Once again, I started my online experience in the BBS community way back when, and a complex moderation system just seems silly to me.
Go back to basics. I think the moderation system should be fairly simple. The M2 moderation seems silly to me.
If you really like the current system, then try this Have "subject experts" who specialize in one category of subjects or another and ALWAYS have the ability to moderate and M2 moderate. These would be a few, HIGHLY TRUSTED individuals, perhaps people who work for/. Leave the current moderation system in place (with or without the M2 moderation...it really wouldn't matter that much). The subject experts (think BBS-style SubOps) would then have the ability to change moderations that are unfair, moderate the occasional lame-ass post that falls through the cracks or moderate up comments that deserve it.
Of course, this leads to discussions that take on that moderator's "slant" and to a sort of aristocracy. But, since these people would be/employees/ and thus have a/stake/ in seeing that moderation is fair and unbiased, there really wouldn't be a lot of problems.
Of course, this probably seems like a stupid idea and a commercialization of Slashdot, but I'm a fairly pragmatic person and not much of an idealist like Rob...:)
Yes, the standard KDE distribution is a bit large, but please remember that it includes a LARGE number of utilities and other things. For instance, not everyone needs the Graphics package or the Games package. Most of the stuff that comes standard with KDE is not really needed per se (Terminal and Konsole, for instance are redundant with Xterm and each other. Also, you don't need kmail and krn if you already have a mail and news client you like. (Although the mail reader I like better than kmail is mutt)
Besides, I use Caldera 2.2 with KDE, and it is far more responsive and STABLE than NT or Win98 on the same machine. And I only have 64 MB....
The ability to control prices is also another part of the criteria. But the ability to control entry is still a key concept. Read the Sherman Anti-Trust act if you don't believe me.
Besides, Microsoft doesn't control prices either. There are operating systems more expensive than NT (Solaris comes to mind... )
First of all, if Microsoft wins the case, this will be a vindication for Linux! This will mean that yes, Virginia, Linux IS competition for Microsoft. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so. It means that Linux will actually be viewed as a legitimate alternative to Windows NT by even more people than before. That in and of itself is a Good Thing (tm).
Secondly, Microsoft isn't legally a monopoly in the first place. Lets not change the definition of a monopoly just because we hate Microsoft. A 90% market share alone does not make a monopoly--you have a control entry into the market place, for one. This means that you can block other people from entering the market. Microsoft can't really do that: that can't (and haven't) stopped Linux, Be, etc. from making their own OSes.
And the 90% marketshare applies ONLY to desktops--Windows NT is actually a MINORITY in the server market. Remember, 70% of all Internet servers, for example, are Apache (OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!) and that means they are running either Unix or one of its various clones. Even in LANs, Novell and Unix beat MS hands down.
Finally, if Microsoft IS punished, this could be a nightmare for the industry. One, it means that the industry will have to be VERY careful about innovations, because they will have to be looking over their shoulders to make sure the DOJ isn't there watching their every move. Declaring the browser as part of the operating system isn't that farfetched--including Netscape on the Caldera distribution for instance, with a Caldera logo on it no less, is practically the same thing.
Look at from a car perspective: if the DOJ says that MS can't bundle IE with Windows, how much of a stretch is it to say DaimlerChrysler or General Motors can't bundle, say, an Infiniti sound system with their cars? Isn't bundling a stereo with a car hurting the aftermarket stereo folks? Afterall, the DOJs main argument is that MS is hurting competition by bundling a Web browser with its OS. The browser may be inferior to the alternatives, but so is the stereo. By all arguements against Microsoft, the fact that it is bundled alone will prevent people from buying someone else's browser. This is also true for the stereo. Most people do not add aftermarket stereos to their new cars. But some people do, particularly those who are knowledgeable about audio and want audio perfection.
Also, if the DOJ breaks up Microsoft, 2 or 3 Baby Bills will be MORE of a nightmare than one Microsoft. Imagine fighting not one, but now THREE Microsofts. No thank you.
The kind of hoopla that happened with 2.2 is good, but it should be reserved for major releases every few years.
Actually, the 2.2 kernel really did have some major new stuff (if you're like me and don't run the alpha kernels--I need a *stable* development platform and don't care for non-stable kernels) it was the first stable release to have full support for SMP, which is important. And the speed improvements over 2.0.x were pretty nice, too. (Unlike M$ software, sometimes new releases mean FASTER software, not just freeping creaturism)
Aside from that, Linux doesn't *need* to rely on good press. The code stands for itself. That said, if Linux is going to succeed in the corporate arena, it does need to stay in the press, good or bad. So getting in the press is never a bad thing, and it always helps.
