People would be pissed about not making any money off the publication. Ensuing battle would take months.
What a load of crap. The people here are not concerned that their/. posts aren't going to make them rich. They're cocnerned that they're privacy is being violated. Katz touches on the truth above when he says: They perceived Slashdot as a place where messages get out, where they could speak freely, where information is shared and distributed. Unfortunately he mixes truth there, where they could speak freely with his own slant on sharing (distribution). Uh yeah, they wanted it distributed, but they wanted it distributed here, not to the rest of the world, the world that most people on/. think is pretty easily manipulated. They posted here because this is an alternative to talk radio and Time/Warner/AOL... People can, or at least used to, be able to trust that if they posted here other geeks would read it... Not their parents, their teachers, and well-meaning but not so understanding others...
BTW, Katzy, why do you feel the need to plagiarize your movie reviews? you *know* what I'm talking about, you fake!
It's pretty easy to say something like this, but could be terribly damaging to someone who makes his living writing. I don't suppose you have any proof though, do you? If you're going to accuse someone, at least have the decency to take it off of "anonymous coward."
"Slashdot. Where we hate intellectual property laws, but when someone takes ONE SENTENCE of our stuff, we scream bloody murder." I think the reason that people would be concerned here is that they released their views into one community, here the "geek" community... And now those comments are going mainstream. I can see how that would be kind of scary. After all in the rest of the world, I'm pretty meek w/ my comments, while I feel free on Slashdot. It's been that way since I was BBSing in High School. Maybe that old privacy thing on the internet is going now, what with Katz' book, and the email scandals in business/government... ohwell.
The whole concept of free software certainly seems to have some socialist values. Everybody can use it for free after all. Idunno, do you think that's a bad thing?
Well, I'm typing this from class, so you tell me if that's a good thing.:) Okay, anyway, here's my comment. We use laptops to do testing. The only problem is that we have to use testing software that is only available in a windows version. And that is only available through the web if you're using Windows Explorer. It drives me nuts. I'd love to get rid of windows, but I can't because I can't afford to use a pencil against students who are using laptops...
I don't know. You won't shut down the web because it's used for all manner of evils, right? Napster doesn't select the music that's distributed on it. It would be foolish to say that intellectual property isn't ignored by most napster users, but that doesn't in and of itself show that Napster should be shut down. The problem is much bigger than Napster. Intellectual Property itself is being challenged here, and the answer is going to be some sort of a compromise. There has been a sea change in the intellectual property world, and all the king's horses and all the king's men...
No kidding! Those I-Openers are going for $200-$300 dollars per auction. If you bought 9 I-Openers like I heard some people have done, that's a pretty penny... Of course, e-bay auctions are a hassle.
I don't think anyone's saying it's not used for piracy. I think almost everyone's saying that it shouldn't be banned because it has such tremendous potential aside from piracy.
While I think the fight against censorware is laudable, I don't understand the point of research and whatnot on it... It's pretty simple really. The more information is available, the better everyone's going to be able to sift out the truth, and that includes defining their own values. It's either that, or we just give up on each other... For a rather early summation of this argument, check out John Milton's Areopagitica: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/3802/areo.html -Infosquawk
-- "I think we'd all prefer to have morals guide us into what should and shouldn't be legal, but as we all know "lawyer's morals" is just another oxymoron."
It seems that some people are confusing lawyers themselves with the adversarial system. In our system, lawyers present the arguments most likely to win for their side, and sometimes those arguments have to do with the technical law and not what lay people would see as "basic justice." It is the lawyer's duty to present his client's best possible case, not his choice. It should also be said that litigation is tremendously expensive. This isn't just the fault of $-eyed lawyers as I've seen mentioned, it is a byproduct of the tremendous amount of research and time that goes into every serious case. The adversarial system is just tremendously expensive, and lawyers fees need to be adequate to compensate them for their investment. With that in mind, I think it is appropriate that there is some criticism focused on legislators. That really is a big money game, and legislators do have a responsibility to their clients, the people in general, a responsibility which they may not be taking seriously enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you ever play Janitor Joe? Now, that was a fun game... Freeware too.
OoO
People would be pissed about not making any money off the publication. Ensuing battle would take months.
