Re:If you want decent scientific articles..
on
Bad Science in the Press
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Heck, in many of the science articles here on/. it seems that some of the comments make for better science reporting than the articles themselves.
Heh, why do you think *I* keep reading Slashdot after all these years? For the journalistic integrity and ability of the "editors"??! Hell no! I read it to extract out of the comments section the good, bad, and the ugly of comments from people just like me, but with different interests, different links, and quite often more information (or disinformation) on a particular topic than I myself have at the moment. So I check up on what they write, evaluate for myself the correctness or incorrectness of their post, and then make up my own mind.
You don't get to have public discourse on topics in a newspaper... that happens later in the day at the office. And the only real value to newspapers reporting 'the news' is to allow it to be discussed amongst your peers, friends, family, etc. Hence, the reason so many "nerds" flock to slashdot for their daily dosage of 'news for nerds' - 'cause even when it isn't, and Taco, Hemos, or Michael post a dupe or once again haven't read the psycho-babble article they just posted - we get a chance to virtually smack the 'bad science' in the face and ruthlessly chastise the 'editors' for their idiocy.
To just accept the writings of any journalist on any topic as pure truth is simply stupid. Which is also why we have so many stupid people that mindlessly follow all the quacks, "holy-roller" preachers on TV, and other abusive types all throughout history: not thinking for one's self.
Yeah, why is it that HP's website is THE WORST when it comes to finding answers?! I mean, goddammit, it's easier to use Microsoft's Clippy than it is to use HP's crappy websites on the internets!
Well, if you weren't using the email server that YOUR OWN COMPANY SELLS then I'd be even more afraid of that bloated goat known as *IBM* Lotus Notes than I am already!
I think both your post and the parent post are correct. I believe the parent poster was trying to point out that the non-geeky bosses see the 10% of the true super-geeks as representative of the entire population of 'geeks'. Sadly, this is a human trait that is hard to combat. We all do it. And of course PHB's aren't reading/. and characterizing geeks by what's on/. In fact, in my thousand+ posts and years reading, responding, contributing, bitching, and "hanging out" on/. I've seen far more intellectual posts and interesting commentary (sometimes even more so when it's meant as a +5 Funny post) on/. than anywhere else in my workplace - and I work around lots of geeks and "computer savvy" types in my job. I think if my boss DID read slashdot we'd get along much better, he'd understand my thoughts more easily, I'd understand his position more easily, etc.
As it stands, my boss IS one of the best I've ever had primarily because he DOES know that some of his reports like myself are much smarter "geeks" than he will ever be or ever care to be, and will defer to us on the technical issues about how best to gather data from a db, how to make the more complex mathematical calculations required in some of our work, and always comes to us first to help him make his next computer purchase for family members.;)
However, it is still sometimes annoying when he "doesn't get it" and defaults to the typical management style of "do it my way 'cause I don't understand your thoughts." 'Geeks' just think about lots of things in much different, and oftentimes more creative ways than your typical "manager" type person does.
But ultimately I do agree with you:/. is NOT the place to characterize the remaining 90% of the 'geek' population because signal-to-noise here can be quite low at times. (Especially when it comes to the "journalism skills" of our esteemed "editors." - In the journalism world they are definitely trolls at best!)
Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that you hit the obvious nail right on the head. Why pay $16 (cheap in my area!) for me and my spouse to get 1hr and 45min of entertainment TOTAL when either one of us could go buy a video game for both of us for ~$80-$100 TOTAL for 20 - hundreds's of hours worth of entertainment? Or better yet, wait for the $24.99 DVD to come out and then enjoy it over and over again! Or just play hundreds of old nintendo games on an emulator on my computer for free. Or buy a book for the same price as a movie for, again, dozens of hours of entertainment.
There's much cheaper ways to waste one's time these days being "entertained" than by going to the movies or buying the latest new pop/hip-hop/rap/quasi-rock band's CD for $20. And yes, that's the problem with killing all competition via the monopoly power of the MPAA and RIAA. Lack of competition leads to Lack of innovation; Lack of innovation leads to Lack of consumer interest; Lack of consumer interest in your products leads to LACK OF PROFIT!
Well I'm not claiming I'm going to go out and buy it. Just stating that they may indeed be cashing in on it's high price. And ok, fine, I get it, intentionally diluting the stock price is a big fat no-no as about a dozen people have been so kind to point out in response to my original post. The point of what I was trying to say however is that a) Google's stock price is really high right now, and b) Google isn't one to follow the flow of the more "normal" route a company usually takes, so this move might be something designed not just to increase cash-on-hand.
