But I think that Digg has proven that the ability to mod things down is not necessary. (Not that Digg is perfect) Given that electronic communication (forums, email) lack the humanizing nuance provided by body language and voice inflection, humor all too often is modded as "troll" or "offtopic". If something is unappealing, mods should ignore it. I firmly believe that modding "up" is far superior in achieving the goal of moderation, and so, by faithfully participating in meta-moderation, I am doing my little bit to make Slashdot a better place.
/* The moderation system is out of control here. I originally posted this as a joke in response to the parent. I never expected it to get modded up, I only posted it to have some fun with the poster of the parent. But I certainly never expected it to get moderated down as redundant???
Redundant as to what?
So I'm posting it again to restore it to its humble 2. Waste your Goddamned precious mod points on it. I dare ya. I'll post it again and it'll show up again as a 2.
I try to meta-moderate as much as possible. I mark all positive mods "fair" and all negative mods "unfair".
I don't think there's a need for negative mods. But maybe it was put in place to take care of something that it has so successfully taken care of, that I can't see the need.
If inexpensive, convenient, entertaining uses of legally purchased media disappear, perhaps more people will turn to free or nearly-free entertainment created without onerous copyright restrictions and not carrying scary legal threats.
Putting aside concern for the obvious damage such legislation does to civil rights, it might actually lead to the demise of the "old" media companies as it becomes safer and less expensive to just enjoy the cheap, independent productions on the old, slow, (public access) 3rd tier of the internet.
What is so fascinating about this entire mess, is the obsession with control.
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows.
Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
I think Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows. Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
"They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist."
Enough of this documentation exists so that newer developers can create newer versions of Office which interoperate with older versions. That's all that's necessary.
Hey! I learned a new word! I was gonna be a wank and ask if you meant asynchronous but some little voice in my head kept me from becoming an insta-jerk and I went here instead:
"...without it, there is no incentive for "the little guy" to make any real content. Sure, a few Honest Joes will pony up the cash for their content, but, in my experience, the rest of them will simply steal it."
One thing, I think, that your comment doesn't take into account is the artificial price of "content". Huge media enterprises have enormous layers of management and staff in addition to tons of equipment and property. On the other hand, "little guys" can make extremely popular and enjoyable programs with as little as 2 people and a hand-held video camera. So, if the little guy can make money off the Honest Joes driven to his site by the enormous popularity of his "content" as a result of viral "sharing", he's ahead of the game.
And way ahead of the huge conglomerates who absolutely have to register audiences in the hundreds of thousands to break even.
Another way to put it is - There's no actual reason why Sylvestor Stallone should pocket $40M for his part in a so-so movie. That's artificial compensation based upon the fact that in the past, only big-buck investors could afford to produce and distribute films. You get a group of 20 people and each is willing to make $20k for a venture that will take a month to produce, and you have the biggest "submarine" threat that the legacy content providers face.
One more factor is the constantly dropping price of sophisticated recording and production equipment - it levels the playing field so that the "art" of a production (writing, acting, editing) is more important than the glitz (special effects, promotion).
Slashdot Mirror
It's peeeeeople!!!
MjM
Now finally we'll see a decrease in senseless mouse deaths.
Stewart Little
"CHLOE: It looks like the terrorists are trying to overload the router with IP addresses."
That's the first thing I've ever read on Slashdot that's come close to causing me physical pain
MjM
"we were working with the GINA in the NT 4.0 days"
Was that the Veteran's Administration GINA?
You know, the VA GINA?
MjM
But I think that Digg has proven that the ability to mod things down is not necessary. (Not that Digg is perfect) Given that electronic communication (forums, email) lack the humanizing nuance provided by body language and voice inflection, humor all too often is modded as "troll" or "offtopic". If something is unappealing, mods should ignore it. I firmly believe that modding "up" is far superior in achieving the goal of moderation, and so, by faithfully participating in meta-moderation, I am doing my little bit to make Slashdot a better place.
MjM
Arguing with his drivel is simply wasting your time
Like arguing with Rush Limbaugh?
MjM
That's what I wanted to say and you did it so much better.
MjM
I know it's wrong, but I just love reading Dvorak's columns when he blathers on about apocalyptic doom for Microsoft.
shiver :)
MjM
What are tabs?
