According to the Louisville Courier-Journal: A Jefferson Circuit Court judge has turned back Insight Communications' effort to block the Louisville franchise given to a competing cable company, KnologyCQ, of West Point, Ga.
YGroups has also been letting major bugs with the service go unfixed for months! The biggest bug is many posted messages mysteriously not making it into the group archive. This is yet another nuisance that is making my group members very upset. And I don't blame them. That's why I'm seriously considering moving my groups away from Yahoo!.
I submitted this article, but I'd like everyone to know that I actually give YGroups (formerly EGroups, formerly OneList) a lot of credit in helping me build a large, increasingly potent group for EJB developers. I really like the general design of YGroups and the control it gives to the owner/moderator. And yes, I like that the group is web-based but also works like an e-mail list. I want all these qualities in an alternative.
YGroups was a very promising place to place discussion groups, but the service has gotten too buggy and too ad-happy. And Yahoo makes it exceedingly hard to provide feedback, and when one finds a way to send feedback, it gets ignored.
"Allowing [people] to vote on how to run [ICANN] would be insane."
I understand the incredulous reaction to direct democracy at first blush. But it's a superficial reaction (no offense intended). Considering that nobody who doesn't want to attempt to understand the Internet infrastructural issues wouldn't participate (for the most part) at any rate, and considering that there would have to be extensive discourse and deliberations before decisions are made, then there really shouldn't be any concern that in general this scheme wouldn't work. It's really a matter of how this scheme is designed that determines how well it will work.
Who's going to work at ISP's with the threat of jail time for not doing this impossible job correctly? Heck, many IT personnel are not up to handling many ordinary tasks... now PA is asking them to do this? This all sounds so INSANE.
I heartily endorse the PFIR position that ICANN must be dissolved and its work placed into the hands of a capable temporary steward. What should happen beyond that is a big question. But there's no question that ICANN has lost any and all respect from netizens from around the world due to their ongoing abject stupidity.
And despite my major disagreement with Auerbach over his anti-small business, pro confusion idea of unlimited gTLD's (really a matter of democratic contention), I also endorse his lawsuit to shine the light on ICANN's finances. He has a clear right under the law to inspect these records at any time in an unfettered manner. If ICANN is to increase its budget ten-fold, then obviously the board needs to completely understand how money was being spent previously. In addition, I heartily agree with Auerbach's vivid descriptions of ICANN's empire-building management and limp-wristed board (Auerbach an exception, of course).
As is expected coming from the director of Democracy 2.0, I have to go well beyond Auerbach's strong concerns about Lynn's idea to remove any representative aspects of ICANN. Anything short of having a global direct democracy deciding Internet infrastructural policy is unacceptable. Obviously, how this deliberative/decisionmaking system would be set up is chock full of monster details that no one person or small group can handle.
I propose an open process for developing a constitution/charter for the substitute organization. This could be an open source document that's developed with wide participation using a tool like D3E (Digital Document Discourse Environment). This charter would define how all the parties involved with the Internet would come together (both online and offline) to effectively develop Internet policies. To start off, I also propose that a committee of roundly acceptable participants (perhaps those of the PFIR) craft the rough draft of this charter and act as the primary author through its initial stages. Later (perhaps within a year or so), the charter would be opened to democratic alteration via processes that the charter itself outlines.
Once the charter has been completed and democratically approved, the temporary steward would then hand over control to the managing organization that would be outlined in the charter. Then, all policy issues (perhaps except the overly technical ones) would be resolved via public discourse, deliberation and decision via democratic means.
Pies in the face, for each and every member of the Board! Then, a merry round of Public Flogging!
As I've stated before, ICANN must be Destroyed! Destroyed! Destroyed! They have lost the right to exist. Only a democratically elected board can appropriately handle the issues that have been before this board with proper respect to the actual users of the Internet.
Is it just me or does Disney have some sort of evil "anti-consumer, anti-public domain" plan in store for us (to Disney, its loyal subjects)? This sounds quite plausible, given their recent activities.
But alas, our (new?) friend Andy Grove pins it on the head in the NYT article: "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" I guess now we know what entertainment company has the most to fear from the future. And this is the same company that gave us FutureWorld.