Great Jumpin' Jehovah's Witnesses people! I'm not a freakin' financial analyst here, just trying to add some commentary of my views of how Google runs their show.
One last thing... 14.2 million shares * $300/share = $4.26 BILLION dollars... yes, that's enough to fight Microsoft for desktop usage bragging rights, it's true.
Taking any action to purposely bring down the value of your company would be illegal.
OK, but increasing your coffers while at the same time diversifying the stock? Sounds like a good move to me. If you're stock is at $300/share and you'd like some extra cash to boot, might as well sell more stock, right?
Besides, during a stock split the stock usually rises right after the split as people take advantage of the suddenly lower price. But the *company* doesn't really make anything except for happier investors (and wealthier - on paper - top execs) - but that won't buy new equipment or pay for more employees. This way, Google profits, maybe the price comes down a bit over time to entice a more diverse population of investors as I stated originally, and Google can then invest in more stuff to further beef up the company's bottom line.
If Google really is the company that "does the right thing" then I'm assuming here that the runners of the show are looking to provide further stability, and long-term good jobs for their employees as well and they don't want to lose those good employees with a 5 for 1 stock split that goes through the roof and then they lose all their top talent selling their stock shares for millions.
I'm just trying to think outside the box, 'cause that's what Google has done over the past few years.
They're just selling additional shares to bring that $300/share price down a bit. You don't want to have your stock all held by the big boys of investing who will turn on you and your company on the proverbial dime. Better to involve the smaller investors too so that one less-than-incredibly-spectacular SEC quarterly filing won't tank your stock. Companies need to diversify their investments just as much as us individuals do.
I blame it on 50% IT Admin, 50% clueless users. I've met plenty of people in business who resist upgrades or any changes to their antiquated systems because they need this or that system or software to keep on working. They don't want to learn something new. So IT lets them keep their unpatched, buggy old systems around without doing anything to protect them against the latest, greatest virii threats.
IMO, these magical "soft skills" are learned by interacting with one's classmates on a daily basis, not combating child apathy. Child apathy is due to the morons teaching them poorly, and overcrowding problems in schools - not their lack of entertainment in school. I enjoyed learning like many of my classmates the smaller the class was because we interacted with the teachers more, not because the teachers were necessarily "entertaining."
True, that's an absolutely disgusting downside to the EFF fighting this one, but then again, could the technician actually prove that the pr0n was put there by the defendant in this case? Was it his roommate? Did he get hacked and it was being served up by hist now-r00ted box? The defendant obviously had to have someone else fix some type of computer problem, so the likelihood that it WASN'T the defendant who put it on there goes up.
Yes, I agree that's pretty horrible to defend child porn, but the fact of the matter is that you're still assuming "guilty until proven innocent", and in America that has a VERY long and prestigious precedent of being the wrong way to go about providing freedom and liberty to all.
I agree. I have recently been in contact with Jeremy Malcolm via an email listserv about the Debian-Lex distribution that he started up a few years ago to cater to lawyers. He was quite willing to let me build upon the original ideas of his, and become the project leader of this as-of-right-now non-existent Linux distribution. And from what I can tell after about an hour's worth of online investigation and reading through comments in this discussion he's getting a bad rap just for being a lawyer.
I can understand how the one dude is legitamately ticked off that he's been attacked by Scientology and all since I view at as a very malicious cult at best too, but I think he's getting pissed at the wrong people. I can't vouch for Jeremy Malcom's ethical stances, but I do know from being married to a lawyer that the everyday conflict that lawyers deal with quite often puts them at odds with at least one party to a dispute.
People! Lawyers do not exist to be the morality police and uphold the law! They exist to fight for their client's rights under the law. They didn't make the laws, they don't uphold the laws (unless they have become judges), but they do fight for people's rights under the law. Sometimes that means they're fighting *against* you. But that certainly doesn't make them all out evil people just because they are representing that which you have come to view as evil, dispicable, and wrong!
When viewed in this light, I don't see how Mr. Malcolm's past or present actions are in any way wrong... he's trying to fight for Linus' rights to maintain the trademarked name "Linux" as a name for a specific computer operating system software package. You may not agree with the fees being requested to be able to use the name "Linux" in your company's or product's names, but that's currently part of the law, and part of good lawyering: defensive lawsuits to protect a name. Bringing Scientology into this discussion only works to drive people into a fury over something completely unrelated to the facts of this particular case. Chill out people! (Even all those/.'ers showing up in this discussion as "Friends of Friends" which I generally respect when viewing comments in the threads of various/. discussion topics)
A) People piss and moan that there aren't enough warnings.
