So I will first make a definition of free under which the BSDL is more free:
Free (adj.) Lacking in restrictions. Unrestricted.
But by that definition, a country that allows you to wander around shooting people is more free than one that does not. It is more unrestricted. But since people would wander about in fear of others, and since those with the guns could easily force others to become their slaves, I propose that it is less free. If you think it's more free despite this, then don't read on. You can keep your little anarchist utopia as long as the men with guns let you.
So the question becomes: how can restrictions add freedom? It seems paradoxical, but it makes sense after a little thought. So, here's a new definition of freedom, one that seems like it will work:
Free (adj.): Lacking in restrictions, except where those restrictions prevent other restrictions.
So, a restriction that says "you can't kill people" prevents people from using their guns to enslave others. That is, it prevents people from saying "if you run away, I'll shoot you" - a restriction on my movement.
The GPL works similarly - it says "no one may restrict your freedom to give a copy of this software to your friend, or to look at how it works, or to modify it." Restrictions that prevent restrictions.
And that's what I call freedom - or at least a better definition than the BSD people. It's not perfect - it doesn't cover "we're taking your guns away to prevent them from being used in kidnappings, even though you've never kidnapped anyone." But it's a start.
" BTW, the west side story example is a bad one. Courts have referred to this before as an example of a derivate work. Shakespeare, were he to sue, would not only win, but would would big time."
The court records are fairly inconsistent on this, actually. It really depends which court you ask.
I am of the opinion that, were the constitution to be read ("promote the progress.. of useful arts"), it would be clear that WSS should not be considered infringing.
I first found and read your articles almost 2 years ago; the next day, I started installing Debian GNU/Linux.
It seems like some people here don't understand what's wrong about proprietary software. Can you give a clear, consise explaination of why it is unethical to write and use?
" The thing here that studios are afraid of, is that derived works are a two-way street. That is, the new author has to get permission to use the original work in order to publish, but that doesn't mean that the original author owns the new work. What the studios are afraid of in this scenario is that their scriptwriters accidently (or maybe not-so-accidently) use a plot identical to one found in a fanfic story. Oops! Now, the fanfic writer has ownership of that, and you get into some nasty situations. "
Clearly, you don't have much knowledge of copyright law. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT IDEAS! You could try patenting them, but that won't fly unless you invented them. "West Side Story" has the same ideas as "Romeo an Juliet." If shakespeare tried to sue, (assuming he's been born a few years later:) he would lose.
>>(Go ahead, just try to make an animated movie about Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin. These were part of the culture long before The Great Banal Mouse seized them.)<<
It can be, and is done. I saw a non-disney animated Aladdin movie in "Stuff: the high-tech junk store." It was bizarre - it looked very similar to, yet subtly different from, the disney version. weird...
Fan fiction is a good thing for a bunch of reasons:
1. It makes fans happy. 2. It creates more art in the world, even if 90% of it is destined by Sturgeon's Law to be crud. 3. It allows budding writers a chance to practice their craft.
Any writer who gets mad at someone using their characters is very insecure. If you're really a good author, you won't be worried about some random person writing something with your characters - you'll just do what you want and move on.
Likewise, fan authors who get pissed at the original authors using ideas that they thoguht of should be ashamed of themselves! They're benefiting from sharing, so the author should to. To make an (probably poor inappropriate) analogy, it is like proprietary developers who get pissed that they can't refuse to share GPL'd code.
Re:Who cares about these games?
on
Carmack Speaks
·
· Score: 1
>>Isn't anyone else sick of first person shooter games? Every one is the exact same thing, except for having, say, a rapid laser gun instead of a machine gun, and to be "good" you need a $40/month line and about $200 worth of extra equipment just for the game...<<
I play games to have fun. Once I've played one FPS for a while, I get bored of it. If a new FPS looks different, especially if it's better, I'll play it for a while.
You do not need good hardware to be a good player. To compete in multiplayer, a decent net connetion helps, yes. But Q3A was plenty of fun single player; I couldn't beat any of the levels in nightmare mode; with more practice, I probably would have been able to.
Also, if you don't like it, don't play it. Don't comment on it, and get on with your life.
I don't go around to wine drinkers boards and say "I don't drink alcohol; aren't you bored of drinking wine yet?"
In other words, what slashdot needs more of is a healthy sense of "Mind Your Own Business."
"Seriously, my question is, how can you quantify the expenses and losses of something like this?? How much did the DoS attacks on Yahoo, eBay and others cost? "
The DoS attacks cost them some fraction of their business over some fraction of a day.
In this particular case, it costs companies nothing. Unless: 1. M$ sells a patch rather than gives it away. or 2. Someone were to use this to break into their system. If any system is broken into as a result of this, the time to repair any damage done should be taken out of microsoft's hide.
If your electrician fucks up and electrocutes your cat, you would make him pay.
Why should Free software be immune to this? Because system administrators can check the code themselves - that's due diligence.
" Nevermind that SSE and 3Dnow do pretty much the same thing -- companies have an interest in differentiating themselves as much as possible. "
Disclaimer: I have only seen the 3dnow and SSE instruction sets - I haven't used them. I have used the MMX instruction set.
They are similar, yes. But 3dNow is slower - it's 64 bit (instead of 128 bit) and it doesn't have some of the nice instructions that SSE has. Of course, SSE was able to learn from 3dnow's mistakes. There is a difference - it's not just marketing.
"But if you are serious about performance, and want to get every once of juice out of your chip, you use the vendor provided compilers, not GCC."
