I don't understand how the U.S. thinks it can keep up with handing over voting laws to the states and
allow a system which doesn't guarantee equal procedures and rules for every citizen of the U.S.
And what is this argument that the U.S. is not a Democracy but a Republic be good for ?
If you are not a democracy, why don't you go ahead and write this in big letters on top of every immigrant's application papers ? That might be a very efficient way to cut down the influx of cheap immigrants who take away the U.S.'s high-tech jobs. They might actually get the picture on time and go home again.
Why do you look back at arguments which made sense presumably sense for your founding fathers, but seem not to make any sense any more in today's societies.
I am looking for sites which compare the voting systems and procedures of US, France, Germany and Switzerland or Sweden.
May be it can give you some ideas about how other countries are dealing with it.
I hope that this situation will bring a HUGE discussion about how much online voting and last minute automated e-mail and telephone "spam" to influence the vote in the western states could do the fairness of the voting system, when the press is allowed to broadcast their estimates and declare a winner when the statistical sampling rules which lead to their estimates can can only be valid if there is a large enough margin of difference in the votes for or against one side.
And I hope that the US population will finally have the courage to think about the appropriateness of their electorial college and popular vote system and the fact that each state can decide on their own procedures (like when to open, close polls, if each state can follow different rules about to adhere to the winner take all rule or not).
I am not American, but I think that this situation shows clearly that the U.S. must face their constitutional laws concerning their electorial procedures in combination with what and when they allow the press to broadcast on election night and with what that means for online voting and the fact that you can influence voters over the web big time to the last minute, if voting online would replace the voting procedure on a larger margin.
May be one day the absentee vote (which is casted a lot in the military will be replaced with online votes ?).
Just imagine that the press announces someone a winner and a huge percentage of voters could cast votes in the last hours after the press has already influenced the public about who is the winner. Isn't that an IMPOSSIBLE situation ?) Imagine the U.S. would be involved in a war and had a situation like this one and the candidates had completely different opinions about the U.S.'s military involvement in the war.
And isn't it bizarre, that this was a campaign where both sides had only very little differences in their programs (at least publicly) and now the results make it as if it actually would matter much who wins and as if the differences would matter.
I haven't followed the status of online voting ? Is it already done somewhere ? What does this situation tell us about the possible dangers of online voting, if the the current electorial system would not be changed ?
Yes. If this could have been combined with a poll on highschool and college nerd's drug usage and their personal response why D.A.R.E is....what ever it is in their minds, that would have been something else.
Frankly, I don't understand what Jorrit Tyberghein got out of this exchange. He really didn't get any clear answers from Richard Stallman.
The most amazing thing to me is, that the definition of Open Source on the GNU site is foggy to say the least. Even the explanation why the LGPL license is that much worse than the GPL license leaves much open space for clarification.
I am disappointed about the GNU site, because it lacks clear structure, logic and definitions. I go to the opensource.org site, read it and compare it with what the Free Software site writes, and have a lot of difficulties to understand what the big fuss is all about. Some very faint differences (mostly about the LGPL as far as I can see).
It seems quite awkward to me that the community discusses over three (?) years Open Source software and Free Software and is unable to come up with clear language and clear definitions with regards to their differences. It is also a surprise to me to observe RMS explaining a term with the term itself. He doesn't really participate in the exchange of arguments, but repeats a term's definition almost like a robot without using new language. He does not seem to make an effort to clarify. Why ?
Concerning RMS' morality, I certainly would not deny him all the best intentions, but it remains to be seen if the effects of Free Software will be the ones he thought would come out of it.
Certainly (as compared and in a fight against monopolies of proprietary software) the Free Software movement has initiated to deliver the first cracks into the global proprietary software companies.
In addition Free Software gives developers and users a lot of freedom for free and guarentees those freedoms for the generations of software and software developers to come. Thank you, Free Software Foundation, I mean it. Many - including me - are very grateful for Free Software.
But it makes me wonder that apparently the "Library" LGPL has been around before it became the "lesser" LGPL and before it became center piece for arguements of why Open Source software is not as desirable or useful as Free Software. I am new to it and might not understand it well enough, but so don't others.
That OTOH I think is not acceptable after all these years. RMS' leadership demands honest, direct answers.
When it comes to make a decision for a developer to make proprietary software versus Free Software software, RMS has to accept this question:
How will all those developers make a living with their work ? I consider this a valid, moral and important question.
It's not convincing at all for a major movement like the Free Software movement to shy away from the responsibility to answer this question. It's not enough to say he isn't against Free Software developers to get paid for their work. He knows that the question is not if they should or should not get paid, but if and who will pay them.
Can a small, one to three men software development company afford to make a living by writing Free Software, packaging it, providing technical and consultant support services, writing books and selling 'geek's accessories' ?
I do believe, for the time being, many find ways of making a living, but ultimately all what happens is one small software company, developing Free Software, merging with other larger ones, finally ending up just in a couple of very large companies. That trend might be even much stronger in the end for the companies trying to develop Free Software than for companies producing proprietary software.
RMS' words often sound as if those people who need to make a living and accept to work on "almost-free" projects have failed "morally". I overpaint, but that's the way RMS's words cross over to me. And usually I do listen.
I for once think it is a bit "immoral" to imply that those who don't understand the intricacies of Free Software versus Open Source software and have valid reasons to search for "almost-free" solutions for their projects, are considered less moral than those who find ways to make a living with "hundred-percent-free" software.
That's why I take the freedom to retire from this freedom business, because freely spoken, it looks surreal to me.
A good one too, you just have beaten me, being 15 minutes faster...but that's what happens if you are not a karma whore:-) anyway....Thanks.
Does Linus speak German ? Just wondering, as the original German text is a bit odd German at times
(at least for a magazine), so I wonder if that is a translation from English back to German, or from Finnish back to German or just Linus own spoken German words (which then would be extraordinary well put), anyone knows ?
A low voter turn out can have a lot of reasons, but I seriously doubt that the "relative happiness" with the government is the cause.:-)
I would say the American population is in a state of a silent "depressive" disorder. Most of you believe that nothing can really be changed, many don't really know, what they want to have changed, they just feel, something is wrong, and the rest gets the kick out of "tricking out" the system and making the most out of it for their personal lives.
