which part are you deeply unsure of? That humans attacked the bugs first, and that news snippets during the movie actually spent a couple seconds talking about protestors pointing that out? Or that the whole thing was obvious satire? Spending half a second, I find an interview with the director, where he describes it as satire that mocks fascism. Even the wiki entry for the movie calls it satire - in the very first sentence . Do you seriously not catch that the whole movie is making fun of the US and the cycle of generate fear => throw the military at the problem => generate fear?
This. HighPickens and EditorDave should feel bad about themselves. Starship Troopers was a very, very obvious satirical piece, *mocking* racism through an analogy so transparent that anyone who does anything related to movie critique and yet didn't see the extremely obvious, overt, mocking of racism and war-for-war's sake, needs to go get a new job. It was over-the-top and ridiculous precisely to show how stupid most (all? meh) wars are. The bugs could think, only attacked because we attacked first, and were even giving humans the benefit of retreating back so an attempt at communication could be made...instead, we sought to exterminate them completely. Is there really anyone who can't see that it's mocking racism? That the bugs are just a replacement for badguy-of-the-month, be it Muslims, or whatever else we've decided to fear and attack?
::sigh::
Here's what Milo thought about "free speech" just a couple years ago. "So perhaps what's needed now is a bolder form of censure after all, because the internet is not a universal human right. If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. For sure, the best we could ever hope for is a smattering of unpopular show trials. But if the internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they're a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?" As found here. He's not for free speech, he's for whatever gets him attention. Twitter did nothing more than quiet a very hateful, angry voice that Milo himself argued should be quieted.
(parkinson class of disorders, not parkinson's disease - very related, not the same) - I chose to not have kids. Bummed my wife out quite a lot, but I told her I was also ok with raising the children of her pick of donors - I even made a few suggestions. Either way, my disease is under study, extremely rare, and currently un-named; it's also dominant-trait, and generally is rather minor in the impact it has on my family members what that have it. Gene editing for disease control? How about we just get screening for it figured out, that's a bit easier and less...dangerous. To edit out my parkinsonian disorder, you'd already have past the screening step, so...just toss the embryos that have the disorder, keep the others, all set. Tada! Easy editing that solves the stated goal without causing the stated concerns. That said, my condition could very likely be solved some day by some sort of blood nanites, since control of my disease is actually somewhat simple enough already (albeit manual) of self-monitoring of dopamine levels, and then taking sinemet as-needed...so the other thing poster talked about that isn't gene-editing, that could be useful too. Risk to humanity? Probably. (ps, rambling is a sign I need to take a pill...ha! thanks for letting me know earlier than I would have, slashdot!)
many people actually let google "know" who they are during their surfing, so if they google for the porn their google account has a record of it. Instead of doing the easier/better bit of opening a "private" tab or whatnot, they subject themselves to bing. That would be my guess for such a thing being true, if it is.
To be more clear on the final point there - to say it's not the same as twitter and facebook is rather ridiculous, because twitter and facebook aren't the same either.
what is it you think defines the words "social" and "media," for starters, and why is it you seem to be incapable of looking up "social media" online to see that it most certainly includes places like this? We're interacting. That's a form of socialization. Forums aren't direct private messages, sure, but we're certainly communicating somewhat interactively. "Media" doesn't just mean videos and music, either. Oddly though, combining "social" and "media" doesn't really match what "social media" means, since it is restricted to online activities...one can be social via media without it being online, but this here - Slashdot - is certainly a website for users to post information, communicate, share ideas, etc. The exact definition of "social media." It was started with that exact purpose, and retains that exact purpose. It's not the same website as facebook, but neither is twitter.
Yup, that's probably it. You figured it out. I mean, this isn't even my first account here, and it's a low-5-digit account, but hey...I'm new here. Just joined last week, actually.
Well here's how Webster defines it: "forms of electronic communication (such as Web sites) through which people create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, etc." What of that do you not think is the core purpose of this website? Users post news bits, we all get on to discuss news bits, we have friends and foes, we rate each other...where in that are you getting lost? Propose a better definition for the term, otherwise. Explain how yours is more correct than what a google for "define: social media" turns up.
::blink::
Do you not realize, for some reason, that Slashdot is a social media site? And what, precisely, is it that you think makes google+, linkedin, facebook, twitter, or more or less most of the major social media sites..."childish?" Granted, I myself don't have accounts on any but google+, and only that because I've made a few reviews on maps, but..it's 2016. Calling the act of being social online "childish" makes you sound both 80, and out of touch. Especially when the complaint is being made on a social media site.
