suppose Fred creates an article on his high school band, Fredsband, which only actually consisted of himself and his golden retriever. Every single time a user searches for "golden retriever," one of the hits is going to be the article on Fredsband.
I'd argue something like pagerank is needed. When wikipedia is published to DVD, only include articles above a certain pagerank. Sometimes the obscure stuff is actually useful, but most often not. Let the user decide what's worth looking at.
I really love Wikipedia and I sure hope I'm wrong, but I think we've seen Wikipedia at it's peek. As with many ventures that become successful they move from innovation to stability and with that become widely popular which creates new pressures and brings in other interests, and then in turn leads to the degradation of the service as people squabble about how things should be done. I've seen this with special interest groups and clubs of all kinds. It can be particularly difficult to counter. An organisation either survives these things and becomes stronger for the learning the members have done, or else it succumbs to the storm of shite and fades into insignificance.
The hypocrisy comes in from the social elders who now judge these teens. They see a teen holding a can of beer, and deem them irresponsible.
Yeah somehow we've become overprotective of our children and have tried to shield them from personal responsibility.
My wife gave birth to our first child and my inlaws came to stay for a few weeks. While they were there, I tracked down and purchased a DVD for my father in law of an old 1950s Australian movie called "Smiley gets a gun" which was all about the antics an 8 year old gets into demonstrating to the local police officer that he's responsible for which he earns a 22 calibre rifle. These days we get upset if a kid under 16 plays Doom.
It's funny how most parents spend a considerable amount of time telling their kids "it doesn't matter what other people think" when it comes to things like peer pressure or social interaction, and then we go right back around and tell them it's important what other people think and your life is ruined if you make a fool out of yourself, whether on the street or online.
Those are not inconsistent messages at all, just badly phrased. Replace "it doesn't matter what other people think" with "What your peers think you should do does not excuse you from your wider social responsibilities and may not matter as much as what you think of yourself or how society as a whole views what you're being told you should do".
It's either one or the other, people. Either it doesn't matter what people think, and you can wear a toga when you're sweeping your lawn with a vacuum cleaner, or it matters what people think and you should be devastated that Kristen thinks you're a retard because you won't spend 150$ on a pair of jeans.
Of course it matters what people think. You're just trying to impress the wrong people.
If a university finds a blog post that mentions my name and how kinky I am in bed especially after drinking and smoking and getting a tattoo written by my ex who wants to get back at me..what do you do?
You ask her nicely to take it down. If she won't you get your lawyer to ask her nicely. There are all sorts of legal tools you can use. Is she saying anything false? Libel/Slander. Picture included? Is she making money off your blog and does she have a model release from you? (I wonder if a DMCA takedown could be issued these days). Is she constantly doing new things to get back at you? Harrasment may come into play.
What you're talking about isn't a new problem. Before the net someone could have done the same thing with a newspaper ad, on the radio or on tv, and there was recourse then just as there is now.
Of course the smarter thing is to not get involved with pyschos in the first place, and to always end a relationship as amicably as possible. Still, growing up is about learning and sometimes you don't get that right unless you have some experience.
It is also true that if you think what someone puts on Facebook and MySpace is relevant to their academic performance...
You don't think that letting under-age pot head alcoholic sex addicts into a school might have an effect not only on that student's academic performance but on the performance of others and the reputation of the school if such antics happen on school grounds???
So are you trying to say that people shouldn't drink, have sex, or do anything else that others would consider inappropriate so as to ensure such actions could never be photographed and posted online? Or when you say "your own actions" you mean the actions of the person that's taking the picture and then posting it?
I think he's saying you shouldn't get caught, which means not letting the picture be taken. Sounds like common sense to me. I can't think of what I do that I'd end up in trouble with the law for, but if I was doing something illegal I wouldn't be taking pictures of myself doing it, making them public and then complaining about not getting into a course or school - in fact if I did such a thing and didn't go to jail for it I'd consider myself lucky.
It costs a lot of money to have a really reliable network, and the staff to maintain it. Why not pay some other company to do all that, and enjoy the economies of scale that they can offer?
Because inevitably when you take something that your business relies on and outsource to the lowest bidder, it gets done badly and your business suffers (sometimes irreparably). Take it from someone who works on a system that was outsourced, then insourced again long before outsourcing became trendy.
...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).
Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).
The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.
