple, you published and it was considered to be released, anyone could take from it, add to it, and in general appreciate it. Didn't want something published? Don't send it to the press. This guy didn't just create it and not release it but he released it -to the theatre- and now is trying to take it back. A possibly important part of our culture could be forever lost.
By the time copyright expires, the film itself may not even survive. Steps must be taken to archive it in a lasting medium. Look at how many works done -on paper- have been lost that were well-preserved, now take film that deteriorates more rapidly and to greater loss (a phrase is still readable even when missing a few letters, but a frame of film missing some parts is a lot harder).
It makes it easier to find the works that the artist actually cared about. I would much rather watch something the artist stood behind 100% than something he had no desire to release because he himself didn't like it. I personally don't speak or type every thought I have. I filter them so that only the ones I think are worth sharing come out. If I shared every thought I had, no one would ever want to read it or listen to it. Frankly neither would I. Filtering is a good thing.
Filtering is a good thing, yes. The point being though this wasn't "filtered" he wouldn't be releasing some random thoughts, or even his diary or even a few scraps of paper but a movie released in theatres.
The fact is, if there are a few notes you don't want to publish, fine, don't publish them. When you release a movie to theatres, have fans who want to see it, have easy ways to put it online for your fans to see, and don't. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick.
While I see the benefits of this, I can't help but see that all these things can be easily manipulated into Google "owning" the services using this. If this was Microsoft I think that everyone would be raising red flags, but Google hasn't abused the community's trust... yet. And no, I'm not really anti-Google, I use Gmail for my primary e-mail and will be getting an Android phone as soon as a decent one comes to AT&T or I get an unlocked one.
Exactly, in the end I think we will have more information from the past century then we will of the present century. Everything has been so locked down in incompatible file formats. Yes, piracy will preserve and archive some popular works, but for everything else it will simply be lost. We look so regretfully on historical documents we have lost, yet we are blinded to see that 50 years or less from now we might not even have working copies of software, movies, music and e-books that have shaped our generation.
I can't believe this is a serious suggestion. A professional artist isn't going to want his film on youtube unless he has no choice. It isn't exactly known for being the haven of known artists, more like the myspace of videos.
I also can't imagine that he needs his ego stroked, but who knows.
Um, it makes a lot more sense to put videos on YouTube. Why? Because A) You aren't paying for the bandwidth B) People are on YouTube, I can guarantee you there are more users of YouTube than any other video site out there.
I don't understand how you can be so certain that you _deserve_ access to someone's artwork. I sure hope that last paragraph wasn't serious, because none of those are even remotely decent reasons to release something.
Why not? What benefit does the world get by not having the art shown? Same thing with literature. You don't -gain- anything from keeping things hidden. Even if something is complete crap by one person's standards, it may provide a lot of insight and entertainment to some people. Look at Franz Kafka (author of The Metamorphosis) would we have gained anything by having all of his works burned as he requested?
I'm not advocating the use of it, but for a while it was so widespread that it is equivalent to preventing the use of ain't in English because you don't like it and keeping it out of dictionaries even though people use it all the time.
Generally, the W3C though seems to attempt to manipulate HTML for artificial means. Rather than the sane thing that most languages (both real and constructed) do and that is adapt to what the speakers/writers do, they simply say that they can do things a roundabout way rather than simply adapting the language. For example, the "font" element, "blink" and "marquee" which although very much used (especially during the early web) they were reluctant to actually do anything with what the writers wanted.
And yes, I was a web developer for a while, and still do some maintaining of sites. Nothing fancier though than some HTML, CSS and a very little bit of JavaScript.
Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.
Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.
How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?
Exactly, if the average person isn't going to notice it in a store, Newegg isn't going to notice it when they deal with A) A basic employee B) Coming from a supplier they think they can trust and C) The pressure to box 200-300+ of them in one sitting.
