[R]emember that justice is a process, not a result.
Wrong.
In the USA, the legal process is supposed to achieve 'justice'. Notice - the RESULT of the PROCESS is supposed to be 'justice'.
In the USA, 'justice' is defined in the legal system as 'when all the laws have been properly applied.'
Therefore, when the PROCESS of applying all laws properly is achieved, the RESULT is 'justice'.
Unfortunately, MY definition of Justice is NOT 'when all the laws have been properly applied', it contains things like appropriateness of the penalty to the action, reasons for the action in the first place, and even 'is it any of my business?' - for example, what consenting adults do in private sexually is not something I feel the government should regulate, or even address.
Medical marijuana usage? Illegal, against the law to use or possess marijuana FOR ANY PURPOSE. But, in MY opinion, prosecuting a person for medical use of marijuana is injustice, even though 'all the laws have been properly applied.'
With mandatory sentencing guidelines, I am not allowed to say the defendant is guilty of breaking the (bad) law, but does not have to have a penalty because the law is bad. Given that my only choices are "Guilty with this penalty" and "Not guilty with no penalty", If I believe that there should not be any penalty associated with this particular 'crime', my only choice is to go with 'Not Guilty', even though the facts have been established beyond doubt.
I have never been on jury duty. I don't know anyone who uses medicinal marijuana.
I firmly believe in jury nullification for many of the dumb ass laws the government officials are spewing like an elephant with diarrhea.
Justice is the RESULT, the legal system is the PROCESS. Unfortunately, with the instructions NOT including the fact of jury nullification and with MANDATORY sentencing guidelines, the PROCESS is flawed and justice is not always the RESULT. To achieve justice as the RESULT, sometimes the PROCESS has to be thwarted, bypassed, or stymied.
You are advocating dragging EVERYONE down to the learning level of the slowest learner?
I agree that a basic education is a MINIMUM, but you seem to be advocating it as a MAXIMUM.
Why should someone who CAN learn faster than others - possibly in only one subject - be held to the speed of slower learners?
Some people get through 12 years of "schooling" and can't read or do basic math, you want that to be the STANDARD?
"Normal and dim-witted people don't like seeing most of the money go to where it will do the most good."
Thankfully that translates into: the majority of people dissagree with you.
You can add me to that majority for the following reason: If you are "smart" you have a greater ability to educate yourself. Therefore, I would rather a few "smart" people feel ripped-off by the education system than rip-off the majority by focusing on prima-dona's. Not to mention the fact that the prima-dona's would be left facing a larger, more ignorant and more dominant mob mentality as adults.
Why "thankfully"? You are glad that the majority selfishly put their own interests ahead of the best interests of the group? I find that an interesting attitude.
By the way, the ability to learn is not the same as the ability to "educate yourself."
...the prima-dona's would be left facing a larger, more ignorant and more dominant mob mentality as adults.
So you are saying that holding the "prima-dona's[sic]" down to the "more ignorant and dominant mob mentality" is beter?
I also take exception to your last statement.
I would prefer that a new graduate who is able to TEACH be paid more than a long-lived plodder, unable to engage the students, unable to engender a DESIRE for learning. Maybe the old fossil would get the hint and get out of teaching and into something they are more suited for.
If there were a method of weeding out the bad teachers (or even just the 'not-good' teachers) then the longer a teacher is retained, the better the teacher HAS PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE. Unfortunately, Unions have NO interest in such a policy - for the exact same reason given by the parent poster
"Normal and dim-witted people don't like seeing most of the money go to where it will do the most good."
which you seem to think is a good thing.
I would rather my children had the BEST teachers, no the oldest, and I am sorry for your children because you want your children to have the OLDEST (Union)teachers, even if they are not the best.
in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.
Let me see...
Microsoft withdraws product sales and support from the EU.
All those countries either buy a competitors product, or Open Source products.
Suddenly, in the parts of the world that do any business with the EU, a need for compatability with the systems and applications used in the EU (NOT Microsoft suites and applications) emerges. Companies and individuals doing business with the EU start moving to MS competitor products or Open Source products BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
With no need for Microsoft products due to the many products arising to fill the void left by MS, and given the track record of Microsoft security (excuse me, I just spewed soda from my nose...) more and more people turn from Microsoft.
Haven broken the monoploy MS has tried so hard to retain, MS has to start competing on a level playing field, and nothing I have seen shows that they are capable of that.
