"Scientific American had an excellent piece about extraterrestrials and where they could be/why we can't find them in the July issue."
Yeah, I was wondering where they were in the July issue. I mean, I opened up my copy of the June issue and a little green man popped out, and a few flying saucers flew outta the August edition, but nothing in July! I was about to demand my money back, but then I saw they had an explanation.
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick. Just found that particular misplaced modifier kinda funny. ^_^
Well, now that Linux and other open-source operating systems and business packages are competing with Microsoft's market, they had to figure out another option. I can see Billy boy talking with his second-in-command now:
"Well, Mr. Gates, we went a step too far with Windows 2000; there are so many bugs that people are actually using that 'castrated' operating system, or whetever those geeks call it."
"Oh, no! How will we make their machines lock up? I just can't sleep at night without my blue screens lighting up the world!"
"I don't kno- wait! What if we were to go one level higher?"
"Ah, I already tried, God isn't interested in stock options."
"Um, no, not quite that high. What if we made the chips themselves? Then, no matter what OS those sheep end up using, our cause of decreased productivity and hair loss across the nation would continue indefinitely!"
"Brilliant! Let's go buy Intel! I don't pay you enough, Satan."
> scan, wipe, scan, compare...
I open the article, and this is the first thing I read. What do *you* think was the first thing to pop in to my mind?
"It smells kinda of like corn, but... Oh, no... *blue screen* "
Um... Yes, but isnt' the world-snake supposed to eat the sun or something before it dissappears? Damn, and just when I was going to get a tan...
But honestly, who here is actually surprised that AOL finally managed to bring about armageddon?
Don't dismiss file ratios as a legitimate means of submission encouragement. Yes, the system can be abused, but after years of BBS hopping I've seen excellent methods to prevent it.
My favorite method involved an account system, whereby uploads that other members voted as 'spam' or just worthless space were counted against that user. Upload enough crap and you're booted; add a two-day account activation delay and even the most 'disciplined' media hog is curtailed.
Of course, a ratio of both file size and number of files is necessary, else you'll get people uploading one worthless 1GB file every few days, and then going to town before they're booted.
Now, these systems worked fine with one server, but systems like Napster and Gnutella present a new paradigm. How to enforce ratios when there is really no such thing as an 'upload'? A few ideas, based more on the general concept of user-controlled servers than any specific service's setup:
* For every file downloaded off a user's server, give that user a point. Servers can set a score limit on their machine for downloads (i.e. 'only people with a score of 100 can download from me'). Drop by a point or two for each download, but give 100 points or so when you sign up.
* Same system as above, but base on file size instead of number of downloads. Or perhaps a combination of the two?
* Keep track of everything on some centralized computer, and enforce the ratio much like it would be in days of lore.
* Enforce a per-server ratio, the setup of which is determined by the owner. Not a great system on this scale, but worth a look.
* Rather than 'earning' downloads, penalize users who download too much too fast with a negative score. Doesn't take into account whether or not they serve, though...
And, of course, what will probably happen in the end anyways:
* Keep the system as it is now. As the bandwith dissappears, all the hosers who don't know how to share will leave, and all the savvy slashdot readers and linux lovers will get their connection speeds back.
Any other ideas for control systems, or arguments against them?
Y'know, maybe it ain't that bad of an idea.
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 1
I mean, they're pretty much buying votes as it is, right? Whoever has the biggest ad campain, the most soundbytes, the fanciest tour bus (hey, it's important to me) is probably gonna win. Why not just cut out the middleman, and give all that wasted cash to the people?
The politicians wouldn't have to worry about all that advertisement, hand-kissing, and baby-shaking (uh...), we don't have to watch those boring and misleading campain ads 24 hrs a day, and all us ambivalents get some moola to boot! It's especially nice in the case of those heading for reelection, as it lets them keep doing their jobs without interruption or worrying about catering to minority groups.
Sure, there are people whose vote can't be bought. But in my experience, these are the belligerent folks who aren't gonna respond to a slew of ads, anyways! So ads just for them wouldn't be worth it.
- MWoody (professional devil's advocate... and baby-shaker.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, c'mon. I love the FF series, but calling it an RPG is a crime. 'RPG-lite' is a bit better.