Sure, but how many people are going to look for typos? Sure, if you are boxing 2 or 3 Core i7s a day its realistic you can look at them, but lets say that you have to stuff 200-300+ a day while having to put others in boxes?
...Because everyone reads the back while shopping? Lets say this was inside a store, you say "Hey, I want a Core i7 model XXX, they find the box, it looks official, same model XXX you wanted so you buy it and take it home. You aren't going to read the blurb on the back about it, because you know what you want. Its only after you realize that you've been scammed that you would realize some of the typos.
...And what do you do to prevent this? Go through every single Core i7 to find the fake ones? Quite honestly, when you get told that you are buying a Core i7, the box looks genuine (unless you are reading everything) it looks like the correct weight, etc. In short, there isn't much Newegg could have done short of opening up every box.
But that doesn't work when it comes to most internet systems. Its a lot easier and generally more successful if you want to make the most money to find a niche, fill it, offer your company up for sale, until it sells use ad revenue to keep up until they sell to MS, Amazon, Google, etc.
Yeah, its not a long term plan but its been a pretty successful plan, just ask the founders of YouTube, Neopets, Picasa, and any number of sites or products acquired.
Really, the business plan that worked for most.com businesses and still do, is get bought out. Really, get a million or two for the founders and give the employees early retirement. Plus, if you said "Hey, I founded YouTube" you can bet that you'd get a job, even though YouTube is chronically unprofitable.
Just delete the apps that aren't needed and replace them with OSS alternatives. Other than some well known software (Office, Photoshop, iTunes, etc) most everything else can be replaced with a better working, faster and generally better OSS alternative. Why keep that PDF suite? The most you would need would simply be Foxit, Sumatra PDF or Adobe Reader.
...Um, if the FDA would go away tomorrow, most things would still remain the same, only a lot more people would be aware of what they were eating and tainted foods would go bankrupt.
I don't see people from US to rebel to government because oppresive laws like i.e. sharing things on internet (in all variants, from pictures of your niece to a nice sound file you found around),
Um, they -are- rebelling, they simply are doing it without caring about what the government is doing. A lot of people who share files A) Can't vote B) Realize that voting for a sane third-party won't cause change until we get sane representation or C) Simply don't care because the odds of being caught are so low.
no privacy,
Again, no party has made a stance against the erosion of privacy (look at the support the PATRIOT act got from both main parties). And yes, there are enough people worried about privacy but they, again, see that no matter what party they vote for, be it republicans or democrats it won't matter when it comes to privacy, copyright, etc. Until we get proportional representation, there is basically no hope for any copyright-reform or privacy minded individuals to get elected.
Don't see China citizens rebelling neither, in fact, there are very vocal supporters of their government.
There are two main reasons for this
A) Most Chinese live in poverty
B) Those who don't live in poverty still see those in poverty and don't want to end up like them and they know that any revolution may lead them to poverty
Mix this in with the fact it is a -large- country, the fact there has been many pro-democracy movements in China's past and presence, plus state media (they get one side of the story only) and you get a country who sees no need to change if they are rich enough to start a revolution if they aren't brainwashed and those poor simply care about getting their next meal.
When will the government learn that about the only way people continue to be oppressed through governments is poverty, lack of information, and brainwashing. By allowing citizens of countries with oppressive governments to be opened to art, music, literature, communication and visitors from the "free" world, it will inspire citizens to rebel. Selfishness is a virtue, it helps keep a sane government if there is at least some communication with the outside world. If we would flood Cuba with American tourists, artists, musicians, and brought them computers, cell phones, etc. chances are the dictatorship would fall (mostly because Cuba is well within travel distance from the US, and while some other "free" countries allow travel/etc to Cuba like Canada, they lack the -very- close distance).
Slashdot Mirror
We could really eliminate any bias if we would have schools which would teach from the source materials. Want to learn about communism? Read The Communist Manifesto along with statistics about communist nations. Want to learn about capitalism? Read The Wealth of Nations and read statistics. Want to learn about evolution? Read the Origin of Species along with contemporary news.