Microsoft withers away to a has-been, what-ever-happened-to company.
Yup, I think you are right, more of a threat to european interests than Microsofts.
Have you confused "right to work" with "employment at will"?
Googling both makes me think you meant the second.
"Right to work" (Taft-Hartley act) means you, as an employee, have the right to be employeed and the employer can not fire you just because you don't belong to a union. This act is specifically addressed to union/nonunion employment.
"Employment at will" means you, as an employee, DON'T have the right to be employeed, and the employer can fire you for ANY reason (good or bad) or even no reason at all - unless you have a contract specifying otherwise. On the other hand, you can quit for any reason (good or bad) or no reason at all.
You were correct (as far as I can tell) until you started talking about humidity.
Any time a living area needs to be heated to maintain a comfortable temperature, the humidity needs to be addressed.
In the summer, the humidity is higher, so dehumidifying the air reduces the mold and mildew problems, but it also makes the bodies heat dumping mechanism (sweating) work more efficiently, so the SAME TEMPERATURE feels cooler. In the winter, indoor humidity can fall into the single digits, causing irritation to the mucus membranes, increasing chances of getting sick, and causing the wood in a home to shrink - possibly letting heated air out that would have been contained - and makes you feel colder. In addition, low humidity causes static electricity to build up - not good for static sensitive electrical equipment!
Any time room air is heated, humidity should be added to maintain a comfortable level - that is why people spend so much money on HUMIDIFIERS. My furnace has a built in humidifier that works anytime the furnace is running. It does not maintain a high enough humidity level, but it helps.
So her brother risked death from infection or bleeding, and accepted being crippled rather than seek medical attention "for fear of being imprisoned", but you think he would talk to people - who would talk to other people, who in turn would talk...
I think that Tian An Men happened (and that Google is being censored) shows both the lengths the government will go to in order to prevent 'the people' attaining freedoms that the government is not willing to allow, as well as the actions 'the people' will take to try to obtain those freedoms.
In addition, I see the actions of your friends' brother as evidence that the government of China is (or at least was at that time) using tactics of terrorism to maintain their positions of power, tactics that were perceived by the people of China as worse than death or crippling injury.
In any event, even if the actions of the China government have moderated, I don't want to support that government in supression of information for the purpose of repression of the Chineese People, even to the limited extent of approving of the censorship of Google.
If I may suggest something, it would be that you try to look at all 5 stories on the same subject matter and pick the one that has the best summary or the best links rather than the one that was submitted first.
AMEN Brother!
THAT is what editors do.
If you (the editors) accept ANY crap, based on 'first submitted' then that is not what Slashdot is supposed to be, so 'first submitted' isn't a valid initial criteria - and should not be a valid criteria at any point in the process. Reward high quality and you will get higher quality, reward a fast posting finger, and you will get faster posting fingers.
I think the editors have not been rewarding quality in the past, and that has contributed to the current situation.
I don't like either option you mention, the one you posit or the one you are replacing.
If the story is a good story, with relevance to the audience it is intended for, the submitters history is totally irrelevant.
If the editors find a good story, should they not run it just because the submitter had already had stories accepted that day? I hope not, they should run good stories, no matter their source.
If I find a number of new, informative, interesting stories, should the stories not be posted just because of how many I found?
I think either "solution", if implemented as a/. policy, would hurt/., not help.
If they would enjoy a link, why should the fact that it came from a user with a negative repution make me not choose the link?
So every story would have two editorial decisions - 1) Is it a good, interesting story? and 2) Who submitted it?
I think you (editors) should only be concerned with the first.
As an editor, you should be focused on the mechanics of the story - does the story look interesting or seem to be germane to nerds or technology, did the submitter (mostly) spell their words correctly, did they use a sentence structure that at least LOOKS like a version of English, and does the link actually go where it should? Leave the politics to the moderators and meta-moderators - and don't the editors have unlimited mod points?
Like Unix/Linux and Charles Emerson Winchester III - do one thing, do it very well, then move on.
I have been reading Slashdot for a long time ( this is not my first/. account), and have submitted stories - even had one accepted and several that I submitted that were rejected then appeared on the site later.
I had not known that I could link to a web page when I submitted a story - I thought the link went to a user profile or some such on the site, not a link off the site.
I have never clicked on such a link, either, and I don't think my/. experience has suffered thereby.