I think Linus should annoint somebody to start a "3.0 experimental" tree with major new features like clustering.
Starting a new tree isn't always a good thing. It makes code management much tricker and more difficult. What if someone adds a feature in the new tree, but another feature is added to the old tree that breaks the new feature? Or vice-versa? And lets not forget the possibility of duplication of effort... phew. It gives me a headache just thinking about it.
Actually, the nice thing about COAS is that its goal is to NOT break when files are manually edited. I don't know yet if its 100% effective, but thus far I have been able to both manually edit configuration files as well as use the COAS tools.
Its not unusual really. It fits into excite's usual MO.
For the non-journalists/editors in the crowd, I'll point out that this story was A) from a newswire service (check the DATELINE--ITS IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS) and B) the story was obviously a press release (witness the "About SuSE" section of the article -- an obvious shameless plug for the company putting out the press release).
Excite's news section consists almost entirely of newswires because its cheaper than writing your own stories and they generally don't require too much editing (because they are written by professionals who know what newspaper editors like to see in an article in terms of structure, content, syntax etc.)
FWIW, I used to design/edit/publish several newspapers for non-profit veterans groups like the AMVETS and PVA...at least until I got a "real" job in the IT field.:)
Errr...the request was for *UNIX* solutions. Access is not a Unix solution. (But I agree...Access is easy for writing databases, but there is currently no equivalent on Unix)
Thanks for at least considering my idea (I'm sure others posted this, so its probably not solely my idea) of requiring anon posters to login. The anonymous post checkbox goes a long way in this direction.
But I still think ACs should login and have an account. This at least will provide some accountability and remove some knee-jerk posts or other loser flamebait posts. Despite the number of "please don't remove AC posts) this does NOT in anyway remove AC posts. It just makes it harder for the type of "hit-and-run" flamebaits and trolls that are really the root of the problem. The system could keep karma points and make them at least have to create a new account in order to continue their hit-and-run spree if they get significant negative karma.
Ummmm....this is already the case. All registered users with non-negative karma who have had their accounts about a month or so (Rob said this would be changing, though...) have the ability to moderate. The script doles out moderation points based on the activity of that user, which is I believe based on the number of points.
Why does this thing deserve a patent? I can think of this thing showing up in science fiction in a number of places, including Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager and several SF novels I have read. There was also a stupid scifi movie that I can't remember the name of, but it had Michael Dorn in it and it revolved around a guy who worked in a "virtual reality resort" thing of sorts. They brought back some old guy's old girlfriend from the dead. (I'm sure I could get the name of the movie from the imdb... this is a cool site if you haven't checked it out: www.imdb.com (shameless plug))
Anyhow, fight software patents! They are stifling creativity!
Or perhaps befunge? What part of : ----- begin beer.bf ----- v v0\1:\1:\0\0\!:p15-" ekaT">v 0>>.0"llaw eht no "v"eno"^>0 #"^1^_v c1,>51g#^_"ti"^. >vr : $ "::^" down, pass "^|\*25,052*":dnuor t"vbv:52*".ll"v >,^ fb e v"aw eht no r"v """,: >";"^ f ^^"bottle""s"^v"les"^>^" yub,erots eht ot oG"^ ------ end beer.bf ------
I'm a third year CS student (ok, I'm a professional programmer who's going back to get his degree, but still...)
Programming is not an easy thing to teach. I just finished a intro to programming class (don't ask, they wouldn't let me test out) and at least 30% of the students could not (and still cannot) understand the concept of a while loop.
I did a structural walkthrough of my final program (which perfoms an exceedlingly basic task of converting currencies) and I did some nifty extras in my program that were not required (like using functions) and 90% of the class simply could not understand what my code did. At all.
BTW--IMHO, Pascal would be the teaching language of choice. It was designed by Nicklaus Worth for exactly that reason: it was easy to teach to CS students. Now I don't recommend such a thing for serious, professional programming (with the exception of Delphi which is an awesome RAD tool, IMHO) but the fact that the language has strong type checking and most implementations of the language have builtin checks for common programming pitfalls makes it an excellent teaching language.
