You haven't been paying attention to the DeCSS cases, have you? Access control measures are not the same as copy control measures. Hundreds of people are being sued in California and New York for creating/distributing a utility which allows them to watch DVDs - not copy them, but merely watch, especially in the California case - on unapproved players. Lawfully purchased DVDs.
Pay attention. This isn't about copying anymore (although copying is, of course, also covered). If your Vitalbook has a password, let's call it "foobar", and you give the password to a friend to read, both you and the friend have just circumvented an access control measure for private financial gain (otherwise the friend would have had to buy it). As of October 28, that is against the law. You're liable, and vulnerable.
I think there's a difference between posting a story which you know will make people angry, and inflaming a story so as to make people MORE angry. I think this is the first. News about the DVD-CCA trial is important; paying attention to the propaganda of the movie industry is important; if seeing what other people have to say about you makes you angry, well... maybe you ought to take it up with them.
The main difference between Taco giving his opinion here and the actions of the news conglomerates is that they would take care to mislead you by pretending to be objective while spinning as hard as they can. Taco skipped the "misleading" part.
In my mind at least, that's about an order of magnitude better. But I guess if you prefer to be lied to, so be it. --
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I'm just replying to my own post to create a sort of "for the record" in case anyone ever comes back and reviews this thread. Check the timestamps to see the posting sequence here.
There are currently three replies by logged-in posters, and 8 anonymous replies. Of the three logged-in posters, one of them is one of the slashdot trolls (although he wasn't trolling this time). Of the 8 anonymous replies, 4 of them are spam postings and one of them is a reply to a spam posting. The spam postings were generated by a script.
It doesn't look like there are any down-moderations on any of the posts. Probably out of the 11, five of them should have been knocked down to -1.
One of the comments (which started at 2) has been modded up to 3. It is interesting to note that the post which started out the highest got modded up, which might confirm what comment #142 in this thread mentioned about moderators browsing at +2.
When I moderate, I usually do so at 0. I try to knock down posts at 0 to -1. My goal there is to try to keep the 0 level readable, because I think the AC posting ability could be a useful thing. Is there a flaw in my moderation procedures? Sure - there could be an insightful AC post which was knocked down to -1, and I won't see it to rescue it from oblivion. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't have enough time in the day to read every post at -1.
The two links to Scoop discussions of moderation are informative. I've been thinking for a while about how moderation should be done, and it may be worthwhile to note that the system I was thinking about satisfies most of kmself's attributes of a moderation system.
The people on Scoop are trying to solve two separate problems: signal-to-noise and DOS. I don't care much about the DOS aspect, only the S-N ratio.
I should probably note for the record that no, I don't run slashdot. Rob Malda and Jeff Bates do. They don't speak for me. I don't speak for them. 'Nuff said.
There are in fact a significant number of checks in place to slow down abuses (notice I did not say "prevent abuses"). While it's certainly possible to continue adding more and more, it's equally possible to continue creating spam scripts that get around whatever checks are in place. (If "zikzak conspiracy" is banned, it will just be something else next week.)
Probably the only solution which would actually work in the long run is banning non-logged-in posting entirely, and making it difficult to get a new account. Note that this change would significantly change the way the site operates.
I'm not saying whether I'm for or against such a thing. I don't think there is anything of quality posted anonymously - hasn't been for a long time. For that matter, I find that anything posted by what is obviously a "new" user (currently user numbers around 216,000 or so) is almost certainly junk - a handful of people have gone through hundreds of user IDs to post spam. But, and this is a big "but", I'm still somewhat hesitant to advocate anything which would reduce the freedom of the site.
Perhaps another solution would be for the general slashdot readership to a) avoid feeding the trolls and spammers and b) moderate freely. It's not ideal, but nothing is.
The USPS hasn't been subsidized for some years now and actually turns a good profit.
At one point in time they were massively in the red and received government funding to make up the difference, however they were charged with becoming self-sufficient and have done so nicely.