Not, that this is not a phenomena somewhat everywhere, but it is more prevalent here than in other countries. And I believe that is caused by your electorial system and some of your constitutional laws , but I am not sure of it.
If there were a legal venue to protest the process, I would protest. But there doesn't seem to be one and that is very strange.
Re:That violates what the founders intended
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Seems to me that the minorities in today's U.S. might think then that some of the founder's intentions didn't turn out the results quite as they wanted to...or what ?
Is it possible that Americans start to be able to see their founding fathers' intentions as human ones, with the potential of having some flaws with regards to their applicability to our modern times ?
The constitution is man-made and not God-given and I would say you are allowed to make changes to it if needed be. But who knows...I am not American. Anyway, it looks like as if you can kill any political arguement by referring to your founding fathers, because apparently they did everything right and that's it. Period. End of discussion.:-)
Slashdot is not a news wire. It picks stories from the wires and throws them into the arena so that you can have fun beating them up.
How should journalists have integrity if their employment is dependent on TV ratings exclusively?
Just imagine slashdot managers' income were dependent on getting enough of your esteemed clickage and wise contributions.
Who would end up as a karma whore ? Mr. Katz would need to tell you what you want to hear, always...could you take it ?:-)
If you really want to know how the EC is valued, I suggest CmdrTaco makes a two-week internship at a Washington Bureau of a foreign news wire service right now and listens carefully to the curses of foreign correspondents trying to figure it out.
I'll bet you, he will be glad returning to his slashdot headquarters and be very, very happy with the "well behaved slashdotter's contributions" to an "unbiased intellectual discussion" about politics and elections and media's influence.:-)
My suspicion is that Americans love their broken electorial system, because usually they have a lot of fun making a mess out of it, making a lot of money with it, spending a lot of money on it, and getting some days off to organize a lot of "million something marches" to "lift up the ones" who occasionally feel cheated by it.
Don't worry, even if I think your system cries out to the sky of being unfair, I really love the American people for how they handle their own mess, very courageously, bravely and with a lot of wit.
I mean it and I love slashdot - you guys make me smile.
me - Jin Lehrer, Charlie Rose, NYT fan and happy slashdot reader, _the only_ screwed news outlet for the neutrality challenged, curious mind.
Have you ever thought that you can't find a candidate of your liking, exactly because it's the corporation's sponsor money and the candidate's own money (think Forbes) that determines which candidate can make it ?
If exclusively people's tax dollars would finance any party's campaigns equally and sponsorship of corporations were limited, you had at least a level and fair playing ground for any party and any candidate.
The English translation misses completely the style and somewhat "coolishly plain" talk of this guy. If you were German native speaker you would understand that his talk is more comparable to a little "white knight geek who has decided to make a career as a political stand-up comic for the youngish twenty/thirty something, when talking about things which really matter". You know, it's like when something is really so serious to you that you are afraid to talk about it straight and without joking about it, because people wouldn't take you for serious talking seriously.
Don't forget that Germans are MUCH more sceptical about any kind of phony, fake rethoric than Americans. We (or our parents) had our Goebbels/Hitler/Marx experience. Missionaries of all kinds (libertarians, marxists, the born again whatever kind of style...what have you) cause most of us to throw up. Comments on this thread just reflect the different historical and cultural experiences of the readership.
If you gave a German the English article without showing him the original and ask him to translate it back to German, you would have no idea about what this guy tried to cross over to his audience in the first place and what and how he might stand up for his ideas or not. Most of it for you find between the lines and in the "sound" of his speech, which can't be translated.
Hey, complain with God, nothing we can do about it.:-) And oh well, to say it with his words, he doesn't wear a tie, so he supposedly gets enough oxygen into his brain...so don't worry, be happy.:-)
I don't want the archives
on
Deja For Sale
·
· Score: 1
I am against archiving all of usenet indiscriminately. One could archive just selectively technical usenet groups for historical reasons. But I guess nobody will be brave enough to decide what to keep.
Just wondering why you think the digitized mumblings of mankind's thoughts are worth to be archived for eternity.
I for once think it's against humanity and probably against basic human rights. Our thoughts should be allowed to be forgotten. I would protest against archiving my posts to usenet for a longer time period (let's say five years).
I protest also against any archiving by default, I am for a clearly visible opt-in feature, whereby the poster allows consciously for the post to be archived longer than a couple of days or weeks. I don't want an opt-out feature from a default archiving procedure.
I am very much against the "sort-by-author" feature for usenet posters by default. If a person wants to allow the production a profile of himself (let's say in technical groups to make his expertise available and known to a worldwide audience), then it should be the decision of that person alone. It should not be done by default without the consent of the author.
After having read so many comments from young game users and coders, the one question for which I really like to hear your answers is:
Have you had sisters ? Did they love to play games as much as you did ?
If not, why ? If yes, did they like the same games ? If yes, would the game playing had lead them to choose IT for a career ?
Do you think that loving to play the games and then starting to figure out how to code games is something you have started at such a young age, that it might be a sign that somehow your preference for those games is gender specific and more or less inate ?
How much were your game playing influenced (either supported or surpressed) by your parents ? Or did no one care what you played with ?
At what age did you start playing video and computer games ? Did you start playing games because there was nothing much else to do (i.e. real life was boring/not so nice/real shitty) or would you say that playing games were much better than all the other "good stuff" out there (music, sport, art etc.)
Just wondering, especially as I remember that Bob Young once said, that the internet is going to be
developed by sixteen year old boys. (After reading the comments here, I actually start to believe he might be right:-)).
I have seen rarely relaxed and amicable cameradey between younger male and female geeks on forums like this and I like to ask any of you to give me an opinion why that is.
Sounds like a typical mom question, yeah, can't help it somehow....
I am disappointed about the comments so far. Can't you see the forest for the trees ?
The legacy software industry is built on the proprietary binary-only model where not only does the user not get the source code he needs to make changes, but worse he receives the product under a license that essentially says that if you make
any improvements to the technology you are using, if you solve a bug that is causing your systems to crash, or add a feature that your users or customers desperately need the vendor can have you thrown in jail. (If you don't believe me, just read any shrinkwrapped software license). This kind of business model, where the customer is completely beholden to his supplier exists in no other industry in any free market that I know of. It harks back to the old feudal systems of 12th century Europe.