B) Then they ignore them so they can piss and moan about what they were warned about in the first place and demand bans.
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
Not exactly. I mean, you're almost right, but not quite. You see, it's the slim minority of morons who have no clue what they're talking about (but THINK they do) about any one particular topic which cry and scream the loudest to outlaw something that they would never do or endorse, but that everyone ELSE is doing and 'endorsing' that they have a major chip on their shoulder about that get things outlawed. Everyone else either has a chip on their shoulder about something else, or are in the thinking minority and don't have major problems with the less important issues at hand. (In other words, should we be worrying most about what video games are available to be played today, or how we take care of the mess that is terrorism, genocide in Africa, AIDs, and the Iraq war right now?)
I'm not a programmer in my day job, but I'm finishing up my BS in CET at nights while being a Business Analyst in the day. I can honestly say that Java is indeed one of the easier to "get the hang of" languages that I've programmed in so far. (And NetBeans sucks... use Eclipse instead)
However I never truly grasped the nature and intracacies of software programming until spending last year slowly learning Assembly. I now actually understand how to think more critically about how to structure a program (and why code re-use matters!) to make better and more 'proper' use of the hardware in my computer. I know it sounds all cliche and such, but Assembly language knowledge has really furthered my total understanding of what a computer is, and how it does what it does.
My suggestion would be to teach the intro course in Java, AND THEN teach an advanced course in Assembly w/ Java so the kids can see:
The simplicity of how a computer interprets all the one's and zero's flying around inside its circuits, and
The simplicity of a language like Java which basically allows one to mix and match algorithms, GUI's, and all the other stuff of a modern PC without worrying about the innards that hold it all together.
If I had received that type of introduction I might have been more willing to stick it out in an engineering degree during the first 4-5 years after high school and then go on to more scientific type research work rather than having gotten bored of school and dropped out temporarily to work like I did. We only programmed in crappy QBasic in HS, and I really regret that experience.
Being married to a lawyer has taught me one main thing: Most jackass lawyers are the really dumbass ones. Not all law schools are created the same, and amazingly, it takes lots of study, but not necessarily lots of street-smarts to become a lawyer.
This whole thing actually no longer surprises me. The true tragedy: Fedex is getting raped in legal fees by these obviously clueless attorney's representing them.
I've never purchased a Mac because they... lack in GAMES
I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?
You don't understand the argument because you can't seem to think that not everyone is like you. For instance, which would I rather do: play Xbox and PS2 games on TV that has the resolution of 1/4th the resolution of my computer monitor? Do you think that I ONLY play Halo? Perhaps I like HL2 and CounterStrike:Source, LIKE being able to use a keyboard for certain games, and dislike the low image resolution of a TV monitor. Not only that, some of us HAVE TO use Windows based on our jobs, schools we attend, etc. so just using a Mac or Linux or whatever for our "daily duties" would make absolutely no sense.
Mind you, I still think the Windows OS sucks pretty bad and Linux is overall better, but then again, that's like saying my Honda Accord sucks just 'cause I drive it every single day and it doesn't look like the fancy Mercedes that I test drove at the dealership the other day.
Seriously Slashdot editors... this is like the 42nd dupe on this damn subject. And yes, I've commented in plenty versions of this duplicated story as I have come up with slightly different twists on how Hillary Clinton and all the other nay-sayers are wrong. But seriously, it's time to pull the plug on this frickin' story now.
Has anyone else noticed this trend? Look here:
"But as Steven Johnson, a cultural critic, points out in a recent book, "Everything Bad Is Good for You",...
I see a trend in written media: (of the magazine and newspaper and now the online "newspaper/magazine" variety) If someone writes something good, like Steven Johnson apparently has, you sell it out to every media outlet you can find so that they can resummarize and rehash your writing to make you a boatload of money in royalty fees. Yes, yes, I know that this trend isn't new - but it's just as if it's so much clearer with Mr. Johnson's book this time around. EVERY SINGLE STORY that I see on GTA:SA is mentioning this book and summarizing his research.
Slashpoop even does it with the incessant linking to Yet Another GTA:SA Sympathizer story. So my Ask Slashdot to the real "editors" of Slashdot (myself and all the other people who comment on the article submissions) is this: Where in all of God's green earth can I find a magazine/online newspaper/newspaper/or other written 'news' source that isn't beating the crap out of all these dead horses of articles???