Re:this sums up the slashdot journalistic ethos
on
NYT On DeCSS Case
·
· Score: 4
Actually, I lauded the writer for researching both sides of the story. Probably 50% of the stories about DeCSS have been written by reading the Plaintiff's press releases; another 40% have been written by trying to get both sides but failing substantially; and maybe 10% have accurately portrayed the whole story. This story is in that last 10%, and I was happy.
I should probably avoid these sorts of throw-away one-liners in the future since it seems there's always someone in the slashdot audience who either doesn't read or doesn't parse what I said, or in some other way fails to understand.
I should note for the record that slashdot has had a number of story submissions for stories whose writers had failed to get the MPAA's side; that is, they were essentially rants and propaganda, but written from an anti-MPAA point of view. I wouldn't want to run those in the same way as I wouldn't want to run something written from MPAA press releases - they're both crap, IMHO.
I think you're misreading the photo. McCullagh and Goldstein both noted that while this case went on, right out on the street bootleg copies were being sold - the implication is not that Goldstein is busy selling bootleg VHS copies, but that the recording industry is ignoring the copyright infringers in favor of going after people like Goldstein who distributed a program which undermines their control of the DVD player market.
This post should not be taken as a defense of Declan McCullagh in general or in regard to any other actions he may have taken, but I think your dislike for him is causing you to misread this photo and its message. -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
A lot of people have trouble learning/finding/understanding that there are sections other than the front page where stories which are interesting but which don't seem "good" or "meaty" enough to make the front page are placed. Part of it is a user interface issue. Part of it is cluelessness. Let's guess which one applies to "Kickasso". -- Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Slashdot Mirror
There's no real legal r`eason, AFAIK, why a book can't be shipped with a EULA...
You probably want to read my Copyrant. There is a legal reason why books aren't shipped with a EULA. The real question is, why is software?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You haven't been paying attention to the DeCSS cases, have you? Access control measures are not the same as copy control measures. Hundreds of people are being sued in California and New York for creating/distributing a utility which allows them to watch DVDs - not copy them, but merely watch, especially in the California case - on unapproved players. Lawfully purchased DVDs.
Pay attention. This isn't about copying anymore (although copying is, of course, also covered). If your Vitalbook has a password, let's call it "foobar", and you give the password to a friend to read, both you and the friend have just circumvented an access control measure for private financial gain (otherwise the friend would have had to buy it). As of October 28, that is against the law. You're liable, and vulnerable.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Score -1, didn't read any of the links in the article before replying.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I think there's a difference between posting a story which you know will make people angry, and inflaming a story so as to make people MORE angry. I think this is the first. News about the DVD-CCA trial is important; paying attention to the propaganda of the movie industry is important; if seeing what other people have to say about you makes you angry, well... maybe you ought to take it up with them.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
You need to review the copyright laws passed in the last five years.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I think you'll find that we've already covered two out of those three items listed.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Most Americans own no stock at all, and never will. Most Americans have an annual family income of less than $30,000.
The fallacy that a rising stock market floats all boats is one of the most deep-seated lies that pervades our thinking about economics.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
1 quadrillion = 1E15
Nobody uses that name, though.
Not until the national debt gets up there.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
But the force of the gas's expansion can be harnessed. Run it through a turbine, just like any hydroelectric generator.
Ever seen a paintball gun in action?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Hu? How do you know that? IP logging?
SWAG.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
LOL.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Heh. Slashdot authors and accordions. Two things that probably shouldn't go together.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
No, just a typo, actually.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
How can it drop another notch when (by your user number) you just found out about the place last week?
We never drop more than one notch per week, you know!
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The main difference between Taco giving his opinion here and the actions of the news conglomerates is that they would take care to mislead you by pretending to be objective while spinning as hard as they can. Taco skipped the "misleading" part.
In my mind at least, that's about an order of magnitude better. But I guess if you prefer to be lied to, so be it.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I'm just replying to my own post to create a sort of "for the record" in case anyone ever comes back and reviews this thread. Check the timestamps to see the posting sequence here.
There are currently three replies by logged-in posters, and 8 anonymous replies. Of the three logged-in posters, one of them is one of the slashdot trolls (although he wasn't trolling this time). Of the 8 anonymous replies, 4 of them are spam postings and one of them is a reply to a spam posting. The spam postings were generated by a script.