Symantec actively makes Linux and UNIX less secure? Because other than the insanity Lennart Poettering gave us, I fail to see what a proper UNIX system would need with a symantec scanner. It's been far too long now for the myth of UNIX being insecure in the same ways (note the wording...) to still persist.
ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.
So, Capital-ism, versus social-ism. One focuses on wealth and costs, one focuses on social (human) aspects. As much as Finland is scared of it, yes - free healthcare, free education, intervention in various industries - that's socialism. The US itself isn't purely capitalistic, no, but we're the closest that anyone has ever been in the history of mankind. The "global" entities are very capitalistic - globalism itself is. Ship the labor to where ever it is cheapest, to make the widgets the cheapest, to hell with the anyone anywhere other than the 0.01%. That is, absolutely, capitalism. The pursuit of capital and wealth growth.
This. The mega-corps like Google, Apple, and MS offshoring (or insisting on H1Bs) and avoiding taxes is a lot of why we're having our current problem. The Gov already *did* this for us - they invented the Internet (as an example), which Gates thought was a passing fad, and then the ultra-elite moved the rewards of the monetization of it offshore. Timothy Berners-Lee has a net worth of 1/1600th of Gates, yet none of us would be having this convo without him. Either TBL gained too little, BG gained too much, a bit of both, or...? But the greed of the ultra-rich is the problem here, not under-investment by the government.
first, you're losing the context of the entire conversation. The convo started with research - papers and such being snagged by google and cited by people who didn't pay into it. An author of non-fiction put real work into what they did. They also have a lot more say in how their material is published. Some direct-publish. Many try to publish via electronic books. You're saying to hell with them getting paid, let them find another way. Second, the 100% reality of the situation is that the only people getting paid in the scheme you're supporting is the richest of the richest. The few hundred wealthiest people on the planet. That is what you're supporting. If you were advocating some sort of sharing system where authors got paid, and no one got paid for turning you into a product, then great. But the only way google makes money is by you a person as a product. They dehumanize you, and make money off selling your info (or access to those with your info).
I'm not defending publishers - they can rot. Google is, btw, a publisher in this case. Not in a manner that most would have thought legal, but they are still publishing the material. Artists won't find a way, and to say that you can take their stuff without paying and that they should just figure something out, is selfish and silly. You go to work and do some whatever thing (test a widget, flip a burger, dunno) - artists, authors especially - have to spend a good deal of time creating the art...during which they aren't paid. And as I said in another post, you're attacking artists while supporting the 0.1% that is turning you into a product. The 0.1% that got corporations to be considered people, are treating people like things. At least publishers treated us like an audience, versus a product. Be the change you want to see in the world? I dunno, something? If you think artists should find a new way, have you paid as much into gofundme and related stuff as artists would have made off their work (ie, their final cut)? There are theoretical things which could do facilitate this, but to support the upheaval our economic system starting with the artists and artisans first, means you've simply bought into the lie that the 0.1% have fed you since they're the only ones getting the money now.
By the way, I have to comment how sad it is that you're ok with the 0.1% getting the money off turning you into a product, while being vehemently against artists being paid in any sort of logical scheme.
ok, and how - praytell - do you think the author of a book should be "paid for their performance" if not by someone buying the body of text they wrote? The body of text is not diminished by copying it multiple times, thus you're getting the same performance at copy 5,000 as someone who read copy 1. Are you for creating a global socialized artisan support network, where some sort of odd body out there decides how well of a "performance" an artist did, and then pays them a one-time payment, and then the planet can do what they will with the art?
That sound you just heard going over your head...let me explain what it was. First, while some books are translated, last I heard the author's guild doesn't own amazon or adobe. Second, authors will sometimes translate things, but even when they do it's certainly not to every language. That job is generally done by someone of that other language group that wants to share it with others who read that language. The salient point was that the job of the author is simply to create the body of text - not to distribute it, translate it, or such. Division of labor is not all that new of a thing - I didn't make the soap I used this morning, did you?
Second, whether there's a chance someone will buy a book after they no longer need it is irrelevant; Google is making money off the book without giving money to the author, and you're reading the book without the book having been paid for (whether by you or a library).
