While havign more moderators and having inline meta-moderation sound helpful, the bit about giving points to only certain comments sounds a bit dangerous. It will heavily encourage the moderation of the comments randomly selected, whether they deserve it or not. (And it really would bite to not be able to moderate that bit of flamebait down just because of a random selection!:)
Of course, I don't really know because I've never gotten moderator points. (Of course, I also read WAY too much/.)
Whatever useful brand name the word Amiga used to carry, all it caries now for me (and I'd wager most other old Amigans) is the pain of being insulted over and over again.
I'll be so happy when AI finally does something with the name they fought so hard to purchase so we can all laugh at them for being so silly, she done last tear about what they killed to do it, and then move on.
This is getting as bad as the OJ Simpson trial and the Clinton "scandal". Sheesh.
--
How can they not afford this?
on
R.I.P. Linuxbox
·
· Score: 1
The prices at LinuxBox/MassLinux are some of the most reasonable I've ever seen! I really don't understand how people actually expecting service can have problems paying. I certainly hope that the service to these deadbeats is turned off as well!
Oh wait, their service sucks, now doesn't it? Hrm, perhaps if they had insentive to actually make money.. Oh wait, this is bad, I remember now..;-P
But the service already sucks! So all we've got is a choice between public works which suck due to lack of motivation from competition, or pseudo-monopolies that suck due to lack of motivation from competition, or twelve power lines, 8 cable lines, and 3 water lines coming into my house out of which I use one of each?!?!
The phrase "might need it someday" was meant to identify those people who copy the software so they can say they have a copy, not because they use it or ever intend to use it.
Comparing software theft with auto theft in this way is pointless. If I take your car, you don't have it anymore. If I copy your program, you might never know it.
Once again, I am not making an agrument for piracy, I am simply asking that the companies quit trying to portray losses that are unrealistic.
The biggest misconception about piracy are company "losses".
Just because someone valued a piece of software enough to make a pirated copy does not mean they would have bought it otherwise.
Even if piracy were impossible, not everyone that does pirate software would purchase that same software. Some can't justify the cost; others couldn't even afford the cost. There are also those who make a pirated copy just because they "might need it someday".
Companies whining about all the money they lost are ignoring thses facts to distort the situation.
There are even some cases (at least for me) where I wouldn't have pruchased or been able to purchase a piece of software if I hadn't split the cost witha friend (and then made a copy).
I'm not trying to advocate piracy here, but I'm tired of the corporate whining by those whose loses to piracy (even if adjusted for these factors) is several times my total potential lifetime income.
--
Re:Automated filtering can become censorship
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
An automaton that filters out based on global assumptions is a lot differnet than deliberatly ignoring a certain source of information.
I'm not afraid of automation, I'm afraid of devices that think they know more/better than I do.
That's one of the reasons MSWindows bugs me so much.
Automation becomes censorship when the automaton is deciding for you, not implementing your decisions.
Salon magazine has a story about how that device will first be used to display signs over the JC Penny's sports departments.
--
Automated filtering can become censorship
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
Or at least, that's what I take from this article.
The idea that if you use filtering algorithms, rather than human selected filtering, you can end up with censorship.
Someone can be pissy and hornery and insulting and still be right. Algorithms can miss this. Adults have a better chance admitting it.
While preferences-sort of things help, and a cadre of moderators can assist, and even filtering out someone your really do just want to ignore, there will always be the danger that the filtered material will get better while you're not looking.
No software is perfect, but that is no reason not to try and make it perfect. Software is expected to work, not sortof work and include a disclaimer saying "well, no software is perfect..."
(I'd settle for a disclaimer saying "I'm working on it, really," "You fix it," or "That's a feature, not a bug.")
I use the phrase "World Domination" as making Linux and apps for it available to me as easily as any other OS.
While I am happy with the ways I can get it now, and hopeful for the applicaitons (and games!) to keep coming, I wouldn't mind if it was easier.
Regardless, if I was interested in plastering the world with Linux CDs instead of AOL CDs, (as some of the previous comments (and Linux users) seem to be) I'd use the same method that got us this far. Coding cool stuff we like.
Perhaps the point of this article should have been not to keep Unix hard, but simply not to sacrifice all the good design put into Unix in general for the sake of the new user's whims.
Should Linux be useable by everyone? Of course.
Should we let the good design and programming be swarmed into something bad by the onslaught of new users like Usenet almost devoured by the AOL-masses?
Certainly not.
(no offense to AOL'ers, you weren't given any guidlines and it was AOL's interface that dumped the five or so lines of "AOL AOL AOL AOL..." on the bottom of every post.)
If it can be loaded onto one computer, it can be loaded onto every computer.
Yes, if we GPL'd everything we'd have some problems adjusting, but what choice do we have?
It's like trying to do security through obscurity, or trying to keep marijuana illegal. You can't stop it, so why not turn it's moemntum toyour advantage?