This is what it is all about, folks ! The only thing to get upset, serious and exited about !
This is the forest, which you can't see for all your little quarrels about bugs, premature releases, jealousy and greediness about how much a commercialized corporation RH has become (oh, oh how naughty).
I am a somewhat older lady and my brain is starting to fall apart, but I can still see the forest, I believe.
Want to hear a joke ? I had open source code apps on my Linux box, before I even knew that software could come any other way than "open sourced". Yup. I remember very well when I opened up for the first time a Perl program file and thought it looked like a nice chinese-like wallpaper pattern. Well, my heartily unwelcomed questions I posted to my consultant, made me understand, believe me, click by click.:-)
I am the most loyal open source distro whore there is, in spring I feel like redhaddish, in summer I need slackware, in fall I cuddle up with Debian and in winter I just can't live without my SuSe-chen. C'est la vie. Chaqu'un a son plaisir.:-)
So, don't pollute the atmosphere. I want open source code companies to be successful, a lot of them, small and large, and I want to be able to read your code the way I can read chemical formulas, math formulas and study biochemistry.
I want transparency of what is going on in this technology in a way, that any person can learn about it and influence it with its own input.
I think Mr. Young has all the reasons to remind you all about it. Your in-house dirty laundery washing on a public forum like slashdot may be an honorable effort to prove your sacred freedom, but it would be quite a dumb thing, if you end up throwing out the baby with the bathtub's water.
You forget whom and what you are up against. And you have by no means won the battle. Even though open source code is IMHO an absolute necessity, so far you guys haven't found the code solution yet, which would make each copy/clone of an open source code program sellable the same way the proprietary software industry can sell their's.
Suffice to say that's all there is to it in the end. May be you all can survive on service-based open source business models only, but one needs a LOT of faith, stamina and stubborness to hold on and through with it. RH has proven and stated that they are determined to do so. Why not just be grateful for it and that's it ?
hmm, seems to me that not the little old lady is the one which needed protection here, but the little underpaid, overlooked, supergeeky open source coder, who tried to get some kind of reward for his contribution to the code RedHat is packaging and distributing so nicely.
Sometimes it's good to be an old lady, our fingers are so stiff, that we are saved from one-click, trading-induced phony profiling questionaires, so I am donating your $2.00 donation for the "Little old lady protection fund" and transfer it to the "Big young men's slashdotting revenge fund".
1. I don't think that any scientific research exists, which does NOT represent some sort of reverse engineering. And since we are not in the dark ages, we can expect our governments and laws to protect us from "closed science", "alchemy", "voodoo"-medicine", "black boxes", "ufo-prophets" and some "digital hokuspokus" in form of "cute cats".
2. Patents, as mentioned above, are supposed to protect an inventor's R&D investment and profits for a reasonable time AND make his invention PUBLIC, revealing to anyone WHAT he has found and HOW he solved a problem. The intention of this second part of the patent law was to increase the public's knowledlge for the good of society in a way that further research could build upon previous inventions.
3. This second part of the patenting deal is the one which is screwed up completely, when dealing with patents of business methods of software programs. It doesn't work for software, because you don't REVEAL the EXACT CODE to the public, just the idea of what the program does, which is rarely a unique patentable idea in the first place.
4. The only thing which would come close to revealing the "invention" to the public with regard to software, would be to open up the source code.
5. Conclusion is that receiving a patent for a software program's business process protects the inventor's idea and profits ON THE COST of the public's interest and decreases further innovation for the society's good.
So, it's a process gone mad, which actually is to the disadvantage of society and leads to the people's dependency of closed technological procedures in massive ways.
I wonder why the software industry is allowed to enjoy these kind of priviledges other scientific disciplines would not even dare to dream of.
a patent on a program which loads slashdot by default, enforces the user to read it, ensures the reader's mind to remain that of a newbie through the privately owned Slashdot Algorithm(TM) of selecting news items in a way that creates the never-ending-ever-trying-to-overcome-newbie-status -slashdot-reader for eternity.
I heard there are discussions among the developers to release the Slashdot Algorithm as open source code, as soon as the patent has been granted by the PTO. Informed sources said it might take a while as PTO's officers are currently searching slashdot's archives for prior art and are on their way to be converted to the never-ending, ever-trying..dah,dah dah....
They were also quoted a couple of months ago in the Washington Post, saying that their numbers indicate that the only branch in e-commerce which "has no difficulties making a profit" is the porn industry. They declined to say what percentage of their traffic can be attributed to porn on their networks. (This is no flame, I am just too lazy to search for the article, it was written at least four to five months ago)
They are shrewd and very sure of their own analysis to consider such move without fear to loose a customer base. I don't think they worry about other e-commerce branches, which are not profitable enough to begin with.
My gut feelings tell me something else about flamers:
- they overevaluate intelligence (including their own)
- they miss public recognition
- they are isolated, lonely and sometimes depressed
- they cling to esoteric ideas and make intellectual gymnastics to back up their ideas with ideology
- they become zealous missionaries or master cynics.
- they need a community of friends who understand their values
- they realize that the online community is the only one they can find and stay with for ever
- they get addicted to the freedom to say anything they want and to being listened to
- they need to justify their addiction with intellectual arguements (defending "freedom of speech")
- the more the feelings get hurt, the more they need a worthy goal to justify their involvement
- they get used to be flamed and flame back as a revenge or a sport, bury hurt feelings under thick skin
- end up to be negatively attached to the group in the worst case szenario.
- need to be funny to not get completely depressed
- the funny stuff makes them more attached
- they turn into being completely dependent on the participation in the discussion...or whatever runs for such
Usenet groups and slashdot do damage... like a beloved drug you can't stop taking... you know it
and you don't know how to get away from it and with what to replace it with...
For newbies (especially females) usenet and technical groups or mailing lists can be a downright desaster.
Flame me, ignore me, deny it... all of it would be a typical reaction of an addicted person.
Now, how do I get all my posts to slashdot nuked ? I just decided that this should be my last one and all the other stuff should disappear in nowhere. Archiving them would a "misuse of irrelevant thoughts spit out into the universe causing pollution of the mind-sphere."
I used to be an environmental chemist, so may be I should end this with a smiley and consider this my
return towards my old discipline. 8-)
I think this is a rant...
