...That said, Twitter (et al) should be punished through existing legal means if they allow said trolls to run wild without giving the community a method to self manage
I completely disagree, if you introduce licenses for content providers you suddenly raise the barrier of entry. In one fell swoop you'll push yet more communities underground and inhibit those little sparks of creative which begin an explosion.
Your sentiment I do agree with and we should think of ways to introduce accountability or self policing of some kind. It is simply almost impossible to remove negative/pseudo psychotic behaviour from any corner of the web, funnily enough it is a part of freedom we have to manage. Maybe the real answer here is to work with people to mitigate the effects trolls have.
...It doesn't work with dogs, it certainly wont work with murders. Who thinks this crap up? Put them away where they can't harm INNOCENT PEOPLE. I couldn't give a fuck about them
That gives me a thought, when an advert seriously contrasts with a page (*cough, HardOCP) it should be killed.
It would be nice to see a way to [easily] finely tune AdBlock to allow certain types of adverts. That way we could take the power without dwindling ad revenues.
Whilst I was working for microsoft we had to take a "training course" (a online training video) which basically said how we couldn't give or take bribes in exchange for, well, anything. Not sure how that works higher up the ranks though
Well 100Mbit is all good and well but considering Virgin have some serious traffic shaping going on (4-12 peak time speed cap if you, err, use your connection iirc).
It's a shame they don't just release a plan where they WONT cap you (ie you pay us XYZ for 200gig etc)
I thought by the time we would have Quake 3 on a phone I'd be flying to work in my hover car.
Imagine taking a trip back in time a few years and telling your younger self that Quake 3 would be [almost] playable on a cell phone - hopefully you wouldn't reply with a "whats a cell phone?"
You make a very good point but I'll add that (within the UK) if a ISP is able to review the content going back and forth through its core routers then it should be held accountable for what data is transmitted.
In other words, if they open the box they gotta deal with what's in it
Whilst I believe you may have a good argument it all depends on why Google decided to back-out of China.
If you caught the thread last week quite a few people argued the point that China has simply become far harder to make a profit from. The risk of their reputation out weighed the millions of people who used the service (and let's be honest, will continue to use it, sans firewall)
The basic fact is Google is a search company, they need to 'violate' your privacy to provide the services they do. The sad fact is everyone else does the exact same thing. Even on my own sites I keep an eye on trends and demands - That's how business has worked for millennia. The only difference now is they are MUCH larger and can entirely trace your end-to-end web usage.
Short of using a proxy and unticking "use Javascript/Cookies" this will always be a problem. If you can really be bothered you could use an obfuscater which simply does a bunch of pointless searches to shadow your real searches in a plethora of nonsense.
This very problem had me thinking yesterday.
The problem is "Security through obscurity". Sure, you can hide the doors and windows on your house, it'll take the burglar a little longer to find the way in, but if he wants to, he will (CounterStrike).
When we think about the open-source community, presumably they could take StO approach, they could pay âoepunkbusterâ to support their game, but letâ(TM)s be honest thatâ(TM)s not going to happen for many reasons.
If an open-source game is popular enough to warrant cheating, low-lives excluded, and then the âoeWikipedia effectâ would come into effect. If a bug was found, usually by an experienced code-hacker, chances are that it wonâ(TM)t be long before someone patches that hole. Though I do not speak from experience, I would imagine the respect of your peers, the foundation of FOSS, would be a far greater reward than âoepwning some n00bsâ.
Most, respected, hackers find an exploit in a piece of code out of curiosity; they are rarely the ones who choose to exploit it. Itâ(TM)s the script-kiddies who, casually, hack games âfor the fun of itâ(TM).
So in short, once the game reaches critical mass, the problem would likely continually fix itself.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/the_wiki_effect/
One final thought: I wonder how that would play out in a game like WOW.
As was mentioned earlier why don't ISPs setup multicast repeaters at the POP. Christ we have the technology now to relay this high bandwidth information so that it potential will only affect the last mile - why dont we use it?
I'm sorry, maybe a mixture of demand and my ignorance has confused me but wern't these netbooks (i'm looking at you 701) should have cost $99?
Now we've got netbooks creeping past £400($600-700USD). I love these devices but my XPS 2.5Ghz Penryn, 4gig ram (yadyada)cost barely a few hundred dollars more. The size difference isn't that amazing on the new 10" models.
Speaking of which, why the seriously crap resolutions? 1024*600, 800*480.
My Sony U3 [that was subsiquently stolen:@], which is knocking on 5-6 years old had an 4:3 XGA resolution. Christ, my 15" laptop has a 1920x1200 screen so the technology is avalible and cheap enough to have high density screens - why not include a nice 1280*1024?
Slashdot Mirror
...That said, Twitter (et al) should be punished through existing legal means if they allow said trolls to run wild without giving the community a method to self manage
I completely disagree, if you introduce licenses for content providers you suddenly raise the barrier of entry. In one fell swoop you'll push yet more communities underground and inhibit those little sparks of creative which begin an explosion.