I mean, all of these attempts at government regulation/control are being done by the government of my own dear old US of A, people who brought you the US Patent Office.
What more do I have to say to show that it's a bad idea?
Documentation will always be shoddy when the target audience is the gum-chewing public and we're not. That's why O'Reilly exists.
Software written by someone who needs the tool (as opposed to someone who is just writing it for the money) will generally produce better code.
(I also prefer the former simply because I am a hopeless romantic, but what can you do? That's what hopeless means.;)
Beyond this, the commercial sector is irrelevant. There was code before the companies thought it was cool (i.e. profitable) and there will be code after they get over it all.
The Internet is here. The GPL is here. The hackers are here. The code is here. What more do we need?
Yes, there is an arrogance that comes with hard earned lumps.
Why should I stop calling people who are clueless just that? I *should* only use the term in context (as everyone *is* clueless abot different things and clueful(?) about others.)
I don't think that the whole "Open" philosophy supports being very subtle, and hence tactful. Both of those leave too much room for ambiguity and confusion. The point to be direct and open with information and the access to it. Euphemisms(sp?) are not the way to do that.
It really is a sort of meritocracy around here. You can be pissy, arrogant, emphatic, humble, long-winded, or anything else, and still be right.
It is that "still be right"-ness that we value. (Or at least _I_ do.) Just like we are all clueless somehow, we all make mistakes in other ways, including our social interactions. What I strive for and appreciate finding in the "Open" community is a willingness ot accept that and mov past it to get the good part, a better OS/Program/Hot Chocolate Recipe/Whatever.
I can be very arrogant when I have worked hard to earn my knowledge and abilities and someone challenges them. I am almost always arrogant when I do so and someone who _hasn't_ worked so hard is the chellenger. I don't think it's a problem, I think it's what makes this work.
If you can survive honest, open, unfettered criticism, you must be doing pretty dang good.
I'd rather have that than spend my days playing the tactful-nice game and not getting anywhere.
According to the 16th edition (75th annuversary at that!) of Emliy Post's Ettiquette (written by Betty Post who married into the Post family) Esq. is a trailing title which indicates lawyer.
It's is never used verbally in introductions or such, and is somewhat fading out of use.
It's nice to see that they got what they asked for. It really bothers me when people try to change the definition of jargon that they didn't invent and don't use.
The notion is that (aside from the difficulties of transferring information about) all information is free.
It is a very radical notion, admittedly, which is why RMS is often hard to swallow.
That doesn't mean there's no way it's the right idea. Open access to information, every last bit of it, does increase the risks that people might do something stupid with that information, but it also improves the chances that people will become educated enough not do stupid things, and maybe just maybe do really cool things!
So if you have more questions/points against the ideas of free software, please be more specific, and thank you for the honest conversation. It's hard to find it in here sometimes amid the script kiddies.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason I (and probably most of us) want to see the karma on our user pages is that we're curious little buggers.
If you're scared folks will give it too much meaning and/or rate others with tit, then why not only show people their own.
--
Of course, I don't really know because I've never gotten moderator points. (Of course, I also read WAY too much /.)
Just a thought or two.
--
I'll be so happy when AI finally does something with the name they fought so hard to purchase so we can all laugh at them for being so silly, she done last tear about what they killed to do it, and then move on.
This is getting as bad as the OJ Simpson trial and the Clinton "scandal". Sheesh.
--
--
But the service already sucks! So all we've got is a choice between public works which suck due to lack of motivation from competition, or pseudo-monopolies that suck due to lack of motivation from competition, or twelve power lines, 8 cable lines, and 3 water lines coming into my house out of which I use one of each?!?!
There's gotta be a better way!
--
The phrase "might need it someday" was meant to identify those people who copy the software so they can say they have a copy, not because they use it or ever intend to use it.
Comparing software theft with auto theft in this way is pointless. If I take your car, you don't have it anymore. If I copy your program, you might never know it.
Once again, I am not making an agrument for piracy, I am simply asking that the companies quit trying to portray losses that are unrealistic.
--
I'd lvoe to see REAL figures, not just we found X pirated copies so we lost X * $50.
Make sense?
--
Just because someone valued a piece of software enough to make a pirated copy does not mean they would have bought it otherwise.
Even if piracy were impossible, not everyone that does pirate software would purchase that same software. Some can't justify the cost; others couldn't even afford the cost. There are also those who make a pirated copy just because they "might need it someday".
Companies whining about all the money they lost are ignoring thses facts to distort the situation.
There are even some cases (at least for me) where I wouldn't have pruchased or been able to purchase a piece of software if I hadn't split the cost witha friend (and then made a copy).
I'm not trying to advocate piracy here, but I'm tired of the corporate whining by those whose loses to piracy (even if adjusted for these factors) is several times my total potential lifetime income.