I DO like to look at the user names of the submitter - but only to see if they have come up with a particularly witty or interesting username, and I have to admit it was a thrill to see my username on the front-page - nothing like "the thrill that'll get'cha when ya get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stones", but still nice. However, as I use a username, no one could ever know it was MY submission unless I told them (and then how would they know it was actually me)?
Seems to me that the people complaining about their submission being rejected then another submission about THE SAME STORY showing up are not complaining because they missed out on some ad revenue, or page hits, or pageranking, but because they wanted to see their names on the front page and they missed out.
I like the idea of removing the name of the submitter before the editors see the submission, but then put it back when the story is cleared for inclusion on the site.
Also use the nofollow tag, unless Slashdot WANTS to encourage massive numbers of submissions OF THE SAME STORY by those with motives other than "That's neat! Hey, people, look at this, see what I found!"
There is a lot of crap out there on the 'net, so when I find something interesting, I think about posting it to/. so others can see the gems I have found, without wading through the muck I did to find them, and I visit Slashdot to see others finds. I don't care who found it, I just want it to be interesting - if it consistently isn't I will go to some other site that is.
Everyone being created equal is a philosophical ideal, not a practical or factual one. Demanding factual proof for that statement is sorta've like demanding factual proof for the existence of god...
Placebo is interesting specifically because the suggestion changes everything. People don't feel better after getting a placebo instead of morphine if they KNOW that they are getting a placebo.
To me the most interesting part is that, as stated in the article, even if the patient BELIEVES the placebo is doing something (in this case gets saline but believes it is morphine) but the placebo is formulated to actually work in an opposite way (in this case, naxolone, a morphine antagonist - it prevents morophine from binding to receptor sites in the brain - is added to the saline solution) the placebo DOES NOT WORK.
That means that, even though the body is NOT receiving an opiate, SOMETHING is binding to the opiate receptor sites (endorphins, maybe?). When the receptor sites are blocked the placebo does not work, when they are not blocked, it does work.
That means that the body PRODUCED ITS OWN MORPHINE (or actually, something that requires the opiate binding sites in the brain to work and had the same effect on pain as morphine) when it though it was receiving morphine but didn't actually get any.
Now if we can only figure out WHAT happened, HOW it happened, and how to MAKE IT HAPPEN on cue.
Something else I noticed: Before seeing this article on slashdot, I'd just been reading the coverage of the story on news.google.com, and I was a bit bemused by the fact that I couldn't find mention of the kinds of computers that were vulnerable to this exploit. Now, call me paranoid too, but I'll make the wild surmise that they were running Microsoft Windows.
I have posted this before - almost always it isn't an INTERNET worm, it is a MICROSOFT I.E. worm, it isn't an EMAIL virus, it is a MICROSOFT OUTLOOK email virus, it isn't a trojan, it is a MICROSOFT WINDOWS exploit...
I really think the MICROSOFT name NEEDS to be presented when an exploit THAT ONLY RUNS ON MICROSOFT software is found.
$30,000 per infringment means $30,000 from First4Internet for selling/licensing/distributing the tainted code to Sony. What Sony did with it is immaterial to the case between DVD Jon and First4Internet.
It means bubkis from Sony.
Yes, they look like hypocrites, but not for distributing copyright infringing code.
>> After all, they merely licensed the copy protection scheme from First 4 Internet.
Actually, Sony were responsible for distributing the software.
No, both posters are wrong.
The software Sony licensed for inclusion on their music disks was intended to IMPLIMENT a copy protection scheme, it was not a license for the copy protection process but for the tool that was supposed to put that process into place.
First4Internet created the software. They (Illegally? That is for a court to decide.) included open source software without meeting the requirements that would have given them a valid license to include the open source code in their product.
First4Internet then distributed the code to their customers - there is the copyright infringment - who included Sony. What their customers did with the product they bought or licensed is immaterial to the infringment done by First4Internet.
Of course, if Sony used the software in a manner not allowed by their license from First4Internet, THEN Sony would be liable for copyright infringment - but that has never been hinted at, as far as I can tell.
Sony is guilty of many things - stupidity, greed, underestimating the intelligence of the market, shooting themselves in the PR, and probably many more I can't be bothered to try to come up with - but they are NOT guilty of violating the licensing requirements placed on open source code (that was done by someone else)
Sony distributed CDs that contained licensed performances by some artists, as well as licensed software from a software provider.
If Sony created the software and included it, you would be correct - but they didn't. They licensed SOMEONE ELSE'S software, software that is now found to apparently include unlicensed (L)GPLed code.
