Oh, and a library doesn't have the right to decide what it wants to put on its shelves? If so, can't it decide what it wants to put on its computers?
The reason I library's don't carry every book, is because its physically impossible. Carrying even most Books is financially impossible. However. Carrying one website costs as much as carrying all websites. In fact, it costs less (no proxy servers, no expensive software...). It's not the same thing.
From the first level: Is this really so technically difficult to protect the liberties of adults while allowing parents to limit the surfing of their children??
Yes
and there's minimal cost involved in adding mag stripe readers
I'm sorry were talking about the real world here, not some superhappy fantasyland where all the software works perfectly. This stuff comes with only one setting, on or off, as far as I've heard.
Sure, the hardware won't be a problem, but who's going to write the software? You'll need a fat database containing not only each user, but all the sites that have been turned off for them as well (If you can even set the software up on a single-system basis). How are you going to integrate it with surfwatch?
willing to write the software non-gratis just to get people to shut the hell up about it.
non-gratis means not free. This project would cost thousands of dollars, possibly tens of thousands. If the software had this capability built in, it would be a different issue. But it doesn't. So shut up.
What's the point of this? Its lamer then a web page crack, these people don't even get there names on the page.
I mean, anyone can do this, its not like it takes any talent or anything. Basicaly it's like saying "were to lame to crack this site, so were going to DoS it".
I imagine that you [delmoi] must dislike me, based on your response to my "Bruce Perens."
No, I don't dislike you. I just thought that "Bruce Penis" was a funneyer takeoff. What would make you think I disliked you? I like a good troll as much as the next guy.
I think people here take this forum a little too seriously
I don't take this forum seriously at all. Other people do, and I honestly do belive that the reason people dislike sig11 is beacuse there jelous of the fact that he get's modded up so often. But, whatever
HTML is today easier to copy, post, and download by at least an order of magnitude compared to MP3, especially over a modem. If I buy your book, would you have an objection if I scanned the book in and posted it on the web?
Yes, HTML is easier to copy then mp3s, but with music and movies, you already have a digital, or at least electronic signal. Converting to digital space is ether trivial, or already done for you.
With a book, you'd need to copy each page by hand, or scan each page individually and then OCR it, and then correct the mistakes of the OCR software.
Why would anyone want to do that to Katz's work? I read a copy of Neromancer online, that was probably worth OCRing. Anyway, if you want to read Katz without paying, you can just go to the library.
I don't know of a situation in which it would make the sentence ambiguous to use "it's" if both meanings had the '.
It's it's is it?
Well, I don't know if that's really that ambiguous.
I used to have a lot of trouble with that, but then I read a slashdot post in a discussion about whether it was relevant or not.
An easy way to remember is that there are other possessives that don't us an apostrophe, such as 'mine', your, and 'their'. Just classify 'its' with those.
Not that I care or anything. To be honest, I never even see punctuation errors in other people work, unless it seriously alters the meaning, or someone points it out.
Search IMDB for William Gibson. You'll see that there are two listed. One wrote really gay(as in stupid, not homosexual) sitcoms and miniseries for TV. The other wrote really sweet sci-fi.
You'll note that there is a similar situation with "jon/john Katz"
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Yes Jon, please tell us so we can avoid doing it. Most of the longer posts on slashdot are more concise and clear then your writing already.
I know we've had prior discussions here about the topic of unions
Christ. Geeks are among the highest paid people in this country. And a lot of them love to put in 100hour weeks if they like their job. Those that don't can find work anywhere.
Unions had their purpose, but are largely irrelevant now. If you can't make a lot of money, it's because you suck.
The number of people who dislike signal_11 is a lot less then the number of people who dislike Katz. It appears that sig11 only 'karma whored' for a while to see if the moderation system was truly broken. There is no indication that he does so anymore, seeing as no one else can see his karma anymore, and that he has enough that he'd be able to post for years without worrying.
The biggest difference is that sig11 actually writes well, unlike Katz. In my eyes, most of the people who complain about sig11 are those who are two stupid an illiterate to post anything useful, and are simply jealous of him.
When rob first instated author filtering, he posted the results of how many people filtered had filtered who. At that time, Katz has about 600 people killfile him. (with the other authors getting one or two).
I'd think that that number has gone up since then, but I still doubt that it is a significant percentage of slashdot users. I don't like him, but I don't filter him. I may just be an info-junky though (I surf at -1 for example).