Python is too difficult, IMHO...its more for experienced programmers than for students.
There are no longer any Star Trek shows with Major Kira. Its Colonel Kira to you.:) {ducking}
BTW--you list had me ROFLing... Its absolutely true! Too many stupid plots recently. And when you see this stupid plots, you see "Written by" in the credits, and after that the credits never seem to end! Some of them are bad enough to be shorts for MST3K (RIP).
Look. Poly fill-rate, whether or not Nintendo or Sony or Sega is "Cooler" than MS is not going to decide whether or not MS succeeds in this market.
Its content. Simple. He with the best games and the most games (quantity/quality) wins. Plain as the nose on your face.
It doesn't matter if its x86 or stripped-down SGI hardware. It doesn't matter if the thing runs Windows or has IE on it. Nobody cares. Consumers buy game consoles based on the games available for them. Maybe Microsoft will win, maybe they won't. But its going to depend on what titles they get written for the platform, not who's been in the market longer, not who has cooler games *now*, but who will have cooler/more games when the things are actually competing in the marketplace.
Why do people write games for Windows? Because of the number of potential customers.
If Microsoft can convince developers that they will get more potential customers running to their platform (and NV10+DirectX8+Intel CPU means many existing PC games will run more or less unmodified) then they will have lots of developers writing games on their console.
And if they can get more games, and they can get better games--well, history has shown time and time again that content is king and he with the most/best titles wins.
Not that I actually want Microsoft to win or anything...:)
First of all, increasing voter turn-out is in fact a double-edged sword. You get the problem of diluting votes and turning the whole process into more of a popularity contest than it already is. However, there are in fact a number of people who *should* be voting, but for whatever reason can't or won't.
IMHO, there are too many people who vote...only people who are properly educated should vote. That way we get rid of the losers who simply either vote for the candidate with the best haircut or vote one way or another because because someone or some organization told them what to think. If you can't think for yourself, you shouldn't be voting. Enough said.
The other problem is the obvious instability and insecurity of the Internet. The Net was *designed* to be an unstable network. (No, I'm not going to explain this concept...if you don't understand, learn something about the history of the Net before flaming me.) Glitches are inevitable. Servers collecting votes that are running *ahem* certain operating systems that are equally unstable and insecure introduce even more problems. Then there's the obvious problem of crackers and the resulting possibility of fraud (ballot stuffing, count fixing, etc.) Add to that the complications involved in makign sure that someone doesn't vote once electronically and once manually (hell even the IRS has problems with that, but thats another story...)
That being said, if the security and instability problems were fixed, and the voting system had a way of ensuring that the thing didn't become a popularity contest, then I'd be all for Internet voting.
Shoot. They already have these capabilities without the stupid satellites. They are starting to put cameras on every street corner in major cities. The claim is that the cameras are used for "traffic flow analysis," but whats to stop them from using them for something like you state?
For those who don't believe me: if you live in the Metro Detroit Area, check out two things: 1) WXYZ-TVs new traffic cameras for major freeways (they use cameras put into the new LED billboards on the freeways) and 2) the cameras at say, 9-mile and Haggerty, or the ones that have been in place for YEARS on I-75, near the Rochester curve.
(Sorry, I have no point of reference if you don't live in Detroit:-( )
First of all, limiting things by IP is not always the best solution. I would hazard a guess to say that 80%+ of all/. readers use dynamic IPs. Not to mention the significant portion of folks who access the site from behind a firewall. With dynamic IPs, its possible for someone to get screwed just because they are on the same ISP as a troll, for instance.
Secondly, I personally do not like the idea of AC posts in the first place. I understand the ideas behind it, but I grew up around FidoNet, which in its heyday frowned on that sort of thing. OTOH, AC posts can be as much of a benefit as a detriment...I understand that.
So I would recommend putting together a system that limits the number of AC posts either by some sort of quota system or (and I contradict myself here) by limiting AC posts to one per IP, per discussion. Period.
Yet another idea would be to make ACs register, but opt to make their posts show up as ACs. This would force ACs to register, thus reducing the amount of abuse. This system worked well in the BBS days, IMHO. You could have anonymous posts, but only the sysop (in this case the/. staff), would know who posted.
Thanks to Alan Cox for giving us his time and effort. I know he's a busy guy and taking the time out to answer the questions of a few raving lunatics like us, and then answering even more questions...the guy just deserves our gratitude and respect.
