Some other posts mentioned displaying a percentage like "10 % funny, 40 % flamebait, 50 % troll" next to the actual moderation score. That way we don't get an abstract value (from -1 to 5) but a more detailed (meta)info about the moderated post. I think that's a great idea.
People are individuals. Each individual has a different definition of humor, trolling, insight, etc. What is a good comment for one is a bad one for somebody else. All comments are rated by a minority of moderators for all of the audience. We're all here, so why would we need representatives to preselect what is good or bad, why not have us choose on our own? Sure, moderation is optional (just change threshold), but recent events have shown that it's not as reliable as it should be!
How about an alternative: Every post offers a way to classify it. Every registered reader is allowed to select one of the categories. It's possible to change a selection once it was submitted, so changing votes is okay, but per account you can only vote once per posting. People will read the articles and comments, classify some of the posts, then click submit before leaving and go on. The page displays the total votes and percentages next to the posts so readers always see its classification. Since every reader can vote, even quiet lurkers are helping here (probably the majority - those who read most should be able to affect it as well as those who write there), things should be fair and balanced (if the majority is immature jerks, Slashdot is lost anyway, our whole community would be damned). Abuse wouldn't be such a problem since the reasonable classifications would outweigh the bogus ones.
There's one drawback: It's not as easy to set a threshold - it can get very complex. To solve this problem, people's preferences should let them set up point values for each category. For example: humor +1, insight +2, flamebait -3, and so on. Then some mathematical formula calculates the final score for each comment which is compared to your threshold. People who don't log in will get a default template or something. That way every registered user can customize Slashdot to their liking, valueing each category the way they want, for themselves.
The only problem is how to calculate such a per-user-rating and apply it to the pages. That's a lot of processing that should be done client-side which would only be possible by using a Java frontend or something similar. Perhaps it's not possible or usable for Slashdot at our current technology level? But it sure would be the best way! Maybe there's a way if enough people think about it...
The side effect would be to make moderators obsolete since there won't be any objective scores but only subjective presentation customized to each reader. Putting all registered users back on the same level, no elite, and Coward-ship is a self-selected status. No ego surfing (or posting / moderating) anymore.
Well, I can see that someone working on a nuclear weapon would be considered a traitor, but the point here is whether or not a encryption should be considered as important to state security. I mean, someone helping to develop a kids toy, even during a war, for an opponent probably won't be convicted as a traitor.
If you have proper crypto, it's almost impossible to find out that you do work on nuclear weapons or do other things considered treason. Or just trade kiddie porn. Authorities wouldn't be able to find out so they are afraid of strong crypto that's routinely employed by most people.
Of course, there's a pitfall here, since the smart criminals already have that crypto and use it regularly. The only people who don't have it yet are ordinary people. The terrorist threat won't change because of crypto, but if everybody uses it, authorities will lose their tight control. They don't like that, so they fight it, but ultimately they can't win. They would ruin their economy and people that way.
The next powers that be might well be corporations - but I digress...
This season will be the last season of the X-files anyway... There will be no X-files for him to quit, so this really isn't news.
Not necessarily true. Fox loves the X-Files, and they're gonna do anything they can to think of some way that the show will go on.
X-Files: Resurrection
Tagline: Witness the resurrection.
Plot Outline: 200 years after his death, Fox Mulder is revived as a powerful human/Cigarette-Smoking hybrid clone who must continue his war against The Cigarette-Smoking Man.
Maybe because we INVENTED IT. You can say we don't have power over it all you want but if we decided to close off all the pipes going to outside the states, it'd collapse in a heartbeat. I bet you have to go through the states to get from the UK to Sweden. Don't you?
AFAIR (As Far As I Recall), AOL (America Off...er...OnLine) works like that, using a central authoritative server-system.;)
One of the main purposes of the Internet (ARPAnet) was to allow for continued connectivity even if one or some links get broken - but as one of the inventors, you probably know that already.
Quick comment: I'm using a Red Hat 6.0-based Internet gateway to connect my network to my ISP's dial-up link. ICQ & Quake3Arena work flawlessly without any special setup besides the regular firewall settings. I didn't have to bother with modprobe/insmod of any filters, it worked straight out of the box, so I don't think it's a problem of Red Hat Linux.
HP Labs and UCLA researchers have apparently been able to produce logic Gates via chemical processes rather than standard lithography, making Gates only a few atoms in size, according to Saturday's San Jose Mercury News. The article describes the Gates as being a thousand times smaller than current Gates. Mass production is at least a decade away, if the process turns out to be commerically feasible.
