I disagree. Just because it's not socially acceptable or ethical by your standards doesn't make it not art. Art is subjective, and defined by the enjoyment of its creator, and its appreciators.
As long as the creator derives enjoyment from his creation, it is indeed, art for him. (and yes, that would make baking cakes art...) And as long as there are people out there who appreciate the effects of his art, (here I'm referring to many non-Windows users who recently got a great deal of entertainment) or the code that drives its behavior (in this case the actual code), it *is* art.
Incidentally: murder has been considered art before. So has crime. Many people refer to committing certain crimes well as an artform.
I mean, if we go by your definition, then IMHO, modern art is not only NOT ART, but I should probably sue those artists for producing such drivel, and causing me mental trauma!
Notice, however, that I do not. Just because I don't enjoy it, and just because I kill off 5 brain cells every time I look at one of those exhibits, doesn't mean it's not art!
Metallica probably _did_ piss off a lot of their fans who were perfectly within their rights. Here's how: I'm on a slow 233 MMX, and encoding a CD at 192 or 256 kbps takes me a few hours. I don't enjoy thinking about encoding my favorite Sarah McLachlan CDs, all 5 of them, into MP3.
I/am/, however, perfectly within my legal rights to go online, and download pre-encoded versions of those same songs, from Napster. Since I own the album
What does this have to do with anything? Metallica fans who just didn't want to encode their own CDs downloaded albums like (shudder) Reload. Napster downloads the file, adds it to list of currently shared files. User suddenly becomes a 'criminal' for doing something perfectly within his rights!
The bablefish takes a peice of text and changes the language that it is written in. The content, and more importantly, the context of the message is unchanged.
Excuse me? Babelfish maintaining content and context? Do you know that when I very solemnly inputted the phrase "boot to the head" in English, and then translated it back and forth a few times through the Bablefish, that I received what amounted to an astrological reading about how I would die from falling nuclear missles?
Maintains context and content my ass! Babelfish can (and often does) do more to corrupt and change context and content then a poor little dialectizer ever could!
Seriously though, I guess we can't expect the masses of ignorant users to give up their beloved paperclips and fancy email attachments. They want everything and Micro$oft tries to give it to them without regard to the security risks.
I have a feeling that many of them ignorant users would have no trouble giving up their beloved hyperactive, seriously-in-need-of-Ritalin paperclip, if IT managers would just tell them that there happens to be an OS out there that doesn't crash, and take the presentation they've been working on for the past 5 hours with it, every week or so...
Hmm? Racism is just as acceptable as anything else! Racism, satanism, liberalism, nudity... who gets to distinguish between what is good, what is bad?
The things that you think good are not the things I think are good. Remember: there is no such thing as universal truth, and universal morality!
(Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that I don't believe racism to be negative -- especially since I'm not Caucasian...)
My view of a perfect world (note my) is one in which 95% of the citizens are generally unbigoted, open-minded, and generally 'righteous' (pick your definition). It would also have 5% of the population, make up of KKK members, espousers of violence against children and cruelty to animals, and all sorts of other undesirables.
And they would scream, and yell, and convince as hard as they could... and noone would bat an eye. And they'd demonstrate until they were hoarse and dehydrated, daily, and go on screaming, and noone would respond. And the 95% of the citizens would be glad, that their right to free speech, no matter how distasteful, was continuously being proven by others...
Q: What about porn? My children will be scarred if they see a breast. A: So keep them away from porn sites. Only YOU know what your policy is, so only YOU can enforce it. In any case, it's not my job to raise your children.
Exactly! What's up with these parents? They want the government to protect their kids from the Bad Things(tm), because they're too lazy to get off their ass, and raise their kids themselves!
A lot of the dangerous things in life are tempered by guidance when you're young. I mean, what does the NRA keep having their members say?
"I learned to use a gun responsibly as a child. My father took me hunting, and showed me..."
Notice that the NRA doesn't say "guns are great! Free guns for everyone! Including little kids that have been watching too much Power Rangers!" (because their parents were lazy dips who probably didn't deserve to have kids in the first place!
Just because you don't like the pr0n or the martial arts flicks that I like to watch, doesn't mean that you have the right to bitch to the government about why I shouldn't get to watch them. And just like you can, and should censor for yourself the things you don't like, you MUST do the same for your kids!