I'm reminded of the line from the Howard stern movie, where the radio execs were talking about Howard's ratings. People who liked him listened for an average of 20 minutes, and the people who hated him, listened for 40. Of course, Katz is less inflammatory then Stern, and it seems most people who don't like him just think he's boring and stupid.
Kleibold and Harris did not hunt down Jews, Buddhists or Hindus in their rampage at Columbine, they went after Christians
This is incorrect. Kleibold and Harris went after any arbitrary target they could find. Since columbine was a predominantly Xian city, most of there victims were Christian.
Also, as far as Christian persecution, I really doubt its common probably less common them Muslim bashing. IIRC, Kleibold and Harris were not considered "heroes" to the general public or anything.
Maybe if we didn't have to hear Alan Keys talking about how Homosexuality is an abomination, you guys wouldn't get so much flack, you think?
By the "real" Bruce Perens no less. He posted about it, a while ago. I think in the Open Source Closed Words thread a few days ago. Bruce said that rob thought it would be 'unethical' to strip the account (I'm not sure I agree with that or not). Anyway, just keep an eye out for the dot, and hope no one registers Bruce Perens:)
A while ago, someone registerd "Bruce Penis" I thought that was a lot funnier:P
I've been thinking of doing somthing else entirely. i've got two browsers on here IE and Mozilla m11. I could esealy setup mozilla as my 'trolling' alter ego, and post normaly under this. Better then switching back and forth... Actualy, my other account is more of a karma whore then this one, though...
A bunch of people in this thread have been mentioning sex with a clone, who's Y chromosome has been replaced with an X. I suppose that you could consider it 'not a true clone' but, if you used your own X chromosome, the new one will still have the same DNA, or at least no new DNA (this doesn't work for women, but we'll assume for the moment that women aren't really interested in cloning themselves for sexual purposes...)
But what would happen if you had children with your clone? Wouldn't the kids also be clones (all the same DNA as you). I suppose that recessive traits might show up, but you could remove all non-expressed genotypes from your mate when you crate her. You wouldn't have a true genetic clone then, but you won't if you switch X and Y, and you'll still have a phenotypic clone, witch is really what most people are interested in:)
Some things are more reasonable then others. Some things are very, very close to 100% reasonable (evolution, that the holocaust happened). And others are very close to 0% (creationism, that the holocaust didn't happen). And other things are in the middle somewhere. (ambiogenisys? did Clinton knowing sell nuke secrets to china?)
Science is about getting as close to 100% as you can. Once something is close enough, its 'true' and 'proved' for all intents and purposes.
(1) Morality. Even if the company feels absolutely justified in doing what they apparently plan to, many people, while whimsically wishing for a perfect clone of themselves, could well still feel it wrong to use the company's services. People who think the company's actions morally wrong might (read: will) create some sort of protest. And the protest will likely be big.
About 10% of the people in this country see nothing wrong with cloning. I define morality for myself as not doing something that brings harm to anyone. Cloning, in and of itself, can do no more harm then identical twins, by definition. I have no desire to have myself cloned, but I don't see how cloning causes harm. (And I don't want to hear about what 'might' be done, most of the scenarios could happen without cloning, and there are plenty of technologies that can harm lots of people, such as nuclear tech. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use nuclear power).
(2) Legislation-- existing and future. Although cloning might be legal in some other country that does not mean the United States will allow it even so. Maybe the company could lawfully carry out their activities in some other country, but (new?) US laws might just render it impossible for them to service US citizens.
Cloning is legal in the US (Why do people always think that it isn't?). There are no laws preventing it. Government money cannot be used to fund it, however.
As for #3, you're right. Cloning of humans can't be done right now, as far as I know.
Looking through there website I found this. Something about 'sensual meditation
Anyway, this religion doesn't seem to be based on anything less rational then Christianity, and it looks a lot less dangerous.(based on the philosophy on there website). I'm an atheist, but I don't see why you could condemn these people and not Christianity...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and a library doesn't have the right to decide what it wants to put on its shelves? If so, can't it decide what it wants to put on its computers?
The reason I library's don't carry every book, is because its physically impossible. Carrying even most Books is financially impossible. However. Carrying one website costs as much as carrying all websites. In fact, it costs less (no proxy servers, no expensive software...). It's not the same thing.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
From the first level:
Is this really so technically difficult to protect the liberties of adults while allowing parents to limit the surfing of their children??