To sum it up: If this works out well, Linux will soon be overrun by lots of little Bills, giving Microsoft a totally new meaning...;-)
It seems to me that some people here define their freedom by limiting other people's freedom. This is not what i would call freedom.
My freedom ends where yours begins - and freedom always comes with responsibility. You're free to do whatever you want, you're responsible for your actions, you must not limit the freedom of others. It's a simple principle that can and does cause pretty complex situations. Usually it's obvious, for instance, think about this: Somebody comes along and puts lots of advertisement stickers on my property. No matter how easy they are to be removed, if I don't want them, I shouldn't be bothered with it. On your property, feel free to put those stickers all over the place, it's your property. Your decision. But leave mine alone, please, as I'll leave yours in peace. It's about the same situation: ISP's providing boards for discussion and AOL messing it up with ads against the will of the owners. Oh, it's not AOL that abuses the system, it's just some users - so read on:
I am not saying that if people abuse their rights on an online service, we shouldn't punish them. But punishing individuals is not the same as excluding a large internetprovider and all it's clients.
AOL is free to set up its own rules within their service. AOL customers/members are bound by these rules, if they cause trouble, their accounts will be cancelled. Since the service belongs to AOL, only AOL itself decides who can and who cannot access the service. At the same time, AOL as an ISP is a member of the Internet, not the owner of the net. There are rules and netizens are bound by these rules. If they cause trouble, their ISP's will be involved, too. If the ISP doesn't help enfore the rules but supports the abusers, the ISP will be held responsible, so the ISP will be punished. Of course that will punish all innocent customers as well. That's the point, those uninvolved people will hopefully realize that AOL has made a mistake, and once enough people increase the pressure, something will be changed. AOL couldn't care less about public newsgroups, but if their users care enough, they'll make AOL care and act.
If God had meant men to fly he would have given us wings! It's your type of radical thinking that will be the death of us.
...or He/She/It (whatever - it's still undefined) would have given us brains, creativity, and curiosity to invent wings and other stuff.
Those who believe in an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural being shouldn't claim we could be dangerous to it or its plans.
Man (not just men!!) is gifted (or cursed?!) to reconsider, evaluate, and think about the world we live in. That's human nature. Superstition as well as FUD don't help anyone, we have to be open for discussion, ready to learn and change our opinion whenever it's necessary.
To *cure* aging, we'll probably have to find a way to repair or replace cells which wear out, on a case-by-case basis. This could be anything from low-level repair via nanotech, to body-swapping (brain included) every half-century.
If evolution tries to perfectionize nature, and human beings are part of it, life itself should have provided such a mechanism: Reincarnation; sooner or later all of us will realize if it's true or false.
Re:Becoming a moderator; lowering initial score
on
Slashdot Notes
·
· Score: 3
Is moderator status based solely on how much you read/. now? I would think it would be better to also consider how a user's posts have been moderated and how much they've posted. Also, it might be better to find some way to 'score' moderators based on their actions than rotating through them.
AFAIK, there're more lurkers just reading/. than people who post their opinion regularly. Probably there's a silent majority and an outspoken minority. It would be quite unfair if only posters would be able to rate postings.
I think all of the audience (i.e. people who regularly visit and read/.) should be eligible for moderator access. It's not just the posters but all of the people who should be able to make up their minds on the quality of postings *and* voice that opinion by moderating - IMHO.
Some people just post to say something, anything, possibly getting moderator access for just an unrated (1) comment. Others who only post if a topic is especially interesting to them will rarely be moderators although they might be more educated than others who do get moderator status.
If it's kept track of date of registration, number and duration of visits, not just score and number of posts, some of the regular lurkers could be given moderator access as well. Maybe picking half of the moderators from the lurker group? At least *some* representation of this quiet but important group of/. readers!
I used to chat in a 3D-VR-Chat system where you could build and own your property, create a house, etc. It wasn't a gaming system like Ultima Online, although sometimes people asked for possibilities to kill each other, it basically was just a fancy 3D chat. Everyone could build, but only registered users (called "Citizens") could "own" their stuff, unregistered visitors (called "Tourists") could delete and modify each other's stuff.
It was nice, it was a community, built and kept alive by the users. Eventually, the company who owned the system changed the rules. Until then, registration was free, but now they made users pay or lose their accounts.
So the people who built the world, created and made a real virtual community come true, were forced to either pay or leave. The notion of "your property" suddenly didn't matter anymore, the worlds belonged to the system, which was owned by a commercial company. Actually those early builders should have been paid for developing the system and enhancing the community. Regular users should be paid for making the virtual world worthwile. At least all should get it for free.