Is there any good journalistic source left that does its OWN reporting, its OWN investigations, and its OWN writing? (Besides The Onion, of course)
The other day I boarded me PC and headed out on the wide open network seas of information to find me some poor bloke's PC to board and swaggle all his mp3's for fear of me runnin' him thru with me l337 computer hacking skills. But to me su'prise, there were all sorts of bloke's wandering around the network seas INVITING me in to their cabin to rifle through their hoard of files in the hold's of their PC's! Shiver me timbers! They paid good drinkin' money for their massive hoards of music and movies and then started magically duplicatin' 'em and givin' to all us pirates FOR FREE!
Unhappy as a parrot without a shoulder, I turned me PC back around to head back to port 80, for me horn-swagglin' days of maurauding the wide open network seas were thru - for there be no one left to steal from these days!
It's not that I totally hate Windows - it is nice and easy to get a system up and running with it, and it's good for the quick and dirty work of everyday work in a business setting. (MS Excel PivotTables are invaluable to me and my coworkers when working with a lot of the data we have to analyze and report on frequently.)
The main problems I have with Windows is also the greatest thing about it: ease of setup and use for the average computer user. For instance, my wife, an attorney, needs a bunch of different very specialized (and expensive) computer programs for managing her own day-to-day operations. These programs were not written by hordes of Windows developers. They were written by small shops that cater only to Windows users that are also lawyers. They are very buggy. She has had ALL KINDS of problems with different apps crashing Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 because of how poorly coded some of these programs are. Yes, they get the job done most of the time, but they have turned her Windows computer into an administration and support nightmare for me. I can't take a look at the guts of Windows to figure out what's going wrong, she gets simplistic or no error messages when things go wrong, and to do maintenance on her machine now basically requires frequent reinstalls of programs or paying lots of money for support from the companies that coded the crap in the first place!
So no, Windows isn't all bad, especially when you have a more highly qualified support staff in a moderate to large company like mine, and when using the more widely tested, debugged, and visible programs like MS Office and video games. But for individual or more specialized use (and for supporting family member's personal computers) Windows can be a real pain-in-the-ass.
Or to put that more clearly... *You* may not be interested in releasing your genome to some company because you don't want your insurance rates skyrocketing when The Company determines after sequencing your genome that you will be getting cancer within 5-7 years, and sells that info to insurers willing to pay a pretty penny for it. On the other hand, that information could be incalculably valuable in finding a treatment to cure that particular form of cancer for thousands or millions of people over the next 20-50 years, and subsequently for permanently eliminating that form of cancer for generations of all of humanity in the future.
Granted, such a scenario is a bit grandiose, but isn't that the real trick? What's more important: my selfless act of giving away information which may or may not benefit all of humanity, or continue being selfish with my information to benefit just me at the expense of the rest of humanity (at least in the short term while it's still valuable information to humanity). I think most Slashdotters (myself included) gladly give up our knowledge and "info" when it comes to things we can control, things we can contribute to directly, and things we can dictate to others how to control (such as software code licensed under the GNU or other copyleft type licenses - which so far according to copyright laws worldwide dictate that we do get to maintain control of that info through the principle of forced sharing of code); but when it comes to medical info, billing info, or other info that we can't control directly in the hands of others we say "Hell no!" to the usage of that info and do everything we can to keep it private.
Besides, information doesn't actually "Want" anything... it's not even an object for goodness sake! People want info, and some of it is worth giving away for "free as in libre", and some of it is even worth it for "free as in beer", but not all of it is or even should be "free" in either sense and that's not necessarily bad. The Ask Slashdot basically answered it's own question with the very first line which basically called for BALANCE. Balance in everything is good - even when you're balancing the difference between Good and Evil. There's varying degrees of Good and Evil, and when you're right there in the grayest of middle's between the two you don't always have to choose fully one way or the other.
True, astroturfing *can* be a problem, especially on the big sites, but the feedback comments are not entirely useless. I always recommend to people trying to purchase electronics that once they start to settle on a few different makes and models of the electronic item that they want to purchase to do a Google search on each one with the actual model number and the word "forum" in the Google search field. Read up on what a few low-brow, offensive-commentary-and-all forums and/or blogs say about the product and you'll probably figure out pretty quickly whether you might have any problems with said product in the future.
This strategy has kept me from buying crap from Newegg.com or other online vendors like Overstock.com, and apart from just their review section Newegg and Overstock have always been good with their actual "real life" service, even if all of the virtual services offered to consumers (the reviews in particular) won't always be the best.
Hey! Howard Stern said this morning that the television WOULD BE revolutionized when he brings his stanky brand of humor and raunchyness to Comcast's On-Demand channel specially made for him in 2006. Put that in your gap filler and smoke it!