To refer to your absolutely fucking stupid analogy, my point wasn't that I wanted harsh punishments for everything as a deterrent, like sending someone for the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread. Just that the punishment should total more than the cost of a loaf of bread. Is that really so hard to understand?
Thanks for demonstrating your people and debating skills so well.
My point, which YOU missed spectacularly is that it's a slippery slope once you start making the punishment more extreme than the damage done by the crime "as a deterent". Is that really so hard to understand?
Don't let that get in the way of being abusive or trolling though. Please continue. This place is becoming a haven for trolls like yourself.
If you want to restrict licenses, then you should probably start with not issuing licenses until the mid twenties for males and late teens to early 20s for women..
Mid teens to mid 20s you see so many accidents because that is when most people learn to drive. If you make the age to get a license higher, I suspect all you would do is shift the age where learning happens and mistakes take place to mid to late 20s.
The trouble is society and driving experts refuse to accept that learning to drive is risky, and when you first do it the emphasis is on bolstering confidence. If you convince learner drivers that they should be scared of their vehicles and view them as weapons, those that are convinced will see their confidence fail too. You need to put the fact that you're driving something dangerous aside and focus on the practical skills to avoid danger. By the time you've picked up enough experience to realize just how dangerous driving is, you have some confidence in your ability and can bounce back from that.
Now as for reckless stupidity and youth, sure there's a correlation, but I have known risk adverse teens and I've known over-confident adults. The stereotype doesn't account for nearly as much as experience with a vehicle does.
At the other end - older drivers with failing senses - the only thing you can do is stop them driving if they're shown to be dangerous.
You have to go over and beyond that to deter people.
By that reasoning, to deter people from committing murder, we shouldn't just bring back the death penalty. We should instead execute the offender, the offender's immediate family, the offender's extended family, his neighbours, his pets, his friends and his friend's family.
Or if you'd like something a little less extreme that does not involve the death penalty, to prevent an offender from speeding, his car should be confiscated, his family's cars, his friend's cars, his neighbour's cars etc.
Here's an idea: If someone steals a loaf of bread let's send them off to the colonies for the rest of their life. After all if they're willing to steal that bread they'll do it again and without a good deterent we'll have more theft. Oh wait, that kind of barbarism was outlawed a century and a half ago
A disproportionate punishment for a crime is never reasonable. Once you've punished someone sufficiently for committing the crime there is a diminishing return on deterence in making the punishment more severe. What you end up with instead is a harsh and unforgiving society in which the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they may not have committed with devasting consequences. In such an environment some criminals will become much bolder because hey once they've been caught for something minor their life is over anyway so might as well commit the bigger crime.
Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than come across as a sour troll?
You really think software patents are just going to be outlawed? How many people are going to be in a position to lose big if that happens. I think you'll see that move opposed tooth and nail.
I understand the reasoning and the chances are reduced with a double failure but there's something perverse about using the same inherently flawed vehicle as a rescue crasft should anything go wrong.
One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.
It's easy to shoot someone down. Why not find a better analogy.
The point: Fully legal does not mean socially desirable or moral.
I leave it as an excercise to the reader to find something legal but morally reprehensible. Bonus points if you can invoke Godwin since it's the attitude on slashdot that of late I find leaves a bad smell hanging.
Dijkstra was not known for being conservative in his statements of opinion. His "GOTO considered harmful" essay did a lot of good, but it also did quite a bit of damage. To the point where we ended up with a variety of "considered Harmful" Considered Harmful essays.
(I wonder if ""Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful is soon to follow? Oh wait. That already happened in '87.)
Typical COBOL developer. That's so last century. Don't you know we call them Anti-patterns now? Get with it already!
(Moderation Hint: This was a tongue in cheek joke not a troll).
Mac users are surprised when things don't work well and smoothly; Windows users are surprised when they do
Congratulations for falling for the marketing hook, line and sinker. You might want to Google apple bugs or ipod bugs or MacOS bugs some time or Apple security flaw. There are plenty of them and serious ones. They've put out unusable software. Their product's aren't magical. They may or may not be less buggy than the competition's for the desktop OS, but I wouldn't know and don't want to spend the money finding out. The only Apple products I've used in the last few years (an Emac for testing at work and 2 iPods - one for me and one for my wife) have given me nothing but grief. So I'm in no rush to spend the extra cash to buy Apple.