/. posts aren't going to make them rich. They're cocnerned that they're privacy is being violated. /. think is pretty easily manipulated. They posted here because this is an alternative to talk radio and Time/Warner/AOL... People can, or at least used to, be able to trust that if they posted here other geeks would read it... Not their parents, their teachers, and well-meaning but not so understanding others...
What a load of crap. The people here are not concerned that their
Katz touches on the truth above when he says:
They perceived Slashdot as a place where messages get out, where they could speak freely, where information is shared and distributed.
Unfortunately he mixes truth there, where they could speak freely with his own slant on sharing (distribution). Uh yeah, they wanted it distributed, but they wanted it distributed here, not to the rest of the world, the world that most people on
OoO
It's pretty easy to say something like this, but could be terribly damaging to someone who makes his living writing. I don't suppose you have any proof though, do you? If you're going to accuse someone, at least have the decency to take it off of "anonymous coward."
OoO
I'll read it in the library.
OoO
"Slashdot. Where we hate intellectual property laws, but when someone takes ONE SENTENCE of our stuff, we scream bloody murder." I think the reason that people would be concerned here is that they released their views into one community, here the "geek" community... And now those comments are going mainstream. I can see how that would be kind of scary. After all in the rest of the world, I'm pretty meek w/ my comments, while I feel free on Slashdot. It's been that way since I was BBSing in High School. Maybe that old privacy thing on the internet is going now, what with Katz' book, and the email scandals in business/government... ohwell.
OoO
Be more specific. Why are socialists dangerous? What kind of danger?
OoO
The whole concept of free software certainly seems to have some socialist values. Everybody can use it for free after all. Idunno, do you think that's a bad thing?
OoO
Well, I'm typing this from class, so you tell me if that's a good thing. :) Okay, anyway, here's my comment. We use laptops to do testing. The only problem is that we have to use testing software that is only available in a windows version. And that is only available through the web if you're using Windows Explorer. It drives me nuts. I'd love to get rid of windows, but I can't because I can't afford to use a pencil against students who are using laptops...
OoO
I don't know. You won't shut down the web because it's used for all manner of evils, right? Napster doesn't select the music that's distributed on it. It would be foolish to say that intellectual property isn't ignored by most napster users, but that doesn't in and of itself show that Napster should be shut down. The problem is much bigger than Napster. Intellectual Property itself is being challenged here, and the answer is going to be some sort of a compromise. There has been a sea change in the intellectual property world, and all the king's horses and all the king's men...
OoO
No kidding! Those I-Openers are going for $200-$300 dollars per auction. If you bought 9 I-Openers like I heard some people have done, that's a pretty penny... Of course, e-bay auctions are a hassle.
Can I have a hit off of that corn-cob pipe gramps?
I don't think anyone's saying it's not used for piracy. I think almost everyone's saying that it shouldn't be banned because it has such tremendous potential aside from piracy.
On the other hand, warez used to be freely available on the web, and advertising took off like wildfire...
That looks interesting. Do you know of anyone who got this to work and likes it?
When you figure out it's not an mp3, just don't run it... -"It's the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine."
While I think the fight against censorware is laudable, I don't understand the point of research and whatnot on it... It's pretty simple really. The more information is available, the better everyone's going to be able to sift out the truth, and that includes defining their own values. It's either that, or we just give up on each other... For a rather early summation of this argument, check out John Milton's Areopagitica: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Nook/3802/areo.html -Infosquawk
-- "I think we'd all prefer to have morals guide us into what should and shouldn't be legal, but as we all know "lawyer's morals" is just another oxymoron."
It seems that some people are confusing lawyers themselves with the adversarial system. In our system, lawyers present the arguments most likely to win for their side, and sometimes those arguments have to do with the technical law and not what lay people would see as "basic justice." It is the lawyer's duty to present his client's best possible case, not his choice.
It should also be said that litigation is tremendously expensive. This isn't just the fault of $-eyed lawyers as I've seen mentioned, it is a byproduct of the tremendous amount of research and time that goes into every serious case. The adversarial system is just tremendously expensive, and lawyers fees need to be adequate to compensate them for their investment.
With that in mind, I think it is appropriate that there is some criticism focused on legislators. That really is a big money game, and legislators do have a responsibility to their clients, the people in general, a responsibility which they may not be taking seriously enough.