ROFL! Ah yes, the joys of reading at -1 because Slashshit can't get their moderation system fixed. And pass me the bowl of monkey brains while you're at it - nothin' like an Indian delicacy nibbling on our distant cousins to curb ones appetite!
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, why do you think *I* keep reading Slashdot after all these years? For the journalistic integrity and ability of the "editors"??! Hell no! I read it to extract out of the comments section the good, bad, and the ugly of comments from people just like me, but with different interests, different links, and quite often more information (or disinformation) on a particular topic than I myself have at the moment. So I check up on what they write, evaluate for myself the correctness or incorrectness of their post, and then make up my own mind.
You don't get to have public discourse on topics in a newspaper... that happens later in the day at the office. And the only real value to newspapers reporting 'the news' is to allow it to be discussed amongst your peers, friends, family, etc. Hence, the reason so many "nerds" flock to slashdot for their daily dosage of 'news for nerds' - 'cause even when it isn't, and Taco, Hemos, or Michael post a dupe or once again haven't read the psycho-babble article they just posted - we get a chance to virtually smack the 'bad science' in the face and ruthlessly chastise the 'editors' for their idiocy.
To just accept the writings of any journalist on any topic as pure truth is simply stupid. Which is also why we have so many stupid people that mindlessly follow all the quacks, "holy-roller" preachers on TV, and other abusive types all throughout history: not thinking for one's self.
Yeah, why is it that HP's website is THE WORST when it comes to finding answers?! I mean, goddammit, it's easier to use Microsoft's Clippy than it is to use HP's crappy websites on the internets!
Well, if you weren't using the email server that YOUR OWN COMPANY SELLS then I'd be even more afraid of that bloated goat known as *IBM* Lotus Notes than I am already!
I think both your post and the parent post are correct. I believe the parent poster was trying to point out that the non-geeky bosses see the 10% of the true super-geeks as representative of the entire population of 'geeks'. Sadly, this is a human trait that is hard to combat. We all do it. And of course PHB's aren't reading /. and characterizing geeks by what's on /. In fact, in my thousand+ posts and years reading, responding, contributing, bitching, and "hanging out" on /. I've seen far more intellectual posts and interesting commentary (sometimes even more so when it's meant as a +5 Funny post) on /. than anywhere else in my workplace - and I work around lots of geeks and "computer savvy" types in my job. I think if my boss DID read slashdot we'd get along much better, he'd understand my thoughts more easily, I'd understand his position more easily, etc.
;)
/. is NOT the place to characterize the remaining 90% of the 'geek' population because signal-to-noise here can be quite low at times. (Especially when it comes to the "journalism skills" of our esteemed "editors." - In the journalism world they are definitely trolls at best!)
As it stands, my boss IS one of the best I've ever had primarily because he DOES know that some of his reports like myself are much smarter "geeks" than he will ever be or ever care to be, and will defer to us on the technical issues about how best to gather data from a db, how to make the more complex mathematical calculations required in some of our work, and always comes to us first to help him make his next computer purchase for family members.
However, it is still sometimes annoying when he "doesn't get it" and defaults to the typical management style of "do it my way 'cause I don't understand your thoughts." 'Geeks' just think about lots of things in much different, and oftentimes more creative ways than your typical "manager" type person does.
But ultimately I do agree with you:
Ding ding ding! You're our winner!
Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing out that you hit the obvious nail right on the head. Why pay $16 (cheap in my area!) for me and my spouse to get 1hr and 45min of entertainment TOTAL when either one of us could go buy a video game for both of us for ~$80-$100 TOTAL for 20 - hundreds's of hours worth of entertainment? Or better yet, wait for the $24.99 DVD to come out and then enjoy it over and over again! Or just play hundreds of old nintendo games on an emulator on my computer for free. Or buy a book for the same price as a movie for, again, dozens of hours of entertainment.
There's much cheaper ways to waste one's time these days being "entertained" than by going to the movies or buying the latest new pop/hip-hop/rap/quasi-rock band's CD for $20. And yes, that's the problem with killing all competition via the monopoly power of the MPAA and RIAA. Lack of competition leads to Lack of innovation; Lack of innovation leads to Lack of consumer interest; Lack of consumer interest in your products leads to LACK OF PROFIT!
You crazy C programmers! It's "Film @ 0BH"! Duh!
Well I'm not claiming I'm going to go out and buy it. Just stating that they may indeed be cashing in on it's high price. And ok, fine, I get it, intentionally diluting the stock price is a big fat no-no as about a dozen people have been so kind to point out in response to my original post. The point of what I was trying to say however is that a) Google's stock price is really high right now, and b) Google isn't one to follow the flow of the more "normal" route a company usually takes, so this move might be something designed not just to increase cash-on-hand.