"Scientific American had an excellent piece about extraterrestrials and where they could be/why we can't find them in the July issue."
Yeah, I was wondering where they were in the July issue. I mean, I opened up my copy of the June issue and a little green man popped out, and a few flying saucers flew outta the August edition, but nothing in July! I was about to demand my money back, but then I saw they had an explanation.
Sorry, don't mean to nitpick. Just found that particular misplaced modifier kinda funny. ^_^
Well, now that Linux and other open-source operating systems and business packages are competing with Microsoft's market, they had to figure out another option. I can see Billy boy talking with his second-in-command now:
"Well, Mr. Gates, we went a step too far with Windows 2000; there are so many bugs that people are actually using that 'castrated' operating system, or whetever those geeks call it."
"Oh, no! How will we make their machines lock up? I just can't sleep at night without my blue screens lighting up the world!"
"I don't kno- wait! What if we were to go one level higher?"
"Ah, I already tried, God isn't interested in stock options."
"Um, no, not quite that high. What if we made the chips themselves? Then, no matter what OS those sheep end up using, our cause of decreased productivity and hair loss across the nation would continue indefinitely!"
"Brilliant! Let's go buy Intel! I don't pay you enough, Satan."
"Aw, you're too kind, sir."
> scan, wipe, scan, compare... I open the article, and this is the first thing I read. What do *you* think was the first thing to pop in to my mind? "It smells kinda of like corn, but... Oh, no... *blue screen* "
Um... Yes, but isnt' the world-snake supposed to eat the sun or something before it dissappears? Damn, and just when I was going to get a tan... But honestly, who here is actually surprised that AOL finally managed to bring about armageddon?
Don't dismiss file ratios as a legitimate means of submission encouragement. Yes, the system can be abused, but after years of BBS hopping I've seen excellent methods to prevent it.
My favorite method involved an account system, whereby uploads that other members voted as 'spam' or just worthless space were counted against that user. Upload enough crap and you're booted; add a two-day account activation delay and even the most 'disciplined' media hog is curtailed.
Of course, a ratio of both file size and number of files is necessary, else you'll get people uploading one worthless 1GB file every few days, and then going to town before they're booted.
Now, these systems worked fine with one server, but systems like Napster and Gnutella present a new paradigm. How to enforce ratios when there is really no such thing as an 'upload'? A few ideas, based more on the general concept of user-controlled servers than any specific service's setup:
* For every file downloaded off a user's server, give that user a point. Servers can set a score limit on their machine for downloads (i.e. 'only people with a score of 100 can download from me'). Drop by a point or two for each download, but give 100 points or so when you sign up.
* Same system as above, but base on file size instead of number of downloads. Or perhaps a combination of the two?
* Keep track of everything on some centralized computer, and enforce the ratio much like it would be in days of lore.
* Enforce a per-server ratio, the setup of which is determined by the owner. Not a great system on this scale, but worth a look.
* Rather than 'earning' downloads, penalize users who download too much too fast with a negative score. Doesn't take into account whether or not they serve, though...
And, of course, what will probably happen in the end anyways:
* Keep the system as it is now. As the bandwith dissappears, all the hosers who don't know how to share will leave, and all the savvy slashdot readers and linux lovers will get their connection speeds back.
Any other ideas for control systems, or arguments against them?
I mean, they're pretty much buying votes as it is, right? Whoever has the biggest ad campain, the most soundbytes, the fanciest tour bus (hey, it's important to me) is probably gonna win. Why not just cut out the middleman, and give all that wasted cash to the people? The politicians wouldn't have to worry about all that advertisement, hand-kissing, and baby-shaking (uh...), we don't have to watch those boring and misleading campain ads 24 hrs a day, and all us ambivalents get some moola to boot! It's especially nice in the case of those heading for reelection, as it lets them keep doing their jobs without interruption or worrying about catering to minority groups. Sure, there are people whose vote can't be bought. But in my experience, these are the belligerent folks who aren't gonna respond to a slew of ads, anyways! So ads just for them wouldn't be worth it. - MWoody (professional devil's advocate... and baby-shaker.)