I share you opinion that "making it look like Portal" does not add very much to what's already existing...
Even in real life this kind of turret is not new : http://www.gizmag.com/korea-dodamm-super-aegis-autonomos-robot-gun-turret/17198/
The only thing that make TFA interesting is that it was made "for cheap" using simple components and software. Not OSS though, wonder what OpenCV would do on this kind of project.
This sure is a nice catchy headline. Loading this very page caused a 503 Guru meditaion for me.... If slashdot cannot handle the load of this topic, I don't even THINK of clicking TFA...
Another hugely expensive technology to not look into the real problem of firearms ubiquity in US ?
Anybody thinking about limiting the availability of firearms rather than attempting to pinpoint shooters ?
Appart from that I can't start to imagine how such a prop could ever cost 250K per square mile. I'm pretty sure 2/3 microphones per block + a cleverly hacked strongarm could achieve the same goal.
I totaly agree. And I also think that there should be a way on/. for the readers to choose what they want on the front page or not.
Maybe there is a way to put the stories in a "wait zone" and realy publish them when the moderators will have the possibility to review it, and finaly chosen to push it to level "5 interesting for the average/.er"
Or maybe I'm totaly wrong and this is not technicaly (and/or practically) possible for some reason...
Just my.2$
I think this idea is very good. I think that most of the comments agree on one thing though : Stallman's article doesn't give enough details on the practical side to make it seem real. He (as usualy) defends the ethical side of the problem, and rightly enough describes the way the content should be free (speech) but he leaves a huge blank area in the field of the practical (and technical) implementation of GNUpedia.
I think that Internet and the Open Source community is somehow ready to start such a project (and I don't think it was the case anytime before).
What we need to make it real is a deep deep thinking on the technical/practical side of it. And while we are here, why not talk about how you would technically do it ? I mean,/. readers are probably the most qualified to talk/think about this if not to implement it themselves...
Here is how I would see it : I think that what we realy need in terms of encyclopedia is something that would sit between Shaslcode and QuestionExchange. Something where anyone could post comments, articles, pictures and all the shit, but where every willing people could also judge the pertinence of the content. Say for example that this article is a troll, this other one is "insightfull" and so on. People could also say "this article was usefull to my knowledge". So we would have two level of moderation : one on the "editorial scale" (troll/interesting), and one on the content quality/usefullness.
Why ? Because I think that Stallman is right on one point at least : it needs to be completly free (speech) to be interesting. Doing else would be doing something that has already be done (say britanica for example) and that perhaps doesn't need to be done again.
Making GNUpedia an "open to any post" system is a nice idea, but it also implies that we will have to face A LOT of content submissions. Even if we wanted to create an "editorial board" to decide what would be included and what would not (which we cannot if we want to remain free as in speech) it would be too much work for (volunteers) individuals to "separate the good from the evil".
So what we need is a system that allows anybody to feed it with his/her particular bit of knowledge, and them let the individual reader make the content "worth reading" by moderating it up or down.
Then, after a while, we might (might) have something interesting for anyone. In that case I'm sure it would be the greatest success of Open Source movment (aren't we talking about free knowledge, free information since the very beginning of Open Source ?)
Another thought I have too : why make it web (http) based ? Any rational reason for it ? I think we have now in our hands a better technical way to do it : why not build it as a peer-to-peer network (based on this or that) with a client/server program using Gecko to render the documents ? What do you think ?
That was my 2 cents worth thoughts...
PS : Please forgive the english, it's not my mother tongue.
Slashdot Mirror
I share you opinion that "making it look like Portal" does not add very much to what's already existing...
Even in real life this kind of turret is not new : http://www.gizmag.com/korea-dodamm-super-aegis-autonomos-robot-gun-turret/17198/
The only thing that make TFA interesting is that it was made "for cheap" using simple components and software. Not OSS though, wonder what OpenCV would do on this kind of project.
This sure is a nice catchy headline.
Loading this very page caused a 503 Guru meditaion for me....
If slashdot cannot handle the load of this topic, I don't even THINK of clicking TFA...
Mandatory XKCD http://xkcd.com/552/
Another hugely expensive technology to not look into the real problem of firearms ubiquity in US ?
Anybody thinking about limiting the availability of firearms rather than attempting to pinpoint shooters ?
Appart from that I can't start to imagine how such a prop could ever cost 250K per square mile. I'm pretty sure 2/3 microphones per block + a cleverly hacked strongarm could achieve the same goal.
I didn't see any price tag in the article. Everything depends now on that I guess. If it comes cheap then horray, to infinity and beyond we go !
How should I know what's in the storage in the first place if I cannot browse it ?
.2 euros
My
Once again Taco is adding bulshit to plain usefull news...
Who says the 25k boxes running staroffice will be under Linux ?
I totaly agree. And I also think that there should be a way on /. for the readers to choose what they want on the front page or not.
/.er"
.2$
Maybe there is a way to put the stories in a "wait zone" and realy publish them when the moderators will have the possibility to review it, and finaly chosen to push it to level "5 interesting for the average
Or maybe I'm totaly wrong and this is not technicaly (and/or practically) possible for some reason... Just my
I think this idea is very good. I think that most of the comments agree on one thing though : Stallman's article doesn't give enough details on the practical side to make it seem real. He (as usualy) defends the ethical side of the problem, and rightly enough describes the way the content should be free (speech) but he leaves a huge blank area in the field of the practical (and technical) implementation of GNUpedia.
/. readers are probably the most qualified to talk/think about this if not to implement it themselves...
I think that Internet and the Open Source community is somehow ready to start such a project (and I don't think it was the case anytime before).
What we need to make it real is a deep deep thinking on the technical/practical side of it. And while we are here, why not talk about how you would technically do it ? I mean,
Here is how I would see it : I think that what we realy need in terms of encyclopedia is something that would sit between Shaslcode and QuestionExchange. Something where anyone could post comments, articles, pictures and all the shit, but where every willing people could also judge the pertinence of the content. Say for example that this article is a troll, this other one is "insightfull" and so on. People could also say "this article was usefull to my knowledge". So we would have two level of moderation : one on the "editorial scale" (troll/interesting), and one on the content quality/usefullness.
Why ? Because I think that Stallman is right on one point at least : it needs to be completly free (speech) to be interesting. Doing else would be doing something that has already be done (say britanica for example) and that perhaps doesn't need to be done again.
Making GNUpedia an "open to any post" system is a nice idea, but it also implies that we will have to face A LOT of content submissions. Even if we wanted to create an "editorial board" to decide what would be included and what would not (which we cannot if we want to remain free as in speech) it would be too much work for (volunteers) individuals to "separate the good from the evil".
So what we need is a system that allows anybody to feed it with his/her particular bit of knowledge, and them let the individual reader make the content "worth reading" by moderating it up or down.
Then, after a while, we might (might) have something interesting for anyone. In that case I'm sure it would be the greatest success of Open Source movment (aren't we talking about free knowledge, free information since the very beginning of Open Source ?)
Another thought I have too : why make it web (http) based ? Any rational reason for it ? I think we have now in our hands a better technical way to do it : why not build it as a peer-to-peer network (based on this or that) with a client/server program using Gecko to render the documents ? What do you think ? That was my 2 cents worth thoughts...
PS : Please forgive the english, it's not my mother tongue.