Great Jumpin' Jehovah's Witnesses people! I'm not a freakin' financial analyst here, just trying to add some commentary of my views of how Google runs their show.
One last thing... 14.2 million shares * $300/share = $4.26 BILLION dollars... yes, that's enough to fight Microsoft for desktop usage bragging rights, it's true.
OK, but increasing your coffers while at the same time diversifying the stock? Sounds like a good move to me. If you're stock is at $300/share and you'd like some extra cash to boot, might as well sell more stock, right?
Besides, during a stock split the stock usually rises right after the split as people take advantage of the suddenly lower price. But the *company* doesn't really make anything except for happier investors (and wealthier - on paper - top execs) - but that won't buy new equipment or pay for more employees. This way, Google profits, maybe the price comes down a bit over time to entice a more diverse population of investors as I stated originally, and Google can then invest in more stuff to further beef up the company's bottom line.
If Google really is the company that "does the right thing" then I'm assuming here that the runners of the show are looking to provide further stability, and long-term good jobs for their employees as well and they don't want to lose those good employees with a 5 for 1 stock split that goes through the roof and then they lose all their top talent selling their stock shares for millions.
I'm just trying to think outside the box, 'cause that's what Google has done over the past few years.
They're just selling additional shares to bring that $300/share price down a bit. You don't want to have your stock all held by the big boys of investing who will turn on you and your company on the proverbial dime. Better to involve the smaller investors too so that one less-than-incredibly-spectacular SEC quarterly filing won't tank your stock. Companies need to diversify their investments just as much as us individuals do.
I blame it on 50% IT Admin, 50% clueless users. I've met plenty of people in business who resist upgrades or any changes to their antiquated systems because they need this or that system or software to keep on working. They don't want to learn something new. So IT lets them keep their unpatched, buggy old systems around without doing anything to protect them against the latest, greatest virii threats.
IMO, these magical "soft skills" are learned by interacting with one's classmates on a daily basis, not combating child apathy. Child apathy is due to the morons teaching them poorly, and overcrowding problems in schools - not their lack of entertainment in school. I enjoyed learning like many of my classmates the smaller the class was because we interacted with the teachers more, not because the teachers were necessarily "entertaining."
True, that's an absolutely disgusting downside to the EFF fighting this one, but then again, could the technician actually prove that the pr0n was put there by the defendant in this case? Was it his roommate? Did he get hacked and it was being served up by hist now-r00ted box? The defendant obviously had to have someone else fix some type of computer problem, so the likelihood that it WASN'T the defendant who put it on there goes up.
Yes, I agree that's pretty horrible to defend child porn, but the fact of the matter is that you're still assuming "guilty until proven innocent", and in America that has a VERY long and prestigious precedent of being the wrong way to go about providing freedom and liberty to all.
I agree. I have recently been in contact with Jeremy Malcolm via an email listserv about the Debian-Lex distribution that he started up a few years ago to cater to lawyers. He was quite willing to let me build upon the original ideas of his, and become the project leader of this as-of-right-now non-existent Linux distribution. And from what I can tell after about an hour's worth of online investigation and reading through comments in this discussion he's getting a bad rap just for being a lawyer.
/.'ers showing up in this discussion as "Friends of Friends" which I generally respect when viewing comments in the threads of various /. discussion topics)
I can understand how the one dude is legitamately ticked off that he's been attacked by Scientology and all since I view at as a very malicious cult at best too, but I think he's getting pissed at the wrong people. I can't vouch for Jeremy Malcom's ethical stances, but I do know from being married to a lawyer that the everyday conflict that lawyers deal with quite often puts them at odds with at least one party to a dispute.
People! Lawyers do not exist to be the morality police and uphold the law! They exist to fight for their client's rights under the law. They didn't make the laws, they don't uphold the laws (unless they have become judges), but they do fight for people's rights under the law. Sometimes that means they're fighting *against* you. But that certainly doesn't make them all out evil people just because they are representing that which you have come to view as evil, dispicable, and wrong!
When viewed in this light, I don't see how Mr. Malcolm's past or present actions are in any way wrong... he's trying to fight for Linus' rights to maintain the trademarked name "Linux" as a name for a specific computer operating system software package. You may not agree with the fees being requested to be able to use the name "Linux" in your company's or product's names, but that's currently part of the law, and part of good lawyering: defensive lawsuits to protect a name. Bringing Scientology into this discussion only works to drive people into a fury over something completely unrelated to the facts of this particular case. Chill out people! (Even all those
A) People piss and moan that there aren't enough warnings.