Um - most users don't compile their own software. Most high-performance software is either: 1. a game. Games tend to use assembly language for optimization. 2. A scientific application. Scientific apps are usually expensive, and you can usually convince a company to let you benchmark it on thier hardware before you buy the hardware.
EQ propoerty is your character's propoperty. Not yours. Example from the pencil and paper RPG I play: Rob the ork owns hundreds of pounds of plastique. (Or used to, before the explosion:)
I don't own any plastique. If I were to try to sell another player Rob's plastique for real money, my GM might allow it, but he would never play another RPG with me.
Sony is the GM - they have to let you play (you payed). But they don't have to let you do certain things - they're the GM.
"Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is." nothing like a good spelling flame. I'm being trolled.
" Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. "
Wow, this is the best troll I've seen in ages! Until this line, I thought you were serious. But no one other than Dan Quayle could have kept a straight face while writing this.
Clearly, it's a form of censorship... or something... It's a corporation messsing with a community... And all that stuff.
BUT:
1. EQ isn't much of a community. Any Roleplaying community that I would want to be a part of would not have people doing the Out-Of-Character and Out-Of-Game stuff that goes on in EQ.
2. Selling game-items on e-bay is destructive to whatever real role-players still use EQ
3. If you view the company as a game master, then the game-master sets the rules. If you view the company as being system administrators for game servers running a game with rules only about how much damage stuff does, well, you're missing the point. A GM's job is to make the game fun for the players.
BTW, if anyone wants to create a real online community, join us at WorldForge (www.worlforge.org). Our servers, when we get them done, will be way beyond anything you've ever seen commercially.
>>Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
>You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
"You know what I mean." No, I don't. I have no clue what you are talking about. Columbine was certainly news - major newspapers like the NYT reported on it. It's a big deal. His pieces on it were opinion pieces. As for people who make art from feces, I *do* call them artists. I even saw one of them who was a good artist, although most of them probably aren't (by Sturgeon's law if nothing else).
>>Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals
>I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence.
Taco and Hemos seem to like Katz - and they're clearly intelligent. I am intelligent. You're just plain wrong here.
>You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything. So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
Wait... you know 15 people who you consider intelligent, who ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO CLICK A BUTTON?
Wow. I want to know what you consider to be intelligent.
On second thought, I don't.
>The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Slashdot's limits on article posting are not bandwidth limits. They're a style issue. Rob doesn't say "uh-oh better not post this, we're out of bandwidth for the day." That's not how it works. He posts things that he's interested in. That's all there is to it. So, Katz articals are being posted because Taco cares about them. Other articals are not being posted because Taco doesn't care.
As for "He adds little or nothing to this world," Well, tell that to the 1000's of people who posted on the hellmouth series. What he adds is this: a catalyst for discussion. That's the point of the Slashdot comments: discussion, argument, debate, etc. When I see a Katz article, I am happy. Not because I am particularly likely to agree with him, but because I want to discuss the issues he raises.
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
> Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact.
Documented where? Seriously, if "Intelligent peopel don't read katz," then their mindshare *CAN'T* be taken up by it.
>Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read.
That's pretty ridiculous. Jon katz gets commented on a lot - but his articles (with 1 exception) are not among the most widely read. See the HOF.
>Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Katz doesn't run anyone off. He only takes the attention of those who read him - the other people are SMART ENOUGH TO CKICK A LITTLE FUCKING BUTTON!
" Katz promotes a certain mind set."
He's an opinion columnist.
" I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time."
I've never seen a Katz quote anywhere. If you mean things like "corporatism" or "geek," well, what do you expect? It's "News for Nerds," and at least some nerds (like me) seem to (horror of horrors!) care about the same things Katz does, EVEN IF we don't agree with him.
> Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. Then don't participate in them. Porno flicks do nothing for me, so I don't watch them.
>These discussions crowd out content that does. Again, how? As aI said earlier, katz articles aren't the most widely read. Also, if, as you contend, "Intelligent people don't read katz," then they clearly have as much time on a day witha akatz article as on a day without.
>It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
It only affects you if you let it - there are plenty of other articles each day. There wouldn't be more of them if katz left tomorrow.
> What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Speaking out against katz's opinion is one thing. I support posting saying "Katz is wrong, here's why." I do it from time to time. What I have a problem with is metaposts - "Kick katz off/." Here's an example from your post:
"Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. "
1. It's false - his articles appeal to me, and I disagree with him frequently. Also, there is no party. Slashdot, if you'll take the time to actually read it, is a very diverse group. Does slashdot support sharing mp3s? some of us do, and some of us don't.
2. It's off topic. Katz is not the topic of a katz article. Slashdot is not the topic of a katz article.
3. It doesn't explain why JK is bad/wrong. Well, it purports to, but does so *inaccurately* Here are the lines:
"he does his best to inspire dislike" Not a chance - that charge is outrageous on its face.
"My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless."
Meaningless? This is sating that katz is bad, but calling a person meaningless is not explaining why that person is meaningless - You've made an unsubtantiated charge here.
So, in short, your post was a content free rant against Katz, and against Slashdot. It wasn't speaking out against anything, because it had no content.
> Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut.
Like I said - speak out against katz's stuff if you don't agree with him. But when you do, make sure you have something to say, rather than baseless accusations and name-calling.
>In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
Your attempt failed, IMHO, because your post didn't illuminate anything. It was composed entirely of name-calling.
>For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
I believe your root comment was the one with the perl in the subject. If I'm wrong, then that's OK - maybe your root comment was good. The "s/whatever..." comment was not good.
