Nah. People watch Trek because it paints an optimistic picture of our future, and sometimes manages to tell a good story or two, not because of the heavy-handed moral commentary business.
A story wrapped around the Federation's fight for survival in a war would provide plenty of room for heroes to be heroes and the good and the wise to triumph over evil and stupidity. Every once in a while, Trek came close to to evoking glory and wonder. Galactic war would offer that chance.
Whatever the script really turns out to be, my fear is that the producers will have decided that the median age of movie goers these days is about 12-1/2 and give us a flick about Kirk battling acne while being put down by female cadets and Spock trying to repress adolescent angst about his dual genetic background.
>>"(ISV's) would and some did..." Yes, some did, but not enough to make the platform viable. Of those who moved, many went out of business or moved back to Windows.
>>"Microsoft also pumped up Chicago..." Of course, they did. That's marketing. If someone bet their business on MS market-speak, they were foolish. Ditto if they believed IBM's PR.
>>"..hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP"
Adobe is spending hundreds of millions on Gimp FUD? Be serious. Look, there's an entire industry built around Photoshop. Thousands of people have invested many thousands of their dollars and their hours to become expert Photoshop users. They aren't going to abandon that investment, no matter how good Gimp gets. Gimp may attract new designers, open source advocates, and people who can't/won't pay for Photoshop, but it obviously isn't going to make inroads into the current base of professional Photoshop users. Besides, the biggest complaint about Gimp is that the interface isn't like Photoshop. Few people see a reason to spend time learning a new program that has only some of the capabilities of the Photoshop they already own and use every day.
>>" A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2,,," Yes, dirty tricks by MS. They probably told HP they stood to lose the right to preload Windows. I'm sure IBM would have done pretty much the same thing had the situation been reversed. When you decide to compete against a powerful market leader, you're naive if you expect everyone to play "fair".
>>"The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive..." Yes, obviously. But, my point was that users don't multitask.
>>" Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX..." I'm sure they do. If pre-installed Linux ever becomes a real threat, I expect MS to sell a cheap DVD that wipes out Linux,saves user data, and install Windows.
I was around and paying attention during the IBM-MS feud. I saw a lot of the less-than-gentle MS tactics, and some bonehead IBM moves (like tieing the initial releases to their PS/2 hardware; IBM didn't understand the consumer market). But, I'm convinced that OS/2 would have failed regardless. (Remember, too, that initially IBM was almost hostile about the prospect of ISV's developing for OS/2. Contrast that with MS's assertive wooing of developers. By the time IBM got a clue, it was too late.)
As for Linux, I agree that its future may be in the web. Frankly, if you remove the ideologically inclined and the people who know how to install Linux from the number of people who might want to try it on their desktop, you very likely have a pretty small number. I've used Linux for 10 years, and can rip through a Slackware or Debian install. I can partition my drives umpteen different ways. But, everyone else I know is scared to death of monkeying with their drives. Such fear keeps the local PC shop in business.
OTOH, if someone marketed a cheap Linux-in-ROM machine with a big cheap drive, sans monitor, into the toy market for $199, they just might make some money. (Think Commodore 64. I bought mine at Toys-R-Us, just like lots of people.) Bring it home, hook up your existing monitor, and you're good to go. Put the OS in ROM and everything else on the drive. Don't worry about OS upgrades: people hate them.
ISV's who have built a career and a business with Windows aren't going to abandoned that and rush to a new OS just because they think it is technically superior, regardless of what MS does or doesn't do. That's not how business decisions are made.
For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\
ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.
Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.
Customers don't care and don't know about memory models. They're interested in the stuff software does. With or without MS pressure on ISV's, there was no economic reason to develop OS/2 apps or port Windows apps. Besides, IBM was going out of its way to be obnoxious to ISV's.
What MS did to keep a competitor from running its software wasn't nefarious, just good business. Given a chance, IBM would have done the same thing to MS.
But, even without that, no one had a reason to develop OS/2 apps. Why buy an OS to run Windows apps when you can buy Windows?
As someone who bought and ran three different OS/2 releases, I think it was technically superior to the Windows of the time. But, no one cares about technical superiority so long as the software works and doesn't set the hardware on fire.