--
I'm not afraid of automation, I'm afraid of devices that think they know more/better than I do.
That's one of the reasons MSWindows bugs me so much.
Automation becomes censorship when the automaton is deciding for you, not implementing your decisions.
--
Salon magazine has a story about how that device will first be used to display signs over the JC Penny's sports departments.
--
The idea that if you use filtering algorithms, rather than human selected filtering, you can end up with censorship.
Someone can be pissy and hornery and insulting and still be right. Algorithms can miss this. Adults have a better chance admitting it.
While preferences-sort of things help, and a cadre of moderators can assist, and even filtering out someone your really do just want to ignore, there will always be the danger that the filtered material will get better while you're not looking.
--
--
--
(I'd settle for a disclaimer saying "I'm working on it, really," "You fix it," or "That's a feature, not a bug.")
--
I use the phrase "World Domination" as making Linux and apps for it available to me as easily as any other OS.
While I am happy with the ways I can get it now, and hopeful for the applicaitons (and games!) to keep coming, I wouldn't mind if it was easier.
Regardless, if I was interested in plastering the world with Linux CDs instead of AOL CDs, (as some of the previous comments (and Linux users) seem to be) I'd use the same method that got us this far. Coding cool stuff we like.
Sorry if that was unclear.
--
Should Linux be useable by everyone? Of course.
Should we let the good design and programming be swarmed into something bad by the onslaught of new users like Usenet almost devoured by the AOL-masses?
Certainly not.
(no offense to AOL'ers, you weren't given any guidlines and it was AOL's interface that dumped the five or so lines of "AOL AOL AOL AOL..." on the bottom of every post.)
--
If it can be loaded onto one computer, it can be loaded onto every computer.
Yes, if we GPL'd everything we'd have some problems adjusting, but what choice do we have?
It's like trying to do security through obscurity, or trying to keep marijuana illegal. You can't stop it, so why not turn it's moemntum toyour advantage?
I mean, all of these attempts at government regulation/control are being done by the government of my own dear old US of A, people who brought you the US Patent Office.
What more do I have to say to show that it's a bad idea?
Documentation will always be shoddy when the target audience is the gum-chewing public and we're not. That's why O'Reilly exists.
Software written by someone who needs the tool (as opposed to someone who is just writing it for the money) will generally produce better code.
(I also prefer the former simply because I am a hopeless romantic, but what can you do? That's what hopeless means. ;)
Beyond this, the commercial sector is irrelevant. There was code before the companies thought it was cool (i.e. profitable) and there will be code after they get over it all.
The Internet is here. The GPL is here. The hackers are here. The code is here. What more do we need?
--
Why should I stop calling people who are clueless just that? I *should* only use the term in context (as everyone *is* clueless abot different things and clueful(?) about others.)
I don't think that the whole "Open" philosophy supports being very subtle, and hence tactful. Both of those leave too much room for ambiguity and confusion. The point to be direct and open with information and the access to it. Euphemisms(sp?) are not the way to do that.
It really is a sort of meritocracy around here. You can be pissy, arrogant, emphatic, humble, long-winded, or anything else, and still be right.
It is that "still be right"-ness that we value. (Or at least _I_ do.) Just like we are all clueless somehow, we all make mistakes in other ways, including our social interactions. What I strive for and appreciate finding in the "Open" community is a willingness ot accept that and mov past it to get the good part, a better OS/Program/Hot Chocolate Recipe/Whatever.
I can be very arrogant when I have worked hard to earn my knowledge and abilities and someone challenges them. I am almost always arrogant when I do so and someone who _hasn't_ worked so hard is the chellenger. I don't think it's a problem, I think it's what makes this work.
If you can survive honest, open, unfettered criticism, you must be doing pretty dang good.
I'd rather have that than spend my days playing the tactful-nice game and not getting anywhere.
Wouldn't you?
--
Bah!
--
It's is never used verbally in introductions or such, and is somewhat fading out of use.
--
(Yet another /. URL typo ;)
--
Silly user, computers are for geeks!
--
It is exactly that sort of mentality that gives us the sort of crap for software Redmond does and the public accepts.
Disgusting.
--
The notion is that (aside from the difficulties of transferring information about) all information is free.
It is a very radical notion, admittedly, which is why RMS is often hard to swallow.
That doesn't mean there's no way it's the right idea. Open access to information, every last bit of it, does increase the risks that people might do something stupid with that information, but it also improves the chances that people will become educated enough not do stupid things, and maybe just maybe do really cool things!
So if you have more questions/points against the ideas of free software, please be more specific, and thank you for the honest conversation. It's hard to find it in here sometimes amid the script kiddies.
--
Consider securing your dot net and dot org Web Addresses as well.
This is not only inapprotpriate, it's downright greedy and totally against what the whole purpose of .net and .org are for in the first place!!!
Somebody shoot me now. The AlterNIC is looking better all the time.
--