Yes
and there's minimal cost involved in adding mag stripe readers
I'm sorry were talking about the real world here, not some superhappy fantasyland where all the software works perfectly. This stuff comes with only one setting, on or off, as far as I've heard.
Sure, the hardware won't be a problem, but who's going to write the software? You'll need a fat database containing not only each user, but all the sites that have been turned off for them as well (If you can even set the software up on a single-system basis). How are you going to integrate it with surfwatch?
willing to write the software non-gratis just to get people to shut the hell up about it.
non-gratis means not free. This project would cost thousands of dollars, possibly tens of thousands. If the software had this capability built in, it would be a different issue. But it doesn't. So shut up.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
What's the point of this? Its lamer then a web page crack, these people don't even get there names on the page.
I mean, anyone can do this, its not like it takes any talent or anything. Basicaly it's like saying "were to lame to crack this site, so were going to DoS it".
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I imagine that you [delmoi] must dislike me, based on your response to my "Bruce Perens."
No, I don't dislike you. I just thought that "Bruce Penis" was a funneyer takeoff. What would make you think I disliked you? I like a good troll as much as the next guy.
I think people here take this forum a little too seriously
I don't take this forum seriously at all. Other people do, and I honestly do belive that the reason people dislike sig11 is beacuse there jelous of the fact that he get's modded up so often. But, whatever
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
You spend a lot of time bashing the religious beliefs of others, but never share your own.
Would you consider writing a book about your spiritual beliefs 'not sharing them'? I guess you would, since JonKatz did just that.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
keep in mind this is 'JonKatz.' as opposed the JonKatz we all know and, um, love
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
HTML is today easier to copy, post, and download by at least an order of magnitude compared to MP3, especially over a modem. If I buy your book, would you have an objection if I scanned the book in and posted it on the web?
Yes, HTML is easier to copy then mp3s, but with music and movies, you already have a digital, or at least electronic signal. Converting to digital space is ether trivial, or already done for you.
With a book, you'd need to copy each page by hand, or scan each page individually and then OCR it, and then correct the mistakes of the OCR software.
Why would anyone want to do that to Katz's work? I read a copy of Neromancer online, that was probably worth OCRing. Anyway, if you want to read Katz without paying, you can just go to the library.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
you mean like faith?
That wouldn't be like believing in god or anything would it?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I don't know of a situation in which it would make the sentence ambiguous to use "it's" if both meanings had the '.
It's it's is it?
Well, I don't know if that's really that ambiguous.
I used to have a lot of trouble with that, but then I read a slashdot post in a discussion about whether it was relevant or not.
An easy way to remember is that there are other possessives that don't us an apostrophe, such as 'mine', your, and 'their'. Just classify 'its' with those.
Not that I care or anything. To be honest, I never even see punctuation errors in other people work, unless it seriously alters the meaning, or someone points it out.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Search IMDB for William Gibson. You'll see that there are two listed. One wrote really gay(as in stupid, not homosexual) sitcoms and miniseries for TV. The other wrote really sweet sci-fi.
You'll note that there is a similar situation with "jon/john Katz"
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Yes Jon, please tell us so we can avoid doing it. Most of the longer posts on slashdot are more concise and clear then your writing already.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
JonKatz's User Info
He posts a lot more then you... And It wasn't exactly hard to find his user info ether... it amazes me how stupid people can be sometimes.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I know we've had prior discussions here about the topic of unions
Christ. Geeks are among the highest paid people in this country. And a lot of them love to put in 100hour weeks if they like their job. Those that don't can find work anywhere.
Unions had their purpose, but are largely irrelevant now. If you can't make a lot of money, it's because you suck.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Before any Christian-brainwashed-sheep hating
Ok, now we're the brainwashed sheep? I think you need to pay more atention to what you say.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Who do you hate the most?
JohnKatz
Roblimo
CmndrTaco
Hemos
VA_whore
Trollmashta
I love everyone
I think the results would be interesting, but ultimatly JK would probably take the cake.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
The number of people who dislike signal_11 is a lot less then the number of people who dislike Katz. It appears that sig11 only 'karma whored' for a while to see if the moderation system was truly broken. There is no indication that he does so anymore, seeing as no one else can see his karma anymore, and that he has enough that he'd be able to post for years without worrying.
The biggest difference is that sig11 actually writes well, unlike Katz. In my eyes, most of the people who complain about sig11 are those who are two stupid an illiterate to post anything useful, and are simply jealous of him.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
When rob first instated author filtering, he posted the results of how many people filtered had filtered who. At that time, Katz has about 600 people killfile him. (with the other authors getting one or two).