When IBM made OS/2 able to run Windows apps, it gave MS the pen to sign the product's death certificate.
Maybe MS is bent on screwing Novell. Maybe not. But, certainly, no one cares about developers other than developers. And, sometimes products fail not because of Evil Corporate Doings, but because no one wants to buy them.
What really killed OS/2 was the fact that only a few independent software vendors saw a reason to develop and market OS/2 products. Why write an OS/2-only product when IBM keeps telling everyone it will run the Windows version just fine?
Why buy OS/2 to run OS/2 apps that aren't there?
That claim was, by and large, true back in the days of 16-bit Windows 3.1, which was the era in which OS/2 was built. OS/2 couldn't handle 32-bit Windows.
I could care less about the PS3, but if Yellow Dog releases something that runs acceptably on my Mac -- a RevC iMac iSight -- I just might buy it. If they manage that trick, they'll be the first Linux distro to do so.
This is a planning exercise, not a poliical commitment by thee Japanese government. Like NASA, JAXA's files are undoubtedly packed with plans for space missions that no one ever intended to come to fruition.
The government has not budgeted for this, and almost certainly will not.
I have to admit that computer games leave me cold. I can't imagine hanging on to Windows to play a game. If Apple thinks Boot Camp will let them sell hardware to people who want Windows only for a game, more power to 'em.
Silly boy. Everything -- everything -- Apple does is intended to sell more Apple hardware. If they wanted to sell more Macs to gamers, they'd pay game developers to write for the Mac. Besides, just how many gamers -- with an investment in Windows hardware and software -- are going to run out and buy a Mac just so they can boot it into Windows?
No, the intent of Boot Camp is to allow Windows users to favorably compare OS X with Windows.
The commercial success of an OS has little to do with its technical excellence, or lack thereof. Discounting Unix (always a good bet in the commercial world) I'd rate OS/2 as the most capable consumer OS at the time of the release of OS/2 version 3. Its failure to achieve a comparable niche in the market is more a testament to IBM's inept marketing at the time and Microsoft's better advertising and, crucially, the fact the every PC except some of IBM's already had Windows installed on it. It is a fact that people who are getting the job done on their machine's default OS won't be inclined to spend money or time to try out something different. Trying to sell a replacement OS to people who are barely aware of the fact that they already own one is a daunting task.
Absolutely. Apple kept its options open by building OS X for both PPC and Intel. They just hid the Intel code in the closet. There's no reason why they can't continue to do the same. If IBM produces a worldbeater PPC chip in couple of years, I'm sure they'll be glad to sell it to Apple.
That said, the marginal value of an ever-faster CPU is decreasing, since most of our time is spent waiting on the network, not the chip.
>>"...It's due to the failing of our society to educate people enough to actually understand the tools they work with..."
That post is a blatant example of unwarranted Linux elitism at work. Why aren't most people using Linux? Because they are clever enough. Therefore, it must be true that people who use Linux are rather more clever than eveeryone else.
Sure.
The reason people don't use Linux is because they don't want to use Linux and they don't neeed to use Linux. You don't need to be more clever or smarter than average to use Linux. You just need to want to use it. People who aren't willing to go to the trouble of learning how to program to do something they already do on another platform are simply making a rational choice about how to spend their time and energy. Why learn Perl, for example, to accomplish a task when you already accomplish that task just fine on Windows or on OS X?
You're remark is a perfect example of why Linux remains a cult: Linux is for True Believers who'd rather deprive themsevles of access to good tools rather than soil their hard drives with "evil" code.
Understand that the vast majority of users will not move to a new OS if the programs they use are not available for the platform. Not equivalent programs, not clones, but the identical program.
Frankly, surveys like this simply confirm the obvious. Gimp has been around, for free, for several years. If Gimp was compelling enough for Photoshop users to switch to Linux to use it, they would have done so. The fact that they haven't -- that they'd rather pay hundreds of dollars for Photoshop and the other Adobe tools than pay nothing for Gimp and Linux -- ought to tell you something.
Rather than adopting an unwarranted elitist attitude about non-Linux users, you'd be better off listening to people explain why they won't use it.