I have seen it coming for years. My first online experience was in 1984, with a 300 bps modem on my Apple IIe and a BBS called "MacPirates."
By 1988, I was calling many, many BBSes, and sometime around then I tried out Prodigy on a friends computer. (By 1989, I would become a SysOp and between 1989 and 1992 I ran a small T.A.G. BBS called Final Frontier in Detroit) I was wowed by the idea that an online service could use graphics, but I laughed at the stupid online ads, the very slowness of it compared to BBSes, and the severe limitations of the system (e-mail limited by the screen for instance).
Still, my thoughts were that Prodigy represented more of the future of online computing. When QuantumLink transformed into America Online, complete with *snicker* GeoWorks interface, it was becoming clear. The popular BBS scene in the Detroit area was starting to center around big BBSes like SOLARIS (not to be confused with Solaris:-), which began resembling online services...large chat rooms filled with teenie-boppers and such.
Then Al Gore uttered the words "Information Superhighway" and the end of the old online world became clear. America Online became more of an ISP than a big BBS, and CompuServe, Prodigy, and others would soon follow.
Prodigy Classic was one of the few links to that old time that we had left. I will miss it. It was a lot of fun.
"He who writes the code gets to choose the license" -- Linus Torvalds (paraphrase)
Stop your whining and sniveling. The author of the code is the only person with the right to choose the license.
If you don't like it you, write your own and you can pick GPL all you want.
Besides, name something GPL gives you that QPL doesn't? People who whine about GPL are typically ignorant of the fact that not all software distributed with a package is GPL, not even Debian. Some software is licensed under BSD, artistic, and some software is even pure public domain (for instance, most versions of whois).
1. Putting the original author's name on it is probably not enough proof in a court room, even though it was the infringer that later put the name in. They could simply claim that he wrote it as a work for hire for them, for instance.
2. Digital signing/timestamping has not yet been used as evidence in the court room, so there is no precendence. Meaning, of course, that one could TRY to use it as evidence, but its a gamble: it will be entirely up to the court whether or not the evidence is admissible and up to a jury to decide if the evidence is sufficient proof. I would guess that with the general lack of knowledge about digital signatures and cryptography in general, that the evidence would not stand a chance. But, then again, I have stated before that I am not a lawyer and I have no practical experience in this area (other than my own anecdotal experience) to say one way or the other.
No, original works are automatically copyrighted under international law as long as it is written in a country that has signed the Berne convention. This includes the United States. In terms of the legal system, the Berne convention is relatively new: it was signed in 1991 by the U.S. and (I think) all of the G7 countries and probably some others.
First of all, you have a lawsuit on your hands. You own any content you publish, regardless of form, as long as the work is original and the work is only yours: it doesn't include a substantial amount of work from someone else and you did not do it as a work for hire (meaning, you did not write the thing for an employer). The work does NOT have to have a copyright notice on it if it was written in any of the countries that have signed the Berne convention. (Which means most western countries.)
Note that you only have lawsuit if you can substantially *prove* that the work is yours and and that you published it *before* they did. One lawyer told me that the only way you can do this is by mailing the thing to yourself via registered mail: it will have a postmark on it proving the date of publication. OTOH, another lawyer told me that the only thing that this accomplishes is the wasting of the stamp and needless tying up of the postal system. I'm if you had 20 different lawyers on the subject, you would get 20 different opinions.
I don't think a whole license would actually be necessary for content. I think just a notice like:
Copyright (C) 1999 Rob A. Shinn This text may be redistributed in unmodified form only, as long as this notice remains intact.
would suffice. While copyright notices are not necessary, they make it much, much easier for you to win a lawsuit. In fact, in most jurisdictions, it is impossible to win statutory damages without a notice. This means that your lawsuit could probably only win actual provable damages for this particular instance.
Unless of course you want people to modify and pass it along, akin to GPL. But, IMHO, this is a mistake: modified content can hurt the reputation of the original author far more easily than can modified, redistributed source code can.
Once again, disclaimer:
I am NOT a laywer. It is up to you to seek the counsel of a qualified, competent attorney if you indeed desire a truly useful opinion.
My sources for information include the Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion, by Thorne D. Harris III. This is an excellent work and you should consider getting it if you are interested in copyright law....
Slashdot Mirror
Once again, I started my online experience in the BBS community way back when, and a complex moderation system just seems silly to me.