Your sentiment I do agree with and we should think of ways to introduce accountability or self policing of some kind. It is simply almost impossible to remove negative/pseudo psychotic behaviour from any corner of the web, funnily enough it is a part of freedom we have to manage. Maybe the real answer here is to work with people to mitigate the effects trolls have.
Well my back garden is the world, can we put it there instead?
...It doesn't work with dogs, it certainly wont work with murders. Who thinks this crap up? Put them away where they can't harm INNOCENT PEOPLE. I couldn't give a fuck about them
Sadly, no matter how rich Microsoft are, they simply can't afford to write *that* many cheques.
I love hot that's rated funny. I bet that's not so far from the truth.. Ah dammit, wasted my vote
That gives me a thought, when an advert seriously contrasts with a page (*cough, HardOCP) it should be killed.
It would be nice to see a way to [easily] finely tune AdBlock to allow certain types of adverts. That way we could take the power without dwindling ad revenues.
Whilst I was working for microsoft we had to take a "training course" (a online training video) which basically said how we couldn't give or take bribes in exchange for, well, anything. Not sure how that works higher up the ranks though
Well 100Mbit is all good and well but considering Virgin have some serious traffic shaping going on (4-12 peak time speed cap if you, err, use your connection iirc). It's a shame they don't just release a plan where they WONT cap you (ie you pay us XYZ for 200gig etc)
I thought by the time we would have Quake 3 on a phone I'd be flying to work in my hover car. Imagine taking a trip back in time a few years and telling your younger self that Quake 3 would be [almost] playable on a cell phone - hopefully you wouldn't reply with a "whats a cell phone?"
You make a very good point but I'll add that (within the UK) if a ISP is able to review the content going back and forth through its core routers then it should be held accountable for what data is transmitted. In other words, if they open the box they gotta deal with what's in it
...I'm sure there were newlines in that when I submitted it!
Whilst I believe you may have a good argument it all depends on why Google decided to back-out of China. If you caught the thread last week quite a few people argued the point that China has simply become far harder to make a profit from. The risk of their reputation out weighed the millions of people who used the service (and let's be honest, will continue to use it, sans firewall) The basic fact is Google is a search company, they need to 'violate' your privacy to provide the services they do. The sad fact is everyone else does the exact same thing. Even on my own sites I keep an eye on trends and demands - That's how business has worked for millennia. The only difference now is they are MUCH larger and can entirely trace your end-to-end web usage. Short of using a proxy and unticking "use Javascript/Cookies" this will always be a problem. If you can really be bothered you could use an obfuscater which simply does a bunch of pointless searches to shadow your real searches in a plethora of nonsense.
Is it just me or is this the worst burglar ever? He LEFT THE COMPUTER... Idiot
RNLI Givuth Life.... ....RNLI Takeuth away :)
This very problem had me thinking yesterday. The problem is "Security through obscurity". Sure, you can hide the doors and windows on your house, it'll take the burglar a little longer to find the way in, but if he wants to, he will (CounterStrike). When we think about the open-source community, presumably they could take StO approach, they could pay âoepunkbusterâ to support their game, but letâ(TM)s be honest thatâ(TM)s not going to happen for many reasons. If an open-source game is popular enough to warrant cheating, low-lives excluded, and then the âoeWikipedia effectâ would come into effect. If a bug was found, usually by an experienced code-hacker, chances are that it wonâ(TM)t be long before someone patches that hole. Though I do not speak from experience, I would imagine the respect of your peers, the foundation of FOSS, would be a far greater reward than âoepwning some n00bsâ. Most, respected, hackers find an exploit in a piece of code out of curiosity; they are rarely the ones who choose to exploit it. Itâ(TM)s the script-kiddies who, casually, hack games âfor the fun of itâ(TM). So in short, once the game reaches critical mass, the problem would likely continually fix itself. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/12/18/the_wiki_effect/ One final thought: I wonder how that would play out in a game like WOW.
As was mentioned earlier why don't ISPs setup multicast repeaters at the POP. Christ we have the technology now to relay this high bandwidth information so that it potential will only affect the last mile - why dont we use it?
I'm sorry, maybe a mixture of demand and my ignorance has confused me but wern't these netbooks (i'm looking at you 701) should have cost $99? Now we've got netbooks creeping past £400($600-700USD). I love these devices but my XPS 2.5Ghz Penryn, 4gig ram (yadyada)cost barely a few hundred dollars more. The size difference isn't that amazing on the new 10" models. Speaking of which, why the seriously crap resolutions? 1024*600, 800*480. My Sony U3 [that was subsiquently stolen :@], which is knocking on 5-6 years old had an 4:3 XGA resolution. Christ, my 15" laptop has a 1920x1200 screen so the technology is avalible and cheap enough to have high density screens - why not include a nice 1280*1024?