The book is about XHTML and CSS, but since you apparently don't read many books, you wouldn't know that.
I thought the book was one of the most successful teaching tools I've read in years. There's a world of difference between Googling for bits of reference material, and reading a 400-page narrative built by people who know how to teach.
You're distorting things to make a bogus point. This is not the "way" government has worked.
Hansen was speaking "on his own time" and his own dime". If a federal employee speaks in public or to the media as an individual, not as a representative of his employer, then that employee's remarks should not be subject to prior review and approval. (Simply identifying yourrself as an employee of an agency is not equivalent to announcing that you are speaking for the agency. A clear statement that you are speaking as an individual is sufficient.) If the employee happens to say something about his employer's mission or policies, then the employer is within his rights to remind the employee about the role of the public affairs office. (There are some exceptions to this. E.g., security and intelligence agencies have stricter policies.)
Civil servants are expressly forbidden from engaging in political activity on the job, so if the official cited by the NYT as telling Hansen his job is to make the President look good is a civil servant, he needs to be fired.
It should not be a condition of federal employment that scientists must refrain from scientific debate and public education. If Bush, or you, or his other supporters believe otherwise, then they are spreading the kind of FUD that says we're obligated to support a temporary authority figure at the cost of our democratic rights.
One, it is difficult to imagine a punishment that is not appropriate for a 'scumbag pedophile".
Two, whether or not the act of burning existing child porn onto CD's and DVD's creates illegal "new" porn or amounts to the distribution of illegal porn, seems a pointless issue.
Three, this isn't a copyright issue, unless the Russian originators of this stuff want to sue this guy for violating their copyright.
Once upon a time, I was a public affairs officer in the employ of the Feds. Clearly, this is a case of selective treatment of one individual because he takes public stances opposed to the Bush administration. Read all of the NYT article and you'll learn that other NASA scientists whose public remarks typically support Bush are not subject to the same restrictions as Hansen.
It is par for the course to vet, review and approve a federal employees public remarks when they are speaking for their employer. This is not what is happening here. Hansen speech is being restricted because he says things Bush does not like.
The Post, for those who haven't bothered to read what it had to say about this, only closed comments. It did not shut down the blog.
The reason it did this was the excessive amount of time it was taking Post staff to police the comments and remove the one that weren't playing by the house rules.
Commenters here at Slashdot may get pretty excited sometimes, but I've seen nothing here to compare with the vitriolic character attacks, slander, and profanity that's common on a lot of political blogs.
This isn't the first time comments have closed on a blog because the commenters were offensive. It won't be the last. The Post cwas well within its rights, and the commenters need to remember that they have no right to post comments on any blogs. That's a privilege extended by the people running the blog.
>> Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
We can hope so.
Letting everyone contribute means your standards sink to the lowest common demoninator, which is lieing, cheating, self-promotion, and the demonstration of ignorance.
Not that criticism includes an obligation to produce a better idea, but I've already said what Wikipedia should do: Hire professional editors, researches and factcheckers and review all submitred copy before publication. Hence, it would follow that all edits made to posted copy by online readers would also be held for review before posting.
I lack trust in Wikipedia's concept just as much as I do the way that concept is implemented. I don't believe an amormphous mass of unknown and unrelated readers of an online publication can be counted on to produce an accurate encyclopedia.
More importantly, I don't believe web publications ought to be able to escape legal responsibility for their content. Wikipedia is only a publication; the fact that it appears on the web and not on paper is irrelevant.
>> I trust Wikipedia to give me accurate enough information for when I am looking up something that isn't important to me.
That's telling. You admit Wikipedia is inaccurate and that you only use it when the issue is not important. So, why do you use it at all?
But, that's your choice. However, my point is simple: Whatever they publish, the people who publish Wikipedia ought to be held legally responsible for their content.
>>...most papers have more lies and inaccuracies than Wikipedia.
An opinion, rather difficult to evaluate. A newspaper is not an encyclopedia. The news, by definition, is unfinished. A news story is not "the truth", it is quite literally a story about an event written at one particular moment. It's a snapshot. Regardless, if the paper engages in libel and slander, they can be held responsible, as they should be. So should web publications like Wikipedia; they cannot escape responsibility simply because they use a different medium to publish and because they allow anonymous postings and shun propfessional editing and review processes.