"You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up. "
I can "handle" your comments. But I don't have to 1. agree and 2. agree that you are doing the right thing by posting them. I am telling you to shut up because you are off topic, and your post did not make any legitimate arguments. Had you not been so highly moderated, I would have ignored you. But you were moderated up for such an inane waste of time that I had to comment.
"Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him."
My argument is "people like JK articles." That's a different argument entirely. I like them because I like the comments. I didn't even read "Rise of the DickLickers," or whatever it was called. So argue against JK all you like - I whole-heartedly support it. But that's different entirely from ranting against the existence of JK
"Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion. "
/. is not a democracy. It is a news and opinion site. Requests for slashdot to change its content should probably go to the people who post it, rather than the community at large. And they should consist of more than unsupported name-calling.
" It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye."
I assert that most people like having JK around, even if they don't admit it, and even if they disagree with him. I don't think that most people do agree with him. Am I clearer now? Now, before you have to listen to any more of this, GO CLICK THE LITTLE FUCKING BOX.
"Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz. I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish. "
American Heritage to the rescue: Journalism n. 1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articals.
Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
"a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it. "
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals.
"b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information. "
I only recall one occasion on which there were 2 katz articals up simultaneously. Bandwidth is a non-issue if you turn him off. Mindshare is a non-issue if, as you believe, "intelligent people don't care about katz." If they don't care, then how does it waste their mindshare?
" Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot."
Dogma? I've never heard him say "you must believe this." I've heard him state opinions, but he's an opinion columnist, for christ's sake. "This approach to life," is stating opinions. If that's a problem, then you must be thinking of a different slashdot than I am.
" I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot."
I don't consider the things I argue about pointless, unless they're in the "ultimately unimportant, but fun to discuss" category. Also, what is "pointless" is a matter of opinion, purely. If you don't like that, don't read it - it's moderated low enough that you don't have to.
" What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?... No Thanks. "
What I am advocating is minding your own business. The only argument you've made about the undesireablity of Katz is that he detracts from your mindshare. But there's a large part of/. who doesn't care about him, so that argument is not valid. There are plenty of people for you to talk with who don't care about katz...
But it looks like a lot of people *do* care about katz - he's got high comment numbers in the hof, if that means anything. if these people are, as you contend, "not intelligent" then you shouldn't mind losing them. If they are intelligent, and they want to read Katz, then I ask again, who are you to stop them? Because you care more about what you want to talk about then what they want to talk about? and you think that whining like this will somehow convince them that katz is not worth talking about? Yeah, real mature.
Hmmm...no study says that the growth hormones are "harmful, so no one knows it is harmful, just like no one knows what really causes cancer, right? "
The deal is that we've done studies. Other than *possibly* causing cancer (not a long enough timeline to tell for certain, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't), rBGH won't hurt you.
So, unless you want to say "Damn the studies, I'm paranoid," then you're being stupid.
"I'm not saying it causes cancer. But I certainly think it is a big health risk. I mean, if we were to take it directly, would it be a problem? "
rBHG does not enter a cows milk. Period. There's no trace of it there, not even a tiny bit. Ben and fucking Jerry's, who are, like, hardcore about this can't detect it... No one can. It's not there!
"However, I don't think any food should need "fortification" with additional nutrients. That sends an alarm in my mind that says: there's something wrong here! Remember Olestra? The fat substitute that is supposed to pass right through your body instead of being absorbed by the body? They had to fortify it with nutrients because it leached nutrients from the body!"
OK, so it was Olestra that made you into a paranoid nutjob. I'll remember to avoid it. Adding nutrients isn't going to hurt you (except maybe megadoses of vitamin E). I know that I, for one, don't eat well. I don't eat enough fruit. So if my (say) beef has extra vitamin C, then good! I need it, and it'll pass through your body, harmlessly.
"I still say, processed foods are bad for you."
But you provide no evidence for this... I have some evidence against, tho.
When my dad cooks chicken, he cuts off the fat. That's processing. And It's better for me that way. By far.
"Look, the best and richest country in the world, and we still have plenty of health problems, if not more than some of the other countries, even with all the available medical advancements. Maybe it's time to look at things from a different perspective? "
Like "good eating won't solve all problems" ? that sounds like a good start. How about "nanotech can solve many problems, so let's get hacking on it." That might do it...
1) Do the coming ultratechnolgies (like AI) threaten to put so much power into the hands of anyone who wields them that they are unethical to develop as things stand now? (This is Bill Joy's main critique, as I see it) </i>
I see his response as benig "I've thought about this, and I see it as being OK." My take is that free speech puts power into the hands of individuals, and we don't have a problem with that.
I would rather everyone have power than just a few - Do you trust your government? I know they spy on me, so I don't.
2) Do you agree or disagree with thinkers like Moravec and Kurzweil who believe that artificial intelligence and robotics will infiltrate and eventually completely replace biological humanity? </i>
That's not an ethical question. It's a theoretical question. The ethical question is "is this a good thing?" My answer: what's so great about humanity? (I am aware that it is also a non-answer) Basically, "replace" is an ambiguous term... am I in favor of a situation like "Terminator" or "The Matrix"? Nope. If some or all humans voluntarily decided "the machines can do a better job than we can, let's get out of their way and stop breeding," then who am I to stop them?
<i>3) Do human-level AI's deserve some level of human rights?</i>
Unanswered - although some would argue that this is a political, rather than ethical question. My take: what is human?