Unless we had already heard it on the radio, at a friend's house, or where-ever else - sure. Sometimes. Sometimes we just liked the band well enough that we bought the record on the day it was released. But previewing was not the reason we went there, in general. Heck, many record stores I remember wouldn't let you preview like that anyway. There wasn't a real alternative; you either bought it and had it, or you didn't buy it and you didn't have it (or you didn't buy it, and had a very low quality reproduction...). Thus the purpose of the "store" was to buy it. Just like at a grocery store - yes, you can look at the food before you buy it, but looking at the food isn't the reason you go to grocery stores. The reason you go to grocery stores is to buy the food.
btw, we generally didn't go to record stores to listen to music...we went there to buy records.;) While we may have listened to music while there, it wasn't the primary purpose.
Are authors supposed to come up with a system for translating their books as well? Or reading their books via whatever your electric device of choice is? They write a particular body of text, which is in theory copyright-protected. If someone else wants to devise a service, that should happen in a way that respects that an author did actual work to create the body of text. If it's not worth it to pay for reading the body of text, then it probably shouldn't be used in research anyway. Also, somehow we've managed to find books for a very long time without shoveling money into the gullets of Google.
Much like knowing the difference between they're, their, and there, reading comprehension should tell you that the future to which I was referring had a context; namely, the future of publishing.
wait, you're saying the authors should just write books for free? This isn't just a 17 year thing, they're scanning brand new books. I get that a lot of people think wiki is awesome and an actual alternative to research, but they disallow primary sources and this is killing primary sources. So once there are no longer primary sources to be misquoted in a tweet, for the tweet to then be used as a citation in wiki, what then?
given the alternative being the ultra-rich become even richer (in this case, the owners of Google), while destroying the middle class (in this case, the authors)? It was an option in a list. It wasn't *the* answer, and what Google is currently doing is Evil thus should be stopped.
For people born before 1990, there was this thing called "research" which took more than 5 seconds to do, thus its need to be described as an actual activity. The work you were doing was, at the time, leagues beyond what the AIs could do. We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid. We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
I'm all for progress, but a paradigm shift needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the future. There will be little purpose for authors to do the work, if you can then yank the snippets you need (likely out of context, because hey - who has time to actually read the whole paper?) without giving them any money. As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service, or such. Instead, they decided to give away someone else's work for free.
Slashdot Mirror
which part are you deeply unsure of? That humans attacked the bugs first, and that news snippets during the movie actually spent a couple seconds talking about protestors pointing that out? Or that the whole thing was obvious satire? Spending half a second, I find an interview with the director, where he describes it as satire that mocks fascism. Even the wiki entry for the movie calls it satire - in the very first sentence . Do you seriously not catch that the whole movie is making fun of the US and the cycle of generate fear => throw the military at the problem => generate fear?
This. HighPickens and EditorDave should feel bad about themselves. Starship Troopers was a very, very obvious satirical piece, *mocking* racism through an analogy so transparent that anyone who does anything related to movie critique and yet didn't see the extremely obvious, overt, mocking of racism and war-for-war's sake, needs to go get a new job. It was over-the-top and ridiculous precisely to show how stupid most (all? meh) wars are. The bugs could think, only attacked because we attacked first, and were even giving humans the benefit of retreating back so an attempt at communication could be made...instead, we sought to exterminate them completely. Is there really anyone who can't see that it's mocking racism? That the bugs are just a replacement for badguy-of-the-month, be it Muslims, or whatever else we've decided to fear and attack?
::sigh:: Here's what Milo thought about "free speech" just a couple years ago. "So perhaps what's needed now is a bolder form of censure after all, because the internet is not a universal human right. If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. For sure, the best we could ever hope for is a smattering of unpopular show trials. But if the internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they're a danger to others. Isn't it time we did the same to trolls?" As found here. He's not for free speech, he's for whatever gets him attention. Twitter did nothing more than quiet a very hateful, angry voice that Milo himself argued should be quieted.
(parkinson class of disorders, not parkinson's disease - very related, not the same) - I chose to not have kids. Bummed my wife out quite a lot, but I told her I was also ok with raising the children of her pick of donors - I even made a few suggestions. Either way, my disease is under study, extremely rare, and currently un-named; it's also dominant-trait, and generally is rather minor in the impact it has on my family members what that have it. Gene editing for disease control? How about we just get screening for it figured out, that's a bit easier and less...dangerous. To edit out my parkinsonian disorder, you'd already have past the screening step, so...just toss the embryos that have the disorder, keep the others, all set. Tada! Easy editing that solves the stated goal without causing the stated concerns. That said, my condition could very likely be solved some day by some sort of blood nanites, since control of my disease is actually somewhat simple enough already (albeit manual) of self-monitoring of dopamine levels, and then taking sinemet as-needed...so the other thing poster talked about that isn't gene-editing, that could be useful too. Risk to humanity? Probably. (ps, rambling is a sign I need to take a pill...ha! thanks for letting me know earlier than I would have, slashdot!)
many people actually let google "know" who they are during their surfing, so if they google for the porn their google account has a record of it. Instead of doing the easier/better bit of opening a "private" tab or whatnot, they subject themselves to bing. That would be my guess for such a thing being true, if it is.