I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO. If a company behaves unethically or destructively I'll sure as hell hold those that run the company responsible. I'm tired of hearing how Apple's products "just work" and how the sun shines, the butterflies come out and rainbows appear if you'll just queue up for their days and buy their staff at launch. Corporate bullshit stinks just as much no matter the company. Companies can, will and should be held accountable for their actions.
And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.
"In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?
However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
At this point I can see nothing working for the patent system short of scraping it and starting afresh.
More like we already read your papers from 30ft away, and know you were at that political rally this morning. Come with us, troublemaker. Let us aquaint your face and stomach with a phone book. If you cooperate maybe you'll get to see your family again.
Obsessive ANYTHING is unhealthy. To lead a healthy life you require balance. Balance between sleep and wakefulness. Balance between work and play. Balance between nutrients for your body. Balance between stress and indifference.
Unfortunately to get good at most things, the more you do it and the harder you try the better you do. To get REALLY GOOD at something - world class - requires obsessive unhealthy commitment to that one thing. It doesn't matter if it's online gaming or sports (take a look at most olympic atheletes - very fit and in top condition but I'd still argue that 10hrs/day training ain't healthy) or IT (the guy that codes his life away) or business (the guy that's always at the office and always has his mobile switched on) or science (the guy who lives for his research and sleeps at the lab) or any really competitive job (fighter pilot/astronaut). Focusing your entire life on one aspect is always going to leave all other aspects lacking.
So you have to determine if what you're trying to achieve is feasible and worthwhile before commiting all your time to it, and realize there's a heavy price to pay. I definitely wouldn't do it to level up at some online fantasy world.
Slashdot Mirror
suppose Fred creates an article on his high school band, Fredsband, which only actually consisted of himself and his golden retriever. Every single time a user searches for "golden retriever," one of the hits is going to be the article on Fredsband.
I'd argue something like pagerank is needed. When wikipedia is published to DVD, only include articles above a certain pagerank. Sometimes the obscure stuff is actually useful, but most often not. Let the user decide what's worth looking at.
I was tired of pour my life energy into the bottomless pit of interactive illusions
So why are you posting on slashdot? ;-)
I really love Wikipedia and I sure hope I'm wrong, but I think we've seen Wikipedia at it's peek. As with many ventures that become successful they move from innovation to stability and with that become widely popular which creates new pressures and brings in other interests, and then in turn leads to the degradation of the service as people squabble about how things should be done. I've seen this with special interest groups and clubs of all kinds. It can be particularly difficult to counter. An organisation either survives these things and becomes stronger for the learning the members have done, or else it succumbs to the storm of shite and fades into insignificance.
The hypocrisy comes in from the social elders who now judge these teens. They see a teen holding a can of beer, and deem them irresponsible.
Yeah somehow we've become overprotective of our children and have tried to shield them from personal responsibility.
My wife gave birth to our first child and my inlaws came to stay for a few weeks. While they were there, I tracked down and purchased a DVD for my father in law of an old 1950s Australian movie called "Smiley gets a gun" which was all about the antics an 8 year old gets into demonstrating to the local police officer that he's responsible for which he earns a 22 calibre rifle. These days we get upset if a kid under 16 plays Doom.
It's funny how most parents spend a considerable amount of time telling their kids "it doesn't matter what other people think" when it comes to things like peer pressure or social interaction, and then we go right back around and tell them it's important what other people think and your life is ruined if you make a fool out of yourself, whether on the street or online.
Those are not inconsistent messages at all, just badly phrased. Replace "it doesn't matter what other people think" with "What your peers think you should do does not excuse you from your wider social responsibilities and may not matter as much as what you think of yourself or how society as a whole views what you're being told you should do".
It's either one or the other, people. Either it doesn't matter what people think, and you can wear a toga when you're sweeping your lawn with a vacuum cleaner, or it matters what people think and you should be devastated that Kristen thinks you're a retard because you won't spend 150$ on a pair of jeans.
Of course it matters what people think. You're just trying to impress the wrong people.
If a university finds a blog post that mentions my name and how kinky I am in bed especially after drinking and smoking and getting a tattoo written by my ex who wants to get back at me..what do you do?
You ask her nicely to take it down. If she won't you get your lawyer to ask her nicely. There are all sorts of legal tools you can use. Is she saying anything false? Libel/Slander. Picture included? Is she making money off your blog and does she have a model release from you? (I wonder if a DMCA takedown could be issued these days). Is she constantly doing new things to get back at you? Harrasment may come into play.