I'd think that that number has gone up since then, but I still doubt that it is a significant percentage of slashdot users. I don't like him, but I don't filter him. I may just be an info-junky though (I surf at -1 for example).
I'm reminded of the line from the Howard stern movie, where the radio execs were talking about Howard's ratings. People who liked him listened for an average of 20 minutes, and the people who hated him, listened for 40. Of course, Katz is less inflammatory then Stern, and it seems most people who don't like him just think he's boring and stupid.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Kleibold and Harris did not hunt down Jews, Buddhists or Hindus in their rampage at Columbine, they went after Christians
This is incorrect. Kleibold and Harris went after any arbitrary target they could find. Since columbine was a predominantly Xian city, most of there victims were Christian.
Also, as far as Christian persecution, I really doubt its common probably less common them Muslim bashing. IIRC, Kleibold and Harris were not considered "heroes" to the general public or anything.
Maybe if we didn't have to hear Alan Keys talking about how Homosexuality is an abomination, you guys wouldn't get so much flack, you think?
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
By the "real" Bruce Perens no less. He posted about it, a while ago. I think in the Open Source Closed Words thread a few days ago. Bruce said that rob thought it would be 'unethical' to strip the account (I'm not sure I agree with that or not). Anyway, just keep an eye out for the dot, and hope no one registers Bruce Perens :)
:P
A while ago, someone registerd "Bruce Penis" I thought that was a lot funnier
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Bruch Penis was cooler then you'll ever be, foogle
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
I've been thinking of doing somthing else entirely. i've got two browsers on here IE and Mozilla m11. I could esealy setup mozilla as my 'trolling' alter ego, and post normaly under this. Better then switching back and forth... Actualy, my other account is more of a karma whore then this one, though...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
A bunch of people in this thread have been mentioning sex with a clone, who's Y chromosome has been replaced with an X. I suppose that you could consider it 'not a true clone' but, if you used your own X chromosome, the new one will still have the same DNA, or at least no new DNA (this doesn't work for women, but we'll assume for the moment that women aren't really interested in cloning themselves for sexual purposes...)
:)
But what would happen if you had children with your clone? Wouldn't the kids also be clones (all the same DNA as you). I suppose that recessive traits might show up, but you could remove all non-expressed genotypes from your mate when you crate her. You wouldn't have a true genetic clone then, but you won't if you switch X and Y, and you'll still have a phenotypic clone, witch is really what most people are interested in
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
This is all very 1984-ish
Yes.
Some things are more reasonable then others. Some things are very, very close to 100% reasonable (evolution, that the holocaust happened). And others are very close to 0% (creationism, that the holocaust didn't happen). And other things are in the middle somewhere. (ambiogenisys? did Clinton knowing sell nuke secrets to china?)
Science is about getting as close to 100% as you can. Once something is close enough, its 'true' and 'proved' for all intents and purposes.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
(1) Morality. Even if the company feels absolutely justified in doing what they apparently plan to, many people, while whimsically wishing for a perfect clone of themselves, could well still feel it wrong to use the company's services. People who think the company's actions morally wrong might (read: will) create some sort of protest. And the protest will likely be big.
About 10% of the people in this country see nothing wrong with cloning. I define morality for myself as not doing something that brings harm to anyone. Cloning, in and of itself, can do no more harm then identical twins, by definition. I have no desire to have myself cloned, but I don't see how cloning causes harm. (And I don't want to hear about what 'might' be done, most of the scenarios could happen without cloning, and there are plenty of technologies that can harm lots of people, such as nuclear tech. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use nuclear power).
(2) Legislation-- existing and future. Although cloning might be legal in some other country that does not mean the United States will allow it even so. Maybe the company could lawfully carry out their activities in some other country, but (new?) US laws might just render it impossible for them to service US citizens.
Cloning is legal in the US (Why do people always think that it isn't?). There are no laws preventing it. Government money cannot be used to fund it, however.
As for #3, you're right. Cloning of humans can't be done right now, as far as I know.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
Looking through there website I found this. Something about 'sensual meditation
Anyway, this religion doesn't seem to be based on anything less rational then Christianity, and it looks a lot less dangerous.(based on the philosophy on there website). I'm an atheist, but I don't see why you could condemn these people and not Christianity...
[ c h a d o k e r e ]