Finally, there is a tendency to see Wikepedia as some kind of revolutionary new community, which compels people, like you I suspect, to use it in spite of its obvious failings. I see it as a publication. I don't believe communities exist on the web. The use of that word is simply marketing hype used to con money out of investors and cusotmers like you. (E.g., you and I are Slashdot customers.)
OK, I'll do an edit: Freedom doesn't mean doing something illegal andavoiding the consequences.
Now, to answer your other question: Yes, if someone libels or slanders you, you damn well should sue. Nothing wrong with that. Defend yourself. That's why the law is there.
My statement is not inaccurate or libelous because Slashdot's tems and services clearly contains a statement to that effect, i.e., it states the poster assumes all responsibility for their content. I simply believe such statements ought not to be enforceable.
>> So, basically, you're going to whine and cry to mommy if someone writes something incorrect about you?
No. Most likely, being a Slashdot type, you don't have any financial assets worth protecting, or a personal or professioal reputation worth protecting. But a whole lot of other people do. That's why laws allowing people to bring suit against those who have libeld or slandered them exist.
Suiing people for libel and slander is not censorship. Libel and slander are illegal. You have no freedom to behave illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an obvious difference between adding a new feature and patching a bug.
Nah. People watch Trek because it paints an optimistic picture of our future, and sometimes manages to tell a good story or two, not because of the heavy-handed moral commentary business.
A story wrapped around the Federation's fight for survival in a war would provide plenty of room for heroes to be heroes and the good and the wise to triumph over evil and stupidity. Every once in a while, Trek came close to to evoking glory and wonder. Galactic war would offer that chance.
Whatever the script really turns out to be, my fear is that the producers will have decided that the median age of movie goers these days is about 12-1/2 and give us a flick about Kirk battling acne while being put down by female cadets and Spock trying to repress adolescent angst about his dual genetic background.
>>"(ISV's) would and some did..."
..." ,saves user data, and install Windows.
Yes, some did, but not enough to make the platform viable. Of those who moved, many went out of business or moved back to Windows.
>>"Microsoft also pumped up Chicago..."
Of course, they did. That's marketing. If someone bet their business on MS market-speak, they were foolish. Ditto if they believed IBM's PR.
>>"..hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the "Photoshop" maker to spread FUD about the new "GIMP"
Adobe is spending hundreds of millions on Gimp FUD? Be serious. Look, there's an entire industry built around Photoshop. Thousands of people have invested many thousands of their dollars and their hours to become expert Photoshop users. They aren't going to abandon that investment, no matter how good Gimp gets. Gimp may attract new designers, open source advocates, and people who can't/won't pay for Photoshop, but it obviously isn't going to make inroads into the current base of professional Photoshop users. Besides, the biggest complaint about Gimp is that the interface isn't like Photoshop. Few people see a reason to spend time learning a new program that has only some of the capabilities of the Photoshop they already own and use every day.
>>" A famous example is the one of the 1994 L.V. Comdex computer show. HP had 50% of their PCs on the show floor running OS/2,,,"
Yes, dirty tricks by MS. They probably told HP they stood to lose the right to preload Windows. I'm sure IBM would have done pretty much the same thing had the situation been reversed. When you decide to compete against a powerful market leader, you're naive if you expect everyone to play "fair".
>>"The user is clueless but only knows that the appliction is more responsive..."
Yes, obviously. But, my point was that users don't multitask.
>>" Regarding Linux, it's all about pre-installs and Microsoft can and does pressure the OEMs to NOT SHIP LINUX
I'm sure they do. If pre-installed Linux ever becomes a real threat, I expect MS to sell a cheap DVD that wipes out Linux
I was around and paying attention during the IBM-MS feud. I saw a lot of the less-than-gentle MS tactics, and some bonehead IBM moves (like tieing the initial releases to their PS/2 hardware; IBM didn't understand the consumer market). But, I'm convinced that OS/2 would have failed regardless. (Remember, too, that initially IBM was almost hostile about the prospect of ISV's developing for OS/2. Contrast that with MS's assertive wooing of developers. By the time IBM got a clue, it was too late.)
