..met someone with an MCSE who knew what they were doing, nor have I met any CNE or CNA who had a clue either.
Then I have to ask exactly how many CNE/CNA's you've ever met.
Normally I don't respond to these comments either, as they fall under the category "flamebait", but yours, trance9, hit a nerve. Although I no longer train, I have a CNI certification and worked in an NAEC for almost two years. During that time, I trained dozens of people from their beginning as a CNA through to their CNE, and I can tell you that not one who made it through my classes was clueless. And neither am I.
As for the LPI cert, yes, I think it's a great idea. And yes, I plan to get it. I'm a Linux-newbie, working to gain more than a base-level understanding of the OS and trying to teach myself programming. Difficult to do while you're holding down a day job and supporting a family, but I work on it in my spare moments. And I'm sure that someone out there would look at the small Linux deployment in my office and pronounce me "clueless" for some fault or another.
The LPI cert will provide for me a framework to do my studies, a floorplan to build on. In the absence of any formalized training program, and lacking any mentor I can call on at need, it's the best option for me. And yes, once I get enough knowledge and skill under my belt, I plan to approach the training center I formerly worked for, and see if they want to offer classes based on the LPI program.
Like it or not, certifications are a fact of business life. Non-IT people, who typically hold the purse-strings for personnel, look for these metrics. And as Linux gains in acceptance, qualified people are going to be in demand. We all know that "certification qualification", but without test-driving every candidate for an admin job, a cert at least means that the person knew enough to pass the test, which is more than you can say for someone off the street.
Of course a government could get away with it! Particularly if they simply didn't tell the citizenry about it. For years, the US government has conducted undisclosed tests on citizens, engaged in violations of human rights, and committed acts of terrorism, all without telling us about it. It was only years later that we found out about some of them. I could easily see a government mandate the installation of these devices without informing the public. By the time the truth was out (and remember, the first people who tell the public about these "control circuits" will be ridiculed and disbelieved), the government could simply trot out a bunch of statistics showing how much safer things are: that criminals can't escape, that speeders are curbed, etc. It's been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This is very true, but in a time when we can't see everywhere, our ability to be vigilant is compromised, and this opens to the door to abuses.
IF eToys argument is "hey, do what you like, but can you keep the stuff that's age-inappropriate off the public pages", then I don't see the problem. Anyone capable of setting up a web page is more than capable of setting up an.htaccess file, and anyone capable of thought is capable of deciding if something is "age-inappropriate".
Forgive me for sounding like a flamer, but I must point out that your position is naive, at best. Not because you feel that anyone capable of thought can decide the appropriateness of the material in question, but in feeling that we would all agree with each other in said decision. The very heart of censorship arguments base themselves on one side claiming that certain material is "inapproriate" when such decisions are, by definition, subjective in nature. Agreement would be hard to arrive at, resulting in these conflicts. Incidentally, I challenge your assertion that setting up an.htaccess file is so easy that anyone capable of creating a web page can do it. I've taught HTML classes to people; they can create a web page, but aren't really sure what a web server is.
I am a big believer in rewarding a company that accomodates those of us using Linux. So I visited Fox's site, a click that I usually wouldn't have made. When I got there, the splash page loaded normally, but after the Javascript razzle-dazzle, it caused Netscape to open a new window. That was it. Both browser windows reported that they had finished loading, with the splash page sitting there, and the other browser window empty.
I checked the page source, found the URL it was supposed to have sent me to, and entered it by hand. It gave me the page, and opened yet another window for the site's navigation bar. Then the main window puked: Not Found. Apparently the Nav Ticker calls on some command URL: http://www.fox.com/uni_nav/FSComman d:check_time that gives the retrieval error. I'm not up on Javascript. Anybody know what this is supposed to be doing?
For the record, I'm using Netscape 4.61 on a Mandrake 6.1 installation.
One conservation and research group that has been doing interspecies birthing for several years now is the Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife (CREW) at the Cincinnati Zoo. When I was a volunteer at that zoo from 1990 to 1992, part of our training included several talks from CREW researchers who told us of an endangered African cattle species known as a bongo, and embryo of which they had successfully implanted in a more common species of cattle. The birth was successful. In addition, CREW also successfully implanted a common American shorthair cat with the embryo of a rarer species (which I cannot specifically recall) resulting in a live birth.
This is ludicrous! We're being buried in our own garbage already, and now someone wants to add cheap throwaway phones to the trash stream. Bad for the environment and bad for us!
If I was a parent, I could see the benefits of content regulation. I would hope that I would be a parent who would take an interest in what my kid does and who would make sure that I knew what my kid was doing on the Internet. However, I cannot be around my hypothetical kid all the time and if content regulation helps me control when my kid is exposed to elements of society that are of the more unsavory kind, then so be it.
I can understand your POV, but I submit that you are not taking the goal of parenting into account in your opinion. The purpose of parenting to adequately care for and nurture a growing individual, preparing the child for adulthood, when completely autonomous decision-making is required. Contrary to the desires of many government and industrial institutions, which would be better served by drone workers who ask no questions and accept direction from authorities, the desire of a parent who truly understands his/her calling is to produce a child with the abilities of deduction, induction and introspection... qualities that will allow the child-turned-adult to assess situations and make decisions independently. To that end, a parent must engage the child with material that is ever more challenging, both intellectually and ethically. Their bodies grow strong from exertion of the muscles. Their minds and hearts from exertion of reason and ethics.
Rather than look to anyone to provide content regulation for our children (and mine is not hypothetical, but a very real and computer-savvy 6-year-old), we should be involved to the point where our children will ask us for our opinion if they see something puzzling or interesting. And yes, that means exposure to nudity, sex, hate speech, violence and abuse. And that's just the Bible! We also have the Louvre, the Library of Congress, the Tower of London... All great places containing the many facets of what we are. Let's not hide it from our children, but teach them to weigh it and ponder it. They are, after all, adults in the making.
I hate to bring this up, but the term "child pronography" has no legal meaning in certain places. It is perfectly legal in some Scandinavian and Asian countries, for example, to view erotic photography of 14 year old subjects. Certainly kiddie porn here in the US, but not elsewhere. And then there's the issue of pushing our Western "morality" down the throats of people who have developed differing points of view, a clear violation of sovreignity.