Who's really responsible for this plan? Surely the government alone couldn't have come up with such an idiotic scheme. Anybody can be a little stupid--it takes millions, working in concert, to bring about such monumental boneheadedness.
Heh, the United States government is a group made up of millions of idiots...
Hmm, you don't seem to be compliant with the latest HML (human markup language) tags. Didn't you know that and are the most important additions to this recent release?
We've gone over why posting on Slashdot just isn't as effective in this instance:
you/Jon Katz/whoever would just be preaching to the converted. Yes, Slashdot is a very popular electronic magazine. No, the people who really need to see these stories probably don't visit us here!
IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!
You also weaken your own point, by telling us that the only person who'd emailed you negatively so far is someone who didn't even post on that series of stories! Considering that publishing the book would be a legally sound action, and your (admittedly non-scientific) report above of a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
Anyone who utilizes an API that has been published under these conditions is in danger of having to defend themselves against an accusation of breach of contract, and having to prove that they did not see the poisoned API document.
Um, I was under the impression that, at least in the US, that we are innocent until proven guilty? So wouldn't Microsoft have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we did indeed see the specs?
The samples avoid relying on Perl-specific idioms in most cases. Personally, I find this approach refreshing...
I find myself wanting to use a more traditional substring/comparison operation in that context instead, because I know that code will port to any other language easily, and any competent programmer will understand what I'm doing regardless of their familiarity with Perl.
[Holzner's Perl Black Book] doesn't try to embrace "The Perl Way"...
I see. So it's a book for programmers from other languages who don't really want to learn Perl. That's too bad. Can you imagine a ANSI C++ book that decided that because the STL was rather idiomatic and specific to C++, that they simply weren't going to cover it?
And what's this about having 'any competent programmer will understand... regardless of their familiarity with Perl'?? Excuse me: when I write in English, I really don't try to use the Latin subset of English that happens to be the interesection of all Latinate languages, just so that a French speaker can understand my English. So why, when I decide to write Perl, should I write for a Smalltalk or Eiffel programmer?
By writing Perl with syntax and conventions from other language (so that you can port), you defeat the entire purpose of using Perl as your language.
I mean, why WOULD you use Perl, if you were just going to write stuff that looks like a bad approximation of C++ or Java code, and then just port it later? Sounds like the worst of both Perl and your other language, in that case!
NetPD is not too smart either. When the CTO was interviewed, he wouldn't even give a simple idea on how it worked other than the metaphor that it is like 5,000 humans in a room searching for the info. Which means his little plan will fail. I think most people know that if your algorithm is so secret that you can't tell anyone, then you are doomed.
No dear, it's not just because their software is crappy closed-source (although the comparison to secret encryption algorithms DOES come to mind), but because he simply has no good explanation for his methods!
It's like if you asked Mattel how CyberPatrol can search 100% of the 'net, and then block all bad sites, and have them all checked by a human. They, for example, would have a hard time convincing people that they had 500 OC-48s, a few Beowulf clusters, and the entire population of China working as employees, with each person checking a site per millisecond.
Yep, and you just know that their methods are likely bogus, or at least severely flawed. Which is probably why they won't reveal them.
The "works like 5,000 humans sitting in a room doing Web searches' to identify user names" crap sounds strangly reminiscent of the pathetic "we have humans checking every single website we block" crap that products like CyberGestapo^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPatrol spew forth for advertisements.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm rather suspicious of their oh-so-intelligent Artificial Stupidity algorithms.
Hmm, this reminds me of an anecdote about the usage of English a while back:
an upper-class English woman was questioned as to her usage of a particular word, and about how her usage was inconsistent with what the dictionary said. Her response?
"I'm an Englishwoman, and the way I use English, defines the word!"
(Hmmm, rather like Alice in Wonderland, eh?) Nonetheless, I think she has a good point. Language is governed by usage, and in this case, they ought to respect the way their target community refers to various actions unique to that community.
If technically-oriented communities like Slashdot suddenly decide that the word for "unauthorized entry and use of a computer system" should be foobargle, then the media HAD BETTER start printing headlines like "Foobargle Detected at IRS Headquarters."
The media knows to stay the hell away from the word 'nigger' because the African-Americans among us find it offensive and demeaning, so why can't they stay away from the word 'hacker' in relation to the l337 d00dz and script kiddies? I know a lot of us find it offensive and demeaning!
This is about Jon Katz, not 'The Corporate Republic', so skip if that's what you're expecting. This also probably won't be exactly brief...
