most experts seem to believe that lowering tariffs is a positive step.
This is statement highlights the problem quite nicely. Not because it's wrong, and not because it's right, but because it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the issue isn't what's best, what's positive, or even what's a good idea.
The issue is power! Who has it, who wants it, and how they intend to get it. Power is the basic underlying driver of both government and economics. Freedom also enters in, but to a large extent power=freedom, so it's usually safe to think of them as the same.
Government is all about who has power, and the american people are starting to realize that they havn't got it anymore, it's been sold to the highest bidder - the large corporate entities. Natuarally, We (I'm an american) aren't at all happy about that and are doing what we can to change it. The problem is that being relatively powerless and voiceless, we don't have the same means of redressing our grievences that the corporations have available. Thus we have to use older means, or whatever means we have available, to make ourselves heard and take 'power to the people!' Usually this means violence, and I'm strongly of the opinion that it will mean massive and widespread bloodshed (yes, in the US and worldwide) before it's over. Once the people take power to themselves (which we are starting to do) then, for awhile, there is a more equatable distribution of power. And then people forget that they traded blood for that power, try to trade it for security, resulting in them getting neither, and the cycle begins again.
This cycle is why it's important for the people to own arms. Not just guns, but arms, as in whatever is contemporary for the military. It doesn't stop the cycle to have a well armed people, but it does make the bloodshed less when the people get fed up and decide to take power to themselves again. Less bloodshed meaning that fewer of the masses get offed before they successfully take over.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the poor starving third world countries. I admit it's because mostly I don't care. Why do I not care? I see enough trouble at home in the US, why should I go looking for it elsewhere? I'm being attacked, and my power to act, speak, buy, sell, and defend myself (already low) is being constantly erroded. Defending my own freedoms comes before working for those same freedoms for others. If for no other reason then because it's hard to fight for others when your own hands are tied. Admittedly, I'm wealthy, and enjoy more freedoms than most of the people in this world, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to trade my freedom for theirs (even if it was possible) any more than I'm willing to trade economic situations with them. (I'm not wealthy by american standards, I'm a bit above average, but that's still filthy rich by most standards)
I use qwerty, I don't type in the traditional Since, I hunt and peck, and I hunt and peck damn fast, so why should I change?
Well, I was in the same situation a year ago. I'd been programming and doing other typing for years and years, and never learned to touch type. I TRIED! I took a class, practised, and never got it. Every time it came time to do some serious typing, I'd go back to looking at the keyboard.
Switching to Dvorak had several advantages, one of which is that the labels on my keycaps where now incorrect, so it didn't do me any good to look at the keyboard. Another is that it really is easier to learn! With Dvorak, you don't have to be typing some asdfjkl; garbage to be useing and learning the home row, and that alone makes all the differance in the world.
The advantages that I have found in finally learning to touch type (by whatever means neccessary) are mainly in accuracy and speed. No matter how fast you are with a hunt and peck technique (I used the three major fingers on both hands, and was faster than most people's touchtyping) you WILL be faster, make fewer errors, and (since you are looking at the screen) you will correct the errors that you do make much quicker.
Having been in your situation, I found learning to be most worthwhile.
Particularly as regards making effective use of your point 1 (Kids enjoy learning) Look especially at "How to Multiply Your Babies' Intelligence" and "How to Make Your Baby Physically Supurb" Though there are quite a few books in their "Gentle Revolution" series of books, these two are from what I've heard the most comprehensive. I've read a couple, including the first one there, and it was the best book on teaching and learning that I've read. I hope that he's wrong about losing your ability to learn later in life!
One of the points that they make is that Mothers make the best Mothers. There is no more effective teacher/student pair than a mother (parent) and her child. These people have done the research.
The USA's public school system isn't malfunctioning! It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, thus it meets the spec, and by definition works well. The basic idea was to help out the world by churning out herd-behavior disinterested in learning factory workers. It was designed to be ruled by the bullies, and to discourage learning. It's supposed to be a somewhat traumatic experience for everyone and if a few get more chewed up than most, well, that's just part of the price for such a wonderfully effective system. All things considered, the rate of defective parts is fairly low. ("Defective" in this case includes both the non-fuctional and the free thinkers.) (In fact, the more those categories overlap the better!) This mode of thought is obviously outdated and would have (IMHO) been replaced, if it weren't for the large businesses realizing that they have an interest in having an easily controlled population.