/. Leave the current moderation system in place (with or without the M2 moderation...it really wouldn't matter that much). The subject experts (think BBS-style SubOps) would then have the ability to change moderations that are unfair, moderate the occasional lame-ass post that falls through the cracks or moderate up comments that deserve it.
/employees/ and thus have a /stake/ in seeing that moderation is fair and unbiased, there really wouldn't be a lot of problems.
:)
Go back to basics. I think the moderation system should be fairly simple. The M2 moderation seems silly to me.
If you really like the current system, then try this Have "subject experts" who specialize in one category of subjects or another and ALWAYS have the ability to moderate and M2 moderate. These would be a few, HIGHLY TRUSTED individuals, perhaps people who work for
Of course, this leads to discussions that take on that moderator's "slant" and to a sort of aristocracy. But, since these people would be
Of course, this probably seems like a stupid idea and a commercialization of Slashdot, but I'm a fairly pragmatic person and not much of an idealist like Rob...
Yes, the standard KDE distribution is a bit large, but please remember that it includes a LARGE number of utilities and other things. For instance, not everyone needs the Graphics package or the Games package. Most of the stuff that comes standard with KDE is not really needed per se (Terminal and Konsole, for instance are redundant with Xterm and each other. Also, you don't need kmail and krn if you already have a mail and news client you like. (Although the mail reader I like better than kmail is mutt)
Besides, I use Caldera 2.2 with KDE, and it is far more responsive and STABLE than NT or Win98 on the same machine. And I only have 64 MB....
The ability to control prices is also another part of the criteria. But the ability to control entry is still a key concept. Read the Sherman Anti-Trust act if you don't believe me.
... )
Besides, Microsoft doesn't control prices either. There are operating systems more expensive than NT (Solaris comes to mind
First of all, if Microsoft wins the case, this will be a vindication for Linux! This will mean that yes, Virginia, Linux IS competition for Microsoft. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so. It means that Linux will actually be viewed as a legitimate alternative to Windows NT by even more people than before. That in and of itself is a Good Thing (tm).
Secondly, Microsoft isn't legally a monopoly in the first place. Lets not change the definition of a monopoly just because we hate Microsoft. A 90% market share alone does not make a monopoly--you have a control entry into the market place, for one. This means that you can block other people from entering the market. Microsoft can't really do that: that can't (and haven't) stopped Linux, Be, etc. from making their own OSes.
And the 90% marketshare applies ONLY to desktops--Windows NT is actually a MINORITY in the server market. Remember, 70% of all Internet servers, for example, are Apache (OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!) and that means they are running either Unix or one of its various clones. Even in LANs, Novell and Unix beat MS hands down.
Finally, if Microsoft IS punished, this could be a nightmare for the industry. One, it means that the industry will have to be VERY careful about innovations, because they will have to be looking over their shoulders to make sure the DOJ isn't there watching their every move. Declaring the browser as part of the operating system isn't that farfetched--including Netscape on the Caldera distribution for instance, with a Caldera logo on it no less, is practically the same thing.
Look at from a car perspective: if the DOJ says that MS can't bundle IE with Windows, how much of a stretch is it to say DaimlerChrysler or General Motors can't bundle, say, an Infiniti sound system with their cars? Isn't bundling a stereo with a car hurting the aftermarket stereo folks? Afterall, the DOJs main argument is that MS is hurting competition by bundling a Web browser with its OS. The browser may be inferior to the alternatives, but so is the stereo. By all arguements against Microsoft, the fact that it is bundled alone will prevent people from buying someone else's browser. This is also true for the stereo. Most people do not add aftermarket stereos to their new cars. But some people do, particularly those who are knowledgeable about audio and want audio perfection.
Also, if the DOJ breaks up Microsoft, 2 or 3 Baby Bills will be MORE of a nightmare than one Microsoft. Imagine fighting not one, but now THREE Microsofts. No thank you.
The kind of hoopla that happened with 2.2 is good, but it should be reserved for major releases every few years.
... phew. It gives me a headache just thinking about it.
Actually, the 2.2 kernel really did have some major new stuff (if you're like me and don't run the alpha kernels--I need a *stable* development platform and don't care for non-stable kernels) it was the first stable release to have full support for SMP, which is important. And the speed improvements over 2.0.x were pretty nice, too. (Unlike M$ software, sometimes new releases mean FASTER software, not just freeping creaturism)
Aside from that, Linux doesn't *need* to rely on good press. The code stands for itself. That said, if Linux is going to succeed in the corporate arena, it does need to stay in the press, good or bad. So getting in the press is never a bad thing, and it always helps.