Jon Katz: some people hate him, some people love him. Some people have him blocked off their list of authors, others visibly brighten upon seeing a new Katz article on Slashdot. Why?
I'm honestly ambivalent about Mr. Katz's articles, and often have trouble seeing what all of the uproar in response is about. Nonetheless, I'm not completely unbiased, and I'll start by admitting that I tend to find myself agreeing with him more often than disagreeing, so this is written from that point of view.
I thought I'd try to work out the reasons for all the strong opinions:
Slashdot, while advertised as News for Nerds, is really much more than that. It certainly has the this is a really cool new breakthrough and the new version of Apache news items, but it also carries various news items that are more socially-oriented and connected, ranging from the article yesterday about toxic waste in Silicon Valley, to the (in)famous serious of articles a while back about the Littleton shootings.
One of the unspoken assumptions that some make at Slashdot is about the homogenity of opinion about the issues that are posted/discussed here. IMHO, while it's true that opinions on many technical issues are relatively homogeneous despite the the all-over nature of Slashdot's audience (geographically, socio-economically, politically, culturally, etc.), that opinions on social issues are not homogeneous.
Though questions like Windows vs. Linux, Free/Open Software vs. Closed Source, etc, etc. are all assumed (for the most part, correctly), to have a general consensus, it seems to me that assuming that opinions on social issues will also come to a general consensus is unrealistic.
Most of Jon's articles tend to deal with the social side of computing and technology. He deals with corporatism, invasions of privacy, etc. These are all things that tend to be volatile issues, on which we should expect a difference of opinion. This is okay. I disagree with Jon a hefty amount of the time also. But I don't see any reason to get nasty about it, just as I don't usually see any reason to worship the guy as the next Jesus (or substitute your appropriate diety or natural force)
When it comes to social issues, disagreement is a Good Thing(tm). If we all kept on nodding our collective heads in unison, Slashdot would be a very boring (IMO) place. While having a unified opinion on technical issues can lead to more productive discussion, a unified view on such more flexible things like social issues only tends to lead to stagnation.
I personally believe that Jon's articles are written in a thought-provoking manner, designed to promote discussion, both in favor of the points in the article, and against. However, I don't agree with the cynical view taken by one of the earlier posters on this thread about Jon's articles essentially being nothing more than trolls, ZDnet fashion, used to generate revenue via ad banners.
Jon has done a great job in stimulating discussion on Slashdot, and although he may have been a little too successful (witness the flame wars that exist in the discussion forum of every Katz article) in stimulating strong opinions and even stronger *ahem*discussions, I must applaud Jon for his overall contributions.
doh... that preview button's waaay too close to the submit!;p anyhow... I'm even more glad to know that newspapers never commit errors in their reporting, never (accidentally) leave out important facts, and never warp the story to their own points of view.
Please, if this is all true, email me. I'd love to move to Australia right now!
To all those people holding flamethrowers, remember that this is not providing police crime records. If anyone commits a crime serious enough to get themselves into a newspaper, then maybe the stigma should stick to them.
I'm glad to find out that the Australian newspapers present all stories in an unbiased manner, despite the fact that they have possible relations with the police, businesses, and other entities that hold great interest in what they publish. I'm even more glad to know that newspapers never commit errors in their reporting, never (accidentally) leave out important facts, and never
Incidentally, and please forgive the fact that this is somewhat OT, but my local library is now renting out educational and informational CD-ROM titles. These include things like phone directories, anatomy edutainment proggies, and map software. Did they have to get a special license for something like that, or are they just allowed to flat out do so?
It seems to me that they must have gotten some special license from those companies, seeing as how if I just decided to let all my friends 'borrow' my copy of Codewarrior for Linux, without any ability to prevent them from making copies, that the software publishers would be up in arms!
How does renting out electronic media work? Is it under a system similar to that used for media such as audio/video tapes, and audio CDs?
The thing that kills any other language, including nice regular ones like Esperanto and Lojban, is simply the network effect. Learn Esperanto and you can speak to a few (tens of?) thousand like-minded enthusiasts around the world. Learn English and you can get by just about anywhere
So in other words, you're talking about the chicken before the egg problem that things like new Operating Systems run into? If I'm correct, what you're saying is that because there are no users, noone's willing to learn something like Esperanto, and that because noone's willing to learn Esperanto, there are no users?