To be more clear on the final point there - to say it's not the same as twitter and facebook is rather ridiculous, because twitter and facebook aren't the same either.
what is it you think defines the words "social" and "media," for starters, and why is it you seem to be incapable of looking up "social media" online to see that it most certainly includes places like this? We're interacting. That's a form of socialization. Forums aren't direct private messages, sure, but we're certainly communicating somewhat interactively. "Media" doesn't just mean videos and music, either. Oddly though, combining "social" and "media" doesn't really match what "social media" means, since it is restricted to online activities...one can be social via media without it being online, but this here - Slashdot - is certainly a website for users to post information, communicate, share ideas, etc. The exact definition of "social media." It was started with that exact purpose, and retains that exact purpose. It's not the same website as facebook, but neither is twitter.
Yup, that's probably it. You figured it out. I mean, this isn't even my first account here, and it's a low-5-digit account, but hey...I'm new here. Just joined last week, actually.
Well here's how Webster defines it: "forms of electronic communication (such as Web sites) through which people create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, etc." What of that do you not think is the core purpose of this website? Users post news bits, we all get on to discuss news bits, we have friends and foes, we rate each other...where in that are you getting lost? Propose a better definition for the term, otherwise. Explain how yours is more correct than what a google for "define: social media" turns up.
::blink:: Do you not realize, for some reason, that Slashdot is a social media site? And what, precisely, is it that you think makes google+, linkedin, facebook, twitter, or more or less most of the major social media sites..."childish?" Granted, I myself don't have accounts on any but google+, and only that because I've made a few reviews on maps, but..it's 2016. Calling the act of being social online "childish" makes you sound both 80, and out of touch. Especially when the complaint is being made on a social media site.
Symantec actively makes Linux and UNIX less secure? Because other than the insanity Lennart Poettering gave us, I fail to see what a proper UNIX system would need with a symantec scanner. It's been far too long now for the myth of UNIX being insecure in the same ways (note the wording...) to still persist.
ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. So, Capital-ism, versus social-ism. One focuses on wealth and costs, one focuses on social (human) aspects. As much as Finland is scared of it, yes - free healthcare, free education, intervention in various industries - that's socialism. The US itself isn't purely capitalistic, no, but we're the closest that anyone has ever been in the history of mankind. The "global" entities are very capitalistic - globalism itself is. Ship the labor to where ever it is cheapest, to make the widgets the cheapest, to hell with the anyone anywhere other than the 0.01%. That is, absolutely, capitalism. The pursuit of capital and wealth growth.
This. The mega-corps like Google, Apple, and MS offshoring (or insisting on H1Bs) and avoiding taxes is a lot of why we're having our current problem. The Gov already *did* this for us - they invented the Internet (as an example), which Gates thought was a passing fad, and then the ultra-elite moved the rewards of the monetization of it offshore. Timothy Berners-Lee has a net worth of 1/1600th of Gates, yet none of us would be having this convo without him. Either TBL gained too little, BG gained too much, a bit of both, or...? But the greed of the ultra-rich is the problem here, not under-investment by the government.
first, you're losing the context of the entire conversation. The convo started with research - papers and such being snagged by google and cited by people who didn't pay into it. An author of non-fiction put real work into what they did. They also have a lot more say in how their material is published. Some direct-publish. Many try to publish via electronic books. You're saying to hell with them getting paid, let them find another way. Second, the 100% reality of the situation is that the only people getting paid in the scheme you're supporting is the richest of the richest. The few hundred wealthiest people on the planet. That is what you're supporting. If you were advocating some sort of sharing system where authors got paid, and no one got paid for turning you into a product, then great. But the only way google makes money is by you a person as a product. They dehumanize you, and make money off selling your info (or access to those with your info).