The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?
Seriously, there are only a few ways you can make a decent UI that is familiar. Sharing user interfaces is a -good thing- when it comes down to it, the more familiar an application is, the easier it is to use. Imagine if every single program had a radically different UI. You opened up Firefox and it looked nothing like IE, which looked nothing like Opera which looked nothing like Chrome, if this happened probably everyone would still be using Mosaic. The more UIs borrow from one another, the easier they are to use and the better the UI becomes.
Myouterspace.com is, in the captain's own words, '... a Sci Fi Social Network for those with a passion for the arts.'
But that is exactly why it won't catch on. The reason why Facebook is so popular is because -everyone- can use it. You, the people who you went to high school with, your mom, your grandma, your college classmates, your boss. Everyone can use it. No one feels alienated. That is why it is successful. Shatner's site seems more like a glorified forum, a great place to find people who share the same interest, but that isn't what Facebook is for.
If things like this were public knowledge similar to "most wanted" lists, perhaps abuses like this wouldn't happen. Secret lists will only lead to more abuses the more we rely on them.
Obviously he doesn't feel the need to find viewers of his films, they are seeking him out. So to release it into a proper channel, such as it's own website, would give it far more respect than youtubing it.
Yeah, and I'm sure -anyone- would be thrilled with having loads of bandwidth used up. The main perk about YouTube is A) You don't have to make a cross-platform player and B) You don't have to pay for bandwidth. A popular video isn't going to be cheap to host.
As an artist, I wouldn't want a film released to theaters, before a Star Wars feature no less, shown on a site famous for baseballs to the crotch. (I realize there are legitimate artists on youtube, but again like I said originally, those artists are seeking out viewers.)
Um, I'm not really seeing the difference here. Its a bit like putting a work of art in a very popular publicly funded museum rather than opening up a separate one. Yes, some people's art may be different than your own, but its a lot easier, cheaper and nearly cost-free.
YOU do not get to decide what I, as an artist, or anyone but yourself for that matter, consider good enough to release to the general public. That is for the artist to decide on their own
Um, he thought it was good enough to release back in theatres, this should be reason alone to release it again.
That is for the artist to decide on their own. Slashdot is all about personal freedoms, and this should be just as important. As a photographer, 95% to 99% of my photography isn't worth uploading to the internet, let alone worth printing. I don't care how many people it may provide insight or entertainment to, if I think it's crap, I'm not releasing it. To me, it lessens the quality of the rest that are actually worth releasing.
So? Don't publish it in the first place. This is akin to you uploading a picture everyone thought was really good, then suddenly taking it down, and there are no copies left. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick to your fans.
Yeah, its a personal freedom to choose not to release something, but once you've released it, if you have fans, you should release it again.
Back in the days before copyright it was very simple, you published and it was considered to be released, anyone could take from it, add to it, and in general appreciate it. Didn't want something published? Don't send it to the press. This guy didn't just create it and not release it but he released it -to the theatre- and now is trying to take it back. A possibly important part of our culture could be forever lost.
By the time copyright expires, the film itself may not even survive. Steps must be taken to archive it in a lasting medium. Look at how many works done -on paper- have been lost that were well-preserved, now take film that deteriorates more rapidly and to greater loss (a phrase is still readable even when missing a few letters, but a frame of film missing some parts is a lot harder).
It makes it easier to find the works that the artist actually cared about. I would much rather watch something the artist stood behind 100% than something he had no desire to release because he himself didn't like it. I personally don't speak or type every thought I have. I filter them so that only the ones I think are worth sharing come out. If I shared every thought I had, no one would ever want to read it or listen to it. Frankly neither would I. Filtering is a good thing.
Filtering is a good thing, yes. The point being though this wasn't "filtered" he wouldn't be releasing some random thoughts, or even his diary or even a few scraps of paper but a movie released in theatres.