I tend to agree with this. I must also add that while the technical process of parsing is simplified by artificial languages like Lojban, Esperanto, or Klingon;-) , they lose by their very accuracy and lack of ambiguity the richness, slight nuances, and shades of meaning that most naturally evolved languages possess.
All stereotypes aside about how the Japanese communicate mostly via implied meaning and nuances, and how Americans tend to beat each other over the head with blunt statements, it seems to me that in reality, most communication, in a personal, business, or casual setting relies on implied statements, shades of meaning, and so forth, in all natural languages
These artificial languages are similar in spirit to bondage-and-discipline computer languages (no, I'm not naming any... just by saying that I'm already going to be flamed to a crisp). They are certainly usable, but though the technical creation of statements in both an expressive and imperative mood may be easy, getting across the exact idea that you want might be needlessly hard.
Always wondered about that law. How do you prove in this case that Mitnick is profiting from his crime, and not his general computer expertise?
It's clear cut if a murderer writes a book about his reasons, the actual murder, his feelings, etc. surrounding the event, and then publishes it, but how do you prove that Mitnick isn't making money just because people want to hear his opinions?
While a relationship between his fame/infamy and his conviction certainly might exist, it's not provable.
Noone is praising Mitnick for what he did, and noone's making you go to his speaking engagements. People are paying him money voluntarily, because they want to hear what he has to say.
From what I understand, the probation prohibits his going anywhere near anywhere where he might have Internet access. However, from what I also understand, at our current level of technology, a podium, a microphone, and perhaps a whiteboard / overhead projector does not yet allow internet access.
Which means that the Feds are stomping on his First Amendment rights...
Think of this as a "humor" story, if you'd like. It's certainly less serious than stories like "BeOS to drop Be?" that we had earlier today. Nonetheless, that doesn't make this story "stupid," or "useless," and I've personally learned a great deal just from reading the comments here moderated to 3 or higher.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. Just because it's not socially acceptable or ethical by your standards doesn't make it not art. Art is subjective, and defined by the enjoyment of its creator, and its appreciators.
...) And as long as there are people out there who appreciate the effects of his art, (here I'm referring to many non-Windows users who recently got a great deal of entertainment) or the code that drives its behavior (in this case the actual code), it *is* art.
As long as the creator derives enjoyment from his creation, it is indeed, art for him. (and yes, that would make baking cakes art
Incidentally: murder has been considered art before. So has crime. Many people refer to committing certain crimes well as an artform.
I mean, if we go by your definition, then IMHO, modern art is not only NOT ART, but I should probably sue those artists for producing such drivel, and causing me mental trauma!
Notice, however, that I do not. Just because I don't enjoy it, and just because I kill off 5 brain cells every time I look at one of those exhibits, doesn't mean it's not art!
Metallica probably _did_ piss off a lot of their fans who were perfectly within their rights. Here's how: I'm on a slow 233 MMX, and encoding a CD at 192 or 256 kbps takes me a few hours. I don't enjoy thinking about encoding my favorite Sarah McLachlan CDs, all 5 of them, into MP3.
/am/, however, perfectly within my legal rights to go online, and download pre-encoded versions of those same songs, from Napster. Since I own the album
I
What does this have to do with anything? Metallica fans who just didn't want to encode their own CDs downloaded albums like (shudder) Reload. Napster downloads the file, adds it to list of currently shared files. User suddenly becomes a 'criminal' for doing something perfectly within his rights!
The bablefish takes a peice of text and changes the language that it is written in. The content, and more importantly, the context of the message is unchanged.
Excuse me? Babelfish maintaining content and context? Do you know that when I very solemnly inputted the phrase "boot to the head" in English, and then translated it back and forth a few times through the Bablefish, that I received what amounted to an astrological reading about how I would die from falling nuclear missles?
Maintains context and content my ass! Babelfish can (and often does) do more to corrupt and change context and content then a poor little dialectizer ever could!
Seriously though, I guess we can't expect the masses of ignorant users to give up their beloved paperclips and fancy email attachments. They want everything and Micro$oft tries to give it to them without regard to the security risks.
I have a feeling that many of them ignorant users would have no trouble giving up their beloved hyperactive, seriously-in-need-of-Ritalin paperclip, if IT managers would just tell them that there happens to be an OS out there that doesn't crash, and take the presentation they've been working on for the past 5 hours with it, every week or so...
