Not only I totally agree with your "same yardstick" principle, I also propose following natural application of it: "any guy caught urinating in public should not be allowed to use his penis ever again."
From TFA:
Authorities were able to clearly identify Essebar as the author of the worm; not only had he signed it with the words "by Diabl0" buried in the source code, but he'd written the worm using Microsoft's Visual Studio, which embeds information about the computer on which the code is written into the compiled program -- in this case, the directory path "C:\Documents and Settings\Farid." D'oh! D'oh indeed!!
How is the medical opinion of experts (right or wrong) a judicial matter at all? Isn't it akin to taking me to a court because I published an erroneous theorem?
Isn't the way to correct such things is the "usual way" of doing science? But then maybe litigating is the usual way these days.
I would much rather have a stranger go through my stuff than a family member. Ah! But you are not dead you see.
Just because you are dead, that doesn't mean your wishes and desires are dead. Oh yes, they are. There is no your xyz without a you
Once a certain kind of edit results in an IP ban, I would guess that the editors of wikipedia would keep an eye on similar edits and anyone trying to make similar edits, irrespective of their location, would get a warning or possible ban. Of course the edit would be reverted.
I really don't see any point in an organization getting someone to push views similar to the ones that caused an IP ban in the first place.
but as pointed out many times before here of slashdot, charging the kind of money that is being charged for music is an untenable business practice in the light of the capabilities of the technology that we have. Either one can try to criminalize all sorts of sharing (even the stuff people *want* shared like your favorite Ubuntu iso) or give it up. Copying stuff is easier than ever and a certain level of "piracy" (I suppose a level that won't be convenient to you) will always be there.
I would rather not go into an argument of whether or not you deserve being paid, the way you want, for the content that you create, but times change. Sometimes to the detriment of some people. The ever-popular example of horse-carriage makers comes to mind.
Sure! like everyone can deal drugs and hide dead bodies in their houses without the fear of getting caught, just because the police can not search your house without a warrant.
The discussions about policies of Novell are certainly worthy of discussion and maybe even relevant to the topic, but it has been discussed so much on slashdot that one would have to be foolish to expect anything new. Anytime a story featuring Novell (even superficially) appears here, the discussions end up looking like a rehash of some discussion that happened last week which in turn was a rehash of a discussion two weeks ago and so on. What's the point?
Moreover, even though slashdot readers are definitely a demographic with quite strong views about anything under the sun, the site hopefully would remain focussed on technology and not about politics. Sections like "YRO" and "Politics" are made exactly for those kind of discussions. This story surely gives a much better chance of discussing the technological aspects of a (whether you like it or not) leading linux distro. I don't think it is too much to ask for if one "hopes" for a discussion about the technology related issues rather than something about a topic for which you could figure out well in advance how the discussion will shape up.
am really excited about such research, mostly because it brings us another step closer to the day when we can even enhance our brains (and physical capabilities) using machines.
It makes me wonder if physically and mentally challenged people are going to be the most important players in our meta-evolution into a man-machine hybrid. After all people would naturally freak out at first if someone suggested using this kind of technology on healthy humans to "enhance" them, because the idea is alien and it is natural to be scared of the unknown. But once this kind of technology is mainstream and is used routinely to bring at par people who would otherwise be seriously challenged, then much of the fear would be quelled. The next obvious step would be to lower the bar of what constitutes "challenged".
Too bad I might be dead before they figure out how to interface a "google chip" of sorts and all the knowledge known to mankind is just a thought away.
Exactly. Quite often I am amazed at how much misunderstanding there is about Darwin's theory. The part about who survives is pretty much tautological: "Whoever survives, survives", and hence not the interesting part. The interesting part is how big changes in species (even birth of completely new species) can be seen as aggregation of minor changes that increase the odds of one's survival, and the changes themselves do not always necessarily reflect our notion of "stronger" or "better".
It is a pity really that many people have fallen in the social interpretation of Darwin's theory and more than once we have seen ugly consequences of that.
So you are one of those nutcases that don't believe that we actually landed on moon? Only people with severe psychological disorders believe that crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only I totally agree with your "same yardstick" principle, I also propose following natural application of it: "any guy caught urinating in public should not be allowed to use his penis ever again."
Good Lord!! Judging by your proposed headline, you would have posted the full article as the "summary" had you been an editor!
It's a handiwork of music pirates!