"Are the cows NOT being injected with hormones to increase their milk yield? And what effect does the milk that come from these cows have on the human body? "
Ben and Jerry's says that they would like to promise that they don't use milk from cows that have been treated with rBGH. But they can't, because no test can tell the difference in the milk.
No study has ever shown any harm from rBGH. so I don't see hwat your gripe is.
"Where did people who lived in colder climates get their vitamin C from before the advent of global shipping? "
I haven't a clue:). I can tell you that OJ is "good for you" in that 1. You have to get vitamin C somewhere - why not there? 2. It courrelates with reduced risk of heart disease. 3. It tastes good. 4. It isn't carbonated, and so it doesn't leech your calcium.
Disclaimer: I am not a health food nut. I just listen to my mom, who is:)
Whee! I'm about to get modded into oblivion for defending Katz. Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
Some of his journalism is stuff I don't care about. "Chicklickers," or whatever is not of any interest to me - I find discussions of "this is the new demographic" boring. So I skip them. Simple, easy. I can even express why it doesn't interest me - My community is unlikely to attract these people, and these people are unlikely to be interested in me. If one day, every single Neo-Nazi went online, it wouldn't affect me in the least. My community would treat them with nothing but contempt, and they would have no reason to care about my community. Great. So when I saw the blurb, I skipped the artical.
FWIW: My community is the Worldforge Project.
Some of Katz's stuff is good - remember the Hellmouth series? I read stories like that. I read the comments on them. I enjoy them. You may not. Good - you're a smart individual, you can make sure you never see a katz artical again.
Two final points: 1. I like to argue. It's fun. Why do you care if I have fun?
2. Slashdot wants to make money. So what? Does it hurt you? Nope - if you don't like the banner ads, there's IJB. If you don't like katz, turn him off.
>>Thats weird. i though no one (except for bill's 12 year old cousin) spent any time working on M$ products and that is why they were so buggy. I guess software would never have that many buggs in it unless they tried really hard to make it that way.<<
We work very hard on our buggs at Microsoft! We don't putt in show stoppers, because we want to shipp products. Instead, we putt in minorr, but irritating buggs. You might notice one of themm if you are using Internet Explorer to postt to Slashdot - we change yourr spelling!
Wow, advocating against stereotyping earns me a flamebait? The only possible flamebait thing about that was the one line at the end, and I stand by that. The commen which I responded to was a highly moderated load prejudiced crap. I don't think that arguing against stereotyping deserves this.
I already patented that years ago, when I worked for Microsoft. How else do you think we kept our slaves^Wminions^Wprogrammers fed, during the long nights chained to their desks.
>>If even a tiny proportion of the trolls/mp3 warez lusers on this board learn some programming, we could all be in for a difficult time. <<
Wow! That's pretty offensive - lumping everyone who does or advocates anything illegal or stupid into one big fat label. I am not a troll, although I have been called one (stupid moderators have no sense of humor:). I am not a luser. I do not need any illegally shared software. But I do have a good number of mp3s - whenever I buy a new CD, I make mp3s of it. To imply my willingness to share them has something to do with my desire write something that will fuck up your system, is offensive in the extreme.
For the record, RMS has stated that he shares his music - are you going to accuse him of being a virus author?
Slashdot Mirror
This depends entirely on the definition of free.
So I will first make a definition of free under which the BSDL is more free:
Free (adj.) Lacking in restrictions. Unrestricted.
But by that definition, a country that allows you to wander around shooting people is more free than one that does not. It is more unrestricted. But since people would wander about in fear of others, and since those with the guns could easily force others to become their slaves, I propose that it is less free. If you think it's more free despite this, then don't read on. You can keep your little anarchist utopia as long as the men with guns let you.
So the question becomes: how can restrictions add freedom? It seems paradoxical, but it makes sense after a little thought. So, here's a new definition of freedom, one that seems like it will work:
Free (adj.): Lacking in restrictions, except where those restrictions prevent other restrictions.
So, a restriction that says "you can't kill people" prevents people from using their guns to enslave others. That is, it prevents people from saying "if you run away, I'll shoot you" - a restriction on my movement.
The GPL works similarly - it says "no one may restrict your freedom to give a copy of this software to your friend, or to look at how it works, or to modify it." Restrictions that prevent restrictions.
And that's what I call freedom - or at least a better definition than the BSD people. It's not perfect - it doesn't cover "we're taking your guns away to prevent them from being used in kidnappings, even though you've never kidnapped anyone." But it's a start.
" BTW, the west side story example is a bad one. Courts have referred to this before as an example of a derivate work. Shakespeare, were he to sue, would not only win, but would would big time."
.. of useful arts"), it would be clear that WSS should not be considered infringing.
The court records are fairly inconsistent on this, actually. It really depends which court you ask.
I am of the opinion that, were the constitution to be read ("promote the progress
I first found and read your articles almost 2 years ago; the next day, I started installing Debian GNU/Linux.
It seems like some people here don't understand what's wrong about proprietary software. Can you give a clear, consise explaination of why it is unethical to write and use?
" The thing here that studios are afraid of, is that derived works are a two-way street. That is, the new author has to get permission to use the original work in order to publish, but that doesn't mean that the original author owns the new work. What the studios are afraid of in this scenario is that their scriptwriters accidently (or maybe not-so-accidently) use a plot identical to one found in a fanfic story. Oops! Now, the fanfic writer has ownership of that, and you get into some nasty situations. "
:) he would lose.
Clearly, you don't have much knowledge of copyright law. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT IDEAS!