Hmm? Racism is just as acceptable as anything else! Racism, satanism, liberalism, nudity ... who gets to distinguish between what is good, what is bad?
...)
... and noone would bat an eye. And they'd demonstrate until they were hoarse and dehydrated, daily, and go on screaming, and noone would respond. And the 95% of the citizens would be glad, that their right to free speech, no matter how distasteful, was continuously being proven by others ...
The things that you think good are not the things I think are good. Remember: there is no such thing as universal truth, and universal morality!
(Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that I don't believe racism to be negative -- especially since I'm not Caucasian
My view of a perfect world (note my) is one in which 95% of the citizens are generally unbigoted, open-minded, and generally 'righteous' (pick your definition). It would also have 5% of the population, make up of KKK members, espousers of violence against children and cruelty to animals, and all sorts of other undesirables.
And they would scream, and yell, and convince as hard as they could
Q: What about porn? My children will be scarred if they see a breast.
..."
A: So keep them away from porn sites. Only YOU know what your policy is, so only YOU can enforce it. In any case, it's not my job to raise your children.
Exactly! What's up with these parents? They want the government to protect their kids from the Bad Things(tm), because they're too lazy to get off their ass, and raise their kids themselves!
A lot of the dangerous things in life are tempered by guidance when you're young. I mean, what does the NRA keep having their members say?
"I learned to use a gun responsibly as a child. My father took me hunting, and showed me
Notice that the NRA doesn't say "guns are great! Free guns for everyone! Including little kids that have been watching too much Power Rangers!" (because their parents were lazy dips who probably didn't deserve to have kids in the first place!
Just because you don't like the pr0n or the martial arts flicks that I like to watch, doesn't mean that you have the right to bitch to the government about why I shouldn't get to watch them. And just like you can, and should censor for yourself the things you don't like, you MUST do the same for your kids!
Down with censorship!
Who's really responsible for this plan? Surely the government alone couldn't have come up with such an idiotic scheme. Anybody can be a little stupid--it takes millions, working in concert, to bring about such monumental boneheadedness.
Heh, the United States government is a group made up of millions of idiots...
Hmm, you don't seem to be compliant with the latest HML (human markup language) tags. Didn't you know that and are the most important additions to this recent release?
Thank you for putting so eloquently what I (and I think many others) have always wanted to say. :-)
We've gone over why posting on Slashdot just isn't as effective in this instance:
you/Jon Katz/whoever would just be preaching to the converted. Yes, Slashdot is a very popular electronic magazine. No, the people who really need to see these stories probably don't visit us here!
IMHO, Andover / Slashdot would do more good than bad overall by going ahead and publishing the book. Sure, a few people might not be credited with their brilliant musings, but the people who really NEED to read this book, will be more likely to read it if it's on paper!
You also weaken your own point, by telling us that the only person who'd emailed you negatively so far is someone who didn't even post on that series of stories! Considering that publishing the book would be a legally sound action, and your (admittedly non-scientific) report above of a 100:1 positive to negative reaction ratio, it would seem that Slashdot readers are giving you a thumbs up on whether publishing the book would be ethical.
So why not publish?
Anyone who utilizes an API that has been published under these conditions is in danger of having to defend themselves against an accusation of breach of contract, and having to prove that they did not see the poisoned API document.
Um, I was under the impression that, at least in the US, that we are innocent until proven guilty? So wouldn't Microsoft have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we did indeed see the specs?
The samples avoid relying on Perl-specific idioms in most cases. Personally, I find this approach refreshing ...
...
... regardless of their familiarity with Perl'?? Excuse me: when I write in English, I really don't try to use the Latin subset of English that happens to be the interesection of all Latinate languages, just so that a French speaker can understand my English. So why, when I decide to write Perl, should I write for a Smalltalk or Eiffel programmer?
I find myself wanting to use a more traditional substring/comparison operation in that context instead, because I know that code will port to any other language easily, and any competent programmer will understand what I'm doing regardless of their familiarity with Perl.
[Holzner's Perl Black Book] doesn't try to embrace "The Perl Way"
I see. So it's a book for programmers from other languages who don't really want to learn Perl. That's too bad. Can you imagine a ANSI C++ book that decided that because the STL was rather idiomatic and specific to C++, that they simply weren't going to cover it?
And what's this about having 'any competent programmer will understand
By writing Perl with syntax and conventions from other language (so that you can port), you defeat the entire purpose of using Perl as your language.