B) Then they ignore them so they can piss and moan about what they were warned about in the first place and demand bans.
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
Not exactly. I mean, you're almost right, but not quite. You see, it's the slim minority of morons who have no clue what they're talking about (but THINK they do) about any one particular topic which cry and scream the loudest to outlaw something that they would never do or endorse, but that everyone ELSE is doing and 'endorsing' that they have a major chip on their shoulder about that get things outlawed. Everyone else either has a chip on their shoulder about something else, or are in the thinking minority and don't have major problems with the less important issues at hand. (In other words, should we be worrying most about what video games are available to be played today, or how we take care of the mess that is terrorism, genocide in Africa, AIDs, and the Iraq war right now?)
However I never truly grasped the nature and intracacies of software programming until spending last year slowly learning Assembly. I now actually understand how to think more critically about how to structure a program (and why code re-use matters!) to make better and more 'proper' use of the hardware in my computer. I know it sounds all cliche and such, but Assembly language knowledge has really furthered my total understanding of what a computer is, and how it does what it does.
My suggestion would be to teach the intro course in Java, AND THEN teach an advanced course in Assembly w/ Java so the kids can see:
- The simplicity of how a computer interprets all the one's and zero's flying around inside its circuits, and
- The simplicity of a language like Java which basically allows one to mix and match algorithms, GUI's, and all the other stuff of a modern PC without worrying about the innards that hold it all together.
If I had received that type of introduction I might have been more willing to stick it out in an engineering degree during the first 4-5 years after high school and then go on to more scientific type research work rather than having gotten bored of school and dropped out temporarily to work like I did. We only programmed in crappy QBasic in HS, and I really regret that experience.Being married to a lawyer has taught me one main thing: Most jackass lawyers are the really dumbass ones. Not all law schools are created the same, and amazingly, it takes lots of study, but not necessarily lots of street-smarts to become a lawyer.
This whole thing actually no longer surprises me. The true tragedy: Fedex is getting raped in legal fees by these obviously clueless attorney's representing them.
I've never purchased a Mac because they
I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?
You don't understand the argument because you can't seem to think that not everyone is like you. For instance, which would I rather do: play Xbox and PS2 games on TV that has the resolution of 1/4th the resolution of my computer monitor? Do you think that I ONLY play Halo? Perhaps I like HL2 and CounterStrike:Source, LIKE being able to use a keyboard for certain games, and dislike the low image resolution of a TV monitor. Not only that, some of us HAVE TO use Windows based on our jobs, schools we attend, etc. so just using a Mac or Linux or whatever for our "daily duties" would make absolutely no sense.
Mind you, I still think the Windows OS sucks pretty bad and Linux is overall better, but then again, that's like saying my Honda Accord sucks just 'cause I drive it every single day and it doesn't look like the fancy Mercedes that I test drove at the dealership the other day.
Seriously Slashdot editors... this is like the 42nd dupe on this damn subject. And yes, I've commented in plenty versions of this duplicated story as I have come up with slightly different twists on how Hillary Clinton and all the other nay-sayers are wrong. But seriously, it's time to pull the plug on this frickin' story now.
Has anyone else noticed this trend? Look here:
"But as Steven Johnson, a cultural critic, points out in a recent book, "Everything Bad Is Good for You",...
I see a trend in written media: (of the magazine and newspaper and now the online "newspaper/magazine" variety) If someone writes something good, like Steven Johnson apparently has, you sell it out to every media outlet you can find so that they can resummarize and rehash your writing to make you a boatload of money in royalty fees. Yes, yes, I know that this trend isn't new - but it's just as if it's so much clearer with Mr. Johnson's book this time around. EVERY SINGLE STORY that I see on GTA:SA is mentioning this book and summarizing his research.
Slashpoop even does it with the incessant linking to Yet Another GTA:SA Sympathizer story. So my Ask Slashdot to the real "editors" of Slashdot (myself and all the other people who comment on the article submissions) is this: Where in all of God's green earth can I find a magazine/online newspaper/newspaper/or other written 'news' source that isn't beating the crap out of all these dead horses of articles???
Is there any good journalistic source left that does its OWN reporting, its OWN investigations, and its OWN writing? (Besides The Onion, of course)
The other day I boarded me PC and headed out on the wide open network seas of information to find me some poor bloke's PC to board and swaggle all his mp3's for fear of me runnin' him thru with me l337 computer hacking skills. But to me su'prise, there were all sorts of bloke's wandering around the network seas INVITING me in to their cabin to rifle through their hoard of files in the hold's of their PC's! Shiver me timbers! They paid good drinkin' money for their massive hoards of music and movies and then started magically duplicatin' 'em and givin' to all us pirates FOR FREE!