I learned my lessons from this adventure and realized a community shouldn't be based on a proprietary system that can change too suddenly. If a proprietary system dies because its owners give it up, it's gone, all your property will be gone as well. Lots of time, energy, money will be wasted. Usually people move on, establish their communities in another system, so my point is that the actual property isn't as important as the community itself.
If UO would perish, people would migrate to EQ, or something else. They won't be able to take their property with them, though, only their experience. So I wonder how one can value virtual property that much? If there was an open way to convert and move property, it would be great, you could move around! An open protocol to use your UO characters, items, and possessions in EQ, for instance. But as long as commercial companies only think about doing the opposite, binding people to themselves, forcing them to use their system.
I really wished there was a free and open standard system - I know there are some in the making, but there's no real alternative to UO/EQ/etc. yet, is there?!
Finally, to sum it up, maybe I should have labeled this posting "Does Property Matter?" since IMHO only the community matters: If UO/EQ/whatever was deserted, you could have all the property, but it would be worthless!
$80 is a SMALL price to pay when you realize all the advanced features that are in this release of the new RedHat operating system! Things like SMP, RedHat 2.2 kernel, GNOME *1.0*, kde 1.1, APACHE... the world's best web server! Where else can you find all these features packed into one OS? ONLY with Red Hat! Other free Unixes like GNU/Linux can only HOPE to match these amazing features that Red Hat has to offer.
That posting was kind of weird: Makes some good points based on facts (e.g. the Apache reference), yet mixes up some other important facts.
1st. You don't pay $80 for the actual OS, which is NOT "the RedHat OS", it's a Linux distribution. If you pay for the retail package, you get a manual, customer support, and other goodies. You don't pay for Linux itself, it doesn't belong to RedHat, always remember that.
2nd. RedHat 2.2 Kernel? There's no such thing! It's the Linux kernel. Even if the distribution is called RedHat Linux, it doesn't mean "RedHat's Linux" but "RedHat's distribution of Linux". Keep that in mind.
3rd. Here's the worst misconception: GNU/Linux is presented as a competing product. Repeat: There's no RedHat OS, actually, RedHat Linux is GNU/Linux as well. And that's why you can download it for free with source code included: That's part of the GNU GPL License. RedHat isn't being nice because of that, they have to offer it for free like that, otherwise they couldn't offer it at all. The fact that they write and donate their own enhancements and code under the GPL, that's the nice thing, very nice indeed. It also means that their "amazing features" can be used by any other distribution.
I assume the poster mixed this up because of a misunderstanding of OSS and the Linux concept. It can't be compared to commercial proprietary software. It's a totally new thing for most of us, an exciting evolution of software, so we must learn that new concept to fully understand the free software phenomenon.
PS: I'm a happy user of both RedHat Linux 5.2 & Debian GNU/Linux:-)
'Linux is no where near ready for "primetime" no matter what you people say.'
But of course. Must be an illusion. Look, Quake 3: Arena will be released for Mac, Windows, Linux. At the same time, full-blown retail packages, advertisement and stuff. Linux is right there, in the middle, between Apple and Microsoft. Think about that.
Oops, my mistake, I forgot: Troll can't think - only flame...;-)
Much ado about the wrong thing
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
"That's why the printing press freed the Word"
Oh, that just struck me with an analogy, think about this: Luther (an individual) used a (new - at that time) medium, the printing press, that (in effect) freed people from the powerful grip of the church (religion) after severe fighting and struggling. Now we have the Internet (another new medium) that might (hopefully) empower individuals to free themselves from the powerful grip of the government. I'm not speaking of anarchy, we still have religion, but nowadays the balance between danger and help has shifted.
Yet - if history repeats itself - other powers (corporations) might take over the net and corrupt it? Well, keep in mind, history isn't repeating itself but evolving! This time it might be different...
This is very similar to MP3. MP3 = Audio. Video = MPG (or other formats). In this particular case (bootlegging movies) it's the use of a valid format (e.g. MPG) for illegal reasons. Similar to sneaking a cassette recorder into a musical or concert. You get a copy but it's bad quality. So if you like what you got, there's enough motivation to get an original. If the copy you have is an unaltered original (i.e. digitally copied) that motivation is limited. You still might want to get an original so you can show it off, have a nice box, or additional goodies. Or just to honor the creators by paying for something you enjoy. If you don't pay, I'd not consider it stealing, you're not physically taking something away. You just make a copy. The original is left in place and unaltered. If that's theft or not is up to yourself. So I leave it at that. As you ought to leave that decision for others to decide on their own as well. Just like owning an original. Do you own the original? Some say you only got it licensed! Not your property. Well, I think this issue will work out just like MP3: A lot of warez and a lot of legal uses. The movie industry will be changed by this like the music industry is being changed by MP3. And our Intellectual Property definitions and laws will be reconsidered and adapted. Always remember: There's no such thing like a free lunch. And digital data isn't food. It's information which is a totally different thing, don't mix it up, please...