I mean, why WOULD you use Perl, if you were just going to write stuff that looks like a bad approximation of C++ or Java code, and then just port it later? Sounds like the worst of both Perl and your other language, in that case!
Hehe, on the other hand, it /might/ be useful for some of the Peacefire dudes working on tunneling through those damn filtering proxies.
NetPD is not too smart either. When the CTO was interviewed, he wouldn't even give a simple idea on how it worked other than the metaphor that it is like 5,000 humans in a room searching for the info. Which means his little plan will fail. I think most people know that if your algorithm is so secret that you can't tell anyone, then you are doomed.
No dear, it's not just because their software is crappy closed-source (although the comparison to secret encryption algorithms DOES come to mind), but because he simply has no good explanation for his methods!
It's like if you asked Mattel how CyberPatrol can search 100% of the 'net, and then block all bad sites, and have them all checked by a human. They, for example, would have a hard time convincing people that they had 500 OC-48s, a few Beowulf clusters, and the entire population of China working as employees, with each person checking a site per millisecond.
Yep, and you just know that their methods are likely bogus, or at least severely flawed. Which is probably why they won't reveal them.
The "works like 5,000 humans sitting in a room doing Web searches' to identify user names" crap sounds strangly reminiscent of the pathetic "we have humans checking every single website we block" crap that products like CyberGestapo^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPatrol spew forth for advertisements.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm rather suspicious of their oh-so-intelligent Artificial Stupidity algorithms.
Hmm, this reminds me of an anecdote about the usage of English a while back:
an upper-class English woman was questioned as to her usage of a particular word, and about how her usage was inconsistent with what the dictionary said. Her response?
"I'm an Englishwoman, and the way I use English, defines the word!"
(Hmmm, rather like Alice in Wonderland, eh?) Nonetheless, I think she has a good point. Language is governed by usage, and in this case, they ought to respect the way their target community refers to various actions unique to that community.
If technically-oriented communities like Slashdot suddenly decide that the word for "unauthorized entry and use of a computer system" should be foobargle, then the media HAD BETTER start printing headlines like "Foobargle Detected at IRS Headquarters."
The media knows to stay the hell away from the word 'nigger' because the African-Americans among us find it offensive and demeaning, so why can't they stay away from the word 'hacker' in relation to the l337 d00dz and script kiddies? I know a lot of us find it offensive and demeaning!
This is about Jon Katz, not 'The Corporate Republic', so skip if that's what you're expecting. This also probably won't be exactly brief ...
Jon Katz: some people hate him, some people love him. Some people have him blocked off their list of authors, others visibly brighten upon seeing a new Katz article on Slashdot. Why?
I'm honestly ambivalent about Mr. Katz's articles, and often have trouble seeing what all of the uproar in response is about. Nonetheless, I'm not completely unbiased, and I'll start by admitting that I tend to find myself agreeing with him more often than disagreeing, so this is written from that point of view.
I thought I'd try to work out the reasons for all the strong opinions:
Slashdot, while advertised as News for Nerds, is really much more than that. It certainly has the this is a really cool new breakthrough and the new version of Apache news items, but it also carries various news items that are more socially-oriented and connected, ranging from the article yesterday about toxic waste in Silicon Valley, to the (in)famous serious of articles a while back about the Littleton shootings.
One of the unspoken assumptions that some make at Slashdot is about the homogenity of opinion about the issues that are posted/discussed here. IMHO, while it's true that opinions on many technical issues are relatively homogeneous despite the the all-over nature of Slashdot's audience (geographically, socio-economically, politically, culturally, etc.), that opinions on social issues are not homogeneous.
Though questions like Windows vs. Linux, Free/Open Software vs. Closed Source, etc, etc. are all assumed (for the most part, correctly), to have a general consensus, it seems to me that assuming that opinions on social issues will also come to a general consensus is unrealistic.
Most of Jon's articles tend to deal with the social side of computing and technology. He deals with corporatism, invasions of privacy, etc. These are all things that tend to be volatile issues, on which we should expect a difference of opinion. This is okay. I disagree with Jon a hefty amount of the time also. But I don't see any reason to get nasty about it, just as I don't usually see any reason to worship the guy as the next Jesus (or substitute your appropriate diety or natural force)
When it comes to social issues, disagreement is a Good Thing(tm). If we all kept on nodding our collective heads in unison, Slashdot would be a very boring (IMO) place. While having a unified opinion on technical issues can lead to more productive discussion, a unified view on such more flexible things like social issues only tends to lead to stagnation.