No, the major points here revolve around the US appointing a panel made up of non-technical people to try and regulate a teachnical domain, and the (once-again-apparent) arrogance of the US in believing that only in the United States can the rules for global society be made.
After all, in other parts of the world, they believe we in the US are part of a truly sick society, where millions of dollars are spent preventing a 15 year-old boy from seeing a naked female of any age, but we freely allow him to view blood-spattered violence and to virtually wield weapons to obliterate another albeit-virtual person. If the argument holds that we must prevent him from seeing nudity and sex, based on the reason that he will be mentally and morally affected by that sight, then that reasoning must hold up for the violence. If the latter doesn't hold, neither should the former.
I suggested Code Weaver earlier, knowing someone was going to make a reference to old song (which I like, btw). Another term that denotes "industry" and might be more acceptable to the prefession of hacking... and it is a profession, have no doubt of that... would be code smith.
I'm a StoryTeller, but I find in my dealings with the corporate mindset, they respond to Word Smith better. Maybe that could be borrowed for the hackers' needs.
The term "code weaver", while accurate in its depiction of a programmer who creates thread of code and constructs something from it, by stringing the pieces together in a (more or less) orderly fashion, probably won't catch on. The popular media likes to latch onto terms that single words, and strike an imaginative chord. Look at the term "hood", usually meaning a robber or criminal. Then remember Robin Hood, and see whose side you're on.
John, you're missing a point, if not THE point.
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 3
It's my opinion that there's a different reason for the preference setting software you're seeing. Information overload. At present, I have subscriptions to 8 different trade rags covering the IT industry and the TQM industry that this business runs in. No, I have nothing to do with the latter, except the network I administrate is used to get the work done. (Imagine that!) I'm on four email lists, only because I refuse to be on more. I keep tabs on 18 newsgroups ranging from NetWare to MS Office to StarOffice to Linux Mandrake. And all this is just my business-oriented electronic information stream. Add to that my personal interests in Freemasonry, heraldry, LDAP, the C++ self-course I'm taking, Wicca, social justice and the church school committee, and I'm just about tapped out. Oh yeah, I'm married and have a five year old daughter.
So why am I boring you with this? Perhaps it's because I want you to know that I don't limit the information I see because I want to restrict someone's freedom, nor is it because I can't stand trolls. I can't, but I choose to ignore them where I must. But given the choice of removing them from the signal-to-noise ratio, I will, because I have to exert some level of control over the sheer mass of information that dumps on me every day.
Now if my emploment required me to transact business across the wire, you bet I'd take any chance to screen out the losers who clog the works with useless posts designed to demonstrate their "opinion". And as for the vague threat you mentioned... that what's used against you can be used against me... it already is. My posts are scored, and if they fall below someone else's threshold, they won't see me. Can it be done elsewhere, other than/.? Yep, and they do it there too. Frankly, the mainstream media screens out the voices of those whose opinions are either mixed, or centered. They want the extremes, and they present every issue as polarized. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.
BTW, John, as a critique, I have to say I don't like your writing style. You come off as a surly, cynical individual who's sure that the "powers that be" are always one jack-booted step from crushing our heads. While you may not be wrong, consider this: If you are wrong, your style turns off potential readers. If you're right, They are coming to get you first.
So is the vision possible? Of course. It's being demonstrated that it is possible everyday. We've read on/. about the use of Linux as a low-cost OS in older machines using sat-links or cell-phone connections to put a remote village on the net, albeit not cost-effectively due to the battery constraints. A simple photovoltaic array could solve that, and most places could use wind- or water-power to solve that.
Is it probable that this vision will be realized? Well, let's refine the question a wee bit. Is it probable that there will be an Internet link to the remote homes and villages of the world? Yes, I think so. Why? Profit, of course. The drive of the entities that could afford the expense of setting up such a system (read that: corporations) is predicated entirely on profit. If we put keyboards into the hands of more people, then we have a larger potential market. That's always a good thing to entities whose sole reason for existing is to provide profit to their stockholders. So yes, I think that such a linked system will occur.
Now the question becomes: Is it desirable? Maybe. Let's flip the question from hand to hand, like the hot potato it is.
Yes it's desirable. After all, many of the world's poor are kept that way because they lack education and access to the information and networking ability currently enjoyed by the affluent societies. Place the 'Net in their hands, and give them just the education necessary to be able to use a browser and presto! Instant netizens.
Yeah, right. Of course, since English has become the lingua franca of the Internet, those people will have to have more than just a little training to be able to effectively use the browser. On top of that, it takes more than a little education to teach someone to think in wider terms than that of their own clan or village.
But you see, that's what the Net's about. It provides a conduit through which people can begin to mentally encompass the global scale of what society is becoming. With the Net-connected global citizenry, the ability of economic-, military-, and social-oppression to completely crush a people becomes diminished. If the people were able to communicate with others, across the wire, they'd be able to ask for help directly of the people most likely (and able) to give it. The fact that they can't immediately use the resources of the Net (Library of Congress, the Louvre, and other sites), doesn't justify not giving them access.
True, but what will happen to them as a people, once they get a glimpse of the brave new world? We're talking about societies that have evolved over centuries and millenia, with their own customs and taboos. And some of them have more common sense than we do: many of them would scoff at the idea of utilizing a technology without thoroughly examining what its costs and effects would be. Not like us, where the reason, "Because we can!" has justified the acceptance of many damaging technologies, and the failure to forsee the environmental costs of certain technologies have landed us in deep trouble. Do we really want to see the entire diversity of the planet's people consumed by Melrose Place?
Yuck. But the reverse can happen, too. The technological societies can be enriched by the diversity brought to us by currently unconnected cultures. Their wisdom can greatly enhance our own.
Gee, doesn't that sound like, "Your biological and technological diversity will be assimilated into our own"? And we have plenty of evidence of what that approach usually means. Just ask an Aztec, or any Indian, in fact.
Possible, yes. Probable, yes. Desirable? Perhaps. There are many good reasons to extend the Net to the remote corners of our world. But there are many reasons not to, as well. It behooves us to question what we'll gain, what we'll lose.