As long as Sony can be shown (_IF_ they can be shown) to have used the software in good faith (between Sony and first4internet; Sony has already been shown to not be dealing in good faith with their own customers) and in accordance with the licensing requirements agreed to between Sony and first4internet, then any liability first4internet has for copyright infringment is not shared by Sony.
First4internet is the one doing the distribution against the requirements of the (L)GPL; they distributed it to Sony for inclusion on their music disks, that Sony produced and distributed those music disks is immaterial - F4I did not meet the requirements of the (L)GPL that allowed them a valid license to include the copyrighted software in the product they sold to Sony.
Addressing your second point, another of my (many) pet irritations.
In the beginning, the Intelligent Designer - (chorus from the cheap seats - and Kansas) "Amen, brother!", "Praise the Intelligent Designer!" - created schools to TEACH, and people went because either they wanted to learn, or their parents wanted them to learn and get educated and get good, well paying jobs so they didn't have to starve to death in the snow. Those that didn't care if they starved or not didn't go to school, and no one cared. Their frozen corpses were often put in insulated sheds and used by the rich to keep malt beverages cool during the summer.
And the Intelligent Designer saw that it was good.
Then someone noticed that only the wealthy were going to school - the nonwealthy were getting childlabor jobs to help support their families - and that has to be unfair somehow, so a law was passed that before entering town, the driver had to fire a shotgun into the air to warn the local horses that one of those new fangled horseless carriages was coming by. That did not help the school situation, so another law was passed, this time making it illegal to employ children in dangerous jobs and during school hours. The theory seemingly being that all the suddenly unemployeed, starving children would have to go to school.
When the overcrowding in the pool halls became a problem - not to mention the motorcycle gangs and blatant sneaking into and out of movie theaters to see the second show WITHOUT PAYING! - another law was passed stating that if two trains meet at a crossing, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. Again, their good intentions didn't seem to have the desired outcome, so yet another law was created, stating that all children shall be required to attend school until their 18th birthday. This seemed to have a more profound effect, and Paul Newman and Jackie Gleason went on to have acting careers in the suddenly empty poolhalls - as did Tom Cruise, unfortunately...
An unintended side effect of this new law was to creat an entire new class of criminal - the TRUANT. On the plus side, the vast number of previously idle truant officers now had a directive to enforce. Of course, to know who was a criminal, someone had to be hired to track attendance and notify the authorities when those dangerous school-skippers were not where they were supposed to be - namely in school, associating with the other, law abiding childred, fomenting rebellion.
So now the schools are teaching AND monitoring attendance.
At some point, it was noticed that people were paying more to see mens football than womens knitting club, so ANOTHER law was passed, making it illegal to fly a kite in Washington DC. When that had little noticable effect, congress got into the act and passed Section 8. When the housing assistance laws did not have the desired effect either, Title XIX was made law, telling the schools they had to fund the massively money losing womens sports equally as well as the money making mens sports - even though that made no financial, logical, or - until this time, legal - sense. Of course, to monitor compliance, many, many reports and documents had to be submitted to the government, so some more people were hired to create reports and to actually montitor the sports programs and coaches - except Bobby Knight, of course - as well as staffing the new government agencies the reports were being sent to.
So now the schools were teaching, monitoring and reporting attendance to the Federal Bureau of Mandatory Schooling, and monitoring and reporting on the sports situation. (Strange to think, but it required making decisions based on sex in order to prove you are not making decisions based on sex.)
Next, some parent found out that Billy Bob was beating up on their darling child, and sued and won on the grounds that the school 'should do something about it!'. More documentation, more reporting, more oversight, more people, more supervisors, more enforcers.
Slashdot Mirror
[R]emember that justice is a process, not a result.
Wrong.
In the USA, the legal process is supposed to achieve 'justice'. Notice - the RESULT of the PROCESS is supposed to be 'justice'.
In the USA, 'justice' is defined in the legal system as 'when all the laws have been properly applied.'
Therefore, when the PROCESS of applying all laws properly is achieved, the RESULT is 'justice'.
Unfortunately, MY definition of Justice is NOT 'when all the laws have been properly applied', it contains things like appropriateness of the penalty to the action, reasons for the action in the first place, and even 'is it any of my business?' - for example, what consenting adults do in private sexually is not something I feel the government should regulate, or even address.