It doesn't look like there are any down-moderations on any of the posts. Probably out of the 11, five of them should have been knocked down to -1.
One of the comments (which started at 2) has been modded up to 3. It is interesting to note that the post which started out the highest got modded up, which might confirm what comment #142 in this thread mentioned about moderators browsing at +2.
When I moderate, I usually do so at 0. I try to knock down posts at 0 to -1. My goal there is to try to keep the 0 level readable, because I think the AC posting ability could be a useful thing. Is there a flaw in my moderation procedures? Sure - there could be an insightful AC post which was knocked down to -1, and I won't see it to rescue it from oblivion. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't have enough time in the day to read every post at -1.
The two links to Scoop discussions of moderation are informative. I've been thinking for a while about how moderation should be done, and it may be worthwhile to note that the system I was thinking about satisfies most of kmself's attributes of a moderation system.
The people on Scoop are trying to solve two separate problems: signal-to-noise and DOS. I don't care much about the DOS aspect, only the S-N ratio.
I should probably note for the record that no, I don't run slashdot. Rob Malda and Jeff Bates do. They don't speak for me. I don't speak for them. 'Nuff said.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
There are in fact a significant number of checks in place to slow down abuses (notice I did not say "prevent abuses"). While it's certainly possible to continue adding more and more, it's equally possible to continue creating spam scripts that get around whatever checks are in place. (If "zikzak conspiracy" is banned, it will just be something else next week.)
Probably the only solution which would actually work in the long run is banning non-logged-in posting entirely, and making it difficult to get a new account. Note that this change would significantly change the way the site operates.
I'm not saying whether I'm for or against such a thing. I don't think there is anything of quality posted anonymously - hasn't been for a long time. For that matter, I find that anything posted by what is obviously a "new" user (currently user numbers around 216,000 or so) is almost certainly junk - a handful of people have gone through hundreds of user IDs to post spam. But, and this is a big "but", I'm still somewhat hesitant to advocate anything which would reduce the freedom of the site.
Perhaps another solution would be for the general slashdot readership to a) avoid feeding the trolls and spammers and b) moderate freely. It's not ideal, but nothing is.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
The USPS hasn't been subsidized for some years now and actually turns a good profit.
At one point in time they were massively in the red and received government funding to make up the difference, however they were charged with becoming self-sufficient and have done so nicely.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
And Debian 2.1.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Actually, I lauded the writer for researching both sides of the story. Probably 50% of the stories about DeCSS have been written by reading the Plaintiff's press releases; another 40% have been written by trying to get both sides but failing substantially; and maybe 10% have accurately portrayed the whole story. This story is in that last 10%, and I was happy.
I should probably avoid these sorts of throw-away one-liners in the future since it seems there's always someone in the slashdot audience who either doesn't read or doesn't parse what I said, or in some other way fails to understand.
I should note for the record that slashdot has had a number of story submissions for stories whose writers had failed to get the MPAA's side; that is, they were essentially rants and propaganda, but written from an anti-MPAA point of view. I wouldn't want to run those in the same way as I wouldn't want to run something written from MPAA press releases - they're both crap, IMHO.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
It's not server resources that are the problem.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
That is possibly the most insightful comment I've seen about a discussion forum this year.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
I think you're misreading the photo. McCullagh and Goldstein both noted that while this case went on, right out on the street bootleg copies were being sold - the implication is not that Goldstein is busy selling bootleg VHS copies, but that the recording industry is ignoring the copyright infringers in favor of going after people like Goldstein who distributed a program which undermines their control of the DVD player market.
This post should not be taken as a defense of Declan McCullagh in general or in regard to any other actions he may have taken, but I think your dislike for him is causing you to misread this photo and its message.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
New York City's Chinatown area is a few blocks away from the courthouse.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
A lot of people have trouble learning/finding/understanding that there are sections other than the front page where stories which are interesting but which don't seem "good" or "meaty" enough to make the front page are placed. Part of it is a user interface issue. Part of it is cluelessness. Let's guess which one applies to "Kickasso".
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org