As long as it doesn't result in people getting bumped down for comments that go in at a high moderation level (due to alignment) that are good, but probably aren't worthy of the high level.
I believe that's the point: higher scoring posters are usually of consistently higher quality (though admittedly, not always). In order for someone's alignment score (AS) to remain high, the quality of their comments must also remain high. In your example, if a poster with an AS of 4 posting a comment of only "normal" quality (AS 1) would probably have that post moderated down, with a corresponding drop in the poster's alignment factor. This could result in a high-quality poster dropping from an AS4 to AS3 as s/he posts more comments of limited value. In order to maintain the higher score, s/he would have to maintain higher quality posts.
Of course this will also result (in those to whom AS is important) in fewer posts, since it is easier to maintain a high score by not being moderated down!
Which brings us to this: At what point does the pursuit of points supercede the importance of posting insightful, relevant comments? And we know it will come to that, for some posters. Fortunately, IMO, the moderation system Rob et al. have put in place should account for that, and the "point-pursuers" will simply have the effect of raising the bar for all posters. All in all, an elegant solution to the SNR problem.
Alright, Rowan. You seem to have understood the basic tenet of facing conflict over issues: do so with grace. You might as well, since to do otherwise merely means you'll be stumbling around. Now, however, you'll get to practice what you preach.
First: Just because you're a hacker and spend time configuring the guts of your system doesn't cut you any slack when you're trying to communicate. A good bit of your text was rambling, pointless, poorly constructed and ungrammatical. It is no excuse that you're a hacker. If you want to say something to the larger community, learn to say it clearly and well. Judging by other comments, you nearly lost most of your readership before they got to your point.
Speaking of points, wasn't yours, "We need to be willing to gracefully concede a point to others, to compromise for the good of the movement"? Or did I miss that?
In case that was his point, tho, speaking to the rest of the community, I'll say I can agree. Being prepared to work for your ideals is critical, particularly in the face of opposition. But above all, being willing to work even when the credit doesn't come to you, even if it means "trying on" someone else's vision for a day. That will be where advances can be made. On the other hand, there comes a time when compromise is not possible. When Vision demands that you move this way. There are going to be collisions. Live with them! Conflict is not evil, but what is done in the name of "resolution" can be. When conflict rears its head, we would do well to look beyond the shouting, to the root cause, and strike there.
So back to you Rowan. You've thrown the gauntlet; I'll flip it back. Pick one conflict in the Open Source/Free Software movement, and recommend a solution. Demonstrate the skill we need more than temper-control: discretionary judgement.
Several years ago, at a Con, Michael Okuda, STTNG's special effects guru, was asked about some Trek tech, and the person wanted to know how it worked. Okuda replied, "It works quite well." I'm always reminded of that when I see someone trying to figure out how the transporter works, etc. It works because it's in the script! Just like light sabers, darn the luck...
True, SAP is multinational, and Red Hat does have the momentum, in spite of Caldera's claim to being more "corporate-oriented." The truth is, there are more apps being written primarily to Red Hat. This is very much in keeping with what we discussed a few days ago on Slashdot regarding Red Hat's aims for the market and the community.
But I would like to ask at what point does an entity's behavior become "a plot"? When do we state, "Alright, we have enough examples of behavior to make a statement about the pattern of behavior"?
I don't pretend to know what is in the collective mind of Red Hat. And frankly, I like Red Hat. The distro I'm experimenting with is Mandrake, based on Red Hat. But we do need to watch the players in the early game, as we are now in. Their moves will dictate the shape of the mid-game. And I wonder what might have been had there been some serious scrutiny of MS in their early days. Would we now be going through the DOJ trial, the "MS Tax" on new computers?
If it seems that we're being harsh on Red Hat, well, we have the example of Microsoft to be wary of. If Red Hat and its people are "good and true" members of the community, their behavior will show them to be such, and we'll rightly respect them. If they aren't, a watchful eye now will serve us better than a thousand voices raised in protest later.
First, please allow me to express the deepest outrage for Kira489's predicament. The fact that she was raped, then raped again by our so-called "justice system" is nothing less than a moral catastrophe on the part of both rapists. And I purposely use the term for both the criminal, and the detective, assuming that what I've read is what happened.
It brings to light, however, a growing possibility that such Internet crimes might escape adequate prosecution, due to the detective's "logic". That is, the ludicrous proposition that a person who "hugs" someone virtually has opened the door for a claim of consensual sex.
Let's bring it closer to home. I'm a man. For a moment, let me pick a volunteer, another man; You, sir! Yes, you with the buzzcut and the goatee. Thanks for volunteering, pleased to meet you. There, we shook hands. We made contact, in fact, of a physical nature. I put out my hand, and he clearly consented to touch it. Now, on occasion, I hug other men, usually close friends and family, but I'll make an exception here for this fine fellow. There, he again consented. Does that mean I can now engage in anal sex with this man, whether he protests or not, at any point in the operation, based on his "consent" to the hug? Of course not! (Gee, look at 'im run...)
The point is, we have the ability to refuse to comply with any action at any time, whether we ever performed the action before or not, whether we planned to perform it or not. We are not required, nor should it be assumed we are willing, to engage in sex just because we once did. Kira489 probably did virtual-hug her rapist. She might have done alot more than that, virtually. She might have done more than that physically, and it means nothing! The second she said "Stop," and the assailant refused, it was rape. Period. Frankly, I say execute the rapist, but that's my opinion.
Back to the medium of the Internet. Folks, we can't say this enough: all those people who have been raped, robbed, beaten and killed by people they met online probably either never thought about the possibility, or simply figured that "it won't happen to me." Just like we all do. The fact that it can must weigh heavily in our decision to meet someone. I know it's titillating to chat with some people on the wire. I know several people who, in fact, invent elaborate personas to role play online, with unsuspecting people. Many of whom, I'm sure, are being just as fake as my friends. But when we take the chance of opening up to someone online, and exposing ourselves to a meeting in "meatspace", then all those defenses we have collapse: IP masqing, finger-deactivation... none of that works when the person is standing right in front of you.
Be not as these, I say. Think. Be a little paranoid. The cost of serious misjudgement of character is too high.