Medical marijuana usage? Illegal, against the law to use or possess marijuana FOR ANY PURPOSE. But, in MY opinion, prosecuting a person for medical use of marijuana is injustice, even though 'all the laws have been properly applied.'
With mandatory sentencing guidelines, I am not allowed to say the defendant is guilty of breaking the (bad) law, but does not have to have a penalty because the law is bad. Given that my only choices are "Guilty with this penalty" and "Not guilty with no penalty", If I believe that there should not be any penalty associated with this particular 'crime', my only choice is to go with 'Not Guilty', even though the facts have been established beyond doubt.
I have never been on jury duty. I don't know anyone who uses medicinal marijuana.
I firmly believe in jury nullification for many of the dumb ass laws the government officials are spewing like an elephant with diarrhea.
Justice is the RESULT, the legal system is the PROCESS. Unfortunately, with the instructions NOT including the fact of jury nullification and with MANDATORY sentencing guidelines, the PROCESS is flawed and justice is not always the RESULT. To achieve justice as the RESULT, sometimes the PROCESS has to be thwarted, bypassed, or stymied.
I agree that a basic education is a MINIMUM, but you seem to be advocating it as a MAXIMUM.
Why should someone who CAN learn faster than others - possibly in only one subject - be held to the speed of slower learners?
Some people get through 12 years of "schooling" and can't read or do basic math, you want that to be the STANDARD?
"Normal and dim-witted people don't like seeing most of the money go to where it will do the most good."
Thankfully that translates into: the majority of people dissagree with you.
You can add me to that majority for the following reason: If you are "smart" you have a greater ability to educate yourself. Therefore, I would rather a few "smart" people feel ripped-off by the education system than rip-off the majority by focusing on prima-dona's. Not to mention the fact that the prima-dona's would be left facing a larger, more ignorant and more dominant mob mentality as adults.
Why "thankfully"? You are glad that the majority selfishly put their own interests ahead of the best interests of the group? I find that an interesting attitude.
By the way, the ability to learn is not the same as the ability to "educate yourself."
So you are saying that holding the "prima-dona's[sic]" down to the "more ignorant and dominant mob mentality" is beter?
I also take exception to your last statement.
I would prefer that a new graduate who is able to TEACH be paid more than a long-lived plodder, unable to engage the students, unable to engender a DESIRE for learning. Maybe the old fossil would get the hint and get out of teaching and into something they are more suited for.
If there were a method of weeding out the bad teachers (or even just the 'not-good' teachers) then the longer a teacher is retained, the better the teacher HAS PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE. Unfortunately, Unions have NO interest in such a policy - for the exact same reason given by the parent poster
"Normal and dim-witted people don't like seeing most of the money go to where it will do the most good."
which you seem to think is a good thing.
I would rather my children had the BEST teachers, no the oldest, and I am sorry for your children because you want your children to have the OLDEST (Union)teachers, even if they are not the best.
in fact, I'd say microsoft threatening to totally withdraw product sales and support from europe would be more a threat to european interests than microsofts.
Let me see...
Microsoft withdraws product sales and support from the EU.
All those countries either buy a competitors product, or Open Source products.
Suddenly, in the parts of the world that do any business with the EU, a need for compatability with the systems and applications used in the EU (NOT Microsoft suites and applications) emerges. Companies and individuals doing business with the EU start moving to MS competitor products or Open Source products BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
With no need for Microsoft products due to the many products arising to fill the void left by MS, and given the track record of Microsoft security (excuse me, I just spewed soda from my nose...) more and more people turn from Microsoft.
Haven broken the monoploy MS has tried so hard to retain, MS has to start competing on a level playing field, and nothing I have seen shows that they are capable of that.
Microsoft withers away to a has-been, what-ever-happened-to company.
Yup, I think you are right, more of a threat to european interests than Microsofts.
NOT!!!
Have you confused "right to work" with "employment at will"?
Googling both makes me think you meant the second.
"Right to work" (Taft-Hartley act) means you, as an employee, have the right to be employeed and the employer can not fire you just because you don't belong to a union. This act is specifically addressed to union/nonunion employment.
"Employment at will" means you, as an employee, DON'T have the right to be employeed, and the employer can fire you for ANY reason (good or bad) or even no reason at all - unless you have a contract specifying otherwise. On the other hand, you can quit for any reason (good or bad) or no reason at all.
You were correct (as far as I can tell) until you started talking about humidity.