As for Linux, I agree that its future may be in the web. Frankly, if you remove the ideologically inclined and the people who know how to install Linux from the number of people who might want to try it on their desktop, you very likely have a pretty small number. I've used Linux for 10 years, and can rip through a Slackware or Debian install. I can partition my drives umpteen different ways. But, everyone else I know is scared to death of monkeying with their drives. Such fear keeps the local PC shop in business.
OTOH, if someone marketed a cheap Linux-in-ROM machine with a big cheap drive, sans monitor, into the toy market for $199, they just might make some money. (Think Commodore 64. I bought mine at Toys-R-Us, just like lots of people.) Bring it home, hook up your existing monitor, and you're good to go. Put the OS in ROM and everything else on the drive. Don't worry about OS upgrades: people hate them.
ISV's who have built a career and a business with Windows aren't going to abandoned that and rush to a new OS just because they think it is technically superior, regardless of what MS does or doesn't do. That's not how business decisions are made.
For example, let's pretend the next version of the GIMP is recognized as technically superior to Photoshop: faster, more features, more capabilities. Are professionals who depend on Photoshop going to abandon it? Not a chance.\
ISV's, then as now, are in the business of selling software. They balanced the cost of learning OS/2 and the cost of porting to it versus continuing to sell the same product into the Windows market. The money was with Windows.
Even today, people don't use the "advanced features" that OS/2 had in comparison to Windows 3.1. People concentrate on one, fullscreen, app at a time. They don't multitask. They care more about appearance, ease of use and reliability more than technology. More than anything, they don't won't to have to relearn how to use a computer. Look, Linux is arguably superior to Windows. It's free, and its been around for about 15 years. MS can't stop people from using it and can't stop people developing for it. And yet, a tiny fraction of the market uses Linux. Linux is to software as the Segway is to transportation.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Customers don't care and don't know about memory models. They're interested in the stuff software does. With or without MS pressure on ISV's, there was no economic reason to develop OS/2 apps or port Windows apps. Besides, IBM was going out of its way to be obnoxious to ISV's.
What MS did to keep a competitor from running its software wasn't nefarious, just good business. Given a chance, IBM would have done the same thing to MS.
But, even without that, no one had a reason to develop OS/2 apps. Why buy an OS to run Windows apps when you can buy Windows?
As someone who bought and ran three different OS/2 releases, I think it was technically superior to the Windows of the time. But, no one cares about technical superiority so long as the software works and doesn't set the hardware on fire.
When IBM made OS/2 able to run Windows apps, it gave MS the pen to sign the product's death certificate.
Maybe MS is bent on screwing Novell. Maybe not. But, certainly, no one cares about developers other than developers. And, sometimes products fail not because of Evil Corporate Doings, but because no one wants to buy them.
What really killed OS/2 was the fact that only a few independent software vendors saw a reason to develop and market OS/2 products. Why write an OS/2-only product when IBM keeps telling everyone it will run the Windows version just fine?
Why buy OS/2 to run OS/2 apps that aren't there?
That claim was, by and large, true back in the days of 16-bit Windows 3.1, which was the era in which OS/2 was built. OS/2 couldn't handle 32-bit Windows.
I could care less about the PS3, but if Yellow Dog releases something that runs acceptably on my Mac -- a RevC iMac iSight -- I just might buy it. If they manage that trick, they'll be the first Linux distro to do so.
This is a planning exercise, not a poliical commitment by thee Japanese government. Like NASA, JAXA's files are undoubtedly packed with plans for space missions that no one ever intended to come to fruition.
The government has not budgeted for this, and almost certainly will not.
I have to admit that computer games leave me cold. I can't imagine hanging on to Windows to play a game. If Apple thinks Boot Camp will let them sell hardware to people who want Windows only for a game, more power to 'em.
Silly boy. Everything -- everything -- Apple does is intended to sell more Apple hardware. If they wanted to sell more Macs to gamers, they'd pay game developers to write for the Mac. Besides, just how many gamers -- with an investment in Windows hardware and software -- are going to run out and buy a Mac just so they can boot it into Windows?