This is probably one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read in Slashdot. And it happens to be false.
Most Americans are equipped enough "upstairs" to handle political decisions. It's the system, stupid. It's broke. It largely denies input from the people. So, people, the humans that they are, oftentimes give up. They give up on voting, they give up on participating, they give up on understanding the issues of the day.
Until we truly empower the people with a "more direct" democratic way of resolving political issues, the general public is not very apt to rise to the occasion, as I know they can.
The American people are smart. I trust their judgment far more than I trust the judgment of the elected dictators, the political aristocracy that continues to believe they are better than the rest.
I assume from your post that you're a politician-wannabe. Arrogance attracts arrogance, I suppose.
While I concur that many of the special effects were quite interesting and perhaps even breathtaking, I found myself asking the same questions I was asking while watching the Planet of the Apes remake:
Why are a lot of these situations not being explained in any way? Not everyone has read the book (or in the case of PotA, seen the original wonderful film or read the book).
What are the motivations of these various characters, esp. Hartdegen?
Why is the story moving so fast? I can't keep up, and I still don't understand the what's and wherefore's of the last scene.
Where is the suspense and drama? Scenes are being vacated before letting the characters or the audience settle into the reality of them.
Why is the ending so dull and unimaginative (of course, in the case of PotA, it was downright stupid)?
What the hell am I supposed to be taking from this film? What's the lesson? (That Hollywood thinks the American people are morons who can't handle complex detail?)
And a final question: Why, oh why, didn't "they" show us anything about how Hartdegen came to the conclusion that a time machine was 1) possible, and 2) doable by him? Why not show us how he went about creating the machine? I don't know about anyone else, but my heart sunk when "they" unveiled the machine--I thought "wow. outta thin air. oh boy. that's hollywood, circa 2002."
And the MPAA is sucking the RIAA's nipples. Watch out for the old coot Jack-em-high Valenti as he rides on his high horse attacking customers of the movie industry. Maybe these idiot savants *want* us to boycott their "entertainment" products.
Send your emails of disgust to ron@grammy.com, barbd@grammy.com and heatherm@grammy.com.
Here's some of the choice words I just sent them:
"Burning, ripping and sharing is not killing music," Ken Waagner, a digital-media consultant in Chicago who was part of the recording academy's board of governors for four years, wrote in a letter to Mr. Greene. "Greed, stupidity and ignorance on the part of the policy wonks and further alienating the listener is the real threat to the business, and ultimately the artist's ability to be heard."
Greed, stupidity, ignorance - apt descriptions of the entertainment conglomerates. We customers ARE NOT stupid, and we're onto your game. We know your game. Game's over.
We look forward to seeing idiot savant Greene join old fart Jack Valenti in the Hollywood Hall of Shame.
I have no issue whatsoever with the movie previews. I recognize that showing those is appropriate, as you sometimes cannot get a good feel for an upcoming movie without it. I hope it's obvious that I'm speaking of the kind of commercials that we're accustomed to seeing on TV now showing up at the movies. It's disgusting.
That's funny. A big question that has been on my mind recently is "Why do the cinemas think they have the right to show *any* advertising before the movie, basically lying to me, the customer, about the movie's actual start time?" I paid a huge admission price, for 's sake! Not to mention the lofty prices for the refreshments! If that revenue can't keep them going, then maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
Am I the only one who actually feels economically insulted/assaulted by having to sit through these ads?
Check out Commercial Alert for their ongoing campaign against commericials before and during movies and other rampant commercialism.
I'm still haunted by the rampant, conspicuous product placement in Mission to Mars, a crap film otherwise but even crappier with all the ads.
Your points are appreciated, but the whole matter really is this simple: I clicked to go to Slashdot and look at (and contribute to) Slashdot content; I didn't click to popup the advertisement. It's an issue of Slashdot taking advantage of my good will and doing something they very well know works against me and any other visitor. Popup ads are a scourge on the web, and only loud/consistent complaints (or vacating the sites) will work to get them removed. The onus should *not* be on the user to block them, although certainly I (being a techie) will do just that quite handily.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Louisville Courier-Journal: A Jefferson Circuit Court judge has turned back Insight Communications' effort to block the Louisville franchise given to a competing cable company, KnologyCQ, of West Point, Ga.