What you're talking about isn't a new problem. Before the net someone could have done the same thing with a newspaper ad, on the radio or on tv, and there was recourse then just as there is now.
Of course the smarter thing is to not get involved with pyschos in the first place, and to always end a relationship as amicably as possible. Still, growing up is about learning and sometimes you don't get that right unless you have some experience.
It is also true that if you think what someone puts on Facebook and MySpace is relevant to their academic performance...
You don't think that letting under-age pot head alcoholic sex addicts into a school might have an effect not only on that student's academic performance but on the performance of others and the reputation of the school if such antics happen on school grounds???
Are you being serious?
So are you trying to say that people shouldn't drink, have sex, or do anything else that others would consider inappropriate so as to ensure such actions could never be photographed and posted online? Or when you say "your own actions" you mean the actions of the person that's taking the picture and then posting it?
I think he's saying you shouldn't get caught, which means not letting the picture be taken. Sounds like common sense to me. I can't think of what I do that I'd end up in trouble with the law for, but if I was doing something illegal I wouldn't be taking pictures of myself doing it, making them public and then complaining about not getting into a course or school - in fact if I did such a thing and didn't go to jail for it I'd consider myself lucky.
It costs a lot of money to have a really reliable network, and the staff to maintain it. Why not pay some other company to do all that, and enjoy the economies of scale that they can offer?
Because inevitably when you take something that your business relies on and outsource to the lowest bidder, it gets done badly and your business suffers (sometimes irreparably). Take it from someone who works on a system that was outsourced, then insourced again long before outsourcing became trendy.
Your post raises the question: What the fuck is controvertial? Or spell check.
Your post raises the question: Has slashdot become a haven for pedantic trolls? It also answers it.
...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).
Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).
The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.
To refer to your absolutely fucking stupid analogy, my point wasn't that I wanted harsh punishments for everything as a deterrent, like sending someone for the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread. Just that the punishment should total more than the cost of a loaf of bread. Is that really so hard to understand?
Thanks for demonstrating your people and debating skills so well.
My point, which YOU missed spectacularly is that it's a slippery slope once you start making the punishment more extreme than the damage done by the crime "as a deterent". Is that really so hard to understand?
Don't let that get in the way of being abusive or trolling though. Please continue. This place is becoming a haven for trolls like yourself.
If you want to restrict licenses, then you should probably start with not issuing licenses until the mid twenties for males and late teens to early 20s for women..
Mid teens to mid 20s you see so many accidents because that is when most people learn to drive. If you make the age to get a license higher, I suspect all you would do is shift the age where learning happens and mistakes take place to mid to late 20s.
The trouble is society and driving experts refuse to accept that learning to drive is risky, and when you first do it the emphasis is on bolstering confidence. If you convince learner drivers that they should be scared of their vehicles and view them as weapons, those that are convinced will see their confidence fail too. You need to put the fact that you're driving something dangerous aside and focus on the practical skills to avoid danger. By the time you've picked up enough experience to realize just how dangerous driving is, you have some confidence in your ability and can bounce back from that.
Now as for reckless stupidity and youth, sure there's a correlation, but I have known risk adverse teens and I've known over-confident adults. The stereotype doesn't account for nearly as much as experience with a vehicle does.
At the other end - older drivers with failing senses - the only thing you can do is stop them driving if they're shown to be dangerous.
You have to go over and beyond that to deter people.
By that reasoning, to deter people from committing murder, we shouldn't just bring back the death penalty. We should instead execute the offender, the offender's immediate family, the offender's extended family, his neighbours, his pets, his friends and his friend's family.
Or if you'd like something a little less extreme that does not involve the death penalty, to prevent an offender from speeding, his car should be confiscated, his family's cars, his friend's cars, his neighbour's cars etc.
Here's an idea: If someone steals a loaf of bread let's send them off to the colonies for the rest of their life. After all if they're willing to steal that bread they'll do it again and without a good deterent we'll have more theft. Oh wait, that kind of barbarism was outlawed a century and a half ago
A disproportionate punishment for a crime is never reasonable. Once you've punished someone sufficiently for committing the crime there is a diminishing return on deterence in making the punishment more severe. What you end up with instead is a harsh and unforgiving society in which the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they may not have committed with devasting consequences. In such an environment some criminals will become much bolder because hey once they've been caught for something minor their life is over anyway so might as well commit the bigger crime.
Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than come across as a sour troll?