Any time a living area needs to be heated to maintain a comfortable temperature, the humidity needs to be addressed.
In the summer, the humidity is higher, so dehumidifying the air reduces the mold and mildew problems, but it also makes the bodies heat dumping mechanism (sweating) work more efficiently, so the SAME TEMPERATURE feels cooler. In the winter, indoor humidity can fall into the single digits, causing irritation to the mucus membranes, increasing chances of getting sick, and causing the wood in a home to shrink - possibly letting heated air out that would have been contained - and makes you feel colder. In addition, low humidity causes static electricity to build up - not good for static sensitive electrical equipment!
Any time room air is heated, humidity should be added to maintain a comfortable level - that is why people spend so much money on HUMIDIFIERS. My furnace has a built in humidifier that works anytime the furnace is running. It does not maintain a high enough humidity level, but it helps.
Thermal mass.
Electricity heats the oil (fairly efficiently) which heats the air (not as efficiently)
So her brother risked death from infection or bleeding, and accepted being crippled rather than seek medical attention "for fear of being imprisoned", but you think he would talk to people - who would talk to other people, who in turn would talk ...
I think that Tian An Men happened (and that Google is being censored) shows both the lengths the government will go to in order to prevent 'the people' attaining freedoms that the government is not willing to allow, as well as the actions 'the people' will take to try to obtain those freedoms.
In addition, I see the actions of your friends' brother as evidence that the government of China is (or at least was at that time) using tactics of terrorism to maintain their positions of power, tactics that were perceived by the people of China as worse than death or crippling injury.
In any event, even if the actions of the China government have moderated, I don't want to support that government in supression of information for the purpose of repression of the Chineese People, even to the limited extent of approving of the censorship of Google.
Not according to
(chorus: HALLELUJAH!)
Monty Python!
(chorus: Amen, Brother!)
And who are you going to believe, some anonymous somebody or
(chorus: HALLELUJAH!)
Monty Python?
Oracle sold crap software, did not fix it when told about a problem.
So tell me again, Oracle, WHO put their customers at risk?
If I may suggest something, it would be that you try to look at all 5 stories on the same subject matter and pick the one that has the best summary or the best links rather than the one that was submitted first.
AMEN Brother!
THAT is what editors do.
If you (the editors) accept ANY crap, based on 'first submitted' then that is not what Slashdot is supposed to be, so 'first submitted' isn't a valid initial criteria - and should not be a valid criteria at any point in the process. Reward high quality and you will get higher quality, reward a fast posting finger, and you will get faster posting fingers.
I think the editors have not been rewarding quality in the past, and that has contributed to the current situation.
IANAE (I am not an editor - obviously!)
I don't like either option you mention, the one you posit or the one you are replacing.
/. policy, would hurt /., not help.
If the story is a good story, with relevance to the audience it is intended for, the submitters history is totally irrelevant.
If the editors find a good story, should they not run it just because the submitter had already had stories accepted that day? I hope not, they should run good stories, no matter their source.
If I find a number of new, informative, interesting stories, should the stories not be posted just because of how many I found?
I think either "solution", if implemented as a
If they would enjoy a link, why should the fact that it came from a user with a negative repution make me not choose the link?
So every story would have two editorial decisions - 1) Is it a good, interesting story? and 2) Who submitted it?
I think you (editors) should only be concerned with the first.
As an editor, you should be focused on the mechanics of the story - does the story look interesting or seem to be germane to nerds or technology, did the submitter (mostly) spell their words correctly, did they use a sentence structure that at least LOOKS like a version of English, and does the link actually go where it should? Leave the politics to the moderators and meta-moderators - and don't the editors have unlimited mod points?
Like Unix/Linux and Charles Emerson Winchester III - do one thing, do it very well, then move on.
Good one, but you forgot
1 Natalie Portman
2 grits
3 Soviet Russia
4 ???
5 PROFIT!!
I have been reading Slashdot for a long time ( this is not my first /. account), and have submitted stories - even had one accepted and several that I submitted that were rejected then appeared on the site later.
/. experience has suffered thereby.
/. so others can see the gems I have found, without wading through the muck I did to find them, and I visit Slashdot to see others finds. I don't care who found it, I just want it to be interesting - if it consistently isn't I will go to some other site that is.
I had not known that I could link to a web page when I submitted a story - I thought the link went to a user profile or some such on the site, not a link off the site.