No, the intent of Boot Camp is to allow Windows users to favorably compare OS X with Windows.
The commercial success of an OS has little to do with its technical excellence, or lack thereof. Discounting Unix (always a good bet in the commercial world) I'd rate OS/2 as the most capable consumer OS at the time of the release of OS/2 version 3. Its failure to achieve a comparable niche in the market is more a testament to IBM's inept marketing at the time and Microsoft's better advertising and, crucially, the fact the every PC except some of IBM's already had Windows installed on it. It is a fact that people who are getting the job done on their machine's default OS won't be inclined to spend money or time to try out something different. Trying to sell a replacement OS to people who are barely aware of the fact that they already own one is a daunting task.
Absolutely. Apple kept its options open by building OS X for both PPC and Intel. They just hid the Intel code in the closet. There's no reason why they can't continue to do the same. If IBM produces a worldbeater PPC chip in couple of years, I'm sure they'll be glad to sell it to Apple.
That said, the marginal value of an ever-faster CPU is decreasing, since most of our time is spent waiting on the network, not the chip.
>>"...It's due to the failing of our society to educate people enough to actually understand the tools they work with..."
That post is a blatant example of unwarranted Linux elitism at work. Why aren't most people using Linux? Because they are clever enough. Therefore, it must be true that people who use Linux are rather more clever than eveeryone else.
Sure.
The reason people don't use Linux is because they don't want to use Linux and they don't neeed to use Linux. You don't need to be more clever or smarter than average to use Linux. You just need to want to use it. People who aren't willing to go to the trouble of learning how to program to do something they already do on another platform are simply making a rational choice about how to spend their time and energy. Why learn Perl, for example, to accomplish a task when you already accomplish that task just fine on Windows or on OS X?
It is egotism that feeds that kind of post.
You're remark is a perfect example of why Linux remains a cult: Linux is for True Believers who'd rather deprive themsevles of access to good tools rather than soil their hard drives with "evil" code.
Understand that the vast majority of users will not move to a new OS if the programs they use are not available for the platform. Not equivalent programs, not clones, but the identical program.
Frankly, surveys like this simply confirm the obvious. Gimp has been around, for free, for several years. If Gimp was compelling enough for Photoshop users to switch to Linux to use it, they would have done so. The fact that they haven't -- that they'd rather pay hundreds of dollars for Photoshop and the other Adobe tools than pay nothing for Gimp and Linux -- ought to tell you something.
Rather than adopting an unwarranted elitist attitude about non-Linux users, you'd be better off listening to people explain why they won't use it.
The book is about XHTML and CSS, but since you apparently don't read many books, you wouldn't know that.
I thought the book was one of the most successful teaching tools I've read in years. There's a world of difference between Googling for bits of reference material, and reading a 400-page narrative built by people who know how to teach.
Reading reference material is not learning.
You're distorting things to make a bogus point. This is not the "way" government has worked.
Hansen was speaking "on his own time" and his own dime". If a federal employee speaks in public or to the media as an individual, not as a representative of his employer, then that employee's remarks should not be subject to prior review and approval. (Simply identifying yourrself as an employee of an agency is not equivalent to announcing that you are speaking for the agency. A clear statement that you are speaking as an individual is sufficient.) If the employee happens to say something about his employer's mission or policies, then the employer is within his rights to remind the employee about the role of the public affairs office. (There are some exceptions to this. E.g., security and intelligence agencies have stricter policies.)
Civil servants are expressly forbidden from engaging in political activity on the job, so if the official cited by the NYT as telling Hansen his job is to make the President look good is a civil servant, he needs to be fired.
It should not be a condition of federal employment that scientists must refrain from scientific debate and public education. If Bush, or you, or his other supporters believe otherwise, then they are spreading the kind of FUD that says we're obligated to support a temporary authority figure at the cost of our democratic rights.
One, it is difficult to imagine a punishment that is not appropriate for a 'scumbag pedophile".