I think Linus should annoint somebody to start a "3.0 experimental" tree with major new features like clustering.
Starting a new tree isn't always a good thing. It makes code management much tricker and more difficult. What if someone adds a feature in the new tree, but another feature is added to the old tree that breaks the new feature? Or vice-versa? And lets not forget the possibility of duplication of effort
Actually, the nice thing about COAS is that its goal is to NOT break when files are manually edited. I don't know yet if its 100% effective, but thus far I have been able to both manually edit configuration files as well as use the COAS tools.
Its not unusual really. It fits into excite's usual MO.
:)
For the non-journalists/editors in the crowd, I'll point out that this story was A) from a newswire service (check the DATELINE--ITS IN ALL CAPS LIKE THIS) and B) the story was obviously a press release (witness the "About SuSE" section of the article -- an obvious shameless plug for the company putting out the press release).
Excite's news section consists almost entirely of newswires because its cheaper than writing your own stories and they generally don't require too much editing (because they are written by professionals who know what newspaper editors like to see in an article in terms of structure, content, syntax etc.)
FWIW, I used to design/edit/publish several newspapers for non-profit veterans groups like the AMVETS and PVA...at least until I got a "real" job in the IT field.
Errr...the request was for *UNIX* solutions. Access is not a Unix solution. (But I agree...Access is easy for writing databases, but there is currently no equivalent on Unix)
Thanks for at least considering my idea (I'm sure others posted this, so its probably not solely my idea) of requiring anon posters to login. The anonymous post checkbox goes a long way in this direction.
But I still think ACs should login and have an account. This at least will provide some accountability and remove some knee-jerk posts or other loser flamebait posts. Despite the number of "please don't remove AC posts) this does NOT in anyway remove AC posts. It just makes it harder for the type of "hit-and-run" flamebaits and trolls that are really the root of the problem.
The system could keep karma points and make them at least have to create a new account in order to continue their hit-and-run spree if they get significant negative karma.
Again, just my $0.02
Ummmm....this is already the case. All registered users with non-negative karma who have had their accounts about a month or so (Rob said this would be changing, though...) have the ability to moderate. The script doles out moderation points based on the activity of that user, which is I believe based on the number of points.
Why does this thing deserve a patent? I can think of this thing showing up in science fiction in a number of places, including Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager and several SF novels I have read. There was also a stupid scifi movie that I can't remember the name of, but it had Michael Dorn in it and it revolved around a guy who worked in a "virtual reality resort" thing of sorts. They brought back some old guy's old girlfriend from the dead. (I'm sure I could get the name of the movie from the imdb ... this is a cool site if you haven't checked it out: www.imdb.com (shameless plug))
Anyhow, fight software patents! They are stifling creativity!
Or perhaps befunge? What part of : ,: >" ;"^ f ^^"bottle""s"^v"les"^>^" yub ,erots eht ot oG"^
:-)
----- begin beer.bf -----
v v0\1:\1:\0\0\!:p15-" ekaT">v
0>>.0"llaw eht no "v"eno"^>0 #"^1^_v
c1,>51g#^_"ti"^. >vr : $
"::^" down, pass "^|\*25,052*":dnuor t"vbv:52*".ll"v >,^ fb e
v"aw eht no r"v
"""
------ end beer.bf ------
Did you not understand?
I'm a third year CS student (ok, I'm a professional programmer who's going back to get his degree, but still...)
Programming is not an easy thing to teach. I just finished a intro to programming class (don't ask, they wouldn't let me test out) and at least 30% of the students could not (and still cannot) understand the concept of a while loop.
I did a structural walkthrough of my final program (which perfoms an exceedlingly basic task of converting currencies) and I did some nifty extras in my program that were not required (like using functions) and 90% of the class simply could not understand what my code did. At all.
BTW--IMHO, Pascal would be the teaching language of choice. It was designed by Nicklaus Worth for exactly that reason: it was easy to teach to CS students. Now I don't recommend such a thing for serious, professional programming (with the exception of Delphi which is an awesome RAD tool, IMHO) but the fact that the language has strong type checking and most implementations of the language have builtin checks for common programming pitfalls makes it an excellent teaching language.