I'm a group owner myself, but intrusive (pop-up, interstitial, embedded-in-text) advertisements aren't the only big issue with YGroups these days.
YGroups has also been letting major bugs with the service go unfixed for months ! The biggest bug is many posted messages mysteriously not making it into the group archive. This is yet another nuisance that is making my group members very upset. And I don't blame them. That's why I'm seriously considering moving my groups away from Yahoo!.
From the very beginning, the Reuters article reads "In a setback for efforts to halt copyright abuse..."
Even while we see a success in our favor, the press is already spinning it in the media conglomerates' favor.
All together now: How Dare They!!
I submitted this article, but I'd like everyone to know that I actually give YGroups (formerly EGroups, formerly OneList) a lot of credit in helping me build a large, increasingly potent group for EJB developers. I really like the general design of YGroups and the control it gives to the owner/moderator. And yes, I like that the group is web-based but also works like an e-mail list. I want all these qualities in an alternative.
YGroups was a very promising place to place discussion groups, but the service has gotten too buggy and too ad-happy. And Yahoo makes it exceedingly hard to provide feedback, and when one finds a way to send feedback, it gets ignored.
Thanks in advance for any cool ideas.
Best regards,
Steve
Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easy to kill a lot of 'em, and fast!
Whoops... replace "nobody" with "anyone".
I understand the incredulous reaction to direct democracy at first blush. But it's a superficial reaction (no offense intended). Considering that nobody who doesn't want to attempt to understand the Internet infrastructural issues wouldn't participate (for the most part) at any rate, and considering that there would have to be extensive discourse and deliberations before decisions are made, then there really shouldn't be any concern that in general this scheme wouldn't work. It's really a matter of how this scheme is designed that determines how well it will work.
Who's going to work at ISP's with the threat of jail time for not doing this impossible job correctly? Heck, many IT personnel are not up to handling many ordinary tasks... now PA is asking them to do this? This all sounds so INSANE.
I heartily endorse the PFIR position that ICANN must be dissolved and its work placed into the hands of a capable temporary steward. What should happen beyond that is a big question. But there's no question that ICANN has lost any and all respect from netizens from around the world due to their ongoing abject stupidity.
And despite my major disagreement with Auerbach over his anti-small business, pro confusion idea of unlimited gTLD's (really a matter of democratic contention), I also endorse his lawsuit to shine the light on ICANN's finances. He has a clear right under the law to inspect these records at any time in an unfettered manner. If ICANN is to increase its budget ten-fold, then obviously the board needs to completely understand how money was being spent previously. In addition, I heartily agree with Auerbach's vivid descriptions of ICANN's empire-building management and limp-wristed board (Auerbach an exception, of course).
As is expected coming from the director of Democracy 2.0, I have to go well beyond Auerbach's strong concerns about Lynn's idea to remove any representative aspects of ICANN. Anything short of having a global direct democracy deciding Internet infrastructural policy is unacceptable. Obviously, how this deliberative/decisionmaking system would be set up is chock full of monster details that no one person or small group can handle.
I propose an open process for developing a constitution/charter for the substitute organization. This could be an open source document that's developed with wide participation using a tool like D3E (Digital Document Discourse Environment). This charter would define how all the parties involved with the Internet would come together (both online and offline) to effectively develop Internet policies. To start off, I also propose that a committee of roundly acceptable participants (perhaps those of the PFIR) craft the rough draft of this charter and act as the primary author through its initial stages. Later (perhaps within a year or so), the charter would be opened to democratic alteration via processes that the charter itself outlines.
Once the charter has been completed and democratically approved, the temporary steward would then hand over control to the managing organization that would be outlined in the charter. Then, all policy issues (perhaps except the overly technical ones) would be resolved via public discourse, deliberation and decision via democratic means.
Pies in the face, for each and every member of the Board! Then, a merry round of Public Flogging!