MjM
The moderation system is out of control here. I originally posted this as a joke in response to the parent. I never expected it to get modded up, I only posted it to have some fun with the poster of the parent. But I certainly never expected it to get moderated down as redundant???
Redundant as to what?
So I'm posting it again to restore it to its humble 2. Waste your Goddamned precious mod points on it. I dare ya. I'll post it again and it'll show up again as a 2.
Ai!
MjM
*/
MjM
I try to meta-moderate as much as possible. I mark all positive mods "fair" and all negative mods "unfair".
I don't think there's a need for negative mods. But maybe it was put in place to take care of something that it has so successfully taken care of, that I can't see the need.
MjM
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancements Act of 2006.
Is it just me or is it that the more horrible a bill it, the nicer a name it has?
I guess you wouldn't get many people to line up behind
Hand the Internet over to the Incumbent Telcos to Apologize for Breaking up AT&T Bill
MjM
I hate it when funny things get modded "troll".
MjM
What are tabs?
MjM
If inexpensive, convenient, entertaining uses of legally purchased media disappear, perhaps more people will turn to free or nearly-free entertainment created without onerous copyright restrictions and not carrying scary legal threats.
Putting aside concern for the obvious damage such legislation does to civil rights, it might actually lead to the demise of the "old" media companies as it becomes safer and less expensive to just enjoy the cheap, independent productions on the old, slow, (public access) 3rd tier of the internet.
MjM
Microsoft - "Your passion, our permission"
MjM
Once upon a time, media companies produced content and released it when they desired. They manufactured "stars" and "hits" and neither rarely occurred outside Big Media's control. And if they did, they were quickly co-opted.
Digital distribution and the internet put an end to all that.
DRM is nothing more than a desperate attempt by these companies to put the genie back in the bottle; to return to the days when they competed only amongst themselves and controlled access to product with an iron fist.
So, the fact that a government functionary would profess favor for a technology whose only real purpose is to stifle creativity and prop up some very entrenched yet increasing obsolescent businesses is a rather amazing demonstration of how pervasive this mindset is.
MjM
A true Roseanne Rosannadana moment:
She thought she was talking about "Digital Radio Markets"
MjM
Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows.
Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
Just my opinion, anyway
MjM
I respectfully disagree with this comment.
I think Microsoft is fighting tooth-and-nail to withold the information necessary to interoperate seamlessly with Office (particularly Word and Excel) and Windows. Once that information is out, Samba, Open Office and a ragged horde of other smaller, free applications will slaughter those two cash cows and Microsoft will be mortally wounded.
"They simply CANNOT produce those docs. They most likely don't exist."
Enough of this documentation exists so that newer developers can create newer versions of Office which interoperate with older versions. That's all that's necessary.
Just my opinion, anyway
MjM
Hey! I learned a new word! I was gonna be a wank and ask if you meant asynchronous but some little voice in my head kept me from becoming an insta-jerk and I went here instead:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/isochronous.html
Whew! that was close
MjM
"...without it, there is no incentive for "the little guy" to make any real content. Sure, a few Honest Joes will pony up the cash for their content, but, in my experience, the rest of them will simply steal it."
One thing, I think, that your comment doesn't take into account is the artificial price of "content". Huge media enterprises have enormous layers of management and staff in addition to tons of equipment and property. On the other hand, "little guys" can make extremely popular and enjoyable programs with as little as 2 people and a hand-held video camera. So, if the little guy can make money off the Honest Joes driven to his site by the enormous popularity of his "content" as a result of viral "sharing", he's ahead of the game.
And way ahead of the huge conglomerates who absolutely have to register audiences in the hundreds of thousands to break even.
Another way to put it is - There's no actual reason why Sylvestor Stallone should pocket $40M for his part in a so-so movie. That's artificial compensation based upon the fact that in the past, only big-buck investors could afford to produce and distribute films. You get a group of 20 people and each is willing to make $20k for a venture that will take a month to produce, and you have the biggest "submarine" threat that the legacy content providers face.
One more factor is the constantly dropping price of sophisticated recording and production equipment - it levels the playing field so that the "art" of a production (writing, acting, editing) is more important than the glitz (special effects, promotion).
MjM
Hasta la Vista, baby.
MjM
That is pretty damn funny. :)
MjM