In reading many of the other comments, I see that there is a decidedly supportive tone directed at both Red Hat and LSB. While this may be the "correct" course of action, let's look at it again, from a fresh perspective, one free from past experience. I can provide that, since I just became acquainted with Linux in the middle of last year, and have not yet been in a position to implement either at home or at work. (All of that changing by June, however. ) As something of a disclaimer, I will state up front that when I type "Linux", I mean the OS which is also referred to as "GNU/Linux" by some. But just Linux is shorter, I'm not such a great typist.
I've been following the idea of a "standard Linux" with some interest. I don't have the hacking skills that many here have, and while the idea of hacking at the kernel or creating drivers, or apps for Linux is one I hold dear, the reality is that I won't be doing that for a bit yet. No, I'll be using Linux as a user first, and there's where the idea of a standard is appealing. I want apps to work with the distro I choose, without requiring me to restructure parts of the source code first. OK, yeah, that's the user in me talking, but it's also the IS Manager in me. Deploying desktops is tedious enough without contemplating the current state of Linux desktop deployment.
So the LSB sounds good. It's good in theory, and I feel it'll be good in practice. But for a moment, let's give the benefit of the doubt not to Red Hat nor the LSB, but to "conspiracy", as Taco put it. For the record, no I'm not a believer in the conspiracy, but I like to cover all the angles I can see. I play chess; it's no different.
Is Red Hat as supportive of the LSB as they seem? Well, it appears so. We've heard from any number of people that they are. But what do they stand to gain or lose with the LSB? There are quotes on record where Red Hat personnel have claimed that standards groups slow down innovation. And Red Hat likes to innovate, to be sure. Referring to standards groups as "overhead" is extremely revealing of the true sentiments of the speaker. After all, with Red Hat being only one member of the LSB, what are the odds that the standard will end up looking exactly like Red Hat? Minimal, at best, meaning that Red Hat will have to rework at least some of its distro to match the new standard. "Rework" always means non-profitable labor, hours spent that are not "billable". And Red Hat is a business. And all for-profit businesses exist to turn a profit, that's a given. Right now, Red Hat (argueably) has the majority market share. Adhering to an LSB created by a committee whose members include some of their competitors will likely result in those competitors making market gains. After all, if you no longer need to have Red Hat to ensure compatibility with certain applications, then why buy it? Support? Well, yes, but with the advent of LinuxCare, that may not be such a selling point. And there will be other "LinuxCare"'s on the horizon. So is it Red Hat's best interest to support the LSB? From a purely business perspective, while the tempo of the game belongs to them, perhaps not. Mind you, out-and-out rejection of the LSB will work against Red Hat as well. So perhaps outer support of the standard is a good idea, while the committee takes alot of time to arrive at that standard. Time for Red Hat to consolidate market position.
So now, let's flip to the other side. Who stands to gain the most from having the LSB? Well, us, really, since a standard Linux will be easier to write to, add to, etc. But in the short term, having that standard will benefit companies whose distribution is not Red Hat. And I'm going to squarely point a finger at Caldera. I have tested Caldera, back when I was going to run a NetWare class and showcase the OS to my students. I have to say, I chose not to do it, because of the problems I had during the installation and the fact that several very cool apps I wanted to show wouldn't work with the older version of libc OpenLinux 1.3 had. So would Caldera stand to gain from an LSB? Yes, and not just because of the same reasons we would. The LSB will almost certainly incorporate pieces from Caldera. Or at the very least, it will require some pieces to be written from scratch. Either way, those pieces will place Caldera on equal if not superior footing to Red Hat, at least in those areas. This will give them leverage to use in the marketplace, leverage that they would not have had without that standard.
So is Machiavelli the author of the LSB? No, I don't think so. I like the standard idea. I wish I knew more about Linux, because I'd love to help. but for those of us watching the coming LSB battles... and there will be some, there's no doubt of that... we need to make sure we watch the moves closely. But also watch the players. Sometimes a chance comment will reveal motives they'd prefer were kept hidden.
The article did not say that all the students who took the class failed. It said that 12 students sued, who all failed. Was the class only 12 in size, or were there 30? At one time M$'s education requirements stipulated a maximum class size of 12, but that ended January 1, 1998. There now is no maximum allowed, and many education centers routinely allow 16-20 students per M$ class. Universitites, I imagine, might be able to pack more than that.
The article, as written, is IMO a case in point of why the media needs an enema. The article didn't give the reader enough information to make a decision as to whether the case warrants attention, or is undeserving of its 15 minutes of fame. The article says the class was for Microsoft software.
Now what about Visual Basic? Or NT Administration? Or IIS? Any of these classes require a more thorough understanding of computers than "point and click". But I have heard IS Managers ask some Education people, regarding NT training: "What is there to know? MS makes it point-and-click, don't they?" As I said: doorknobs.
But judging the students and their case is not advisable, nor possible even, from the scanty information we have here.
A thought I had regarding this whole scoring issue.
If a poster wanted to make sure that her/his posts were visible to the majority of/.'ers, then it would be in their best interests to make the posts relevant and insightful, actually have content, even. I wonder if we're going to see the caliber of postings and posters increase. A sort of electronic evolution of sorts.
To that end, I think that it would be helpful if the score of an individual's posts would display on their user page. Just a short blurb in the already-displayed list of past messages. For those who wanted to work on see what other readers of/. thought of their posts (albeit the moderators only), that woudl help them see if their posts were highly thought of or not.
A possible benefit: a poster who might not feel that his/her posts had anything of value to the community (and there are several, I'm sure) might discover that they actually do have something relevant to say. It might encourage them to contribute more.
On the other hand, prolific posters who discovered that their comments' scores were consistently low might want to pursue an understanding of why. That could lead to improvement of their posts, to the betterment of the community. The fact that there are hundreds of moderators reduces the likelihood that a single poster will consistently be given false feedback.
This system might just produce better writers all 'round.
At first I found myself agreeing with Gingrich. After the shivers of horror passed, I considered the situation again. After all, we've heard of this before: a chicken in every pot, a T1 in every home!