Yes, I feel these statements of Garfinkel hit
the point:
The real privacy issue, I realized, has less to do with the selling of the information, and more to do with what is done with the information after it is sold:
and
And in fact, I realized, this is the fundamental difference between opt-in and opt-out legislation.
An opt-out system requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and the initiative on the part of the person whose information is being collected.......With an opt-out system, these contributors would have to register to request that their personal information not be misused, otherwise it could be....
With an opt-in system, the contributors would have to say, "Yes, please send me solicitations, please call me at home, please send me junk e-mail."....
Indeed, most AOL users don't like those pop-up messages that try to sell you something every time you log in, but few AOL users take the initiative to navigate through the service's screens to turn them off. Can you imagine somebody navigating to the AOL Marketing Preferences section and clicking the button, "Yes, I do want to receive special AOL member-only pop-up offers"? It's like sending e-mail to a spammer: "Please send me your low-interest-rate credit-card offers." That's why companies like AOL are in favor of opt-out, rather than opt-in.
It's so sad that Garfinkel didn't realize that McCain's question was a trick question. I mean the opt-out solution is nothing more than the
response of last resort of companies like AOL to hold on to a business model, which simply gives
way to abuse of your private data.
The gullible, browsing user has no knowledge and no time to fiddle around for minutes and minutes to find the opt-out page for each and every site he clicks on. It is simply a harrassment (though unnoticed) to put the burden to opt out of something, most people don't know they are opted-in by default. It's a simple trick. The analogy of spamming email fits. Being opted in by default is like receiving an email from the company you browse, asking "to show your passport" and "what's the purpose of your journey, where will you go next, what do you need to help us making your trip more convenient ?"
Then your mail system is magically set up in a way that an automatic mail response is sent out to answer whatever has been asked and the user is even not aware of it.
Give me a break...It's an abusive business method.
Reminds me of the tricks played to make it difficult for certain segments of the U.S. population to vote. Make voter registration a painful, complicated procedure, difficult to access for the poor etc, and then you know who gains.
Sorry for the rant. It is sooo easy to understand, that I can't comprehend why there is not a broader political will against it.
And for McCain's question: Yes, sure there is NO
violation of privacy rights involved disclosing
the contributor's names to fincance a campaign. As long as you can donate as much as you want and politicians can be bought like bags of potatos, you better make laws to disclose who is trying to buy whom to at least make it public who messed up a democratic way of campaigning.
What I have to accept is that what I do in the town market is public.
Sure, but this town market is your local community and the publicity of your actions isn't
broadcasted and sold worldwide. It is the local "radio trottoir" and the publicity of your actions help to establish mostly accepted "norms" of what is considered civil behaviour in your neighborhood.
The same publicity of your actions broadcasted and sold worldwide, turns into something, which can be used to abuse, humiliate, pressure or
blackmail you and vice versa. Considering that the data can easily be tinkered with, THAT is not
acceptable and has no positive social effects. It gives way to sueing each other ad nauseam.
I don't know, I think archiving usenet and email lists, like Alexa and deja.com do, violate my human right of my posted words being forgotten (ie erased) after a time period of my own choice. This choice is not given, nor granted, nor protected.
It was a hassle to try to nuke old posts from deja.com's archives. Alexas' archives are in commercial hands (Amazon), all this I think is not right.
Fact is that newbies read slashdot and post here and I was wondering what this whole karma whore stuff was all about (didn't try to find out by searching the site, I admit. Sounded so stupid to me that I didn't bother.)
I have read the logs and what the CmdrTaco and Hemos were saying. I just wanted to let you know, that, now, after I understand what this whole karma point system is all about, it makes me a bit angry or sad if you will.
I think the guys who complain a lot about moderation and stuff, are pretty much "off-balance".
The fact that someone like me can post here, without being harrassed, moderated up or down (I really wouldn't care anyhow and luckily I didn't understand your weird point system etc), is proof enough that slashdot moderators are open minded enough to handle other views. Caps on, caps off, if they help to get the worst spammers sent to the bushes, so be it.
I think you do a good job, and I have no problem to say thanks to you guys, and have some kudos for your looooonnnng hours. You are working very hard and you try to stay quite honest and not fake despite the dirt. Stay that way. Good luck.
I almost wish that the word "Property" was never associated with information. Information is radically different than physical property. Authors use other authors' information to create new information. Information is easily copied and essentially impossible to restrict in ways that a single piece of physical property is. Yet some people still tend to think of information "property" as the same as physical property.
Yes, but when does your idea, thoughts, knowledge or information turn into a "physical" unique entity, which then can turn into property with a legally defensable ownership and a monetary value ?
As soon as it has left your brain and is put into any format, which assures that the information is distributed on a tangible medium in a format, which can't be copied or stolen.
(Example as long as I just think what I type, its an idea or information kept in my brain, as soon as it is typed out, distributed digitally, it is mine, I have the copyright to the electron's order of representing this post, but can I claim a patent on the idea this order of electrons represent and enforce licence fees from anyone who has the same idea ? I guess I would have to send it out encrypted and ask from anyone, who wants to know about my idea or implement it, a fee, before I allow them to decode it, round about right ?)
Though I could understand that one could grant a patent to a business method implemented with closed source code, the same would be impossible to do with the same business method implemented as an open source code program.
So, either you have to disallow the patents of business methods implemented with a computer program altogether, or you have to disallow open source code, which is absotlutely not possible, nor enforcable.
And isn't there a difference between copyrights and patents ? You can protect a copyright of an open source code package, because the copyright protects the exact code. All you are giving away by opening up that code, is its sellability. As this is a voluntary act, nobody has the right to prevent you from doing so.
But you can't defend a patent of an open source code package, because the patent's task is to ensure the sellability of the business method implemented by that code. Thus you have to close the source code. What then remains, is a patent on a thought process without any chance of implementing the thought process in an open source format and keeping the task of a patent, as it was defined by its founders, in tact at the same time.
Actually that would lead to the conclusion that business methods, which you can implement with open source code packages, need their own patents, disallowing the patenting of the same business method with closed source code. Yes ? Can you help me thinking ? I have a blank. Can't make that straight. I can't put that together.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how the U.S. thinks it can keep up with handing over voting laws to the states and
allow a system which doesn't guarantee equal procedures and rules for every citizen of the U.S.