The fact is, if there are a few notes you don't want to publish, fine, don't publish them. When you release a movie to theatres, have fans who want to see it, have easy ways to put it online for your fans to see, and don't. You aren't being artistic, you are being a dick.
While I see the benefits of this, I can't help but see that all these things can be easily manipulated into Google "owning" the services using this. If this was Microsoft I think that everyone would be raising red flags, but Google hasn't abused the community's trust... yet. And no, I'm not really anti-Google, I use Gmail for my primary e-mail and will be getting an Android phone as soon as a decent one comes to AT&T or I get an unlocked one.
Exactly, in the end I think we will have more information from the past century then we will of the present century. Everything has been so locked down in incompatible file formats. Yes, piracy will preserve and archive some popular works, but for everything else it will simply be lost. We look so regretfully on historical documents we have lost, yet we are blinded to see that 50 years or less from now we might not even have working copies of software, movies, music and e-books that have shaped our generation.
I can't believe this is a serious suggestion. A professional artist isn't going to want his film on youtube unless he has no choice. It isn't exactly known for being the haven of known artists, more like the myspace of videos. I also can't imagine that he needs his ego stroked, but who knows.
Um, it makes a lot more sense to put videos on YouTube. Why? Because A) You aren't paying for the bandwidth B) People are on YouTube, I can guarantee you there are more users of YouTube than any other video site out there.
I don't understand how you can be so certain that you _deserve_ access to someone's artwork. I sure hope that last paragraph wasn't serious, because none of those are even remotely decent reasons to release something.
Why not? What benefit does the world get by not having the art shown? Same thing with literature. You don't -gain- anything from keeping things hidden. Even if something is complete crap by one person's standards, it may provide a lot of insight and entertainment to some people. Look at Franz Kafka (author of The Metamorphosis) would we have gained anything by having all of his works burned as he requested?
I'm not advocating the use of it, but for a while it was so widespread that it is equivalent to preventing the use of ain't in English because you don't like it and keeping it out of dictionaries even though people use it all the time.
Generally, the W3C though seems to attempt to manipulate HTML for artificial means. Rather than the sane thing that most languages (both real and constructed) do and that is adapt to what the speakers/writers do, they simply say that they can do things a roundabout way rather than simply adapting the language. For example, the "font" element, "blink" and "marquee" which although very much used (especially during the early web) they were reluctant to actually do anything with what the writers wanted.
And yes, I was a web developer for a while, and still do some maintaining of sites. Nothing fancier though than some HTML, CSS and a very little bit of JavaScript.
Flying is dangerous. A sky full of unregulated idiots is even more scary. Luckily the price tag is high, probably to fund the lawyers they will need.
Not really. Flying, when done properly will be -a lot- more safe than driving. With flying, unlike driving you go not just left and right but also up and down. Mix this with the fact that there are no roads (meaning to get to the same place two people can easily take routes miles apart) and you have the ability to reduce, eliminate traffic problems that exist in traditional traffic.
Also, never underestimate the fact of self-preservation, when encountered in a life threatening situation, people tend to do the right thing and move away from danger. People are self-regulating when it comes to life and death.
But the problem is, they rarely do. Generally Microsoft's ideas start out just fine, then they play the patent card, extend features and end up with a product radically different than their specifications. The problem isn't that Microsoft is making the standards, it is just because in recent years Microsoft hasn't made a single, decent, workable standard without playing the patent card.
How about we break away from the W3C and its strange policies and instead appoint a community-based chair with people from Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft (if they would show) and anyone else who wanted to make a browser. I'm not really seeing the benefit of the W3C lately, and with this, why don't we just break away?
It would be far too much to invest in to save a small amount of money. Plus, it wouldn't work too well with multiple packages for the same item.
Exactly, if the average person isn't going to notice it in a store, Newegg isn't going to notice it when they deal with A) A basic employee B) Coming from a supplier they think they can trust and C) The pressure to box 200-300+ of them in one sitting.