But consider what the implications of ubiquitous, high-speed access into each and every home would mean. More people on the wire means more traffic, exponentially. More people means a larger consumer base to target with advertising, which means yet more traffic. It also means a larger pile of information to collect, collate and analyze regarding people's online activities. So far, we (seem to) have avoided having that happen on a wide scale. But if almost every person in the country were to be online, representing an unprecedented opportunity for corporate and governmental bodies to tap that information, how long would they resist the temptation?
I think fast access to the wire is good, and ubiquitous access would be best. But the system needs to be capable of handling the strain of greatly increased traffic (which means faster and more robust backbone structure) and the checks and balances need to be in place to discourage wide-spread abuse, by any of its users.
As a former SysOp on a MAXIMUS BBS (way long ago on FIDO), I can certainly understand why Rob wants to have some moderation here on Slashdot. And the method he's chosen is, I feel, a good one. However, a point that James makes (above) is also good: what happens to the "part-time" stories? The very one he mentioned, BeroLinux-Mandrake, was one I posted, but never saw. What was wrong with it? Was it not detailed enough? Were the links bad? Unfortunately, without a feedback system, there's no way for me to know. Another poster, however, wanted to have the downgrade-data connected to the post somehow. That could run into enormous overhead problems, if each post could potentially have over 400 such changes appended to it!
To register a name with the InterNIC, you have to cough up the registration fee for two years up front. These "squatters" must have paid for their domains, so there's no way that this was right for NSI to do. I'm afraid I must agree with the conspiracy theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I have to ask exactly how many CNE/CNA's you've ever met.
Normally I don't respond to these comments either, as they fall under the category "flamebait", but yours, trance9, hit a nerve. Although I no longer train, I have a CNI certification and worked in an NAEC for almost two years. During that time, I trained dozens of people from their beginning as a CNA through to their CNE, and I can tell you that not one who made it through my classes was clueless. And neither am I.
As for the LPI cert, yes, I think it's a great idea. And yes, I plan to get it. I'm a Linux-newbie, working to gain more than a base-level understanding of the OS and trying to teach myself programming. Difficult to do while you're holding down a day job and supporting a family, but I work on it in my spare moments. And I'm sure that someone out there would look at the small Linux deployment in my office and pronounce me "clueless" for some fault or another.
The LPI cert will provide for me a framework to do my studies, a floorplan to build on. In the absence of any formalized training program, and lacking any mentor I can call on at need, it's the best option for me. And yes, once I get enough knowledge and skill under my belt, I plan to approach the training center I formerly worked for, and see if they want to offer classes based on the LPI program.
Like it or not, certifications are a fact of business life. Non-IT people, who typically hold the purse-strings for personnel, look for these metrics. And as Linux gains in acceptance, qualified people are going to be in demand. We all know that "certification qualification", but without test-driving every candidate for an admin job, a cert at least means that the person knew enough to pass the test, which is more than you can say for someone off the street.
Of course a government could get away with it! Particularly if they simply didn't tell the citizenry about it. For years, the US government has conducted undisclosed tests on citizens, engaged in violations of human rights, and committed acts of terrorism, all without telling us about it. It was only years later that we found out about some of them. I could easily see a government mandate the installation of these devices without informing the public. By the time the truth was out (and remember, the first people who tell the public about these "control circuits" will be ridiculed and disbelieved), the government could simply trot out a bunch of statistics showing how much safer things are: that criminals can't escape, that speeders are curbed, etc. It's been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This is very true, but in a time when we can't see everywhere, our ability to be vigilant is compromised, and this opens to the door to abuses.
Forgive me for sounding like a flamer, but I must point out that your position is naive, at best. Not because you feel that anyone capable of thought can decide the appropriateness of the material in question, but in feeling that we would all agree with each other in said decision. The very heart of censorship arguments base themselves on one side claiming that certain material is "inapproriate" when such decisions are, by definition, subjective in nature. Agreement would be hard to arrive at, resulting in these conflicts. Incidentally, I challenge your assertion that setting up an .htaccess file is so easy that anyone capable of creating a web page can do it. I've taught HTML classes to people; they can create a web page, but aren't really sure what a web server is.
I checked the page source, found the URL it was supposed to have sent me to, and entered it by hand. It gave me the page, and opened yet another window for the site's navigation bar. Then the main window puked: Not Found. Apparently the Nav Ticker calls on some command URL: http://www.fox.com/uni_nav/FSComman d:check_time that gives the retrieval error. I'm not up on Javascript. Anybody know what this is supposed to be doing?
For the record, I'm using Netscape 4.61 on a Mandrake 6.1 installation.
One conservation and research group that has been doing interspecies birthing for several years now is the Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife (CREW) at the Cincinnati Zoo. When I was a volunteer at that zoo from 1990 to 1992, part of our training included several talks from CREW researchers who told us of an endangered African cattle species known as a bongo, and embryo of which they had successfully implanted in a more common species of cattle. The birth was successful. In addition, CREW also successfully implanted a common American shorthair cat with the embryo of a rarer species (which I cannot specifically recall) resulting in a live birth.
I can understand your POV, but I submit that you are not taking the goal of parenting into account in your opinion. The purpose of parenting to adequately care for and nurture a growing individual, preparing the child for adulthood, when completely autonomous decision-making is required. Contrary to the desires of many government and industrial institutions, which would be better served by drone workers who ask no questions and accept direction from authorities, the desire of a parent who truly understands his/her calling is to produce a child with the abilities of deduction, induction and introspection... qualities that will allow the child-turned-adult to assess situations and make decisions independently. To that end, a parent must engage the child with material that is ever more challenging, both intellectually and ethically. Their bodies grow strong from exertion of the muscles. Their minds and hearts from exertion of reason and ethics.
Rather than look to anyone to provide content regulation for our children (and mine is not hypothetical, but a very real and computer-savvy 6-year-old), we should be involved to the point where our children will ask us for our opinion if they see something puzzling or interesting. And yes, that means exposure to nudity, sex, hate speech, violence and abuse. And that's just the Bible! We also have the Louvre, the Library of Congress, the Tower of London... All great places containing the many facets of what we are. Let's not hide it from our children, but teach them to weigh it and ponder it. They are, after all, adults in the making.