And what is this argument that the U.S. is not a Democracy but a Republic be good for ?
If you are not a democracy, why don't you go ahead and write this in big letters on top of every immigrant's application papers ? That might be a very efficient way to cut down the influx of cheap immigrants who take away the U.S.'s high-tech jobs. They might actually get the picture on time and go home again.
Why do you look back at arguments which made sense presumably sense for your founding fathers, but seem not to make any sense any more in today's societies.
I am looking for sites which compare the voting systems and procedures of US, France, Germany and Switzerland or Sweden.
May be it can give you some ideas about how other countries are dealing with it.
I hope that this situation will bring a HUGE discussion about how much online voting and last minute automated e-mail and telephone "spam" to influence the vote in the western states could do the fairness of the voting system, when the press is allowed to broadcast their estimates and declare a winner when the statistical sampling rules which lead to their estimates can can only be valid if there is a large enough margin of difference in the votes for or against one side.
And I hope that the US population will finally have the courage to think about the appropriateness of their electorial college and popular vote system and the fact that each state can decide on their own procedures (like when to open, close polls, if each state can follow different rules about to adhere to the winner take all rule or not).
I am not American, but I think that this situation shows clearly that the U.S. must face their constitutional laws concerning their electorial procedures in combination with what and when they allow the press to broadcast on election night and with what that means for online voting and the fact that you can influence voters over the web big time to the last minute, if voting online would replace the voting procedure on a larger margin.
May be one day the absentee vote (which is casted a lot in the military will be replaced with online votes ?).
Just imagine that the press announces someone a winner and a huge percentage of voters could cast votes in the last hours after the press has already influenced the public about who is the winner. Isn't that an IMPOSSIBLE situation ?) Imagine the U.S. would be involved in a war and had a situation like this one and the candidates had completely different opinions about the U.S.'s military involvement in the war.
And isn't it bizarre, that this was a campaign where both sides had only very little differences in their programs (at least publicly) and now the results make it as if it actually would matter much who wins and as if the differences would matter.
I haven't followed the status of online voting ? Is it already done somewhere ? What does this situation tell us about the possible dangers of online voting, if the the current electorial system would not be changed ?
Yes. If this could have been combined with a poll on highschool and college nerd's drug usage and their personal response why D.A.R.E is ....what ever it is in their minds, that would have been something else.
Frankly, I don't understand what Jorrit Tyberghein got out of this exchange. He really didn't get any clear answers from Richard Stallman.
The most amazing thing to me is, that the definition of Open Source on the GNU site is foggy to say the least. Even the explanation why the LGPL license is that much worse than the GPL license leaves much open space for clarification.
I am disappointed about the GNU site, because it lacks clear structure, logic and definitions. I go to the opensource.org site, read it and compare it with what the Free Software site writes, and have a lot of difficulties to understand what the big fuss is all about. Some very faint differences (mostly about the LGPL as far as I can see).
It seems quite awkward to me that the community discusses over three (?) years Open Source software and Free Software and is unable to come up with clear language and clear definitions with regards to their differences. It is also a surprise to me to observe RMS explaining a term with the term itself. He doesn't really participate in the exchange of arguments, but repeats a term's definition almost like a robot without using new language. He does not seem to make an effort to clarify. Why ?
Concerning RMS' morality, I certainly would not deny him all the best intentions, but it remains to be seen if the effects of Free Software will be the ones he thought would come out of it.
Certainly (as compared and in a fight against monopolies of proprietary software) the Free Software movement has initiated to deliver the first cracks into the global proprietary software companies.
In addition Free Software gives developers and users a lot of freedom for free and guarentees those freedoms for the generations of software and software developers to come. Thank you, Free Software Foundation, I mean it. Many - including me - are very grateful for Free Software.
But it makes me wonder that apparently the "Library" LGPL has been around before it became the "lesser" LGPL and before it became center piece for arguements of why Open Source software is not as desirable or useful as Free Software. I am new to it and might not understand it well enough, but so don't others.
That OTOH I think is not acceptable after all these years. RMS' leadership demands honest, direct answers.
When it comes to make a decision for a developer to make proprietary software versus Free Software software, RMS has to accept this question:
How will all those developers make a living with their work ? I consider this a valid, moral and important question.
It's not convincing at all for a major movement like the Free Software movement to shy away from the responsibility to answer this question. It's not enough to say he isn't against Free Software developers to get paid for their work. He knows that the question is not if they should or should not get paid, but if and who will pay them.
Can a small, one to three men software development company afford to make a living by writing Free Software, packaging it, providing technical and consultant support services, writing books and selling 'geek's accessories' ?
I do believe, for the time being, many find ways of making a living, but ultimately all what happens is one small software company, developing Free Software, merging with other larger ones, finally ending up just in a couple of very large companies. That trend might be even much stronger in the end for the companies trying to develop Free Software than for companies producing proprietary software.
RMS' words often sound as if those people who need to make a living and accept to work on "almost-free" projects have failed "morally". I overpaint, but that's the way RMS's words cross over to me. And usually I do listen.
I for once think it is a bit "immoral" to imply that those who don't understand the intricacies of Free Software versus Open Source software and have valid reasons to search for "almost-free" solutions for their projects, are considered less moral than those who find ways to make a living with "hundred-percent-free" software.
That's why I take the freedom to retire from this freedom business, because freely spoken, it looks surreal to me.
A good one too, you just have beaten me, being 15 minutes faster...but that's what happens if you are not a karma whore :-) anyway....Thanks.
Does Linus speak German ? Just wondering, as the original German text is a bit odd German at times
(at least for a magazine), so I wonder if that is a translation from English back to German, or from Finnish back to German or just Linus own spoken German words (which then would be extraordinary well put), anyone knows ?
No, that is unacceptable. You didn't have to call them in the first place to GET an account and make a whole fuss about why you WANTED one.
So you should not need to call them and bitch with them to CANCEL an account and make a whole fuss about why you DON'T WANT an account.
It should NOT be the customers role to defend himself against an unwanted business relationship.
It's that simple. The problem these days is to get any account closed reliably and be assured that your archived records get deleted.
the nerd's nerdy dilemma....:-)
That's really stretching it.
:-)
A low voter turn out can have a lot of reasons, but I seriously doubt that the "relative happiness" with the government is the cause.