If we want to fix it we will have to take a good hard look at what the purpose of a publicly funded educational system is. First, why does society have a interest in my children's education? They will shape society. Children about the only way to bring about widespread social change. Most adults will be too set in their ways to accept radical new things. Even Hitler (famous example) recognized that with his youth program. It's fairly obvious education is the place to start for anyone who has a social agenda to push. And lots of very unpleasant and very well funded people have a social agenda to push! What will be the aim of this educational system? Given the combination of democracy, apathy, and capatalism, the aim will be to keep the money in the hands of those who now have it. Or in other words, the aim will be to preserve and even enhance the social and especially the monetary inequalities in society. Does it coincide with the best interests of the children? No, obviously not. (Given my assumptions:) If you see hope for any publicly funded educational system in today's world, get your head out of the sand.
As you can probably tell, I'm a bit bitter about the situation. I'm all for homeschool! Or no school, or private school, or whatever. Just NOT the public system!
Actually, to call slashdot's system moderation is a bit of a misnomer. It really has to do with to very closely allied things called 'editing' and 'censoring.'
You see, the job of an editor is to read all the garbage that nobody else wants to take the time to read, and decide what in that pile of crap (other wise known as 'the slushpile') is worth paying money to read. Then that much gets published. In the world of paper, publishing is expensive, as is buying a magazine or book. This tends to mean that the editor discards a great deal of material, and thus what gets published is closer to being worth the money. A great deal of worthless garbarge still gets published, but at least it doesn't read like it was written by a five year old!
Censorship is the almost the same thing as editorship, with the difference being that a censorship is blatantly about preventing 'dangerous ideas' from spreading, or protecting sensitive young minds. In actual practise, the diferance is nothing! Because the editor has to discard so much material, they always end up discarding stuff mostly because they simply disagree with it, or it gives them a creepy feeling.
So what does the world of paper publishing have to do with slashdot? On slashdot, the purpose of moderation is to keep the signal to noise ratio at a respectable level. For the most part, it's very effective - When was the last time you saw a "first post?" It's no longer in every single story. Mission accomplished! But why does it work? The posts aren't deleted, they never happen! And why do they never happen? Because they're moderated to -1, and most people never see them, which means that posting a 'first post!' comment won't get you the attention that you want. So why bother?
And so yes, moderation does boil down to editing, simply because that's what is required to change the S/N ratio! and nothing less will work. Which is why the moderator guidlines include:
Bad Comments are flamebait. Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense. They detract from the article they are attached to.
Personally, I think the 'this is boring' and 'Katz sucks' comments fall under both 'something said 15 times already' AND 'They detract from the article they are attached to.' If you explain in depth and detail, with footnotes, why it is so, that might contribute something positive to the discussion. Your comment comes close to that, and so it hasn't been moderated down. But neither will it be moderated up. If the comment not only doesn't contribute to the discussion, but is actually a waste of time to read, it should be moderated down! And thus it will discourage such posts in the future, and increase the S/N ratio here on slashdot. Being moderated down is a cruel thing to do to someone - i.e. causing 50,000 people to ignore them. But it is an effective way of saying 'contribute something positive!'
We all know darn well that you can filter out katz' articles if you so choose. If you want to have someone a bit more mainstream (whatever that means on a 'news for nerds' board) take the soapbox, then why don't you take a whack at it yourself and submit an acticle or two?
I'm no expert, but shouldn't it be possible to make a semi-anonymous service by reverse engineering thier encryption protocols?
Do this - take the digital check, intended to be beemed to someone who doesn't have an account. Instead of signing up for the service, and thus revealing who you are, simply use that check to pay someone else for an anonymous service or product. Voila'!
Of course, how viable this scenario is depends on how long the expiration period is on the check. I would think that it'd be at least thirty days or so, to allow for the lazy person with no immediate money concerns. And if we can hack the protocoll, we could make a version that would post-date the check for greater circulation time.
The main drawback of taking this approach is that you couldn't make change - the digital check is a non-changable entity. Thus you wouldn't be able to take a check for $100 and make two payments of $50 off of it. BUT!!! It should be fairly simple to request several digital checks from your friend/trading partner instead of one massive one.
How long will it take us to reverse engineer the algorythms and re-create the software as an open source project? Or will they try to increase confidence in their project by releasing it as open source, or at least open spec? Is it just me, or does this seem like the obvious thing to do for your typical paranoid? Is this just a pipe dream, or could this happen?
2. This free speech rationale is pretty weak in terms of precedent. This argument if excepted would make it legal to export any writing including, say, instructions on making nukes. The Supremes are not about to buy into it.
Not so! In fact, in the documents I read, it stated that if they truely felt it was a matter of immenent and direct threat to the security of the nation they would be able to rescrict the export of books as well. "Classified Document" means a document (writing on paper) that cannot be given to foreigners, right? OTOH, it's perfectly legal even today to export source code if it's printed on paper. This is because they haven't proven that it's a threat to national security. And I don't think that they can, because as has been pointed out elsewhere, encryption is easily obtainable outside the US.