I hate to bring this up, but the term "child pronography" has no legal meaning in certain places. It is perfectly legal in some Scandinavian and Asian countries, for example, to view erotic photography of 14 year old subjects. Certainly kiddie porn here in the US, but not elsewhere. And then there's the issue of pushing our Western "morality" down the throats of people who have developed differing points of view, a clear violation of sovreignity.
No, the major points here revolve around the US appointing a panel made up of non-technical people to try and regulate a teachnical domain, and the (once-again-apparent) arrogance of the US in believing that only in the United States can the rules for global society be made.
After all, in other parts of the world, they believe we in the US are part of a truly sick society, where millions of dollars are spent preventing a 15 year-old boy from seeing a naked female of any age, but we freely allow him to view blood-spattered violence and to virtually wield weapons to obliterate another albeit-virtual person. If the argument holds that we must prevent him from seeing nudity and sex, based on the reason that he will be mentally and morally affected by that sight, then that reasoning must hold up for the violence. If the latter doesn't hold, neither should the former.
I suggested Code Weaver earlier, knowing someone was going to make a reference to old song (which I like, btw). Another term that denotes "industry" and might be more acceptable to the prefession of hacking... and it is a profession, have no doubt of that... would be code smith .
I'm a StoryTeller, but I find in my dealings with the corporate mindset, they respond to Word Smith better. Maybe that could be borrowed for the hackers' needs.
The term "code weaver", while accurate in its depiction of a programmer who creates thread of code and constructs something from it, by stringing the pieces together in a (more or less) orderly fashion, probably won't catch on. The popular media likes to latch onto terms that single words, and strike an imaginative chord. Look at the term "hood", usually meaning a robber or criminal. Then remember Robin Hood, and see whose side you're on.
It's my opinion that there's a different reason for the preference setting software you're seeing. Information overload. At present, I have subscriptions to 8 different trade rags covering the IT industry and the TQM industry that this business runs in. No, I have nothing to do with the latter, except the network I administrate is used to get the work done. (Imagine that!) I'm on four email lists, only because I refuse to be on more. I keep tabs on 18 newsgroups ranging from NetWare to MS Office to StarOffice to Linux Mandrake. And all this is just my business-oriented electronic information stream. Add to that my personal interests in Freemasonry, heraldry, LDAP, the C++ self-course I'm taking, Wicca, social justice and the church school committee, and I'm just about tapped out. Oh yeah, I'm married and have a five year old daughter.
So why am I boring you with this? Perhaps it's because I want you to know that I don't limit the information I see because I want to restrict someone's freedom, nor is it because I can't stand trolls. I can't, but I choose to ignore them where I must. But given the choice of removing them from the signal-to-noise ratio, I will, because I have to exert some level of control over the sheer mass of information that dumps on me every day.
Now if my emploment required me to transact business across the wire, you bet I'd take any chance to screen out the losers who clog the works with useless posts designed to demonstrate their "opinion". And as for the vague threat you mentioned... that what's used against you can be used against me... it already is. My posts are scored, and if they fall below someone else's threshold, they won't see me. Can it be done elsewhere, other than /.? Yep, and they do it there too. Frankly, the mainstream media screens out the voices of those whose opinions are either mixed, or centered. They want the extremes, and they present every issue as polarized. It's wrong, but that's the way it is.
BTW, John, as a critique, I have to say I don't like your writing style. You come off as a surly, cynical individual who's sure that the "powers that be" are always one jack-booted step from crushing our heads. While you may not be wrong, consider this: If you are wrong, your style turns off potential readers. If you're right, They are coming to get you first.
Is it probable that this vision will be realized? Well, let's refine the question a wee bit. Is it probable that there will be an Internet link to the remote homes and villages of the world? Yes, I think so. Why? Profit, of course. The drive of the entities that could afford the expense of setting up such a system (read that: corporations) is predicated entirely on profit. If we put keyboards into the hands of more people, then we have a larger potential market. That's always a good thing to entities whose sole reason for existing is to provide profit to their stockholders. So yes, I think that such a linked system will occur.
Now the question becomes: Is it desirable? Maybe. Let's flip the question from hand to hand, like the hot potato it is.
Yes it's desirable. After all, many of the world's poor are kept that way because they lack education and access to the information and networking ability currently enjoyed by the affluent societies. Place the 'Net in their hands, and give them just the education necessary to be able to use a browser and presto! Instant netizens.
Yeah, right. Of course, since English has become the lingua franca of the Internet, those people will have to have more than just a little training to be able to effectively use the browser. On top of that, it takes more than a little education to teach someone to think in wider terms than that of their own clan or village.
But you see, that's what the Net's about. It provides a conduit through which people can begin to mentally encompass the global scale of what society is becoming. With the Net-connected global citizenry, the ability of economic-, military-, and social-oppression to completely crush a people becomes diminished. If the people were able to communicate with others, across the wire, they'd be able to ask for help directly of the people most likely (and able) to give it. The fact that they can't immediately use the resources of the Net (Library of Congress, the Louvre, and other sites), doesn't justify not giving them access.
True, but what will happen to them as a people, once they get a glimpse of the brave new world? We're talking about societies that have evolved over centuries and millenia, with their own customs and taboos. And some of them have more common sense than we do: many of them would scoff at the idea of utilizing a technology without thoroughly examining what its costs and effects would be. Not like us, where the reason, "Because we can!" has justified the acceptance of many damaging technologies, and the failure to forsee the environmental costs of certain technologies have landed us in deep trouble. Do we really want to see the entire diversity of the planet's people consumed by Melrose Place?
Yuck. But the reverse can happen, too. The technological societies can be enriched by the diversity brought to us by currently unconnected cultures. Their wisdom can greatly enhance our own.
Gee, doesn't that sound like, "Your biological and technological diversity will be assimilated into our own"? And we have plenty of evidence of what that approach usually means. Just ask an Aztec, or any Indian, in fact.
Possible, yes. Probable, yes. Desirable? Perhaps. There are many good reasons to extend the Net to the remote corners of our world. But there are many reasons not to, as well. It behooves us to question what we'll gain, what we'll lose.
As long as it doesn't result in people getting bumped down for comments that go in at a high moderation level (due to alignment) that are good, but probably aren't worthy of the high level.