Sure, but how many people are going to look for typos? Sure, if you are boxing 2 or 3 Core i7s a day its realistic you can look at them, but lets say that you have to stuff 200-300+ a day while having to put others in boxes?
...Because everyone reads the back while shopping? Lets say this was inside a store, you say "Hey, I want a Core i7 model XXX, they find the box, it looks official, same model XXX you wanted so you buy it and take it home. You aren't going to read the blurb on the back about it, because you know what you want. Its only after you realize that you've been scammed that you would realize some of the typos.
...And what do you do to prevent this? Go through every single Core i7 to find the fake ones? Quite honestly, when you get told that you are buying a Core i7, the box looks genuine (unless you are reading everything) it looks like the correct weight, etc. In short, there isn't much Newegg could have done short of opening up every box.
But that doesn't work when it comes to most internet systems. Its a lot easier and generally more successful if you want to make the most money to find a niche, fill it, offer your company up for sale, until it sells use ad revenue to keep up until they sell to MS, Amazon, Google, etc.
Yeah, its not a long term plan but its been a pretty successful plan, just ask the founders of YouTube, Neopets, Picasa, and any number of sites or products acquired.
Really, the business plan that worked for most .com businesses and still do, is get bought out. Really, get a million or two for the founders and give the employees early retirement. Plus, if you said "Hey, I founded YouTube" you can bet that you'd get a job, even though YouTube is chronically unprofitable.
It's okay to sell products for less than what they cost you, because that will bring you lots of customers.
And really, its ok for the founders, they get lots of money. Look at YouTube.
Just delete the apps that aren't needed and replace them with OSS alternatives. Other than some well known software (Office, Photoshop, iTunes, etc) most everything else can be replaced with a better working, faster and generally better OSS alternative. Why keep that PDF suite? The most you would need would simply be Foxit, Sumatra PDF or Adobe Reader.
...Um, if the FDA would go away tomorrow, most things would still remain the same, only a lot more people would be aware of what they were eating and tainted foods would go bankrupt.
I don't see people from US to rebel to government because oppresive laws like i.e. sharing things on internet (in all variants, from pictures of your niece to a nice sound file you found around),
Um, they -are- rebelling, they simply are doing it without caring about what the government is doing. A lot of people who share files A) Can't vote B) Realize that voting for a sane third-party won't cause change until we get sane representation or C) Simply don't care because the odds of being caught are so low.
no privacy,
Again, no party has made a stance against the erosion of privacy (look at the support the PATRIOT act got from both main parties). And yes, there are enough people worried about privacy but they, again, see that no matter what party they vote for, be it republicans or democrats it won't matter when it comes to privacy, copyright, etc. Until we get proportional representation, there is basically no hope for any copyright-reform or privacy minded individuals to get elected.
Don't see China citizens rebelling neither, in fact, there are very vocal supporters of their government.
There are two main reasons for this
A) Most Chinese live in poverty
B) Those who don't live in poverty still see those in poverty and don't want to end up like them and they know that any revolution may lead them to poverty
Mix this in with the fact it is a -large- country, the fact there has been many pro-democracy movements in China's past and presence, plus state media (they get one side of the story only) and you get a country who sees no need to change if they are rich enough to start a revolution if they aren't brainwashed and those poor simply care about getting their next meal.
When will the government learn that about the only way people continue to be oppressed through governments is poverty, lack of information, and brainwashing. By allowing citizens of countries with oppressive governments to be opened to art, music, literature, communication and visitors from the "free" world, it will inspire citizens to rebel. Selfishness is a virtue, it helps keep a sane government if there is at least some communication with the outside world. If we would flood Cuba with American tourists, artists, musicians, and brought them computers, cell phones, etc. chances are the dictatorship would fall (mostly because Cuba is well within travel distance from the US, and while some other "free" countries allow travel/etc to Cuba like Canada, they lack the -very- close distance).