I find it interesting that part of the descision was
The fact that computers will soon be able to respond directly to spoken commands, for example, should not confer on the government the unfettered power to impose prior restraints on speech in an effort to control its "functional " aspects.
With the continuing approach of computers that can understand and act sensibly on speach proceeds, this ruling gets closer and closer. I don't think this is here yet (it will, imho, be overturned) I do think that it's inevitable that this will happen. As computers become able to interperate a wider and wider variety of things, the export laws would have to get more and more restrictive, and are more likely to be overturned.
The government, moreover, has reserved the right to restrict source code in printed form that may be easily "scanned," thus creating some ambiguity as to whether printed publications are necessarily exempt from licensing. See 61 Fed. Reg. 68,575 (1996).
Wouldn't this mean that the "RSA in three lines of perl" tatoos are legally exportable on the same basis that a book full of source code is, but that the "bar code form" of the same thing wouldn't be exportable?
It's interesting to note that the argument on the one hand is that source code is a "machine" (although a virtual one, it is still a machine) and on the other hand source code is intended, by definition, to be primarily human readable, and requires a compile step to be a machine. I wonder where this leaves interpreted languages, where there is no compile?
There is also a note burried in there to the effect that because the web and computers in general have become so powerful, personal privacy has become more scarce now than at any other time in history. And then notes that the widespread availibility of strong encryption would help to negate this effect and the people would regain some of the lost privacy. This is the ultimate point. Computers make it to easy to keep track of people, and we've been denied access to their equal ability to hide people.
The basic advantage of the Dvorak layout is that it is easier to learn. Go grab the windows Dvorak typing tutor kpw101.zip and compare it against ANY QWERTY lesson. The Dvorak lesson is mostly real words, while the QWERTY lesson is mostly garbage. BTW, these lessons are in plain text format, and are (I think) non-copyright.
I started typing (but not touch typing) when I was around eight, and got to be pretty fast at it, but never learned to touch type. Not from lack of trying, but simply because I was to engrained into looking at the keyboard, which will actually slow down the process of learning to touchtype. I took a couple of touch typing classes, and practised at home as well, but no go. Didn't learn to touch type until I switched to the Dvorak layout. I've heard it compared to the keys on a Saxaphone and a flute. Both are very similar, but the one on the sax is more complex and more difficult to learn.
One of the main complaints I have against windows is that switching layouts SUCKS!!! The problem is that the layout switch (except in NT) doesn't effect the DOS boxes, and there is NO WAY in plain win 95/98 to switch the layout in a DOS box. Eventually, I found a generic 32 bit VXD that would do it - zdkeym.z ip but the problem with it is that it's nearly impossible to switch layouts on the fly. You can use regedit, but how clumsy! I finally found another program, keymap00.zip, that would do DOS boxes only, and which was fairly easily modified to switch between Dvorak, QWERTY, and the two Dvorak one-handed layouts. (My left handed brother doesn't have fingers on his left hand, which makes traditional touch typing rather difficult...) I wish I'd had MASM instead of having to modify the binary...
As for typing C code, where C was at least partially designed with the QWERTY layout in mind, shouldn't half your code be comments anyway?;-) And Dvorak's slight limitations (worse placement of the ; primarily) are more than made up by it's more intuitive placement of other keys. Still, I've often thought that it would be real neat to design some sort of AI that would analyse your keyusage (including popular key pairs) and then design a custom keyboard mapping based on what would work best for you. Any takers?:>
Seriously, there isn't much point in switching to Dvorak unless you do a great deal of typing, just want to be a little odd, or are having RSI problems. I don't have any problem switching layouts, because my 'anchor' for switching is fairly simple: If I'm looking at the keyboard, I'm typing in QWERTY, otherwise it's Dvorak. (Though there are exceptions, such as C-? etc) Speaking of which, does anyone have a handy keycodes/xmodmap configuration file which will switch layouts at a keystroke? (I could make one, but if it's already there, why bother?)
Why aren't the Hypertext links that I embeded in the above active? I even logged out, on the off chance that it was some obscure setting somewhere, and it's still not showing up? What's up with that? Anyway, the resources I wanted to highlight where kpw101.zip, zdkeym.zip, and keymap00.zip, all of which can be found via http://ftpsearch.lycos.com
There seems to be quite a but of "Oh NO! We can't have Censorship!" going about, and quite a bit of arguement about what exactly constitutes censorship.
Well, It doesn't matter - there is, in truth, no real difference between the two. I've worked for quite a bit at a small semi-pro science fiction magazine, and a good editor's job is mostly censorship! Anyone who decides what will and what will not be seen is almost by definition a censor, and would only be called an editor if their views and tastes and background where coincidentally exactly the same as yours.