Much ado about the wrong thing
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
That was a good posting which made me think about something else - but still related:
Our society encourages stereotypes and conformity while trying to suppress individuality. Individuals who accept themselves and are happy can't be controlled as easily as those who feel weak and guilty. That's how governments and religions have ruled over the society for at least the last millenia.
In our own community, the bleeding edge, we can notice that very well: FUD is nothing Microsoft invented, it's been used to rule the world for ages, now after religion and government the media is in charge. They have been corrupted. They want to remain in control. Blame is issued, scapegoats are denounced, outsiders (those not directly in the know) are mislead - just think of what the gullible public will think of these events (as they don't read Slashdot's discussions, only well-known media)...
Such things have to change. People have to regain their responsibility. And give up judging others from their own views, realizing that One-Size-Fits-All doesn't fit anymore, times are changing now. You can see it right here: RedHat vs. Debian (vs. Slackware & Co.), KDE vs. GNOME (vs. CDE & Co.), Linux vs. GNU (vs. BSD & Co.)! Silly flame wars, useless fighting, just use and support what you want without trying to convert others - then you use your energies reasonably.
Back to the topic at hand: We shouldn't try to prevent those problems ("random" outbreaks of violence) by banning anything (guns, games, media coverage), we should SOLVE the problems, so all of us have to reconsider. Parents and children alike. Even better: together!!
Perhaps redhat.com should apply some of slashdots new preference features to customise the content that appears on their site so only relavant slashdot information gets published.
I don't think this news item is very techie-oriented, it's more of an ideological nature, so it's arguable why it's on Slashdot.
But it's here, so it's there at Red Hat's portal as well, which I think is a good policy: Mirror Slashdot without filtering out any articles. If they would censor the news, there wouldn't be much point to it, it would raise suspicion. Since they do not censor, I made Red Hat's portal my starting homepage. Gives me a great overview over all of my favorite sites which I visit afterwards when I noticed some interesting stuff. Saves me the time to visit several sites if they haven't updated or interesting news, so if they would limit their mirrors, I'd have to go there all the time. Personally, I think the advantage of making this kind of comfortable surfing possible outweighs the disadvantage of a few unrelated items on their site. Of course it would be nice if we could customize Red Hat's portal just like Slashdot, but still, the uncensored overview is what counts.
Regarding unrelated news, well, get a Slashdot account and filter it out. Maybe we'll get a score system for topics as well. Would be nice, but I'm happy as it is. Thanks to all who made this possible, both here at Slashdot and there at Red Hat, keep up the good work.
As Gandhi said: First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
The stronger the opposition, the fiercer the fight, the closer at hand is victory...
They can't win, so they try harder, but that can't change the outcome at all!!
---
Another thing: I think everybody should be responsible for their own actions, so if I put up a link to illegal content, the surfers themselves are responsible for what they do - ignore it or follow it, but it's your decision, unless I autoforward you there or put the contents in one of my frames. The usual disclaimer. And if I bought a CD, I should be able to get as many MP3's of it as I want, which applies for other areas as well.
(Rant: What I hate most is copy-protection for games, or worse, registration requirements. It only bothers legal users. Crackers always get through while I'm bothered by silly authentification checks.)
Furthermore, it's still quite a ways from being something that I would want to put on my mom's computer.
Well, actually I did put it on my mom's computer, I put it on all PC's at home. While it's true that it's quite a change for newbies to get used to it, it's entirely possible. My whole family is using Linux since I got rid of Windoze, it forced them to learn a bit, which is a good thing. Microsoft keeps people computer-illiterate whereas Unix creates tech-savvy users...
Of course my mother isn't a guru, she's using KDE, only knows a couple of Shell commands (startx, fetchmail, top) and has no idea about internals - but that's my job, a sys-admin's task, and I'm certainly glad she can't kill the system by making a mistake.
So Linux is a valuable choice for family computers as long as there's a knowledgeable administrator available. A stand-alone home computer for newbies might be a problem, though. That could be solved by a special distro that is especially tailored to "powerless-users" (so to speak).
Well, hopefully not, I don't want Linux to melt sooner or later after the collision with Windows. Then the Linuxberg would be lost yet Bill Gates's Titanic might be remembered as a great legend. James Cameron could even make a movie about Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Some other posts mentioned displaying a percentage like "10 % funny, 40 % flamebait, 50 % troll" next to the actual moderation score. That way we don't get an abstract value (from -1 to 5) but a more detailed (meta)info about the moderated post. I think that's a great idea.
