I absolutely degree. Seatbelt laws save lives. Including children's lives. That's more important, in this case, than the stupid "freedom to drive without a seatbelt", which is just idiotic.
He's not stupid. That choice of definition is popular amongst socialists. It's not something he's just dreamt up, it's a real definition.
Unfortunately, the other definition is far more prevalent.
Re:Privacy is dead: enter the Phoenix
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 1
Let's take this to its logical extreme. When "grey goo" nanoweapons are invented, it might not be sensible to make their design public, otherwise a lunatic might be able to take out the whole planet.
Or nukes. Currently cost constraints and national security constraints prevent them being widely usable, but if there were a weapon as bad as a nuke that you could build with your own personal nanoassembler, it again wouldn't make sense to allow the plans to be distributed.
Thus, with sufficiently powerful technology, total freedom of information could lead to total human extinction.
P.S. And the ODP only came into existence approximately 22 months ago, so I've seen it evolve almost from the beginning - I didn't see GnuHoo, but I have been there from Newhoo, to Netscape Open Directory, to ODP. Believe me, the staff are a great bunch - they take a lot of time to listen to their editors, holding consulations in the private editor forums about big changes. And there's a great sense of community in dmoz, with thousands of active editors - it's not all work and no play.
I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply.. We even have a growing selection of non-English and Regional categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".
The original poster asked: Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license?. But it already is under an Open Content license!
Basically the ownership rights are irrelevant. All the license requires you to do is link back to http://dmoz.org using the supplied "Become an Editor" graphic. If you do that, you can modify, republish, sell, or do anything to the data you like. (IANAL).
As for whether corporate influences will have an effect on the impartiality of the directory - let's get real here. Of course they will. But (A) if it gets really bad, it can be forked, and (B) there's been surprisingly little interference from on high. Staff have a good "hands-free" approach on the whole. I say this as a "meta editor" (name greenrd - check here for proof) who has been with volunteering with the ODP for 18 months.
Don't mark this up as informative, it only took me 30 seconds copying and pasting.
Re:DMOZ changed completely when AOL took over
on
Who Owns Dmoz?
·
· Score: 1
A great number of editors are kicked off for spamming, abusing the directory, not following the editing Guidelines (impartiality, spelling and grammar, etc.), or for cooling their own site. This person could very well be one of them.
Um, no! It's not a "simple derivative of the NPL". The NPL is about ten times as long as the ODP license. The ODP is not open source, it's open content. The source code is not even available.
Those two paragraphs seem contradictory. If you see something that could be done better but more complicatedly, the first paragraph tells you to change it, the second tells you not to change it.
The search tree for chess has more nodes than there are atoms of the universe.
That doesn't actually prove anything (although it is an important point to bear in mind). We already have minimax algorithms for pruning the tree (discarding whole branches at a stroke). If someone came up with better pruning algorithm, chess might become solvable.
I think jamie misinterpreted this bit (but IANAL either):
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
It seems clear to me that "under penalty of perjury" only applies to the second half of the sentence. This seems very weak to me.
Almost insightful - heh. Unfortunately, right at the start you have it wrong - neither RMS nor GNU as whole castigates others for releasing free software (in their sense) under non-GPL licenses, AFAIK.
Nature is, metaphorically speaking, following its own objectives. Organisms aren't usually designed (until recently with the advent of GE!) for maximum efficiency in pollution cleanup.
Energy will be able to be obtained cheaply from the sun. Little nanites don't need much energy individually. Think algae.
Climate change may well be able to be dealt with by superengineering projects to cool the atmosphere (although I'm just speculating here). Think refrigerators!;-)
And as for not destroying biological life, I think we can easily program the nanites to avoid chewing up higher animals - but who cares about microorganisms? They'll still be plenty of them left. (Actually, I'm thinking of solid and liquid-born pollution - air pollution is a little harder, though even there production processes will be effectively non-polluting).
Exactly. As a card-carrying environmental wacko who thinks that we need to cut CO2 emissions by 90% NOW, I agree that nanotech would be a wonderful thing, despite the dangers. Remember, we're already at risk of extinction now, from nukes, global warming, and supervolcanoes (although the geology behind the latter is highly dubious, what's dubious is only the timescale, and not necessarily the idea that there are supervolcanoes).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that should be "disagree".
Unfortunately, the other definition is far more prevalent.
Or nukes. Currently cost constraints and national security constraints prevent them being widely usable, but if there were a weapon as bad as a nuke that you could build with your own personal nanoassembler, it again wouldn't make sense to allow the plans to be distributed.
Thus, with sufficiently powerful technology, total freedom of information could lead to total human extinction.
I would highly encourage anyone who is expert and enthusiastic about a subject, and is literate and web-literate (and who is not just going to promote their own site!) to apply.. We even have a growing selection of non-English and Regional categories. As it says, "for just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place".
The original poster asked: Could this project convert to a legally enforceable open and free use license?. But it already is under an Open Content license!
Basically the ownership rights are irrelevant. All the license requires you to do is link back to http://dmoz.org using the supplied "Become an Editor" graphic. If you do that, you can modify, republish, sell, or do anything to the data you like. (IANAL).
As for whether corporate influences will have an effect on the impartiality of the directory - let's get real here. Of course they will. But (A) if it gets really bad, it can be forked, and (B) there's been surprisingly little interference from on high. Staff have a good "hands-free" approach on the whole. I say this as a "meta editor" (name greenrd - check here for proof) who has been with volunteering with the ODP for 18 months.
- License FAQ
- The Open Directory's Open Directory categories (everything you ever wanted to know about the Open Directory but were afraid to ask).
Don't mark this up as informative, it only took me 30 seconds copying and pasting.Those two paragraphs seem contradictory. If you see something that could be done better but more complicatedly, the first paragraph tells you to change it, the second tells you not to change it.
??????
That doesn't actually prove anything (although it is an important point to bear in mind). We already have minimax algorithms for pruning the tree (discarding whole branches at a stroke). If someone came up with better pruning algorithm, chess might become solvable.
dmoz.org is mirred on directory.netscape.com and lycos.com and metacrawler.com and http://search.aol.com/index.adp and ...
In fact, I closed the window so fast I didn't have time to see it properly.
This is NOT one of those times where we are trying to get you to view it by being contrary. Honestly.
"A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
It seems clear to me that "under penalty of perjury" only applies to the second half of the sentence. This seems very weak to me.
I can't see why anyone would disagree with that, as stated in those 3 words. Then again, I didn't follow the link.
Energy will be able to be obtained cheaply from the sun. Little nanites don't need much energy individually. Think algae.
Climate change may well be able to be dealt with by superengineering projects to cool the atmosphere (although I'm just speculating here). Think refrigerators! ;-)
And as for not destroying biological life, I think we can easily program the nanites to avoid chewing up higher animals - but who cares about microorganisms? They'll still be plenty of them left. (Actually, I'm thinking of solid and liquid-born pollution - air pollution is a little harder, though even there production processes will be effectively non-polluting).
Read Nanosystems and then refute that, my friend. It's not just airy speculation. It's sound, scientifically-based predictions.