I would say the American population is in a state of a silent "depressive" disorder. Most of you believe that nothing can really be changed, many don't really know, what they want to have changed, they just feel, something is wrong, and the rest gets the kick out of "tricking out" the system and making the most out of it for their personal lives.
Not, that this is not a phenomena somewhat everywhere, but it is more prevalent here than in other countries. And I believe that is caused by your electorial system and some of your constitutional laws , but I am not sure of it.
If there were a legal venue to protest the process, I would protest. But there doesn't seem to be one and that is very strange.
Seems to me that the minorities in today's U.S. might think then that some of the founder's intentions didn't turn out the results quite as they wanted to...or what ?
:-)
Is it possible that Americans start to be able to see their founding fathers' intentions as human ones, with the potential of having some flaws with regards to their applicability to our modern times ?
The constitution is man-made and not God-given and I would say you are allowed to make changes to it if needed be. But who knows...I am not American. Anyway, it looks like as if you can kill any political arguement by referring to your founding fathers, because apparently they did everything right and that's it. Period. End of discussion.
It's broken, it's biased and characters get shot.
...could you take it ?:-)
:-)
Slashdot is not a news wire. It picks stories from the wires and throws them into the arena so that you can have fun beating them up.
How should journalists have integrity if their employment is dependent on TV ratings exclusively?
Just imagine slashdot managers' income were dependent on getting enough of your esteemed clickage and wise contributions.
Who would end up as a karma whore ? Mr. Katz would need to tell you what you want to hear, always
If you really want to know how the EC is valued, I suggest CmdrTaco makes a two-week internship at a Washington Bureau of a foreign news wire service right now and listens carefully to the curses of foreign correspondents trying to figure it out.
I'll bet you, he will be glad returning to his slashdot headquarters and be very, very happy with the "well behaved slashdotter's contributions" to an "unbiased intellectual discussion" about politics and elections and media's influence.
My suspicion is that Americans love their broken electorial system, because usually they have a lot of fun making a mess out of it, making a lot of money with it, spending a lot of money on it, and getting some days off to organize a lot of "million something marches" to "lift up the ones" who occasionally feel cheated by it.
Don't worry, even if I think your system cries out to the sky of being unfair, I really love the American people for how they handle their own mess, very courageously, bravely and with a lot of wit.
I mean it and I love slashdot - you guys make me smile.
me - Jin Lehrer, Charlie Rose, NYT fan and happy slashdot reader, _the only_ screwed news outlet for the neutrality challenged, curious mind.
Have you ever thought that you can't find a candidate of your liking, exactly because it's the corporation's sponsor money and the candidate's own money (think Forbes) that determines which candidate can make it ?
If exclusively people's tax dollars would finance any party's campaigns equally and sponsorship of corporations were limited, you had at least a level and fair playing ground for any party and any candidate.
Oh, nonsense.
:-) And oh well, to say it with his words, he doesn't wear a tie, so he supposedly gets enough oxygen into his brain...so don't worry, be happy. :-)
The English translation misses completely the style and somewhat "coolishly plain" talk of this guy. If you were German native speaker you would understand that his talk is more comparable to a little "white knight geek who has decided to make a career as a political stand-up comic for the youngish twenty/thirty something, when talking about things which really matter". You know, it's like when something is really so serious to you that you are afraid to talk about it straight and without joking about it, because people wouldn't take you for serious talking seriously.
Don't forget that Germans are MUCH more sceptical about any kind of phony, fake rethoric than Americans. We (or our parents) had our Goebbels/Hitler/Marx experience. Missionaries of all kinds (libertarians, marxists, the born again whatever kind of style...what have you) cause most of us to throw up. Comments on this thread just reflect the different historical and cultural experiences of the readership.
If you gave a German the English article without showing him the original and ask him to translate it back to German, you would have no idea about what this guy tried to cross over to his audience in the first place and what and how he might stand up for his ideas or not. Most of it for you find between the lines and in the "sound" of his speech, which can't be translated.
Hey, complain with God, nothing we can do about it.
I am against archiving all of usenet indiscriminately. One could archive just selectively technical usenet groups for historical reasons. But I guess nobody will be brave enough to decide what to keep.
Just wondering why you think the digitized mumblings of mankind's thoughts are worth to be archived for eternity.
I for once think it's against humanity and probably against basic human rights. Our thoughts should be allowed to be forgotten. I would protest against archiving my posts to usenet for a longer time period (let's say five years).
I protest also against any archiving by default, I am for a clearly visible opt-in feature, whereby the poster allows consciously for the post to be archived longer than a couple of days or weeks. I don't want an opt-out feature from a default archiving procedure.
I am very much against the "sort-by-author" feature for usenet posters by default. If a person wants to allow the production a profile of himself (let's say in technical groups to make his expertise available and known to a worldwide audience), then it should be the decision of that person alone. It should not be done by default without the consent of the author.
After having read so many comments from young game users and coders, the one question for which I really like to hear your answers is:
:-)).
Have you had sisters ? Did they love to play games as much as you did ?
If not, why ? If yes, did they like the same games ? If yes, would the game playing had lead them to choose IT for a career ?
Do you think that loving to play the games and then starting to figure out how to code games is something you have started at such a young age, that it might be a sign that somehow your preference for those games is gender specific and more or less inate ?
How much were your game playing influenced (either supported or surpressed) by your parents ? Or did no one care what you played with ?
At what age did you start playing video and computer games ? Did you start playing games because there was nothing much else to do (i.e. real life was boring/not so nice/real shitty) or would you say that playing games were much better than all the other "good stuff" out there (music, sport, art etc.)
Just wondering, especially as I remember that Bob Young once said, that the internet is going to be
developed by sixteen year old boys. (After reading the comments here, I actually start to believe he might be right
I have seen rarely relaxed and amicable cameradey between younger male and female geeks on forums like this and I like to ask any of you to give me an opinion why that is.
Sounds like a typical mom question, yeah, can't help it somehow....
The legacy software industry is built on the proprietary binary-only model where not only does the user not get the source code he needs to make changes, but worse he receives the product under a license that essentially says that if you make any improvements to the technology you are using, if you solve a bug that is causing your systems to crash, or add a feature that your users or customers desperately need the vendor can have you thrown in jail. (If you don't believe me, just read any shrinkwrapped software license). This kind of business model, where the customer is completely beholden to his supplier exists in no other industry in any free market that I know of. It harks back to the old feudal systems of 12th century Europe.