I personally believe that Jon's articles are written in a thought-provoking manner, designed to promote discussion, both in favor of the points in the article, and against. However, I don't agree with the cynical view taken by one of the earlier posters on this thread about Jon's articles essentially being nothing more than trolls, ZDnet fashion, used to generate revenue via ad banners.
Jon has done a great job in stimulating discussion on Slashdot, and although he may have been a little too successful (witness the flame wars that exist in the discussion forum of every Katz article) in stimulating strong opinions and even stronger *ahem*discussions, I must applaud Jon for his overall contributions.
doh ... that preview button's waaay too close to the submit! ;p anyhow... I'm even more glad to know that newspapers never commit errors in their reporting, never (accidentally) leave out important facts, and never warp the story to their own points of view.
Please, if this is all true, email me. I'd love to move to Australia right now!
To all those people holding flamethrowers, remember that this is not providing police crime records. If anyone commits a crime serious enough to get themselves into a newspaper, then maybe the stigma should stick to them.
I'm glad to find out that the Australian newspapers present all stories in an unbiased manner, despite the fact that they have possible relations with the police, businesses, and other entities that hold great interest in what they publish. I'm even more glad to know that newspapers never commit errors in their reporting, never (accidentally) leave out important facts, and never
Incidentally, and please forgive the fact that this is somewhat OT, but my local library is now renting out educational and informational CD-ROM titles. These include things like phone directories, anatomy edutainment proggies, and map software. Did they have to get a special license for something like that, or are they just allowed to flat out do so?
It seems to me that they must have gotten some special license from those companies, seeing as how if I just decided to let all my friends 'borrow' my copy of Codewarrior for Linux, without any ability to prevent them from making copies, that the software publishers would be up in arms!
How does renting out electronic media work? Is it under a system similar to that used for media such as audio/video tapes, and audio CDs?
The thing that kills any other language, including nice regular ones like Esperanto and Lojban, is simply the network effect. Learn Esperanto and you can speak to a few (tens of?) thousand like-minded enthusiasts around the world. Learn English and you can get by just about anywhere
So in other words, you're talking about the chicken before the egg problem that things like new Operating Systems run into? If I'm correct, what you're saying is that because there are no users, noone's willing to learn something like Esperanto, and that because noone's willing to learn Esperanto, there are no users?
I tend to agree with this. I must also add that while the technical process of parsing is simplified by artificial languages like Lojban, Esperanto, or Klingon ;-) , they lose by their very accuracy and lack of ambiguity the richness, slight nuances, and shades of meaning that most naturally evolved languages possess.
... just by saying that I'm already going to be flamed to a crisp). They are certainly usable, but though the technical creation of statements in both an expressive and imperative mood may be easy, getting across the exact idea that you want might be needlessly hard.
All stereotypes aside about how the Japanese communicate mostly via implied meaning and nuances, and how Americans tend to beat each other over the head with blunt statements, it seems to me that in reality, most communication, in a personal, business, or casual setting relies on implied statements, shades of meaning, and so forth, in all natural languages
These artificial languages are similar in spirit to bondage-and-discipline computer languages (no, I'm not naming any
Always wondered about that law. How do you prove in this case that Mitnick is profiting from his crime, and not his general computer expertise?
It's clear cut if a murderer writes a book about his reasons, the actual murder, his feelings, etc. surrounding the event, and then publishes it, but how do you prove that Mitnick isn't making money just because people want to hear his opinions?
While a relationship between his fame/infamy and his conviction certainly might exist, it's not provable.
Noone is praising Mitnick for what he did, and noone's making you go to his speaking engagements. People are paying him money voluntarily, because they want to hear what he has to say.
From what I understand, the probation prohibits his going anywhere near anywhere where he might have Internet access. However, from what I also understand, at our current level of technology, a podium, a microphone, and perhaps a whiteboard / overhead projector does not yet allow internet access.
Which means that the Feds are stomping on his First Amendment rights...
Think of this as a "humor" story, if you'd like. It's certainly less serious than stories like "BeOS to drop Be?" that we had earlier today. Nonetheless, that doesn't make this story "stupid," or "useless," and I've personally learned a great deal just from reading the comments here moderated to 3 or higher.