Two, whether or not the act of burning existing child porn onto CD's and DVD's creates illegal "new" porn or amounts to the distribution of illegal porn, seems a pointless issue.
Three, this isn't a copyright issue, unless the Russian originators of this stuff want to sue this guy for violating their copyright.
Once upon a time, I was a public affairs officer in the employ of the Feds. Clearly, this is a case of selective treatment of one individual because he takes public stances opposed to the Bush administration. Read all of the NYT article and you'll learn that other NASA scientists whose public remarks typically support Bush are not subject to the same restrictions as Hansen.
It is par for the course to vet, review and approve a federal employees public remarks when they are speaking for their employer. This is not what is happening here. Hansen speech is being restricted because he says things Bush does not like.
The Post, for those who haven't bothered to read what it had to say about this, only closed comments. It did not shut down the blog.
The reason it did this was the excessive amount of time it was taking Post staff to police the comments and remove the one that weren't playing by the house rules.
Commenters here at Slashdot may get pretty excited sometimes, but I've seen nothing here to compare with the vitriolic character attacks, slander, and profanity that's common on a lot of political blogs.
This isn't the first time comments have closed on a blog because the commenters were offensive. It won't be the last. The Post cwas well within its rights, and the commenters need to remember that they have no right to post comments on any blogs. That's a privilege extended by the people running the blog.
>> Does this mark the end of the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit?"
We can hope so.
Letting everyone contribute means your standards sink to the lowest common demoninator, which is lieing, cheating, self-promotion, and the demonstration of ignorance.
Rather like Slashdot.
Not that criticism includes an obligation to produce a better idea, but I've already said what Wikipedia should do: Hire professional editors, researches and factcheckers and review all submitred copy before publication. Hence, it would follow that all edits made to posted copy by online readers would also be held for review before posting.
I lack trust in Wikipedia's concept just as much as I do the way that concept is implemented. I don't believe an amormphous mass of unknown and unrelated readers of an online publication can be counted on to produce an accurate encyclopedia.
More importantly, I don't believe web publications ought to be able to escape legal responsibility for their content. Wikipedia is only a publication; the fact that it appears on the web and not on paper is irrelevant.
>> I trust Wikipedia to give me accurate enough information for when I am looking up something that isn't important to me.
...most papers have more lies and inaccuracies than Wikipedia.
That's telling. You admit Wikipedia is inaccurate and that you only use it when the issue is not important. So, why do you use it at all?
But, that's your choice. However, my point is simple: Whatever they publish, the people who publish Wikipedia ought to be held legally responsible for their content.
>>
An opinion, rather difficult to evaluate. A newspaper is not an encyclopedia. The news, by definition, is unfinished. A news story is not "the truth", it is quite literally a story about an event written at one particular moment. It's a snapshot. Regardless, if the paper engages in libel and slander, they can be held responsible, as they should be. So should web publications like Wikipedia; they cannot escape responsibility simply because they use a different medium to publish and because they allow anonymous postings and shun propfessional editing and review processes.
Finally, there is a tendency to see Wikepedia as some kind of revolutionary new community, which compels people, like you I suspect, to use it in spite of its obvious failings. I see it as a publication. I don't believe communities exist on the web. The use of that word is simply marketing hype used to con money out of investors and cusotmers like you. (E.g., you and I are Slashdot customers.)
OK, I'll do an edit: Freedom doesn't mean doing something illegal andavoiding the consequences.
Now, to answer your other question: Yes, if someone libels or slanders you, you damn well should sue. Nothing wrong with that. Defend yourself. That's why the law is there.
My statement is not inaccurate or libelous because Slashdot's tems and services clearly contains a statement to that effect, i.e., it states the poster assumes all responsibility for their content. I simply believe such statements ought not to be enforceable.
In other words, what I said is true,
>> So, basically, you're going to whine and cry to mommy if someone writes something incorrect about you?
No. Most likely, being a Slashdot type, you don't have any financial assets worth protecting, or a personal or professioal reputation worth protecting. But a whole lot of other people do. That's why laws allowing people to bring suit against those who have libeld or slandered them exist.
Suiing people for libel and slander is not censorship. Libel and slander are illegal. You have no freedom to behave illegally.