This is simply because they would select different articles than you would, and by hidding things from you that you would normally be willing (even eager?) to see they are acting in the capacity of censors!
So, what can be done about this? The only permanent solution is to give each user a view customized to their perferances, prejudices, and interests. (Admit it, we all have them!) Fortunatly, this isn't impossible in the modern age of computers. Simply (sarcasm) have each user rate as many comments as they like on a scale of one to ten, and store each user's reactions. Use an AI system similar to the movie recomendation making one to customize each users views.
After all, Rob's got all this CPU time just going to waste, doesn't he?
It seems to be a law of the net that as readership of a public forum goes up, the SNR goes down. This is simply for the same reason that superbowl commercial time commands millions of dollars a minute. So, in order to keep slashdot readable, there will have to be some form of editorship to keep the SNR at a reasonable level. I commend Rob for seeing the inevitablity of this, and for the valiant efforts to come up with a solution that is both workable and fairly fair.
Amen! Everybody has different taste and different ideas of what is and isn't offensive, and therefore ANY effective filtering software will be customizable to an extreme degree. The problem is that in order to do this, it will have to know the individual to a much higher degree than anybody is capable of telling. Perhaps someone could come up with something that would allow the parents to 'surf' around on random pages, rating each according to degree of offensive content, and maybe even specify which sections of the page are offensive.
Unfortunately, it would take so much time to adaquately train such an AI that it would be less time consuming (in the short run, say a few months) to simply 'parent your children'
Which is why 'filtering software' is usually assumed to conform (more or less) to a Judaeo-Christian ethic. (Which is why it's funny that it blocks access to the bible!)
If you wheren't refering to a specific church, were you refering to a fanatical or dogmatic devotion to the state? And if so, why do you think that makes them nearly indistinguishable? And how would you explain the massive anti-government undercurrents in the US today?
Perhaps I have completely misinterpreted what you said. Religion and Politics are simular in that they are subjects that a great many people have VERY strong opinions about, and for good reason. These two things deal with the structure of the world we live in, and effect everybody to one degree or another. Though in the US we have freedom of religion (except in school, where everybody is an atheist) there are many places where people don't have the freedom to believe that the afterlife is different from what their neighbors believe.
Whether you are talking about being sent to hell for looking at a woman, or about a troop of guys in boots breaking into your house in the middle of the night, killing your wife and children and taking everything you own because of something someone posted to your website, people are bound to have strong opinions about it. And those who don't probably haven't thought about it much. Even, or perhaps especially, those who truly believe it doesn't matter have spent some time thinking about their place in the world - both this world and the eternal one.
For myself, I'm a very religious person, a fanatic if you will. I say that because it's difficult to impossible for me to distinguish the history of government from the history of religion. And tolerance is a required attribute of any government I'll endorse - and that is mainly for religious reasons. I don't believe that it's moraly right to force people to have morals. To behave as if they did, maybe, but it simply cannot work to force people to believe. In anything at all. And that includes the UN, US, NATO, Mr. Saddam Hussien, or whichever other charismatic leader you choose to pick.
For one thing, it will keep these ideas infront of people so that they don't forget them. Ideas that become so 'everywhere' that nobody mentions them are often lost, especially to the younger generation. How many different things are or where refered to as "the ____ that noone will ever forget?" And how many of these is your average american high school age kid familiar with? Or even collage graduates? (There was a specific referance here, but I can't remember what it was. Which is my point, after all...)
Another reason is that maybe it was said in a slightly different manner, that will click with someone who just didn't get it before for one reason or another. By saying the same thing over and over in different ways, you can almost guarenntee that most people will get the idea.
A third reason would be the famous 'propaganda' effect - If you repeat ANYTHING often enough, most people will believe it is true, even if it has absolutely no factual basis at all. The John Birch society, for instance, has communist or socialist or 'bad' conotations in the minds of most americans. While in fact, the opposite is true - they're primarily an organization dedicated to educating voters. (Though in todays' political climate, they would be considered 'right wing extremists' not that that's a bad thing to be...)
So by repeating the idea that the net is a place without walls and which inherently should be without walls, katz is not only making sure that the idea stays alive, but is (in a sense) making it true. After all, the net is information, and so is a belief, is it not?
Ryo
I wouldn't want to be normal, even if I did know what it was!
I LOVED that game - but my brothers thought it wasn't all that great, it might not work to well as a method of stimulating interest. For Sharpening Skills, it'll do great. I Remember making a pair of chips, one for a controler and one for a controlee. You told the controlee robot which way to go and how far by banging the controler against the wall. It'd send serial signals to the controlee, and away you went! Neat stuff. Last I checked, this game was 'out of print' and it was never popular enough that I'd expect to find it in any used software joint. You might get lucky, though. You could also try talking directly to "The Learning Company" they made the game and might (conceivably) have some left in stock. Be sure to ask for the Hard Disk version, though!