People are individuals. Each individual has a different definition of humor, trolling, insight, etc. What is a good comment for one is a bad one for somebody else. All comments are rated by a minority of moderators for all of the audience. We're all here, so why would we need representatives to preselect what is good or bad, why not have us choose on our own? Sure, moderation is optional (just change threshold), but recent events have shown that it's not as reliable as it should be!
How about an alternative: Every post offers a way to classify it. Every registered reader is allowed to select one of the categories. It's possible to change a selection once it was submitted, so changing votes is okay, but per account you can only vote once per posting. People will read the articles and comments, classify some of the posts, then click submit before leaving and go on. The page displays the total votes and percentages next to the posts so readers always see its classification. Since every reader can vote, even quiet lurkers are helping here (probably the majority - those who read most should be able to affect it as well as those who write there), things should be fair and balanced (if the majority is immature jerks, Slashdot is lost anyway, our whole community would be damned). Abuse wouldn't be such a problem since the reasonable classifications would outweigh the bogus ones.
There's one drawback: It's not as easy to set a threshold - it can get very complex. To solve this problem, people's preferences should let them set up point values for each category. For example: humor +1, insight +2, flamebait -3, and so on. Then some mathematical formula calculates the final score for each comment which is compared to your threshold. People who don't log in will get a default template or something. That way every registered user can customize Slashdot to their liking, valueing each category the way they want, for themselves.
The only problem is how to calculate such a per-user-rating and apply it to the pages. That's a lot of processing that should be done client-side which would only be possible by using a Java frontend or something similar. Perhaps it's not possible or usable for Slashdot at our current technology level? But it sure would be the best way! Maybe there's a way if enough people think about it...
The side effect would be to make moderators obsolete since there won't be any objective scores but only subjective presentation customized to each reader. Putting all registered users back on the same level, no elite, and Coward-ship is a self-selected status. No ego surfing (or posting / moderating) anymore.
Well, I can see that someone working on a nuclear weapon would be considered a traitor, but the point here is whether or not a encryption should be considered as important to state security. I mean, someone helping to develop a kids toy, even during a war, for an opponent probably won't be convicted as a traitor.
If you have proper crypto, it's almost impossible to find out that you do work on nuclear weapons or do other things considered treason. Or just trade kiddie porn. Authorities wouldn't be able to find out so they are afraid of strong crypto that's routinely employed by most people.
Of course, there's a pitfall here, since the smart criminals already have that crypto and use it regularly. The only people who don't have it yet are ordinary people. The terrorist threat won't change because of crypto, but if everybody uses it, authorities will lose their tight control. They don't like that, so they fight it, but ultimately they can't win. They would ruin their economy and people that way.
The next powers that be might well be corporations - but I digress...
This season will be the last season of the X-files anyway... There will be no X-files for him to quit, so this really isn't news.
Not necessarily true. Fox loves the X-Files, and they're gonna do anything they can to think of some way that the show will go on.
X-Files: Resurrection
Tagline: Witness the resurrection.
Plot Outline: 200 years after his death, Fox Mulder is revived as a powerful human/Cigarette-Smoking hybrid clone who must continue his war against The Cigarette-Smoking Man.
Guest Appearance: Winona Ryder (as a Synthetic)
Maybe because we INVENTED IT. You can say we don't have power over it all you want but if we decided to close off all the pipes going to outside the states, it'd collapse in a heartbeat. I bet you have to go through the states to get from the UK to Sweden. Don't you?
;)
:)
AFAIR (As Far As I Recall), AOL (America Off...er...OnLine) works like that, using a central authoritative server-system.
One of the main purposes of the Internet (ARPAnet) was to allow for continued connectivity even if one or some links get broken - but as one of the inventors, you probably know that already.
Greetings to Al Gore, too.
Quick comment: I'm using a Red Hat 6.0-based Internet gateway to connect my network to my ISP's dial-up link. ICQ & Quake3Arena work flawlessly without any special setup besides the regular firewall settings. I didn't have to bother with modprobe/insmod of any filters, it worked straight out of the box, so I don't think it's a problem of Red Hat Linux.
HP Labs and UCLA researchers have apparently been able to produce logic Gates via chemical processes rather than standard lithography, making Gates only a few atoms in size, according to Saturday's San Jose Mercury News. The article describes the Gates as being a thousand times smaller than current Gates. Mass production is at least a decade away, if the process turns out to be commerically feasible.