Python is too difficult, IMHO...its more for experienced programmers than for students.
There are no longer any Star Trek shows with Major Kira. Its Colonel Kira to you. :) {ducking}
BTW--you list had me ROFLing... Its absolutely true! Too many stupid plots recently. And when you see this stupid plots, you see "Written by" in the credits, and after that the credits never seem to end! Some of them are bad enough to be shorts for MST3K (RIP).
Look. Poly fill-rate, whether or not Nintendo or Sony or Sega is "Cooler" than MS is not going to decide whether or not MS succeeds in this market.
Its content. Simple. He with the best games and the most games (quantity/quality) wins. Plain as the nose on your face.
It doesn't matter if its x86 or stripped-down SGI hardware. It doesn't matter if the thing runs Windows or has IE on it. Nobody cares. Consumers buy game consoles based on the games available for them. Maybe Microsoft will win, maybe they won't. But its going to depend on what titles they get written for the platform, not who's been in the market longer, not who has cooler games *now*, but who will have cooler/more games when the things are actually competing in the marketplace.
Why do people write games for Windows? Because of the number of potential customers.
... :)
If Microsoft can convince developers that they will get more potential customers running to their platform (and NV10+DirectX8+Intel CPU means many existing PC games will run more or less unmodified) then they will have lots of developers writing games on their console.
And if they can get more games, and they can get better games--well, history has shown time and time again that content is king and he with the most/best titles wins.
Not that I actually want Microsoft to win or anything
First of all, increasing voter turn-out is in fact a double-edged sword. You get the problem of diluting votes and turning the whole process into more of a popularity contest than it already is. However, there are in fact a number of people who *should* be voting, but for whatever reason can't or won't.
IMHO, there are too many people who vote...only people who are properly educated should vote. That way we get rid of the losers who simply either vote for the candidate with the best haircut or vote one way or another because because someone or some organization told them what to think. If you can't think for yourself, you shouldn't be voting. Enough said.
The other problem is the obvious instability and insecurity of the Internet. The Net was *designed* to be an unstable network. (No, I'm not going to explain this concept...if you don't understand, learn something about the history of the Net before flaming me.) Glitches are inevitable. Servers collecting votes that are running *ahem* certain operating systems that are equally unstable and insecure introduce even more problems. Then there's the obvious problem of crackers and the resulting possibility of fraud (ballot stuffing, count fixing, etc.) Add to that the complications involved in makign sure that someone doesn't vote once electronically and once manually (hell even the IRS has problems with that, but thats another story...)
That being said, if the security and instability problems were fixed, and the voting system had a way of ensuring that the thing didn't become a popularity contest, then I'd be all for Internet voting.
Shoot. They already have these capabilities without the stupid satellites. They are starting to put cameras on every street corner in major cities. The claim is that the cameras are used for "traffic flow analysis," but whats to stop them from using them for something like you state?
:-( )
For those who don't believe me: if you live in the Metro Detroit Area, check out two things: 1) WXYZ-TVs new traffic cameras for major freeways (they use cameras put into the new LED billboards on the freeways) and 2) the cameras at say, 9-mile and Haggerty, or the ones that have been in place for YEARS on I-75, near the Rochester curve.
(Sorry, I have no point of reference if you don't live in Detroit
First of all, limiting things by IP is not always the best solution. I would hazard a guess to say that 80%+ of all /. readers use dynamic IPs. Not to mention the significant portion of folks who access the site from behind a firewall. With dynamic IPs, its possible for someone to get screwed just because they are on the same ISP as a troll, for instance.
/. staff), would know who posted.
Secondly, I personally do not like the idea of AC posts in the first place. I understand the ideas behind it, but I grew up around FidoNet, which in its heyday frowned on that sort of thing. OTOH, AC posts can be as much of a benefit as a detriment...I understand that.
So I would recommend putting together a system that limits the number of AC posts either by some sort of quota system or (and I contradict myself here) by limiting AC posts to one per IP, per discussion. Period.
Yet another idea would be to make ACs register, but opt to make their posts show up as ACs. This would force ACs to register, thus reducing the amount of abuse. This system worked well in the BBS days, IMHO. You could have anonymous posts, but only the sysop (in this case the
Just my $0.02.
I second that!
Thanks to Alan Cox for giving us his time and effort. I know he's a busy guy and taking the time out to answer the questions of a few raving lunatics like us, and then answering even more questions...the guy just deserves our gratitude and respect.