I have never clicked on such a link, either, and I don't think my
I DO like to look at the user names of the submitter - but only to see if they have come up with a particularly witty or interesting username, and I have to admit it was a thrill to see my username on the front-page - nothing like "the thrill that'll get'cha when ya get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stones", but still nice. However, as I use a username, no one could ever know it was MY submission unless I told them (and then how would they know it was actually me)?
Seems to me that the people complaining about their submission being rejected then another submission about THE SAME STORY showing up are not complaining because they missed out on some ad revenue, or page hits, or pageranking, but because they wanted to see their names on the front page and they missed out.
I like the idea of removing the name of the submitter before the editors see the submission, but then put it back when the story is cleared for inclusion on the site.
Also use the nofollow tag, unless Slashdot WANTS to encourage massive numbers of submissions OF THE SAME STORY by those with motives other than "That's neat! Hey, people, look at this, see what I found!"
There is a lot of crap out there on the 'net, so when I find something interesting, I think about posting it to
"There are no definitions (for anything) that would both be devoid of circular reasoning and not rely on other, nondefined things."
Proof? This is a bold assertion that requires rather more to back it up than you merely stating that it is so.
Rene Descartes (1595-1650), famous French Mathmatition, philosopher, and scientist.
His "I am thinking therefore I exist." (Latin: Cogito ergo sum) is his effort to find ANYTHING that is not defined in terms of something else.
Everyone being created equal is a philosophical ideal, not a practical or factual one. Demanding factual proof for that statement is sorta've like demanding factual proof for the existence of god...
Like this?
From the link 'AN ITALIAN [caps in original] judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.'
Placebo is interesting specifically because the suggestion changes everything. People don't feel better after getting a placebo instead of morphine if they KNOW that they are getting a placebo.
To me the most interesting part is that, as stated in the article, even if the patient BELIEVES the placebo is doing something (in this case gets saline but believes it is morphine) but the placebo is formulated to actually work in an opposite way (in this case, naxolone, a morphine antagonist - it prevents morophine from binding to receptor sites in the brain - is added to the saline solution) the placebo DOES NOT WORK.
That means that, even though the body is NOT receiving an opiate, SOMETHING is binding to the opiate receptor sites (endorphins, maybe?). When the receptor sites are blocked the placebo does not work, when they are not blocked, it does work.
That means that the body PRODUCED ITS OWN MORPHINE (or actually, something that requires the opiate binding sites in the brain to work and had the same effect on pain as morphine) when it though it was receiving morphine but didn't actually get any.
Now if we can only figure out WHAT happened, HOW it happened, and how to MAKE IT HAPPEN on cue.
Something else I noticed: Before seeing this article on slashdot, I'd just been reading the coverage of the story on news.google.com, and I was a bit bemused by the fact that I couldn't find mention of the kinds of computers that were vulnerable to this exploit. Now, call me paranoid too, but I'll make the wild surmise that they were running Microsoft Windows.
I have posted this before - almost always it isn't an INTERNET worm, it is a MICROSOFT I.E. worm, it isn't an EMAIL virus, it is a MICROSOFT OUTLOOK email virus, it isn't a trojan, it is a MICROSOFT WINDOWS exploit...
I really think the MICROSOFT name NEEDS to be presented when an exploit THAT ONLY RUNS ON MICROSOFT software is found.
Everyone is making this same mistake.
$30,000 per infringment means $30,000 from First4Internet for selling/licensing/distributing the tainted code to Sony. What Sony did with it is immaterial to the case between DVD Jon and First4Internet.
It means bubkis from Sony.
Yes, they look like hypocrites, but not for distributing copyright infringing code.
>> After all, they merely licensed the copy protection scheme from First 4 Internet.
Actually, Sony were responsible for distributing the software.
No, both posters are wrong.
The software Sony licensed for inclusion on their music disks was intended to IMPLIMENT a copy protection scheme, it was not a license for the copy protection process but for the tool that was supposed to put that process into place.
First4Internet created the software. They (Illegally? That is for a court to decide.) included open source software without meeting the requirements that would have given them a valid license to include the open source code in their product.
First4Internet then distributed the code to their customers - there is the copyright infringment - who included Sony. What their customers did with the product they bought or licensed is immaterial to the infringment done by First4Internet.
Of course, if Sony used the software in a manner not allowed by their license from First4Internet, THEN Sony would be liable for copyright infringment - but that has never been hinted at, as far as I can tell.