Slashdot Mirror
most experts seem to believe that lowering tariffs is a positive step.
This is statement highlights the problem quite nicely. Not because it's wrong, and not because it's right, but because it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the issue isn't what's best, what's positive, or even what's a good idea.
The issue is power! Who has it, who wants it, and how they intend to get it. Power is the basic underlying driver of both government and economics. Freedom also enters in, but to a large extent power=freedom, so it's usually safe to think of them as the same.
Government is all about who has power, and the american people are starting to realize that they havn't got it anymore, it's been sold to the highest bidder - the large corporate entities. Natuarally, We (I'm an american) aren't at all happy about that and are doing what we can to change it. The problem is that being relatively powerless and voiceless, we don't have the same means of redressing our grievences that the corporations have available. Thus we have to use older means, or whatever means we have available, to make ourselves heard and take 'power to the people!' Usually this means violence, and I'm strongly of the opinion that it will mean massive and widespread bloodshed (yes, in the US and worldwide) before it's over. Once the people take power to themselves (which we are starting to do) then, for awhile, there is a more equatable distribution of power. And then people forget that they traded blood for that power, try to trade it for security, resulting in them getting neither, and the cycle begins again.
This cycle is why it's important for the people to own arms. Not just guns, but arms, as in whatever is contemporary for the military. It doesn't stop the cycle to have a well armed people, but it does make the bloodshed less when the people get fed up and decide to take power to themselves again. Less bloodshed meaning that fewer of the masses get offed before they successfully take over.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the poor starving third world countries. I admit it's because mostly I don't care. Why do I not care? I see enough trouble at home in the US, why should I go looking for it elsewhere? I'm being attacked, and my power to act, speak, buy, sell, and defend myself (already low) is being constantly erroded. Defending my own freedoms comes before working for those same freedoms for others. If for no other reason then because it's hard to fight for others when your own hands are tied. Admittedly, I'm wealthy, and enjoy more freedoms than most of the people in this world, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to trade my freedom for theirs (even if it was possible) any more than I'm willing to trade economic situations with them. (I'm not wealthy by american standards, I'm a bit above average, but that's still filthy rich by most standards)
Well, I was in the same situation a year ago. I'd been programming and doing other typing for years and years, and never learned to touch type. I TRIED! I took a class, practised, and never got it. Every time it came time to do some serious typing, I'd go back to looking at the keyboard.
Switching to Dvorak had several advantages, one of which is that the labels on my keycaps where now incorrect, so it didn't do me any good to look at the keyboard. Another is that it really is easier to learn! With Dvorak, you don't have to be typing some asdfjkl; garbage to be useing and learning the home row, and that alone makes all the differance in the world.
The advantages that I have found in finally learning to touch type (by whatever means neccessary) are mainly in accuracy and speed. No matter how fast you are with a hunt and peck technique (I used the three major fingers on both hands, and was faster than most people's touchtyping) you WILL be faster, make fewer errors, and (since you are looking at the screen) you will correct the errors that you do make much quicker.
Having been in your situation, I found learning to be most worthwhile.
Particularly as regards making effective use of your point 1 (Kids enjoy learning) Look especially at "How to Multiply Your Babies' Intelligence" and "How to Make Your Baby Physically Supurb" Though there are quite a few books in their "Gentle Revolution" series of books, these two are from what I've heard the most comprehensive. I've read a couple, including the first one there, and it was the best book on teaching and learning that I've read. I hope that he's wrong about losing your ability to learn later in life!
One of the points that they make is that Mothers make the best Mothers. There is no more effective teacher/student pair than a mother (parent) and her child. These people have done the research.
You can look at the books online here: Amazon or look on Barnes and Noble. Or, do the tightwad thing and visit your local library.
OK, back on topic.
The USA's public school system isn't malfunctioning! It is doing exactly what it was designed to do, thus it meets the spec, and by definition works well. The basic idea was to help out the world by churning out herd-behavior disinterested in learning factory workers. It was designed to be ruled by the bullies, and to discourage learning. It's supposed to be a somewhat traumatic experience for everyone and if a few get more chewed up than most, well, that's just part of the price for such a wonderfully effective system. All things considered, the rate of defective parts is fairly low. ("Defective" in this case includes both the non-fuctional and the free thinkers.) (In fact, the more those categories overlap the better!) This mode of thought is obviously outdated and would have (IMHO) been replaced, if it weren't for the large businesses realizing that they have an interest in having an easily controlled population.