You could try patenting them, but that won't fly unless you invented them. "West Side Story" has the same ideas as "Romeo an Juliet." If shakespeare tried to sue, (assuming he's been born a few years later
Please get a clue before postign on slashdot.
>>(Go ahead, just try to make an animated movie about Snow White or Sleeping Beauty or Aladdin. These were part of the culture long before The Great Banal Mouse seized them.)<<
It can be, and is done. I saw a non-disney animated Aladdin movie in "Stuff: the high-tech junk store." It was bizarre - it looked very similar to, yet subtly different from, the disney version. weird...
Fan fiction is a good thing for a bunch of reasons:
1. It makes fans happy.
2. It creates more art in the world, even if 90% of it is destined by Sturgeon's Law to be crud.
3. It allows budding writers a chance to practice their craft.
Any writer who gets mad at someone using their characters is very insecure. If you're really a good author, you won't be worried about some random person writing something with your characters - you'll just do what you want and move on.
Likewise, fan authors who get pissed at the original authors using ideas that they thoguht of should be ashamed of themselves! They're benefiting from sharing, so the author should to. To make an (probably poor inappropriate) analogy, it is like proprietary developers who get pissed that they can't refuse to share GPL'd code.
>>Isn't anyone else sick of first person shooter games? Every one is the exact same thing, except for having, say, a rapid laser gun instead of a machine gun, and to be "good" you need a $40/month line and about $200 worth of extra equipment just for the game...<<
I play games to have fun. Once I've played one FPS for a while, I get bored of it. If a new FPS looks different, especially if it's better, I'll play it for a while.
You do not need good hardware to be a good player. To compete in multiplayer, a decent net connetion helps, yes. But Q3A was plenty of fun single player; I couldn't beat any of the levels in nightmare mode; with more practice, I probably would have been able to.
Also, if you don't like it, don't play it. Don't comment on it, and get on with your life.
I don't go around to wine drinkers boards and say "I don't drink alcohol; aren't you bored of drinking wine yet?"
In other words, what slashdot needs more of is a healthy sense of "Mind Your Own Business."
"Seriously, my question is, how can you quantify the expenses and losses of something like this?? How much did the DoS attacks on Yahoo, eBay and others cost? "
The DoS attacks cost them some fraction of their business over some fraction of a day.
In this particular case, it costs companies nothing. Unless: 1. M$ sells a patch rather than gives it away. or 2. Someone were to use this to break into their system. If any system is broken into as a result of this, the time to repair any damage done should be taken out of microsoft's hide.
If your electrician fucks up and electrocutes your cat, you would make him pay.
Why should Free software be immune to this?
Because system administrators can check the code themselves - that's due diligence.
If you do dream something up, let me know. The best I've thought of is to tunnel through IRC - assuming that's not blocked :)
" Nevermind that SSE and 3Dnow do pretty much the same thing -- companies have an interest in differentiating themselves as much as possible. "
Disclaimer: I have only seen the 3dnow and SSE instruction sets - I haven't used them. I have used the MMX instruction set.
They are similar, yes. But 3dNow is slower - it's 64 bit (instead of 128 bit) and it doesn't have some of the nice instructions that SSE has. Of course, SSE was able to learn from 3dnow's mistakes. There is a difference - it's not just marketing.
"But if you are serious about performance, and want to get every once of juice out of your chip, you use the vendor provided compilers, not GCC."
Um - most users don't compile their own software. Most high-performance software is either:
1. a game. Games tend to use assembly language for optimization.
2. A scientific application. Scientific apps are usually expensive, and you can usually convince a company to let you benchmark it on thier hardware before you buy the hardware.
EQ propoerty is your character's propoperty. Not yours. :)
Example from the pencil and paper RPG I play:
Rob the ork owns hundreds of pounds of plastique. (Or used to, before the explosion
I don't own any plastique. If I were to try to sell another player Rob's plastique for real money, my GM might allow it, but he would never play another RPG with me.
Sony is the GM - they have to let you play (you payed). But they don't have to let you do certain things - they're the GM.
"Likewise, if you can't spell "article", I can hardly expect you to know what a good article is."
nothing like a good spelling flame. I'm being trolled.
" Because he is a crappy writer in my opinion [not that this is just opinion], it is also entirely reasonable for me to think he affects me negatively whether or not I ignore him. "
Wow, this is the best troll I've seen in ages! Until this line, I thought you were serious. But no one other than Dan Quayle could have kept a straight face while writing this.
Oops! I can't type today... I do know the correct link... or at least I hope I do, as I am one of the webmasters :)
Clearly, it's a form of censorship... or something... It's a corporation messsing with a community... And all that stuff.
BUT:
1. EQ isn't much of a community. Any Roleplaying community that I would want to be a part of would not have people doing the Out-Of-Character and Out-Of-Game stuff that goes on in EQ.
2. Selling game-items on e-bay is destructive to whatever real role-players still use EQ
3. If you view the company as a game master, then the game-master sets the rules. If you view the company as being system administrators for game servers running a game with rules only about how much damage stuff does, well, you're missing the point. A GM's job is to make the game fun for the players.
BTW, if anyone wants to create a real online community, join us at WorldForge (www.worlforge.org). Our servers, when we get them done, will be way beyond anything you've ever seen commercially.
>>Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
/."
>You might technically be able to call this news (although that is debatable), but you know exactly what I mean. I would no more call Katz a journalist, than I would call people who make "art" from feces artists. He adds little to nothing to this world.