I believe that's the point: higher scoring posters are usually of consistently higher quality (though admittedly, not always). In order for someone's alignment score (AS) to remain high, the quality of their comments must also remain high. In your example, if a poster with an AS of 4 posting a comment of only "normal" quality (AS 1) would probably have that post moderated down, with a corresponding drop in the poster's alignment factor. This could result in a high-quality poster dropping from an AS4 to AS3 as s/he posts more comments of limited value. In order to maintain the higher score, s/he would have to maintain higher quality posts.
Of course this will also result (in those to whom AS is important) in fewer posts, since it is easier to maintain a high score by not being moderated down!
Which brings us to this: At what point does the pursuit of points supercede the importance of posting insightful, relevant comments? And we know it will come to that, for some posters. Fortunately, IMO, the moderation system Rob et al. have put in place should account for that, and the "point-pursuers" will simply have the effect of raising the bar for all posters. All in all, an elegant solution to the SNR problem.
First: Just because you're a hacker and spend time configuring the guts of your system doesn't cut you any slack when you're trying to communicate. A good bit of your text was rambling, pointless, poorly constructed and ungrammatical. It is no excuse that you're a hacker. If you want to say something to the larger community, learn to say it clearly and well. Judging by other comments, you nearly lost most of your readership before they got to your point.
Speaking of points, wasn't yours, "We need to be willing to gracefully concede a point to others, to compromise for the good of the movement"? Or did I miss that?
In case that was his point, tho, speaking to the rest of the community, I'll say I can agree. Being prepared to work for your ideals is critical, particularly in the face of opposition. But above all, being willing to work even when the credit doesn't come to you, even if it means "trying on" someone else's vision for a day. That will be where advances can be made. On the other hand, there comes a time when compromise is not possible. When Vision demands that you move this way. There are going to be collisions. Live with them! Conflict is not evil, but what is done in the name of "resolution" can be. When conflict rears its head, we would do well to look beyond the shouting, to the root cause, and strike there.
So back to you Rowan. You've thrown the gauntlet; I'll flip it back. Pick one conflict in the Open Source/Free Software movement, and recommend a solution. Demonstrate the skill we need more than temper-control: discretionary judgement.
Several years ago, at a Con, Michael Okuda, STTNG's special effects guru, was asked about some Trek tech, and the person wanted to know how it worked. Okuda replied, "It works quite well." I'm always reminded of that when I see someone trying to figure out how the transporter works, etc. It works because it's in the script! Just like light sabers, darn the luck...
But I would like to ask at what point does an entity's behavior become "a plot"? When do we state, "Alright, we have enough examples of behavior to make a statement about the pattern of behavior"?
I don't pretend to know what is in the collective mind of Red Hat. And frankly, I like Red Hat. The distro I'm experimenting with is Mandrake, based on Red Hat. But we do need to watch the players in the early game, as we are now in. Their moves will dictate the shape of the mid-game. And I wonder what might have been had there been some serious scrutiny of MS in their early days. Would we now be going through the DOJ trial, the "MS Tax" on new computers?
If it seems that we're being harsh on Red Hat, well, we have the example of Microsoft to be wary of. If Red Hat and its people are "good and true" members of the community, their behavior will show them to be such, and we'll rightly respect them. If they aren't, a watchful eye now will serve us better than a thousand voices raised in protest later.
It brings to light, however, a growing possibility that such Internet crimes might escape adequate prosecution, due to the detective's "logic". That is, the ludicrous proposition that a person who "hugs" someone virtually has opened the door for a claim of consensual sex.
Let's bring it closer to home. I'm a man. For a moment, let me pick a volunteer, another man; You, sir! Yes, you with the buzzcut and the goatee. Thanks for volunteering, pleased to meet you. There, we shook hands. We made contact, in fact, of a physical nature. I put out my hand, and he clearly consented to touch it. Now, on occasion, I hug other men, usually close friends and family, but I'll make an exception here for this fine fellow. There, he again consented. Does that mean I can now engage in anal sex with this man, whether he protests or not, at any point in the operation, based on his "consent" to the hug? Of course not! (Gee, look at 'im run...)
The point is, we have the ability to refuse to comply with any action at any time, whether we ever performed the action before or not, whether we planned to perform it or not. We are not required, nor should it be assumed we are willing, to engage in sex just because we once did. Kira489 probably did virtual-hug her rapist. She might have done alot more than that, virtually. She might have done more than that physically, and it means nothing! The second she said "Stop," and the assailant refused, it was rape. Period. Frankly, I say execute the rapist, but that's my opinion.
Back to the medium of the Internet. Folks, we can't say this enough: all those people who have been raped, robbed, beaten and killed by people they met online probably either never thought about the possibility, or simply figured that "it won't happen to me." Just like we all do. The fact that it can must weigh heavily in our decision to meet someone. I know it's titillating to chat with some people on the wire. I know several people who, in fact, invent elaborate personas to role play online, with unsuspecting people. Many of whom, I'm sure, are being just as fake as my friends. But when we take the chance of opening up to someone online, and exposing ourselves to a meeting in "meatspace", then all those defenses we have collapse: IP masqing, finger-deactivation... none of that works when the person is standing right in front of you.
Be not as these, I say. Think. Be a little paranoid. The cost of serious misjudgement of character is too high.
I've been following the idea of a "standard Linux" with some interest. I don't have the hacking skills that many here have, and while the idea of hacking at the kernel or creating drivers, or apps for Linux is one I hold dear, the reality is that I won't be doing that for a bit yet. No, I'll be using Linux as a user first, and there's where the idea of a standard is appealing. I want apps to work with the distro I choose, without requiring me to restructure parts of the source code first. OK, yeah, that's the user in me talking, but it's also the IS Manager in me. Deploying desktops is tedious enough without contemplating the current state of Linux desktop deployment.
So the LSB sounds good. It's good in theory, and I feel it'll be good in practice. But for a moment, let's give the benefit of the doubt not to Red Hat nor the LSB, but to "conspiracy", as Taco put it. For the record, no I'm not a believer in the conspiracy, but I like to cover all the angles I can see. I play chess; it's no different.