If we want to fix it we will have to take a good hard look at what the purpose of a publicly funded educational system is. First, why does society have a interest in my children's education? They will shape society. Children about the only way to bring about widespread social change. Most adults will be too set in their ways to accept radical new things. Even Hitler (famous example) recognized that with his youth program. It's fairly obvious education is the place to start for anyone who has a social agenda to push. And lots of very unpleasant and very well funded people have a social agenda to push! What will be the aim of this educational system? Given the combination of democracy, apathy, and capatalism, the aim will be to keep the money in the hands of those who now have it. Or in other words, the aim will be to preserve and even enhance the social and especially the monetary inequalities in society. Does it coincide with the best interests of the children? No, obviously not. (Given my assumptions :) If you see hope for any publicly funded educational system in today's world, get your head out of the sand.
As you can probably tell, I'm a bit bitter about the situation. I'm all for homeschool! Or no school, or private school, or whatever. Just NOT the public system!
Ok, so it was only kinda on topic.
Actually, to call slashdot's system moderation is a bit of a misnomer. It really has to do with to very closely allied things called 'editing' and 'censoring.'
You see, the job of an editor is to read all the garbage that nobody else wants to take the time to read, and decide what in that pile of crap (other wise known as 'the slushpile') is worth paying money to read. Then that much gets published. In the world of paper, publishing is expensive, as is buying a magazine or book. This tends to mean that the editor discards a great deal of material, and thus what gets published is closer to being worth the money. A great deal of worthless garbarge still gets published, but at least it doesn't read like it was written by a five year old!
Censorship is the almost the same thing as editorship, with the difference being that a censorship is blatantly about preventing 'dangerous ideas' from spreading, or protecting sensitive young minds. In actual practise, the diferance is nothing! Because the editor has to discard so much material, they always end up discarding stuff mostly because they simply disagree with it, or it gives them a creepy feeling.
So what does the world of paper publishing have to do with slashdot? On slashdot, the purpose of moderation is to keep the signal to noise ratio at a respectable level. For the most part, it's very effective - When was the last time you saw a "first post?" It's no longer in every single story. Mission accomplished! But why does it work? The posts aren't deleted, they never happen! And why do they never happen? Because they're moderated to -1, and most people never see them, which means that posting a 'first post!' comment won't get you the attention that you want. So why bother?
And so yes, moderation does boil down to editing, simply because that's what is required to change the S/N ratio! and nothing less will work. Which is why the moderator guidlines include:
Personally, I think the 'this is boring' and 'Katz sucks' comments fall under both 'something said 15 times already' AND 'They detract from the article they are attached to.' If you explain in depth and detail, with footnotes, why it is so, that might contribute something positive to the discussion. Your comment comes close to that, and so it hasn't been moderated down. But neither will it be moderated up. If the comment not only doesn't contribute to the discussion, but is actually a waste of time to read, it should be moderated down! And thus it will discourage such posts in the future, and increase the S/N ratio here on slashdot. Being moderated down is a cruel thing to do to someone - i.e. causing 50,000 people to ignore them. But it is an effective way of saying 'contribute something positive!'
We all know darn well that you can filter out katz' articles if you so choose. If you want to have someone a bit more mainstream (whatever that means on a 'news for nerds' board) take the soapbox, then why don't you take a whack at it yourself and submit an acticle or two?
I'm no expert, but shouldn't it be possible to make a semi-anonymous service by reverse engineering thier encryption protocols?
Do this - take the digital check, intended to be beemed to someone who doesn't have an account. Instead of signing up for the service, and thus revealing who you are, simply use that check to pay someone else for an anonymous service or product. Voila'!
Of course, how viable this scenario is depends on how long the expiration period is on the check. I would think that it'd be at least thirty days or so, to allow for the lazy person with no immediate money concerns. And if we can hack the protocoll, we could make a version that would post-date the check for greater circulation time.
The main drawback of taking this approach is that you couldn't make change - the digital check is a non-changable entity. Thus you wouldn't be able to take a check for $100 and make two payments of $50 off of it. BUT!!! It should be fairly simple to request several digital checks from your friend/trading partner instead of one massive one.
How long will it take us to reverse engineer the algorythms and re-create the software as an open source project? Or will they try to increase confidence in their project by releasing it as open source, or at least open spec? Is it just me, or does this seem like the obvious thing to do for your typical paranoid? Is this just a pipe dream, or could this happen?
Not so! In fact, in the documents I read, it stated that if they truely felt it was a matter of immenent and direct threat to the security of the nation they would be able to rescrict the export of books as well. "Classified Document" means a document (writing on paper) that cannot be given to foreigners, right? OTOH, it's perfectly legal even today to export source code if it's printed on paper. This is because they haven't proven that it's a threat to national security. And I don't think that they can, because as has been pointed out elsewhere, encryption is easily obtainable outside the US.