;-)
:-)
To sum it up: If this works out well, Linux will soon be overrun by lots of little Bills, giving Microsoft a totally new meaning...
Sorry - couldn't resist!
It seems to me that some people here define their freedom by limiting other people's freedom. This is not what i would call freedom.
My freedom ends where yours begins - and freedom always comes with responsibility. You're free to do whatever you want, you're responsible for your actions, you must not limit the freedom of others. It's a simple principle that can and does cause pretty complex situations.
Usually it's obvious, for instance, think about this: Somebody comes along and puts lots of advertisement stickers on my property. No matter how easy they are to be removed, if I don't want them, I shouldn't be bothered with it.
On your property, feel free to put those stickers all over the place, it's your property. Your decision. But leave mine alone, please, as I'll leave yours in peace.
It's about the same situation: ISP's providing boards for discussion and AOL messing it up with ads against the will of the owners. Oh, it's not AOL that abuses the system, it's just some users - so read on:
I am not saying that if people abuse their rights on an online service, we shouldn't punish them. But punishing individuals is not the same as excluding a large internetprovider and all it's clients.
AOL is free to set up its own rules within their service. AOL customers/members are bound by these rules, if they cause trouble, their accounts will be cancelled. Since the service belongs to AOL, only AOL itself decides who can and who cannot access the service.
At the same time, AOL as an ISP is a member of the Internet, not the owner of the net. There are rules and netizens are bound by these rules. If they cause trouble, their ISP's will be involved, too. If the ISP doesn't help enfore the rules but supports the abusers, the ISP will be held responsible, so the ISP will be punished.
Of course that will punish all innocent customers as well. That's the point, those uninvolved people will hopefully realize that AOL has made a mistake, and once enough people increase the pressure, something will be changed. AOL couldn't care less about public newsgroups, but if their users care enough, they'll make AOL care and act.
If God had meant men to fly he would have given us wings! It's your type of radical thinking that will be the death of us.
...or He/She/It (whatever - it's still undefined) would have given us brains, creativity, and curiosity to invent wings and other stuff.
Those who believe in an omnipotent and omniscient supernatural being shouldn't claim we could be dangerous to it or its plans.
Man (not just men!!) is gifted (or cursed?!) to reconsider, evaluate, and think about the world we live in. That's human nature. Superstition as well as FUD don't help anyone, we have to be open for discussion, ready to learn and change our opinion whenever it's necessary.
To *cure* aging, we'll probably have to find a way to repair or replace cells which wear out, on a case-by-case basis. This could be anything from low-level repair via nanotech, to body-swapping (brain included) every half-century.
If evolution tries to perfectionize nature, and human beings are part of it, life itself should have provided such a mechanism: Reincarnation; sooner or later all of us will realize if it's true or false.
Is moderator status based solely on how much you read /. now? I would think it would be better to also consider how a user's posts have been moderated and how much they've posted. Also, it might be better to find some way to 'score' moderators based on their actions than rotating through them.
/. than people who post their opinion regularly. Probably there's a silent majority and an outspoken minority. It would be quite unfair if only posters would be able to rate postings.
/.) should be eligible for moderator access. It's not just the posters but all of the people who should be able to make up their minds on the quality of postings *and* voice that opinion by moderating - IMHO.
/. readers!
AFAIK, there're more lurkers just reading
I think all of the audience (i.e. people who regularly visit and read
Some people just post to say something, anything, possibly getting moderator access for just an unrated (1) comment. Others who only post if a topic is especially interesting to them will rarely be moderators although they might be more educated than others who do get moderator status.
If it's kept track of date of registration, number and duration of visits, not just score and number of posts, some of the regular lurkers could be given moderator access as well. Maybe picking half of the moderators from the lurker group? At least *some* representation of this quiet but important group of
I used to chat in a 3D-VR-Chat system where you could build and own your property, create a house, etc. It wasn't a gaming system like Ultima Online, although sometimes people asked for possibilities to kill each other, it basically was just a fancy 3D chat. Everyone could build, but only registered users (called "Citizens") could "own" their stuff, unregistered visitors (called "Tourists") could delete and modify each other's stuff.
It was nice, it was a community, built and kept alive by the users. Eventually, the company who owned the system changed the rules. Until then, registration was free, but now they made users pay or lose their accounts.
So the people who built the world, created and made a real virtual community come true, were forced to either pay or leave. The notion of "your property" suddenly didn't matter anymore, the worlds belonged to the system, which was owned by a commercial company. Actually those early builders should have been paid for developing the system and enhancing the community. Regular users should be paid for making the virtual world worthwile. At least all should get it for free.