As I've stated before, ICANN must be Destroyed! Destroyed! Destroyed! They have lost the right to exist. Only a democratically elected board can appropriately handle the issues that have been before this board with proper respect to the actual users of the Internet.
Is it just me or does Disney have some sort of evil "anti-consumer, anti-public domain" plan in store for us (to Disney, its loyal subjects)? This sounds quite plausible, given their recent activities.
But alas, our (new?) friend Andy Grove pins it on the head in the NYT article: "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" I guess now we know what entertainment company has the most to fear from the future. And this is the same company that gave us FutureWorld.
This is probably one of the most arrogant posts I've ever read in Slashdot. And it happens to be false.
Most Americans are equipped enough "upstairs" to handle political decisions. It's the system, stupid. It's broke. It largely denies input from the people. So, people, the humans that they are, oftentimes give up. They give up on voting, they give up on participating, they give up on understanding the issues of the day.
Until we truly empower the people with a "more direct" democratic way of resolving political issues, the general public is not very apt to rise to the occasion, as I know they can.
The American people are smart. I trust their judgment far more than I trust the judgment of the elected dictators, the political aristocracy that continues to believe they are better than the rest.
I assume from your post that you're a politician-wannabe. Arrogance attracts arrogance, I suppose.
Need I say more?
While I concur that many of the special effects were quite interesting and perhaps even breathtaking, I found myself asking the same questions I was asking while watching the Planet of the Apes remake:
And a final question: Why, oh why, didn't "they" show us anything about how Hartdegen came to the conclusion that a time machine was 1) possible, and 2) doable by him? Why not show us how he went about creating the machine? I don't know about anyone else, but my heart sunk when "they" unveiled the machine--I thought "wow. outta thin air. oh boy. that's hollywood, circa 2002."
And the MPAA is sucking the RIAA's nipples. Watch out for the old coot Jack-em-high Valenti as he rides on his high horse attacking customers of the movie industry. Maybe these idiot savants *want* us to boycott their "entertainment" products.
Send your emails of disgust to ron@grammy.com, barbd@grammy.com and heatherm@grammy.com.
Here's some of the choice words I just sent them:
Yes, I was referring to TV-style commercials now appearing at some cinemas. As I state in another reply above, the previews are OK by me.
As long as overextended corporate power is reduced simultaneously, I will agree totally to reducing government power.
Did you know that Olestra causes Greasy Arse Syndrome? So much so that Depends is about to ship their new "G.A.S. diapers" to Walmart stores.
I have no issue whatsoever with the movie previews. I recognize that showing those is appropriate, as you sometimes cannot get a good feel for an upcoming movie without it. I hope it's obvious that I'm speaking of the kind of commercials that we're accustomed to seeing on TV now showing up at the movies. It's disgusting.
That's funny. A big question that has been on my mind recently is "Why do the cinemas think they have the right to show *any* advertising before the movie, basically lying to me, the customer, about the movie's actual start time?" I paid a huge admission price, for 's sake! Not to mention the lofty prices for the refreshments! If that revenue can't keep them going, then maybe they shouldn't be in business to begin with.
Am I the only one who actually feels economically insulted/assaulted by having to sit through these ads?
Check out Commercial Alert for their ongoing campaign against commericials before and during movies and other rampant commercialism.
I'm still haunted by the rampant, conspicuous product placement in Mission to Mars, a crap film otherwise but even crappier with all the ads.
Are you suggesting that Castro will never die? :) Perhaps the Cuban Marxists would like to think that, but...
Your points are appreciated, but the whole matter really is this simple: I clicked to go to Slashdot and look at (and contribute to) Slashdot content; I didn't click to popup the advertisement. It's an issue of Slashdot taking advantage of my good will and doing something they very well know works against me and any other visitor. Popup ads are a scourge on the web, and only loud/consistent complaints (or vacating the sites) will work to get them removed. The onus should *not* be on the user to block them, although certainly I (being a techie) will do just that quite handily.
I guess I just realized that Karma is tantamount to Political Capital. :) So be it.
Maybe they're "test-marketing" them. Well, I think Slashdot has this user's reaction. :)
By the way, I have yet to "fly off the handle." If you could see me, you would see a very calm individual. :)