"You know what I mean." No, I don't. I have no clue what you are talking about. Columbine was certainly news - major newspapers like the NYT reported on it. It's a big deal. His pieces on it were opinion pieces. As for people who make art from feces, I *do* call them artists. I even saw one of them who was a good artist, although most of them probably aren't (by Sturgeon's law if nothing else).
>>Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals
>I disagree. What Katz's articles have is a sort of psuedo-intellectual following, but I don't associate this with intelligence.
Taco and Hemos seem to like Katz - and they're clearly intelligent. I am intelligent. You're just plain wrong here.
>You are free to think otherwise, but that does not invalidate the fact that, as a result of Katz and similar rubbish, i'm hardpressed to find readers with whom i'd like to discuss anything.
So yes, i'm still affected. I have known atleast 15 people who refuse to read slashdot as a result of Katz and his following.
Wait... you know 15 people who you consider intelligent, who ARE TOO FUCKING STUPID TO CLICK A BUTTON?
Wow. I want to know what you consider to be intelligent.
On second thought, I don't.
>The fact of the matter is that Slashdot itself has finite bandwidth and CPU time. These limits do constantly make themselves felt. If 99% of the traffic on a given day is the Katz/argument stuff, then that leaves only a small and unreliable percentage left to pursuits I (amongst others) am interested in. Yes, this affects me.
Slashdot's limits on article posting are not bandwidth limits. They're a style issue. Rob doesn't say "uh-oh better not post this, we're out of bandwidth for the day." That's not how it works. He posts things that he's interested in. That's all there is to it. So, Katz articals are being posted because Taco cares about them. Other articals are not being posted because Taco doesn't care.
As for "He adds little or nothing to this world," Well, tell that to the 1000's of people who posted on the hellmouth series. What he adds is this: a catalyst for discussion. That's the point of the Slashdot comments: discussion, argument, debate, etc. When I see a Katz article, I am happy. Not because I am particularly likely to agree with him, but because I want to discuss the issues he raises.
Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me. These discussions crowd out content that does. It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
> Likewise, slashdot's mindshare is finite. If most all of the "content" is Katz and similar crap, little else will recieve much attention. It is a documented fact.
Documented where? Seriously, if "Intelligent peopel don't read katz," then their mindshare *CAN'T* be taken up by it.
>Furthermore, If I, as an intelligent person, am going to spend a significant amount of time writing for slashdot, I would want to know it is going to get read.
That's pretty ridiculous. Jon katz gets commented on a lot - but his articles (with 1 exception) are not among the most widely read. See the HOF.
>Not only does Katz run off most other intelligent people, but he also takes away the attention of others, thus I might as well essentially write for myself.
Katz doesn't run anyone off. He only takes the attention of those who read him - the other people are SMART ENOUGH TO CKICK A LITTLE FUCKING BUTTON!
" Katz promotes a certain mind set."
He's an opinion columnist.
" I hear his beloved "phrases" and the views he purports aped on other articles all the time."
I've never seen a Katz quote anywhere. If you mean things like "corporatism" or "geek," well, what do you expect? It's "News for Nerds," and at least some nerds (like me) seem to (horror of horrors!) care about the same things Katz does, EVEN IF we don't agree with him.
> Fact: These "discussions" do nothing for me.
Then don't participate in them. Porno flicks do nothing for me, so I don't watch them.
>These discussions crowd out content that does.
Again, how? As aI said earlier, katz articles aren't the most widely read. Also, if, as you contend, "Intelligent people don't read katz," then they clearly have as much time on a day witha akatz article as on a day without.
>It affects me. It might be my opinion that the content is worthless, but that does not invalidate it.
It only affects you if you let it - there are plenty of other articles each day. There wouldn't be more of them if katz left tomorrow.
> What you are advocating is my keeping my mouth shut because you happen to like Katz. You are being hypocritical at the very least. I see crap that I do not like, I speak out against it. I was taught to call a spade a spade. If Katz is manipulating many people on slashdot with formulaic efficiency, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
Speaking out against katz's opinion is one thing. I support posting saying "Katz is wrong, here's why." I do it from time to time. What I have a problem with is metaposts - "Kick katz off
Here's an example from your post:
"Not all of slashdot is his target audience, he appeals to a certain faction very very consistently with the party line. "
1. It's false - his articles appeal to me, and I disagree with him frequently. Also, there is no party. Slashdot, if you'll take the time to actually read it, is a very diverse group. Does slashdot support sharing mp3s? some of us do, and some of us don't.
2. It's off topic. Katz is not the topic of a katz article. Slashdot is not the topic of a katz article.
3. It doesn't explain why JK is bad/wrong. Well, it purports to, but does so *inaccurately* Here are the lines:
"he does his best to inspire dislike"
Not a chance - that charge is outrageous on its face.
"My objection to this, of course, is that Katz is absolutely the most meaningless."
Meaningless? This is sating that katz is bad, but calling a person meaningless is not explaining why that person is meaningless - You've made an unsubtantiated charge here.
So, in short, your post was a content free rant against Katz, and against Slashdot. It wasn't speaking out against anything, because it had no content.
> Obviously, each person can only speak from his or her own perspective. I and many others think Katz is horrible. We state what we think about him. That is what democracy is about, not keeping your mouth shut.
Like I said - speak out against katz's stuff if you don't agree with him. But when you do, make sure you have something to say, rather than baseless accusations and name-calling.
>In addition, I also attempt to illuminate Katz's "style", for everyone to see. Perhaps when they see the truth, then Slashdot will have an economic incentive to cut him off.
Your attempt failed, IMHO, because your post didn't illuminate anything. It was composed entirely of name-calling.