I learned my lessons from this adventure and realized a community shouldn't be based on a proprietary system that can change too suddenly. If a proprietary system dies because its owners give it up, it's gone, all your property will be gone as well. Lots of time, energy, money will be wasted. Usually people move on, establish their communities in another system, so my point is that the actual property isn't as important as the community itself.
If UO would perish, people would migrate to EQ, or something else. They won't be able to take their property with them, though, only their experience. So I wonder how one can value virtual property that much? If there was an open way to convert and move property, it would be great, you could move around! An open protocol to use your UO characters, items, and possessions in EQ, for instance. But as long as commercial companies only think about doing the opposite, binding people to themselves, forcing them to use their system.
I really wished there was a free and open standard system - I know there are some in the making, but there's no real alternative to UO/EQ/etc. yet, is there?!
Finally, to sum it up, maybe I should have labeled this posting "Does Property Matter?" since IMHO only the community matters: If UO/EQ/whatever was deserted, you could have all the property, but it would be worthless!
$80 is a SMALL price to pay when you realize all the advanced features that are in this release of the new RedHat operating system! Things like SMP, RedHat 2.2 kernel, GNOME *1.0*, kde 1.1, APACHE... the world's best web server! Where else can you find all these features packed into one OS? ONLY with Red Hat! Other free Unixes like GNU/Linux can only HOPE to match these amazing features that Red Hat has to offer.
:-)
That posting was kind of weird: Makes some good points based on facts (e.g. the Apache reference), yet mixes up some other important facts.
1st. You don't pay $80 for the actual OS, which is NOT "the RedHat OS", it's a Linux distribution. If you pay for the retail package, you get a manual, customer support, and other goodies. You don't pay for Linux itself, it doesn't belong to RedHat, always remember that.
2nd. RedHat 2.2 Kernel? There's no such thing! It's the Linux kernel. Even if the distribution is called RedHat Linux, it doesn't mean "RedHat's Linux" but "RedHat's distribution of Linux". Keep that in mind.
3rd. Here's the worst misconception: GNU/Linux is presented as a competing product. Repeat: There's no RedHat OS, actually, RedHat Linux is GNU/Linux as well. And that's why you can download it for free with source code included: That's part of the GNU GPL License. RedHat isn't being nice because of that, they have to offer it for free like that, otherwise they couldn't offer it at all. The fact that they write and donate their own enhancements and code under the GPL, that's the nice thing, very nice indeed. It also means that their "amazing features" can be used by any other distribution.
I assume the poster mixed this up because of a misunderstanding of OSS and the Linux concept. It can't be compared to commercial proprietary software. It's a totally new thing for most of us, an exciting evolution of software, so we must learn that new concept to fully understand the free software phenomenon.
PS: I'm a happy user of both RedHat Linux 5.2 & Debian GNU/Linux
'Linux is no where near ready for "primetime" no matter what you people say.'
;-)
But of course. Must be an illusion. Look, Quake 3: Arena will be released for Mac, Windows, Linux. At the same time, full-blown retail packages, advertisement and stuff. Linux is right there, in the middle, between Apple and Microsoft. Think about that.
Oops, my mistake, I forgot: Troll can't think - only flame...
"That's why the printing press freed the Word"
Oh, that just struck me with an analogy, think about this: Luther (an individual) used a (new - at that time) medium, the printing press, that (in effect) freed people from the powerful grip of the church (religion) after severe fighting and struggling. Now we have the Internet (another new medium) that might (hopefully) empower individuals to free themselves from the powerful grip of the government. I'm not speaking of anarchy, we still have religion, but nowadays the balance between danger and help has shifted.
Yet - if history repeats itself - other powers (corporations) might take over the net and corrupt it? Well, keep in mind, history isn't repeating itself but evolving! This time it might be different...
This is very similar to MP3. MP3 = Audio. Video = MPG (or other formats).
In this particular case (bootlegging movies) it's the use of a valid format (e.g. MPG) for illegal reasons.
Similar to sneaking a cassette recorder into a musical or concert. You get a copy but it's bad quality. So if you like what you got, there's enough motivation to get an original.
If the copy you have is an unaltered original (i.e. digitally copied) that motivation is limited. You still might want to get an original so you can show it off, have a nice box, or additional goodies. Or just to honor the creators by paying for something you enjoy.
If you don't pay, I'd not consider it stealing, you're not physically taking something away. You just make a copy. The original is left in place and unaltered.
If that's theft or not is up to yourself. So I leave it at that. As you ought to leave that decision for others to decide on their own as well.
Just like owning an original. Do you own the original? Some say you only got it licensed! Not your property.