Previous technology: Flip a coin. Heads -> you are innocent.
New_and_Improved technology: Throw a die. 1 -> you are innocent.
You are so irrational that even Euclid knew it!
How is the medical opinion of experts (right or wrong) a judicial matter at all? Isn't it akin to taking me to a court because I published an erroneous theorem?
Isn't the way to correct such things is the "usual way" of doing science? But then maybe litigating is the usual way these days.
The did it already. Not surprisingly they gave up on writing a totally new kernel and used emacs instead.
http://humorix.org/articles/2006/06/hurd/
Once a certain kind of edit results in an IP ban, I would guess that the editors of wikipedia would keep an eye on similar edits and anyone trying to make similar edits, irrespective of their location, would get a warning or possible ban. Of course the edit would be reverted.
I really don't see any point in an organization getting someone to push views similar to the ones that caused an IP ban in the first place.
dead people don't really care, one way or another.
but as pointed out many times before here of slashdot, charging the kind of money that is being charged for music is an untenable business practice in the light of the capabilities of the technology that we have. Either one can try to criminalize all sorts of sharing (even the stuff people *want* shared like your favorite Ubuntu iso) or give it up. Copying stuff is easier than ever and a certain level of "piracy" (I suppose a level that won't be convenient to you) will always be there.
;-)
I would rather not go into an argument of whether or not you deserve being paid, the way you want, for the content that you create, but times change. Sometimes to the detriment of some people. The ever-popular example of horse-carriage makers comes to mind.
I really think "resistance is futile"
Hey! By turning my reasoning back on me you are only persecuting me!! Why do you have to be so mean?
They should come up with different mods for meta-moderation too. "meta-troll", "meta-funny", "meta-informative" etc.
And a "meta-reply": Meta-mod the parent moderation meta-funny!
Sure! like everyone can deal drugs and hide dead bodies in their houses without the fear of getting caught, just because the police can not search your house without a warrant.
Thanks for pointing out the typo.
The discussions about policies of Novell are certainly worthy of discussion and maybe even relevant to the topic, but it has been discussed so much on slashdot that one would have to be foolish to expect anything new. Anytime a story featuring Novell (even superficially) appears here, the discussions end up looking like a rehash of some discussion that happened last week which in turn was a rehash of a discussion two weeks ago and so on. What's the point?
Moreover, even though slashdot readers are definitely a demographic with quite strong views about anything under the sun, the site hopefully would remain focussed on technology and not about politics. Sections like "YRO" and "Politics" are made exactly for those kind of discussions. This story surely gives a much better chance of discussing the technological aspects of a (whether you like it or not) leading linux distro. I don't think it is too much to ask for if one "hopes" for a discussion about the technology related issues rather than something about a topic for which you could figure out well in advance how the discussion will shape up.
that comments are about the distro and not about Novel.
will wonder why all the files have Joe Biden in the filename.
am really excited about such research, mostly because it brings us another step closer to the day when we can even enhance our brains (and physical capabilities) using machines.
It makes me wonder if physically and mentally challenged people are going to be the most important players in our meta-evolution into a man-machine hybrid. After all people would naturally freak out at first if someone suggested using this kind of technology on healthy humans to "enhance" them, because the idea is alien and it is natural to be scared of the unknown. But once this kind of technology is mainstream and is used routinely to bring at par people who would otherwise be seriously challenged, then much of the fear would be quelled. The next obvious step would be to lower the bar of what constitutes "challenged".
Too bad I might be dead before they figure out how to interface a "google chip" of sorts and all the knowledge known to mankind is just a thought away.
Exactly. Quite often I am amazed at how much misunderstanding there is about Darwin's theory. The part about who survives is pretty much tautological: "Whoever survives, survives", and hence not the interesting part. The interesting part is how big changes in species (even birth of completely new species) can be seen as aggregation of minor changes that increase the odds of one's survival, and the changes themselves do not always necessarily reflect our notion of "stronger" or "better".
It is a pity really that many people have fallen in the social interpretation of Darwin's theory and more than once we have seen ugly consequences of that.
Dead people don't care one way or the other, you know? :-)
So you are one of those nutcases that don't believe that we actually landed on moon? Only people with severe psychological disorders believe that crap.
Wait.. why do you have my nick?
But that would involve *going* to the moon which anyone with a brain knows is impossible.