>For others (e.g., in my root comment), I pointed out Katz's "formula for success". Not a whine, just strongly supported observation. You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up.
I believe your root comment was the one with the perl in the subject. If I'm wrong, then that's OK - maybe your root comment was good. The "s/whatever..." comment was not good.
"You don't seem to be able to handle it, so you are telling me to shut up. "
I can "handle" your comments. But I don't have to 1. agree and 2. agree that you are doing the right thing by posting them. I am telling you to shut up because you are off topic, and your post did not make any legitimate arguments. Had you not been so highly moderated, I would have ignored you. But you were moderated up for such an inane waste of time that I had to comment.
"Your argument is "people like Katz". But, if we listened to you, there would never be any criticisms of him, and thus you'd never be able to get an accurate picture of who likes him."
My argument is "people like JK articles." That's a different argument entirely. I like them because I like the comments. I didn't even read "Rise of the DickLickers," or whatever it was called. So argue against JK all you like - I whole-heartedly support it. But that's different entirely from ranting against the existence of JK
"Contrast this with my requests/arguments/etc for slashdot to change it's content, which is not, and never was, chosen in a democratic fashion. "
/. is not a democracy. It is a news and opinion site. Requests for slashdot to change its content should probably go to the people who post it, rather than the community at large. And they should consist of more than unsupported name-calling.
" It is funny though, in your initial comment you were afraid to be moderated down for supporting Katz. Yet you seem to assert that Katz is supported by most people and that moderation is meaningfull. I don't think you can have it both ways. In my opinion, both are flawed...but I don't have time left. Bye."
I assert that most people like having JK around, even if they don't admit it, and even if they disagree with him. I don't think that most people do agree with him. Am I clearer now? Now, before you have to listen to any more of this, GO CLICK THE LITTLE FUCKING BOX.
"Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
... No Thanks. "
/. who doesn't care about him, so that argument is not valid. There are plenty of people for you to talk with who don't care about katz...
I have yet to read a single Katz article that I would call "journalism." But even if he published such a thing, does it matter? He tries to pass everything else off as journalism too. Without getting too involved in this, I certainly would not call the "Hellmouth" or "Wave" series journalism. They were essentially common knowledge with a hysterical reactive pro-geek undertone. No where did I find any honest to god analytical thinking going on there. It's simply rubbish. "
American Heritage to the rescue:
Journalism n. 1. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articals.
Columbine was news. WAVE was news. And there was analysis, although that's frankly a holy war.
"a) The more intelligent readership get turned off and leave. This effects me by leaving me with mediocre "community members" whom generally can't make a case if their life depended on it. "
Intelligent people are smart enough to click a button. Also, there are intelligent people who like commenting on Katz articals.
"b) Because Katz's crap soaks up both bandwidth and mindshare, the other content suffers. In other
words, if the powers-that-be have 2 or 3 Katz articles up, they have less interest in posting other information. "
I only recall one occasion on which there were 2 katz articals up simultaneously. Bandwidth is a non-issue if you turn him off. Mindshare is a non-issue if, as you believe, "intelligent people don't care about katz." If they don't care, then how does it waste their mindshare?
" Katz propogates dogma and geek FUD. This approach to life leaks into the rest of slashdot."
Dogma? I've never heard him say "you must believe this." I've heard him state opinions, but he's an opinion columnist, for christ's sake. "This approach to life," is stating opinions. If that's a problem, then you must be thinking of a different slashdot than I am.
" I don't care if you argue per se. I care that pretty much all I see on slashdot is pointless arguments, which in turn detracts from slashdot."
I don't consider the things I argue about pointless, unless they're in the "ultimately unimportant, but fun to discuss" category. Also, what is "pointless" is a matter of opinion, purely. If you don't like that, don't read it - it's moderated low enough that you don't have to.
" What you are essentially advocating is passivity. Why vote? Other people want it otherwise. Why make yourself heard, if most people want to think otherwise? Why fight for anything if you can just "move"?
What I am advocating is minding your own business. The only argument you've made about the undesireablity of Katz is that he detracts from your mindshare. But there's a large part of
But it looks like a lot of people *do* care about katz - he's got high comment numbers in the hof, if that means anything. if these people are, as you contend, "not intelligent" then you shouldn't mind losing them. If they are intelligent, and they want to read Katz, then I ask again, who are you to stop them? Because you care more about what you want to talk about then what they want to talk about? and you think that whining like this will somehow convince them that katz is not worth talking about? Yeah, real mature.
Hmmm...no study says that the growth hormones are "harmful, so no one knows it is harmful, just like
no one knows what really causes cancer, right? "
The deal is that we've done studies. Other than *possibly* causing cancer (not a long enough timeline to tell for certain, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't), rBGH won't hurt you.
So, unless you want to say "Damn the studies, I'm paranoid," then you're being stupid.
"I'm not saying it causes cancer. But I certainly think it is a big health risk. I mean, if we were to take it directly, would it be a problem? "
rBHG does not enter a cows milk. Period. There's no trace of it there, not even a tiny bit. Ben and fucking Jerry's, who are, like, hardcore about this can't detect it... No one can. It's not there!
"However, I don't think any food should need "fortification" with additional nutrients. That sends an alarm in my mind that says: there's something wrong here! Remember Olestra? The fat substitute that is supposed to pass right through your body instead of being absorbed by the body? They had to fortify it with nutrients because it leached nutrients from the body!"
