IMHO, the site could do with a decent "This Is How It All Works" page. Trying to figure-out exactly HOW to contribute an entry is insanely complicated, and we really don't want to be hitting the Don'tPanic button every five seconds.
The site's performance is still weedy today, and it's only 5 hops away from me, so I think my emailled moan still stands - even if you didn't reply to it.
I have two points to make on Eric's second speech to the nation - points which I felt after reading his first and which are of more concern to me having read the second. I'm sorry if Eric chooses to see me and others as 'Slashdot kiddies' - I never thought that patronising people you don't like helped anyone.
One. Eric rightly states that the job of leader is not his to give away. But even if it were his, it would not be something for him to give away any more than a President gets to choose his successor. Leadership is gifted by the masses, not handed down from father to son.
Eric should be the first to realise that the media all too easily confuse 'spokesman' for 'leader', simply because spokespeople often are leaders and the two often blur into one. But what has Eric done to counter this and ensure the he is seen as a voice, an eloquent and inspirational voice, but only one voice? As has been said elsewhere, why does he think that his personal qualifications form the job-requirements for someone else doing similar work? Similar. Not a drop-in subtitute-Eric doing exactly what Eric chooses to.
Two. Any thriving culture or microculture is not afraid of arguments. Eric almost seems to be saying 'Don't argue with me, cos it makes us look silly'. What?! Relegating RMS, Perens and Jackson to the rank of squabbling children only shows (to those looking for proof) the sense of arrogance which Eric has become associated with. We should not be lectured on swallowing our adverse feelings on issues such as APSL in order to avoid upsetting those working to improve the situation. Nor do we want testosterone-burdened flame-throwers to have a field day and make people's lives miserable, but the two should not be confused. Responses to APSL from those well-known were rational expressions of concern, and I for one am happy to see people express themselves freely without feeling a need to seek Eric's ascension first.
The media at large is not used to seeing arguments within a group as a positive thing. Political divisions within a party are pounced upon with glee as a sign of weekness, and you NEVER get to hear of Ballmer/Gates flare-ups. But ARGUMENTS CAN BE A GOOD THING. We make progress through rational and well-reasoned arguments, as otherwise we would rarely find with hindsight that a decision we had made had been the right one.
We have Prime Minister's question-time, not so that we can all have a good laugh at everyone tearing each other apart, but so that we can have confidence in our leaders and hold them to account. The arguments make it plain to see when a gaff has been made, and equally plain to see when an action has been well thought-through.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention" fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention" fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.
Slashdot Mirror
IMHO, the site could do with a decent "This Is How It All Works" page. Trying to figure-out exactly HOW to contribute an entry is insanely complicated, and we really don't want to be hitting the Don'tPanic button every five seconds.
The site's performance is still weedy today, and it's only 5 hops away from me, so I think my emailled moan still stands - even if you didn't reply to it.
One. Eric rightly states that the job of leader is not his to give away. But even if it were his, it would not be something for him to give away any more than a President gets to choose his successor. Leadership is gifted by the masses, not handed down from father to son.
Eric should be the first to realise that the media all too easily confuse 'spokesman' for 'leader', simply because spokespeople often are leaders and the two often blur into one. But what has Eric done to counter this and ensure the he is seen as a voice, an eloquent and inspirational voice, but only one voice? As has been said elsewhere, why does he think that his personal qualifications form the job-requirements for someone else doing similar work? Similar. Not a drop-in subtitute-Eric doing exactly what Eric chooses to.
Two. Any thriving culture or microculture is not afraid of arguments. Eric almost seems to be saying 'Don't argue with me, cos it makes us look silly'. What?! Relegating RMS, Perens and Jackson to the rank of squabbling children only shows (to those looking for proof) the sense of arrogance which Eric has become associated with. We should not be lectured on swallowing our adverse feelings on issues such as APSL in order to avoid upsetting those working to improve the situation. Nor do we want testosterone-burdened flame-throwers to have a field day and make people's lives miserable, but the two should not be confused. Responses to APSL from those well-known were rational expressions of concern, and I for one am happy to see people express themselves freely without feeling a need to seek Eric's ascension first.
The media at large is not used to seeing arguments within a group as a positive thing. Political divisions within a party are pounced upon with glee as a sign of weekness, and you NEVER get to hear of Ballmer/Gates flare-ups. But ARGUMENTS CAN BE A GOOD THING. We make progress through rational and well-reasoned arguments, as otherwise we would rarely find with hindsight that a decision we had made had been the right one.
We have Prime Minister's question-time, not so that we can all have a good laugh at everyone tearing each other apart, but so that we can have confidence in our leaders and hold them to account. The arguments make it plain to see when a gaff has been made, and equally plain to see when an action has been well thought-through.
Just my thoughts.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention" fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.
Sorry for the sarcasm.
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Doesn't that "invention"
fall into the patent denial category of "being obvious to anyone with half a brain"? So, you have lots of cameras all lined up. Blimey. That's incredible. Give the man a medal.
Sorry for the sarcasm.