Thanks again, Alan...
I have seen it coming for years. My first online experience was in 1984, with a 300 bps modem on my Apple IIe and a BBS called "MacPirates."
:-), which began resembling online services...large chat rooms filled with teenie-boppers and such.
By 1988, I was calling many, many BBSes, and sometime around then I tried out Prodigy on a friends computer. (By 1989, I would become a SysOp and between 1989 and 1992 I ran a small T.A.G. BBS called Final Frontier in Detroit) I was wowed by the idea that an online service could use graphics, but I laughed at the stupid online ads, the very slowness of it compared to BBSes, and the severe limitations of the system (e-mail limited by the screen for instance).
Still, my thoughts were that Prodigy represented more of the future of online computing. When QuantumLink transformed into America Online, complete with *snicker* GeoWorks interface, it was becoming clear. The popular BBS scene in the Detroit area was starting to center around big BBSes like SOLARIS (not to be confused with Solaris
Then Al Gore uttered the words "Information Superhighway" and the end of the old online world became clear. America Online became more of an ISP than a big BBS, and CompuServe, Prodigy, and others would soon follow.
Prodigy Classic was one of the few links to that old time that we had left. I will miss it. It was a lot of fun.
"He who writes the code gets to choose the license"
-- Linus Torvalds (paraphrase)
Stop your whining and sniveling. The author of the code is the only person with the right to choose the license.
If you don't like it you, write your own and you can pick GPL all you want.
Besides, name something GPL gives you that QPL doesn't? People who whine about GPL are typically ignorant of the fact that not all software distributed with a package is GPL, not even Debian. Some software is licensed under BSD, artistic, and some software is even pure public domain (for instance, most versions of whois).
Two issues with this:
1. Putting the original author's name on it is probably not enough proof in a court room, even though it was the infringer that later put the name in. They could simply claim that he wrote it as a work for hire for them, for instance.
2. Digital signing/timestamping has not yet been used as evidence in the court room, so there is no precendence. Meaning, of course, that one could TRY to use it as evidence, but its a gamble: it will be entirely up to the court whether or not the evidence is admissible and up to a jury to decide if the evidence is sufficient proof. I would guess that with the general lack of knowledge about digital signatures and cryptography in general, that the evidence would not stand a chance. But, then again, I have stated before that I am not a lawyer and I have no practical experience in this area (other than my own anecdotal experience) to say one way or the other.
No, original works are automatically copyrighted under international law as long as it is written in a country that has signed the Berne convention. This includes the United States. In terms of the legal system, the Berne convention is relatively new: it was signed in 1991 by the U.S. and (I think) all of the G7 countries and probably some others.
While I am not a lawyer, I play one on the Net :-)
First of all, you have a lawsuit on your hands. You own any content you publish, regardless of form, as long as the work is original and the work is only yours: it doesn't include a substantial amount of work from someone else and you did not do it as a work for hire (meaning, you did not write the thing for an employer). The work does NOT have to have a copyright notice on it if it was written in any of the countries that have signed the Berne convention. (Which means most western countries.)
Note that you only have lawsuit if you can substantially *prove* that the work is yours and and that you published it *before* they did. One lawyer told me that the only way you can do this is by mailing the thing to yourself via registered mail: it will have a postmark on it proving the date of publication. OTOH, another lawyer told me that the only thing that this accomplishes is the wasting of the stamp and needless tying up of the postal system. I'm if you had 20 different lawyers on the subject, you would get 20 different opinions.
I don't think a whole license would actually be necessary for content. I think just a notice like:
Copyright (C) 1999 Rob A. Shinn
This text may be redistributed in unmodified form only, as long as this notice remains intact.
would suffice. While copyright notices are not necessary, they make it much, much easier for you to win a lawsuit. In fact, in most jurisdictions, it is impossible to win statutory damages without a notice. This means that your lawsuit could probably only win actual provable damages for this particular instance.
Unless of course you want people to modify and pass it along, akin to GPL. But, IMHO, this is a mistake: modified content can hurt the reputation of the original author far more easily than can modified, redistributed source code can.
Once again, disclaimer:
I am NOT a laywer. It is up to you to seek the counsel of a qualified, competent attorney if you indeed desire a truly useful opinion.
My sources for information include the Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion, by Thorne D. Harris III. This is an excellent work and you should consider getting it if you are interested in copyright law....