You really think software patents are just going to be outlawed? How many people are going to be in a position to lose big if that happens. I think you'll see that move opposed tooth and nail.
I understand the reasoning and the chances are reduced with a double failure but there's something perverse about using the same inherently flawed vehicle as a rescue crasft should anything go wrong.
One act is fully legal, and the other is very illegal. Your analogy stinks.
It's easy to shoot someone down. Why not find a better analogy.
The point: Fully legal does not mean socially desirable or moral.
I leave it as an excercise to the reader to find something legal but morally reprehensible. Bonus points if you can invoke Godwin since it's the attitude on slashdot that of late I find leaves a bad smell hanging.
Dijkstra was not known for being conservative in his statements of opinion. His "GOTO considered harmful" essay did a lot of good, but it also did quite a bit of damage. To the point where we ended up with a variety of "considered Harmful" Considered Harmful essays.
(I wonder if ""Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful is soon to follow? Oh wait. That already happened in '87.)
Typical COBOL developer. That's so last century. Don't you know we call them Anti-patterns now? Get with it already!
(Moderation Hint: This was a tongue in cheek joke not a troll).
Try paying a little closer attention to who exactly was talking, OK?
Don't care when he's talking shit.
Try being a little less condescending, OK?
I think the ad was pretty good... much better than the Seinfeld ones, anyway.
That wasn't difficult. I think when the word polymorphism appears in a mainstream ad, it's hard to miss that someone fucked up.
Mac users are surprised when things don't work well and smoothly; Windows users are surprised when they do
Congratulations for falling for the marketing hook, line and sinker. You might want to Google apple bugs or ipod bugs or MacOS bugs some time or Apple security flaw. There are plenty of them and serious ones. They've put out unusable software. Their product's aren't magical. They may or may not be less buggy than the competition's for the desktop OS, but I wouldn't know and don't want to spend the money finding out. The only Apple products I've used in the last few years (an Emac for testing at work and 2 iPods - one for me and one for my wife) have given me nothing but grief. So I'm in no rush to spend the extra cash to buy Apple.
I'm sick of software patents, but I'm not sure it makes sense to blame Apple. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Nope. Sorry. Bzzt. Wrong. No one would say don't hate the player if this were Microsoft or SCO. If a company behaves unethically or destructively I'll sure as hell hold those that run the company responsible. I'm tired of hearing how Apple's products "just work" and how the sun shines, the butterflies come out and rainbows appear if you'll just queue up for their days and buy their staff at launch. Corporate bullshit stinks just as much no matter the company. Companies can, will and should be held accountable for their actions.
And in case I have to spell that out more, any big company these days who has anything to do with software are going to file software patents whenever they think they might possibly be able to get one.
"In case I have to spell it out, serial killers kill innocent women and children when they think they might possibly be able to get one". Doesn't make it less heinous does it?
However, I do take serious issue with the patent system, and think it should be reformed.
At this point I can see nothing working for the patent system short of scraping it and starting afresh.
Komrade! Your papers please!!
More like we already read your papers from 30ft away, and know you were at that political rally this morning. Come with us, troublemaker. Let us aquaint your face and stomach with a phone book. If you cooperate maybe you'll get to see your family again.
Obsessive ANYTHING is unhealthy. To lead a healthy life you require balance. Balance between sleep and wakefulness. Balance between work and play. Balance between nutrients for your body. Balance between stress and indifference.
Unfortunately to get good at most things, the more you do it and the harder you try the better you do. To get REALLY GOOD at something - world class - requires obsessive unhealthy commitment to that one thing. It doesn't matter if it's online gaming or sports (take a look at most olympic atheletes - very fit and in top condition but I'd still argue that 10hrs/day training ain't healthy) or IT (the guy that codes his life away) or business (the guy that's always at the office and always has his mobile switched on) or science (the guy who lives for his research and sleeps at the lab) or any really competitive job (fighter pilot/astronaut). Focusing your entire life on one aspect is always going to leave all other aspects lacking.
So you have to determine if what you're trying to achieve is feasible and worthwhile before commiting all your time to it, and realize there's a heavy price to pay. I definitely wouldn't do it to level up at some online fantasy world.
I guarantee they had to re shoot several times and be on the set for 2 or more days to shoot each 30 second spot because of Bill being a non actor.
Clearly you've never seen him speak at a conference. Anyone who can stand up and tell you with a straight face VISTA is great is one fine actor.