I'm not defending publishers - they can rot. Google is, btw, a publisher in this case. Not in a manner that most would have thought legal, but they are still publishing the material. Artists won't find a way, and to say that you can take their stuff without paying and that they should just figure something out, is selfish and silly. You go to work and do some whatever thing (test a widget, flip a burger, dunno) - artists, authors especially - have to spend a good deal of time creating the art...during which they aren't paid. And as I said in another post, you're attacking artists while supporting the 0.1% that is turning you into a product. The 0.1% that got corporations to be considered people, are treating people like things. At least publishers treated us like an audience, versus a product. Be the change you want to see in the world? I dunno, something? If you think artists should find a new way, have you paid as much into gofundme and related stuff as artists would have made off their work (ie, their final cut)? There are theoretical things which could do facilitate this, but to support the upheaval our economic system starting with the artists and artisans first, means you've simply bought into the lie that the 0.1% have fed you since they're the only ones getting the money now.
By the way, I have to comment how sad it is that you're ok with the 0.1% getting the money off turning you into a product, while being vehemently against artists being paid in any sort of logical scheme.
ok, and how - praytell - do you think the author of a book should be "paid for their performance" if not by someone buying the body of text they wrote? The body of text is not diminished by copying it multiple times, thus you're getting the same performance at copy 5,000 as someone who read copy 1. Are you for creating a global socialized artisan support network, where some sort of odd body out there decides how well of a "performance" an artist did, and then pays them a one-time payment, and then the planet can do what they will with the art?
That sound you just heard going over your head...let me explain what it was. First, while some books are translated, last I heard the author's guild doesn't own amazon or adobe. Second, authors will sometimes translate things, but even when they do it's certainly not to every language. That job is generally done by someone of that other language group that wants to share it with others who read that language. The salient point was that the job of the author is simply to create the body of text - not to distribute it, translate it, or such. Division of labor is not all that new of a thing - I didn't make the soap I used this morning, did you?
Second, whether there's a chance someone will buy a book after they no longer need it is irrelevant; Google is making money off the book without giving money to the author, and you're reading the book without the book having been paid for (whether by you or a library).
Unless we had already heard it on the radio, at a friend's house, or where-ever else - sure. Sometimes. Sometimes we just liked the band well enough that we bought the record on the day it was released. But previewing was not the reason we went there, in general. Heck, many record stores I remember wouldn't let you preview like that anyway. There wasn't a real alternative; you either bought it and had it, or you didn't buy it and you didn't have it (or you didn't buy it, and had a very low quality reproduction...). Thus the purpose of the "store" was to buy it. Just like at a grocery store - yes, you can look at the food before you buy it, but looking at the food isn't the reason you go to grocery stores. The reason you go to grocery stores is to buy the food.
btw, we generally didn't go to record stores to listen to music...we went there to buy records. ;) While we may have listened to music while there, it wasn't the primary purpose.
Are authors supposed to come up with a system for translating their books as well? Or reading their books via whatever your electric device of choice is? They write a particular body of text, which is in theory copyright-protected. If someone else wants to devise a service, that should happen in a way that respects that an author did actual work to create the body of text. If it's not worth it to pay for reading the body of text, then it probably shouldn't be used in research anyway. Also, somehow we've managed to find books for a very long time without shoveling money into the gullets of Google.
Much like knowing the difference between they're, their, and there, reading comprehension should tell you that the future to which I was referring had a context; namely, the future of publishing.
wait, you're saying the authors should just write books for free? This isn't just a 17 year thing, they're scanning brand new books. I get that a lot of people think wiki is awesome and an actual alternative to research, but they disallow primary sources and this is killing primary sources. So once there are no longer primary sources to be misquoted in a tweet, for the tweet to then be used as a citation in wiki, what then?
given the alternative being the ultra-rich become even richer (in this case, the owners of Google), while destroying the middle class (in this case, the authors)? It was an option in a list. It wasn't *the* answer, and what Google is currently doing is Evil thus should be stopped.
" I would never have known that the book existed"
For people born before 1990, there was this thing called "research" which took more than 5 seconds to do, thus its need to be described as an actual activity. The work you were doing was, at the time, leagues beyond what the AIs could do. We'd go to a thing called a "library" where books were actually purchased, thus the author actually getting paid. We'd look through these "books" and find the information we needed.
I'm all for progress, but a paradigm shift needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't destroy the future. There will be little purpose for authors to do the work, if you can then yank the snippets you need (likely out of context, because hey - who has time to actually read the whole paper?) without giving them any money. As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service, or such. Instead, they decided to give away someone else's work for free.