Is Red Hat as supportive of the LSB as they seem? Well, it appears so. We've heard from any number of people that they are. But what do they stand to gain or lose with the LSB? There are quotes on record where Red Hat personnel have claimed that standards groups slow down innovation. And Red Hat likes to innovate, to be sure. Referring to standards groups as "overhead" is extremely revealing of the true sentiments of the speaker. After all, with Red Hat being only one member of the LSB, what are the odds that the standard will end up looking exactly like Red Hat? Minimal, at best, meaning that Red Hat will have to rework at least some of its distro to match the new standard. "Rework" always means non-profitable labor, hours spent that are not "billable". And Red Hat is a business. And all for-profit businesses exist to turn a profit, that's a given. Right now, Red Hat (argueably) has the majority market share. Adhering to an LSB created by a committee whose members include some of their competitors will likely result in those competitors making market gains. After all, if you no longer need to have Red Hat to ensure compatibility with certain applications, then why buy it? Support? Well, yes, but with the advent of LinuxCare, that may not be such a selling point. And there will be other "LinuxCare"'s on the horizon. So is it Red Hat's best interest to support the LSB? From a purely business perspective, while the tempo of the game belongs to them, perhaps not. Mind you, out-and-out rejection of the LSB will work against Red Hat as well. So perhaps outer support of the standard is a good idea, while the committee takes alot of time to arrive at that standard. Time for Red Hat to consolidate market position.
So now, let's flip to the other side. Who stands to gain the most from having the LSB? Well, us, really, since a standard Linux will be easier to write to, add to, etc. But in the short term, having that standard will benefit companies whose distribution is not Red Hat. And I'm going to squarely point a finger at Caldera. I have tested Caldera, back when I was going to run a NetWare class and showcase the OS to my students. I have to say, I chose not to do it, because of the problems I had during the installation and the fact that several very cool apps I wanted to show wouldn't work with the older version of libc OpenLinux 1.3 had. So would Caldera stand to gain from an LSB? Yes, and not just because of the same reasons we would. The LSB will almost certainly incorporate pieces from Caldera. Or at the very least, it will require some pieces to be written from scratch. Either way, those pieces will place Caldera on equal if not superior footing to Red Hat, at least in those areas. This will give them leverage to use in the marketplace, leverage that they would not have had without that standard.
So is Machiavelli the author of the LSB? No, I don't think so. I like the standard idea. I wish I knew more about Linux, because I'd love to help. but for those of us watching the coming LSB battles... and there will be some, there's no doubt of that... we need to make sure we watch the moves closely. But also watch the players. Sometimes a chance comment will reveal motives they'd prefer were kept hidden.
The article did not say that all the students who took the class failed. It said that 12 students sued, who all failed. Was the class only 12 in size, or were there 30? At one time M$'s education requirements stipulated a maximum class size of 12, but that ended January 1, 1998. There now is no maximum allowed, and many education centers routinely allow 16-20 students per M$ class. Universitites, I imagine, might be able to pack more than that.
OK, anyone want to take a stab at what the software was? If it was Microsoft Office©, then I have to say that "point and click" actually are reasonable prereqs. I'm a Novell Instructor, and I also teach HTML, so I know what kind of people we get in entry level classes. Some of them are doorknobs. But for MS Office? You could be a doorknob and still pull it off.
Now what about Visual Basic? Or NT Administration? Or IIS? Any of these classes require a more thorough understanding of computers than "point and click". But I have heard IS Managers ask some Education people, regarding NT training: "What is there to know? MS makes it point-and-click, don't they?" As I said: doorknobs.
But judging the students and their case is not advisable, nor possible even, from the scanty information we have here.
If a poster wanted to make sure that her/his posts were visible to the majority of /.'ers, then it would be in their best interests to make the posts relevant and insightful, actually have content, even. I wonder if we're going to see the caliber of postings and posters increase. A sort of electronic evolution of sorts.
To that end, I think that it would be helpful if the score of an individual's posts would display on their user page. Just a short blurb in the already-displayed list of past messages. For those who wanted to work on see what other readers of /. thought of their posts (albeit the moderators only), that woudl help them see if their posts were highly thought of or not.
A possible benefit: a poster who might not feel that his/her posts had anything of value to the community (and there are several, I'm sure) might discover that they actually do have something relevant to say. It might encourage them to contribute more.
On the other hand, prolific posters who discovered that their comments' scores were consistently low might want to pursue an understanding of why. That could lead to improvement of their posts, to the betterment of the community. The fact that there are hundreds of moderators reduces the likelihood that a single poster will consistently be given false feedback.
This system might just produce better writers all 'round.
But consider what the implications of ubiquitous, high-speed access into each and every home would mean. More people on the wire means more traffic, exponentially. More people means a larger consumer base to target with advertising, which means yet more traffic. It also means a larger pile of information to collect, collate and analyze regarding people's online activities. So far, we (seem to) have avoided having that happen on a wide scale. But if almost every person in the country were to be online, representing an unprecedented opportunity for corporate and governmental bodies to tap that information, how long would they resist the temptation?
I think fast access to the wire is good, and ubiquitous access would be best. But the system needs to be capable of handling the strain of greatly increased traffic (which means faster and more robust backbone structure) and the checks and balances need to be in place to discourage wide-spread abuse, by any of its users.
As a former SysOp on a MAXIMUS BBS (way long ago on FIDO), I can certainly understand why Rob wants to have some moderation here on Slashdot. And the method he's chosen is, I feel, a good one. However, a point that James makes (above) is also good: what happens to the "part-time" stories? The very one he mentioned, BeroLinux-Mandrake, was one I posted, but never saw. What was wrong with it? Was it not detailed enough? Were the links bad? Unfortunately, without a feedback system, there's no way for me to know. Another poster, however, wanted to have the downgrade-data connected to the post somehow. That could run into enormous overhead problems, if each post could potentially have over 400 such changes appended to it!
Well, thank you for making it easy for us to identify at least one moderator.
To register a name with the InterNIC, you have to cough up the registration fee for two years up front. These "squatters" must have paid for their domains, so there's no way that this was right for NSI to do. I'm afraid I must agree with the conspiracy theory.