Unhappy as a parrot without a shoulder, I turned me PC back around to head back to port 80, for me horn-swagglin' days of maurauding the wide open network seas were thru - for there be no one left to steal from these days!
It's not that I totally hate Windows - it is nice and easy to get a system up and running with it, and it's good for the quick and dirty work of everyday work in a business setting. (MS Excel PivotTables are invaluable to me and my coworkers when working with a lot of the data we have to analyze and report on frequently.)
The main problems I have with Windows is also the greatest thing about it: ease of setup and use for the average computer user. For instance, my wife, an attorney, needs a bunch of different very specialized (and expensive) computer programs for managing her own day-to-day operations. These programs were not written by hordes of Windows developers. They were written by small shops that cater only to Windows users that are also lawyers. They are very buggy. She has had ALL KINDS of problems with different apps crashing Windows XP w/ Service Pack 2 because of how poorly coded some of these programs are. Yes, they get the job done most of the time, but they have turned her Windows computer into an administration and support nightmare for me. I can't take a look at the guts of Windows to figure out what's going wrong, she gets simplistic or no error messages when things go wrong, and to do maintenance on her machine now basically requires frequent reinstalls of programs or paying lots of money for support from the companies that coded the crap in the first place!
So no, Windows isn't all bad, especially when you have a more highly qualified support staff in a moderate to large company like mine, and when using the more widely tested, debugged, and visible programs like MS Office and video games. But for individual or more specialized use (and for supporting family member's personal computers) Windows can be a real pain-in-the-ass.
Or to put that more clearly... *You* may not be interested in releasing your genome to some company because you don't want your insurance rates skyrocketing when The Company determines after sequencing your genome that you will be getting cancer within 5-7 years, and sells that info to insurers willing to pay a pretty penny for it. On the other hand, that information could be incalculably valuable in finding a treatment to cure that particular form of cancer for thousands or millions of people over the next 20-50 years, and subsequently for permanently eliminating that form of cancer for generations of all of humanity in the future.
Granted, such a scenario is a bit grandiose, but isn't that the real trick? What's more important: my selfless act of giving away information which may or may not benefit all of humanity, or continue being selfish with my information to benefit just me at the expense of the rest of humanity (at least in the short term while it's still valuable information to humanity). I think most Slashdotters (myself included) gladly give up our knowledge and "info" when it comes to things we can control, things we can contribute to directly, and things we can dictate to others how to control (such as software code licensed under the GNU or other copyleft type licenses - which so far according to copyright laws worldwide dictate that we do get to maintain control of that info through the principle of forced sharing of code); but when it comes to medical info, billing info, or other info that we can't control directly in the hands of others we say "Hell no!" to the usage of that info and do everything we can to keep it private.
Besides, information doesn't actually "Want" anything... it's not even an object for goodness sake! People want info, and some of it is worth giving away for "free as in libre", and some of it is even worth it for "free as in beer", but not all of it is or even should be "free" in either sense and that's not necessarily bad. The Ask Slashdot basically answered it's own question with the very first line which basically called for BALANCE. Balance in everything is good - even when you're balancing the difference between Good and Evil. There's varying degrees of Good and Evil, and when you're right there in the grayest of middle's between the two you don't always have to choose fully one way or the other.
True, astroturfing *can* be a problem, especially on the big sites, but the feedback comments are not entirely useless. I always recommend to people trying to purchase electronics that once they start to settle on a few different makes and models of the electronic item that they want to purchase to do a Google search on each one with the actual model number and the word "forum" in the Google search field. Read up on what a few low-brow, offensive-commentary-and-all forums and/or blogs say about the product and you'll probably figure out pretty quickly whether you might have any problems with said product in the future.
This strategy has kept me from buying crap from Newegg.com or other online vendors like Overstock.com, and apart from just their review section Newegg and Overstock have always been good with their actual "real life" service, even if all of the virtual services offered to consumers (the reviews in particular) won't always be the best.
Hey! Howard Stern said this morning that the television WOULD BE revolutionized when he brings his stanky brand of humor and raunchyness to Comcast's On-Demand channel specially made for him in 2006. Put that in your gap filler and smoke it!
ROFL! Ah yes, the joys of reading at -1 because Slashshit can't get their moderation system fixed. And pass me the bowl of monkey brains while you're at it - nothin' like an Indian delicacy nibbling on our distant cousins to curb ones appetite!