I find it interesting that part of the descision was
With the continuing approach of computers that can understand and act sensibly on speach proceeds, this ruling gets closer and closer. I don't think this is here yet (it will, imho, be overturned) I do think that it's inevitable that this will happen. As computers become able to interperate a wider and wider variety of things, the export laws would have to get more and more restrictive, and are more likely to be overturned.
Wouldn't this mean that the "RSA in three lines of perl" tatoos are legally exportable on the same basis that a book full of source code is, but that the "bar code form" of the same thing wouldn't be exportable?
It's interesting to note that the argument on the one hand is that source code is a "machine" (although a virtual one, it is still a machine) and on the other hand source code is intended, by definition, to be primarily human readable, and requires a compile step to be a machine. I wonder where this leaves interpreted languages, where there is no compile?
There is also a note burried in there to the effect that because the web and computers in general have become so powerful, personal privacy has become more scarce now than at any other time in history. And then notes that the widespread availibility of strong encryption would help to negate this effect and the people would regain some of the lost privacy. This is the ultimate point. Computers make it to easy to keep track of people, and we've been denied access to their equal ability to hide people.
Yet another pro Dvorak article...
The basic advantage of the Dvorak layout is that it is easier to learn. Go grab the windows Dvorak typing tutor kpw101.zip and compare it against ANY QWERTY lesson. The Dvorak lesson is mostly real words, while the QWERTY lesson is mostly garbage. BTW, these lessons are in plain text format, and are (I think) non-copyright.
I started typing (but not touch typing) when I was around eight, and got to be pretty fast at it, but never learned to touch type. Not from lack of trying, but simply because I was to engrained into looking at the keyboard, which will actually slow down the process of learning to touchtype. I took a couple of touch typing classes, and practised at home as well, but no go. Didn't learn to touch type until I switched to the Dvorak layout. I've heard it compared to the keys on a Saxaphone and a flute. Both are very similar, but the one on the sax is more complex and more difficult to learn.
One of the main complaints I have against windows is that switching layouts SUCKS!!! The problem is that the layout switch (except in NT) doesn't effect the DOS boxes, and there is NO WAY in plain win 95/98 to switch the layout in a DOS box. Eventually, I found a generic 32 bit VXD that would do it - zdkeym.z ip but the problem with it is that it's nearly impossible to switch layouts on the fly. You can use regedit, but how clumsy! I finally found another program, keymap00.zip, that would do DOS boxes only, and which was fairly easily modified to switch between Dvorak, QWERTY, and the two Dvorak one-handed layouts. (My left handed brother doesn't have fingers on his left hand, which makes traditional touch typing rather difficult...) I wish I'd had MASM instead of having to modify the binary...
As for typing C code, where C was at least partially designed with the QWERTY layout in mind, shouldn't half your code be comments anyway? ;-) And Dvorak's slight limitations (worse placement of the ; primarily) are more than made up by it's more intuitive placement of other keys. Still, I've often thought that it would be real neat to design some sort of AI that would analyse your keyusage (including popular key pairs) and then design a custom keyboard mapping based on what would work best for you. Any takers? :>
Seriously, there isn't much point in switching to Dvorak unless you do a great deal of typing, just want to be a little odd, or are having RSI problems. I don't have any problem switching layouts, because my 'anchor' for switching is fairly simple: If I'm looking at the keyboard, I'm typing in QWERTY, otherwise it's Dvorak. (Though there are exceptions, such as C-? etc) Speaking of which, does anyone have a handy keycodes/xmodmap configuration file which will switch layouts at a keystroke? (I could make one, but if it's already there, why bother?)
Why aren't the Hypertext links that I embeded in the above active? I even logged out, on the off chance that it was some obscure setting somewhere, and it's still not showing up? What's up with that? Anyway, the resources I wanted to highlight where kpw101.zip, zdkeym.zip, and keymap00.zip, all of which can be found via http://ftpsearch.lycos.com
There seems to be quite a but of "Oh NO! We can't have Censorship!" going about, and quite a bit of arguement about what exactly constitutes censorship.
Well, It doesn't matter - there is, in truth, no real difference between the two. I've worked for quite a bit at a small semi-pro science fiction magazine, and a good editor's job is mostly censorship! Anyone who decides what will and what will not be seen is almost by definition a censor, and would only be called an editor if their views and tastes and background where coincidentally exactly the same as yours.
This is simply because they would select different articles than you would, and by hidding things from you that you would normally be willing (even eager?) to see they are acting in the capacity of censors!
So, what can be done about this? The only permanent solution is to give each user a view customized to their perferances, prejudices, and interests. (Admit it, we all have them!) Fortunatly, this isn't impossible in the modern age of computers. Simply (sarcasm) have each user rate as many comments as they like on a scale of one to ten, and store each user's reactions. Use an AI system similar to the movie recomendation making one to customize each users views.