Well, I think this issue will work out just like MP3: A lot of warez and a lot of legal uses. The movie industry will be changed by this like the music industry is being changed by MP3. And our Intellectual Property definitions and laws will be reconsidered and adapted.
Always remember: There's no such thing like a free lunch. And digital data isn't food. It's information which is a totally different thing, don't mix it up, please...
That was a good posting which made me think about something else - but still related:
Our society encourages stereotypes and conformity while trying to suppress individuality. Individuals who accept themselves and are happy can't be controlled as easily as those who feel weak and guilty. That's how governments and religions have ruled over the society for at least the last millenia.
In our own community, the bleeding edge, we can notice that very well: FUD is nothing Microsoft invented, it's been used to rule the world for ages, now after religion and government the media is in charge. They have been corrupted. They want to remain in control. Blame is issued, scapegoats are denounced, outsiders (those not directly in the know) are mislead - just think of what the gullible public will think of these events (as they don't read Slashdot's discussions, only well-known media)...
Such things have to change. People have to regain their responsibility. And give up judging others from their own views, realizing that One-Size-Fits-All doesn't fit anymore, times are changing now. You can see it right here: RedHat vs. Debian (vs. Slackware & Co.), KDE vs. GNOME (vs. CDE & Co.), Linux vs. GNU (vs. BSD & Co.)!
Silly flame wars, useless fighting, just use and support what you want without trying to convert others - then you use your energies reasonably.
Back to the topic at hand: We shouldn't try to prevent those problems ("random" outbreaks of violence) by banning anything (guns, games, media coverage), we should SOLVE the problems, so all of us have to reconsider. Parents and children alike. Even better: together!!
Perhaps redhat.com should apply some of slashdots new preference features to customise the content that appears on their site so only relavant slashdot information gets published.
I don't think this news item is very techie-oriented, it's more of an ideological nature, so it's arguable why it's on Slashdot.
But it's here, so it's there at Red Hat's portal as well, which I think is a good policy: Mirror Slashdot without filtering out any articles. If they would censor the news, there wouldn't be much point to it, it would raise suspicion. Since they do not censor, I made Red Hat's portal my starting homepage. Gives me a great overview over all of my favorite sites which I visit afterwards when I noticed some interesting stuff. Saves me the time to visit several sites if they haven't updated or interesting news, so if they would limit their mirrors, I'd have to go there all the time. Personally, I think the advantage of making this kind of comfortable surfing possible outweighs the disadvantage of a few unrelated items on their site. Of course it would be nice if we could customize Red Hat's portal just like Slashdot, but still, the uncensored overview is what counts.
Regarding unrelated news, well, get a Slashdot account and filter it out. Maybe we'll get a score system for topics as well. Would be nice, but I'm happy as it is. Thanks to all who made this possible, both here at Slashdot and there at Red Hat, keep up the good work.
As Gandhi said: First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
The stronger the opposition, the fiercer the fight, the closer at hand is victory...
They can't win, so they try harder, but that can't change the outcome at all!!
---
Another thing: I think everybody should be responsible for their own actions, so if I put up a link to illegal content, the surfers themselves are responsible for what they do - ignore it or follow it, but it's your decision, unless I autoforward you there or put the contents in one of my frames. The usual disclaimer. And if I bought a CD, I should be able to get as many MP3's of it as I want, which applies for other areas as well.
(Rant: What I hate most is copy-protection for games, or worse, registration requirements. It only bothers legal users. Crackers always get through while I'm bothered by silly authentification checks.)
Furthermore, it's still quite a ways from being something that I would want to put on my mom's computer.
Well, actually I did put it on my mom's computer, I put it on all PC's at home. While it's true that it's quite a change for newbies to get used to it, it's entirely possible. My whole family is using Linux since I got rid of Windoze, it forced them to learn a bit, which is a good thing. Microsoft keeps people computer-illiterate whereas Unix creates tech-savvy users...
Of course my mother isn't a guru, she's using KDE, only knows a couple of Shell commands (startx, fetchmail, top) and has no idea about internals - but that's my job, a sys-admin's task, and I'm certainly glad she can't kill the system by making a mistake.
So Linux is a valuable choice for family computers as long as there's a knowledgeable administrator available. A stand-alone home computer for newbies might be a problem, though. That could be solved by a special distro that is especially tailored to "powerless-users" (so to speak).
Linux, the iceberg for bgates's titanic!
;-)
Well, hopefully not, I don't want Linux to melt sooner or later after the collision with Windows. Then the Linuxberg would be lost yet Bill Gates's Titanic might be remembered as a great legend. James Cameron could even make a movie about Microsoft.
NT - No Thanks!!