Sony is guilty of many things - stupidity, greed, underestimating the intelligence of the market, shooting themselves in the PR, and probably many more I can't be bothered to try to come up with - but they are NOT guilty of violating the licensing requirements placed on open source code (that was done by someone else)
No.
Wrong.
Sony distributed CDs that contained licensed performances by some artists, as well as licensed software from a software provider.
If Sony created the software and included it, you would be correct - but they didn't. They licensed SOMEONE ELSE'S software, software that is now found to apparently include unlicensed (L)GPLed code.
As long as Sony can be shown (_IF_ they can be shown) to have used the software in good faith (between Sony and first4internet; Sony has already been shown to not be dealing in good faith with their own customers) and in accordance with the licensing requirements agreed to between Sony and first4internet, then any liability first4internet has for copyright infringment is not shared by Sony.
First4internet is the one doing the distribution against the requirements of the (L)GPL; they distributed it to Sony for inclusion on their music disks, that Sony produced and distributed those music disks is immaterial - F4I did not meet the requirements of the (L)GPL that allowed them a valid license to include the copyrighted software in the product they sold to Sony.
Minor nit, but *demand* drives prices UP, *supply* drives prices DOWN.
Addressing your second point, another of my (many) pet irritations.
In the beginning, the Intelligent Designer - (chorus from the cheap seats - and Kansas) "Amen, brother!", "Praise the Intelligent Designer!" - created schools to TEACH, and people went because either they wanted to learn, or their parents wanted them to learn and get educated and get good, well paying jobs so they didn't have to starve to death in the snow. Those that didn't care if they starved or not didn't go to school, and no one cared. Their frozen corpses were often put in insulated sheds and used by the rich to keep malt beverages cool during the summer.
And the Intelligent Designer saw that it was good.
Then someone noticed that only the wealthy were going to school - the nonwealthy were getting childlabor jobs to help support their families - and that has to be unfair somehow, so a law was passed that before entering town, the driver had to fire a shotgun into the air to warn the local horses that one of those new fangled horseless carriages was coming by. That did not help the school situation, so another law was passed, this time making it illegal to employ children in dangerous jobs and during school hours. The theory seemingly being that all the suddenly unemployeed, starving children would have to go to school.
When the overcrowding in the pool halls became a problem - not to mention the motorcycle gangs and blatant sneaking into and out of movie theaters to see the second show WITHOUT PAYING! - another law was passed stating that if two trains meet at a crossing, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. Again, their good intentions didn't seem to have the desired outcome, so yet another law was created, stating that all children shall be required to attend school until their 18th birthday. This seemed to have a more profound effect, and Paul Newman and Jackie Gleason went on to have acting careers in the suddenly empty poolhalls - as did Tom Cruise, unfortunately...
An unintended side effect of this new law was to creat an entire new class of criminal - the TRUANT. On the plus side, the vast number of previously idle truant officers now had a directive to enforce. Of course, to know who was a criminal, someone had to be hired to track attendance and notify the authorities when those dangerous school-skippers were not where they were supposed to be - namely in school, associating with the other, law abiding childred, fomenting rebellion.
So now the schools are teaching AND monitoring attendance.
At some point, it was noticed that people were paying more to see mens football than womens knitting club, so ANOTHER law was passed, making it illegal to fly a kite in Washington DC. When that had little noticable effect, congress got into the act and passed Section 8. When the housing assistance laws did not have the desired effect either, Title XIX was made law, telling the schools they had to fund the massively money losing womens sports equally as well as the money making mens sports - even though that made no financial, logical, or - until this time, legal - sense. Of course, to monitor compliance, many, many reports and documents had to be submitted to the government, so some more people were hired to create reports and to actually montitor the sports programs and coaches - except Bobby Knight, of course - as well as staffing the new government agencies the reports were being sent to.
So now the schools were teaching, monitoring and reporting attendance to the Federal Bureau of Mandatory Schooling, and monitoring and reporting on the sports situation. (Strange to think, but it required making decisions based on sex in order to prove you are not making decisions based on sex.)
Next, some parent found out that Billy Bob was beating up on their darling child, and sued and won on the grounds that the school 'should do something about it!'. More documentation, more reporting, more oversight, more people, more supervisors, more enforcers.
Now the schools were teaching, m
And we thank you for signing up.
(see? the lessons are working!)
There's something very wrong about sacrificing morals for dough. I think it's called being immoral, but there might be a more appropriate word.
Prostitution.