This is what it is all about, folks ! The only thing to get upset, serious and exited about !
This is the forest, which you can't see for all your little quarrels about bugs, premature releases, jealousy and greediness about how much a commercialized corporation RH has become (oh, oh how naughty).
I am a somewhat older lady and my brain is starting to fall apart, but I can still see the forest, I believe.
Want to hear a joke ? I had open source code apps on my Linux box, before I even knew that software could come any other way than "open sourced". Yup. I remember very well when I opened up for the first time a Perl program file and thought it looked like a nice chinese-like wallpaper pattern. Well, my heartily unwelcomed questions I posted to my consultant, made me understand, believe me, click by click. :-)
I am the most loyal open source distro whore there is, in spring I feel like redhaddish, in summer I need slackware, in fall I cuddle up with Debian and in winter I just can't live without my SuSe-chen. C'est la vie. Chaqu'un a son plaisir. :-)
So, don't pollute the atmosphere. I want open source code companies to be successful, a lot of them, small and large, and I want to be able to read your code the way I can read chemical formulas, math formulas and study biochemistry.
I want transparency of what is going on in this technology in a way, that any person can learn about it and influence it with its own input.
I think Mr. Young has all the reasons to remind you all about it. Your in-house dirty laundery washing on a public forum like slashdot may be an honorable effort to prove your sacred freedom, but it would be quite a dumb thing, if you end up throwing out the baby with the bathtub's water.
You forget whom and what you are up against. And you have by no means won the battle. Even though open source code is IMHO an absolute necessity, so far you guys haven't found the code solution yet, which would make each copy/clone of an open source code program sellable the same way the proprietary software industry can sell their's.
Suffice to say that's all there is to it in the end. May be you all can survive on service-based open source business models only, but one needs a LOT of faith, stamina and stubborness to hold on and through with it. RH has proven and stated that they are determined to do so. Why not just be grateful for it and that's it ?
hmm, seems to me that not the little old lady is the one which needed protection here, but the little underpaid, overlooked, supergeeky open source coder, who tried to get some kind of reward for his contribution to the code RedHat is packaging and distributing so nicely.
Sometimes it's good to be an old lady, our fingers are so stiff, that we are saved from one-click, trading-induced phony profiling questionaires, so I am donating your $2.00 donation for the "Little old lady protection fund" and transfer it to the "Big young men's slashdotting revenge fund".
1. I don't think that any scientific research exists, which does NOT represent some sort of reverse engineering. And since we are not in the dark ages, we can expect our governments and laws to protect us from "closed science", "alchemy", "voodoo"-medicine", "black boxes", "ufo-prophets" and some "digital hokuspokus" in form of "cute cats".
2. Patents, as mentioned above, are supposed to protect an inventor's R&D investment and profits for a reasonable time AND make his invention PUBLIC, revealing to anyone WHAT he has found and HOW he solved a problem. The intention of this second part of the patent law was to increase the public's knowledlge for the good of society in a way that further research could build upon previous inventions.
3. This second part of the patenting deal is the one which is screwed up completely, when dealing with patents of business methods of software programs. It doesn't work for software, because you don't REVEAL the EXACT CODE to the public, just the idea of what the program does, which is rarely a unique patentable idea in the first place.
4. The only thing which would come close to revealing the "invention" to the public with regard to software, would be to open up the source code.
5. Conclusion is that receiving a patent for a software program's business process protects the inventor's idea and profits ON THE COST of the public's interest and decreases further innovation for the society's good.
So, it's a process gone mad, which actually is to the disadvantage of society and leads to the people's dependency of closed technological procedures in massive ways.
I wonder why the software industry is allowed to enjoy these kind of priviledges other scientific disciplines would not even dare to dream of.
a patent on a program which loads slashdot by default, enforces the user to read it, ensures the reader's mind to remain that of a newbie through the privately owned Slashdot Algorithm(TM) of selecting news items in a way that creates the never-ending-ever-trying-to-overcome-newbie-status -slashdot-reader for eternity.
..dah,dah dah .. ..
I heard there are discussions among the developers to release the Slashdot Algorithm as open source code, as soon as the patent has been granted by the PTO. Informed sources said it might take a while as PTO's officers are currently searching slashdot's archives for prior art and are on their way to be converted to the never-ending, ever-trying
They were also quoted a couple of months ago in the Washington Post, saying that their numbers indicate that the only branch in e-commerce which "has no difficulties making a profit" is the porn industry. They declined to say what percentage of their traffic can be attributed to porn on their networks. (This is no flame, I am just too lazy to search for the article, it was written at least four to five months ago)
They are shrewd and very sure of their own analysis to consider such move without fear to loose a customer base. I don't think they worry about other e-commerce branches, which are not profitable enough to begin with.
My gut feelings tell me something else about flamers:
... like a beloved drug you can't stop taking ... you know it
...
- they overevaluate intelligence (including their own)
- they miss public recognition
- they are isolated, lonely and sometimes depressed
- they cling to esoteric ideas and make intellectual gymnastics to back up their ideas with ideology
- they become zealous missionaries or master cynics.
- they need a community of friends who understand their values
- they realize that the online community is the only one they can find and stay with for ever
- they get addicted to the freedom to say anything they want and to being listened to
- they need to justify their addiction with intellectual arguements (defending "freedom of speech")
- the more the feelings get hurt, the more they need a worthy goal to justify their involvement
- they get used to be flamed and flame back as a revenge or a sport, bury hurt feelings under thick skin
- end up to be negatively attached to the group in the worst case szenario.
- need to be funny to not get completely depressed
- the funny stuff makes them more attached
- they turn into being completely dependent on the participation in the discussion...or whatever runs for such
Usenet groups and slashdot do damage
and you don't know how to get away from it and with what to replace it with
For newbies (especially females) usenet and technical groups or mailing lists can be a downright desaster.
Flame me, ignore me, deny it... all of it would be a typical reaction of an addicted person.
Now, how do I get all my posts to slashdot nuked ? I just decided that this should be my last one and all the other stuff should disappear in nowhere. Archiving them would a "misuse of irrelevant thoughts spit out into the universe causing pollution of the mind-sphere."