After all, Rob's got all this CPU time just going to waste, doesn't he?
It seems to be a law of the net that as readership of a public forum goes up, the SNR goes down. This is simply for the same reason that superbowl commercial time commands millions of dollars a minute. So, in order to keep slashdot readable, there will have to be some form of editorship to keep the SNR at a reasonable level. I commend Rob for seeing the inevitablity of this, and for the valiant efforts to come up with a solution that is both workable and fairly fair.
Amen! Everybody has different taste and different ideas of what is and isn't offensive, and therefore ANY effective filtering software will be customizable to an extreme degree. The problem is that in order to do this, it will have to know the individual to a much higher degree than anybody is capable of telling. Perhaps someone could come up with something that would allow the parents to 'surf' around on random pages, rating each according to degree of offensive content, and maybe even specify which sections of the page are offensive.
Unfortunately, it would take so much time to adaquately train such an AI that it would be less time consuming (in the short run, say a few months) to simply 'parent your children'
Which is why 'filtering software' is usually assumed to conform (more or less) to a
Judaeo-Christian ethic. (Which is why it's funny that it blocks access to the bible!)
Secular Humanism? Christianity? Mormonism? Buddism? Taoism? something else? Wicca perhaps?
If you wheren't refering to a specific church, were you refering to a fanatical or dogmatic devotion to the state? And if so, why do you think that makes them nearly indistinguishable? And how would you explain the massive anti-government undercurrents in the US today?
Perhaps I have completely misinterpreted what you said. Religion and Politics are simular in that they are subjects that a great many people have VERY strong opinions about, and for good reason. These two things deal with the structure of the world we live in, and effect everybody to one degree or another. Though in the US we have freedom of religion (except in school, where everybody is an atheist) there are many places where people don't have the freedom to believe that the afterlife is different from what their neighbors believe.
Whether you are talking about being sent to hell for looking at a woman, or about a troop of guys in boots breaking into your house in the middle of the night, killing your wife and children and taking everything you own because of something someone posted to your website, people are bound to have strong opinions about it. And those who don't probably haven't thought about it much. Even, or perhaps especially, those who truly believe it doesn't matter have spent some time thinking about their place in the world - both this world and the eternal one.
For myself, I'm a very religious person, a fanatic if you will. I say that because it's difficult to impossible for me to distinguish the history of government from the history of religion. And tolerance is a required attribute of any government I'll endorse - and that is mainly for religious reasons. I don't believe that it's moraly right to force people to have morals. To behave as if they did, maybe, but it simply cannot work to force people to believe. In anything at all. And that includes the UN, US, NATO, Mr. Saddam Hussien, or whichever other charismatic leader you choose to pick.
Actually, there is a point to repeating things.
For one thing, it will keep these ideas infront of people so that they don't forget them. Ideas that become so 'everywhere' that nobody mentions them are often lost, especially to the younger generation. How many different things are or where refered to as "the ____ that noone will ever forget?" And how many of these is your average american high school age kid familiar with? Or even collage graduates? (There was a specific referance here, but I can't remember what it was. Which is my point, after all...)
Another reason is that maybe it was said in a slightly different manner, that will click with someone who just didn't get it before for one reason or another. By saying the same thing over and over in different ways, you can almost guarenntee that most people will get the idea.
A third reason would be the famous 'propaganda' effect - If you repeat ANYTHING often enough, most people will believe it is true, even if it has absolutely no factual basis at all. The John Birch society, for instance, has communist or socialist or 'bad' conotations in the minds of most americans. While in fact, the opposite is true - they're primarily an organization dedicated to educating voters. (Though in todays' political climate, they would be considered 'right wing extremists' not that that's a bad thing to be...)
So by repeating the idea that the net is a place without walls and which inherently should be without walls, katz is not only making sure that the idea stays alive, but is (in a sense) making it true. After all, the net is information, and so is a belief, is it not?
Ryo
I wouldn't want to be normal, even if I did know what it was!
I LOVED that game - but my brothers thought it wasn't all that great, it might not work to well as a method of stimulating interest. For Sharpening Skills, it'll do great.
I Remember making a pair of chips, one for a controler and one for a controlee. You told the controlee robot which way to go and how far by banging the controler against the wall. It'd send serial signals to the controlee, and away you went! Neat stuff.
Last I checked, this game was 'out of print' and it was never popular enough that I'd expect to find it in any used software joint. You might get lucky, though. You could also try talking directly to "The Learning Company" they made the game and might (conceivably) have some left in stock. Be sure to ask for the Hard Disk version, though!
(And no, I'm not selling my copy!)