OK, so it was Olestra that made you into a paranoid nutjob. I'll remember to avoid it. Adding nutrients isn't going to hurt you (except maybe megadoses of vitamin E). I know that I, for one, don't eat well. I don't eat enough fruit. So if my (say) beef has extra vitamin C, then good! I need it, and it'll pass through your body, harmlessly.
"I still say, processed foods are bad for you."
But you provide no evidence for this...
I have some evidence against, tho.
When my dad cooks chicken, he cuts off the fat. That's processing. And It's better for me that way. By far.
"Look, the best and richest country in the world, and we still have plenty of health problems, if not more than some of the other countries, even with all the available medical advancements. Maybe it's time to look at things from a different perspective? "
Like "good eating won't solve all problems" ? that sounds like a good start. How about "nanotech can solve many problems, so let's get hacking on it." That might do it...
1) Do the coming ultratechnolgies (like AI)
threaten to put so much power into the hands of anyone who wields them that they are unethical to
develop as things stand now? (This is Bill Joy's main critique, as I see it) </i>
I see his response as benig "I've thought about this, and I see it as being OK." My take is that free speech puts power into the hands of individuals, and we don't have a problem with that.
I would rather everyone have power than just a few - Do you trust your government? I know they spy on me, so I don't.
2) Do you agree or disagree
with thinkers like Moravec and Kurzweil who believe that artificial intelligence and robotics will
infiltrate and eventually completely replace biological humanity? </i>
That's not an ethical question. It's a theoretical question. The ethical question is "is this a good thing?" My answer: what's so great about humanity? (I am aware that it is also a non-answer) Basically, "replace" is an ambiguous term... am I in favor of a situation like "Terminator" or "The Matrix"? Nope. If some or all humans voluntarily decided "the machines can do a better job than we can, let's get out of their way and stop breeding," then who am I to stop them?
<i>3) Do human-level AI's deserve
some level of human rights?</i>
Unanswered - although some would argue that this is a political, rather than ethical question. My take: what is human?
just my thoughts....
"Are the cows NOT being
:). I can tell you that OJ is "good for you" in that
:)
injected with hormones to increase their milk yield? And what effect does the milk that come from
these cows have on the human body? "
Ben and Jerry's says that they would like to promise that they don't use milk from cows that have been treated with rBGH. But they can't, because no test can tell the difference in the milk.
No study has ever shown any harm from rBGH. so I don't see hwat your gripe is.
"Where did
people who lived in colder climates get their vitamin C from before the advent of global shipping? "
I haven't a clue
1. You have to get vitamin C somewhere - why not there?
2. It courrelates with reduced risk of heart disease.
3. It tastes good.
4. It isn't carbonated, and so it doesn't leech your calcium.
Disclaimer: I am not a health food nut. I just listen to my mom, who is
Whee! I'm about to get modded into oblivion for defending Katz.
Some of what Katz does is journalism. Consider WAVE - I wouldn't have heard of it but for Katz.
Some of his journalism is stuff I don't care about. "Chicklickers," or whatever is not of any interest to me - I find discussions of "this is the new demographic" boring. So I skip them. Simple, easy.
I can even express why it doesn't interest me - My community is unlikely to attract these people, and these people are unlikely to be interested in me. If one day, every single Neo-Nazi went online, it wouldn't affect me in the least. My community would treat them with nothing but contempt, and they would have no reason to care about my community. Great. So when I saw the blurb, I skipped the artical.
FWIW: My community is the Worldforge Project.
Some of Katz's stuff is good - remember the Hellmouth series? I read stories like that. I read the comments on them. I enjoy them. You may not. Good - you're a smart individual, you can make sure you never see a katz artical again.
Two final points:
1. I like to argue. It's fun. Why do you care if I have fun?
2. Slashdot wants to make money. So what? Does it hurt you? Nope - if you don't like the banner ads, there's IJB. If you don't like katz, turn him off.
heh, I did read it - Otherwise I would have gotten 1st post :)
/. has linked to k5? k5 is awesome, and to see /. linking to it, well, it's a sign that the times are changing.
You did mention a few specific ciphers... so I figured what the heck.
Hey, is this the first time
>>Thats weird. i though no one (except for bill's 12 year old cousin) spent any time working on M$ products and that is why they were so buggy. I guess software would never have that many buggs in it unless they tried really hard to make it that way.<<
We work very hard on our buggs at Microsoft!
We don't putt in show stoppers, because we want to shipp products. Instead, we putt in minorr, but irritating buggs. You might notice one of themm if you are using Internet Explorer to postt to Slashdot - we change yourr spelling!
Moderators: it's funny!
Wow, advocating against stereotyping earns me a flamebait? The only possible flamebait thing about that was the one line at the end, and I stand by that. The commen which I responded to was a highly moderated load prejudiced crap. I don't think that arguing against stereotyping deserves this.
I already patented that years ago, when I worked for Microsoft. How else do you think we kept our slaves^Wminions^Wprogrammers fed, during the long nights chained to their desks.
>>If even a tiny proportion of the trolls/mp3 warez lusers on this board learn some programming, we could all be in for a difficult time. <<
:). I am not a luser. I do not need any illegally shared software. But I do have a good number of mp3s - whenever I buy a new CD, I make mp3s of it. To imply my willingness to share them has something to do with my desire write something that will fuck up your system, is offensive in the extreme.
Wow! That's pretty offensive - lumping everyone who does or advocates anything illegal or stupid into one big fat label. I am not a troll, although I have been called one (stupid moderators have no sense of humor
For the record, RMS has stated that he shares his music - are you going to accuse him of being a virus author?
Fucknut.