I used to be an environmental chemist, so may be I should end this with a smiley and consider this my
return towards my old discipline. 8-)
The real privacy issue, I realized, has less to do with the selling of the information, and more to do with what is done with the information after it is sold:
and
And in fact, I realized, this is the fundamental difference between opt-in and opt-out legislation.
An opt-out system requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and the initiative on the part of the person whose information is being collected. ... ...With an opt-out system, these contributors would have to register to request that their personal information not be misused, otherwise it could be. ...
With an opt-in system, the contributors would have to say, "Yes, please send me solicitations, please call me at home, please send me junk e-mail." ....
Indeed, most AOL users don't like those pop-up messages that try to sell you something every time you log in, but few AOL users take the initiative to navigate through the service's screens to turn them off. Can you imagine somebody navigating to the AOL Marketing Preferences section and clicking the button, "Yes, I do want to receive special AOL member-only pop-up offers"? It's like sending e-mail to a spammer: "Please send me your low-interest-rate credit-card offers." That's why companies like AOL are in favor of opt-out, rather than opt-in.
It's so sad that Garfinkel didn't realize that McCain's question was a trick question. I mean the opt-out solution is nothing more than the response of last resort of companies like AOL to hold on to a business model, which simply gives way to abuse of your private data.
The gullible, browsing user has no knowledge and no time to fiddle around for minutes and minutes to find the opt-out page for each and every site he clicks on. It is simply a harrassment (though unnoticed) to put the burden to opt out of something, most people don't know they are opted-in by default. It's a simple trick. The analogy of spamming email fits. Being opted in by default is like receiving an email from the company you browse, asking "to show your passport" and "what's the purpose of your journey, where will you go next, what do you need to help us making your trip more convenient ?" Then your mail system is magically set up in a way that an automatic mail response is sent out to answer whatever has been asked and the user is even not aware of it.
Give me a break...It's an abusive business method.
Reminds me of the tricks played to make it difficult for certain segments of the U.S. population to vote. Make voter registration a painful, complicated procedure, difficult to access for the poor etc, and then you know who gains.
Sorry for the rant. It is sooo easy to understand, that I can't comprehend why there is not a broader political will against it.
And for McCain's question: Yes, sure there is NO violation of privacy rights involved disclosing the contributor's names to fincance a campaign. As long as you can donate as much as you want and politicians can be bought like bags of potatos, you better make laws to disclose who is trying to buy whom to at least make it public who messed up a democratic way of campaigning.
Sure, but this town market is your local community and the publicity of your actions isn't broadcasted and sold worldwide. It is the local "radio trottoir" and the publicity of your actions help to establish mostly accepted "norms" of what is considered civil behaviour in your neighborhood.
The same publicity of your actions broadcasted and sold worldwide, turns into something, which can be used to abuse, humiliate, pressure or blackmail you and vice versa. Considering that the data can easily be tinkered with, THAT is not acceptable and has no positive social effects. It gives way to sueing each other ad nauseam.
I don't know, I think archiving usenet and email lists, like Alexa and deja.com do, violate my human right of my posted words being forgotten (ie erased) after a time period of my own choice. This choice is not given, nor granted, nor protected.
It was a hassle to try to nuke old posts from deja.com's archives. Alexas' archives are in commercial hands (Amazon), all this I think is not right.
Fact is that newbies read slashdot and post here and I was wondering what this whole karma whore stuff was all about (didn't try to find out by searching the site, I admit. Sounded so stupid to me that I didn't bother.)
I have read the logs and what the CmdrTaco and Hemos were saying. I just wanted to let you know, that, now, after I understand what this whole karma point system is all about, it makes me a bit angry or sad if you will.
I think the guys who complain a lot about moderation and stuff, are pretty much "off-balance".
The fact that someone like me can post here, without being harrassed, moderated up or down (I really wouldn't care anyhow and luckily I didn't understand your weird point system etc), is proof enough that slashdot moderators are open minded enough to handle other views. Caps on, caps off, if they help to get the worst spammers sent to the bushes, so be it.
I think you do a good job, and I have no problem to say thanks to you guys, and have some kudos for your looooonnnng hours. You are working very hard and you try to stay quite honest and not fake despite the dirt. Stay that way. Good luck.
I almost wish that the word "Property" was never associated with information. Information is radically different than physical property. Authors use other authors' information to create new information. Information is easily copied and essentially impossible to restrict in ways that a single piece of physical property is. Yet some people still tend to think of information "property" as the same as physical property.
Yes, but when does your idea, thoughts, knowledge or information turn into a "physical" unique entity, which then can turn into property with a legally defensable ownership and a monetary value ?
As soon as it has left your brain and is put into any format, which assures that the information is distributed on a tangible medium in a format, which can't be copied or stolen.
(Example as long as I just think what I type, its an idea or information kept in my brain, as soon as it is typed out, distributed digitally, it is mine, I have the copyright to the electron's order of representing this post, but can I claim a patent on the idea this order of electrons represent and enforce licence fees from anyone who has the same idea ? I guess I would have to send it out encrypted and ask from anyone, who wants to know about my idea or implement it, a fee, before I allow them to decode it, round about right ?)
Though I could understand that one could grant a patent to a business method implemented with closed source code, the same would be impossible to do with the same business method implemented as an open source code program.
So, either you have to disallow the patents of business methods implemented with a computer program altogether, or you have to disallow open source code, which is absotlutely not possible, nor enforcable.
And isn't there a difference between copyrights and patents ? You can protect a copyright of an open source code package, because the copyright protects the exact code. All you are giving away by opening up that code, is its sellability. As this is a voluntary act, nobody has the right to prevent you from doing so.
But you can't defend a patent of an open source code package, because the patent's task is to ensure the sellability of the business method implemented by that code. Thus you have to close the source code. What then remains, is a patent on a thought process without any chance of implementing the thought process in an open source format and keeping the task of a patent, as it was defined by its founders, in tact at the same time.
Actually that would lead to the conclusion that business methods, which you can implement with open source code packages, need their own patents, disallowing the patenting of the same business method with closed source code. Yes ? Can you help me thinking ? I have a blank. Can't make that straight. I can't put that together.
What is the legal meaning of "tangible" ?