The GPL is the only OSS license I would ever release my work under. Why the hell should I let anyone profit off of my work without giving anything back. Especialy fuckheads like you?
I should be able to release my code how I want. If you don't like it, then don't fucking use it.
If the only choice was All rights reserved or public domain, then I would choose rights-reserved over PD any day.
If you don't like someone, killfile them. They already have enough CPU power to calculate everyone's 'links' in somewhat real-time. Adding kill files wouldn't be too much more work.
Let people decide for themselves who they want to be 'protected from' and more importantly, who they don't.
This is a little more like if I were to bring a group together to paint posters, and having a good portion of the group decide it would be more fun to use the paper to make paper airplanes.
No, it's more like this. You have a group thousands of people together to paint portraits of themselves and get to know each other -- sort of a hippy type 'themed' party. Some of the people decide to start painting portraits of other things. Like Abe Lincoln and what Hello Kitty might look like if she was X-rayed. And then you Took those people, burned their paintings and threw them out
Could you do it? I guess. Would you or anyone else have much fun after that?
Deleting fake profiles may be more drastic of a solution, but I think the post indicating the use of a "karma" system is the best solution. Basically have a system where people can rate each other. Act like an ass, and you get an ass profile.
The thing is, there really is no reason to do this. On Friendster, you get to pick who your friends are. No interested in knowing fictional characters? Then don't let them be your friends. It's pretty simple.
All Friendster needs to do is add a 'killfile' property and let people 'hide' people they don't like who are in their social network.
Yeah, they own the domain name and the servers and the code, but other then the code (which would probably not be that hard to re-implement) the value of the site is not created by them. It's created by the users. If the users get bored or pissed off at the people who control things. Just look at Slashdot. I think a lot of people don't really like the people who run this site because they take all of our value (submissions and comments) profit off of it, and never seem the least bit grateful.
Who knows if this fakester deletion spree would be more or less annoying then all the lameness filters and two-minute waiting limits we have to deal with here? Maybe it'll be a lot more annoying to Friendster users.
If interesting people stop using Friendster, Friendster will get a lot less interesting. People might move to another service or just give up on the site.
can do whatever they like. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
If I ban your book in my house, is that censorship? You would say no? But what if I owned an sovereign island nation? Would that be censorship? What if I raised an army on my island and took over the US and banned your book here? You could always just leave. It wouldn't be congress doing the censoring because they would all be in jail.
Anytime someone's voice is silenced, it's censorship. In particular, it's censorship within a community. If I remove Graffiti from my house is it is censorship, but most people would say that having a clean house is more important then the expression of vandals on property they don't own (or in other words, private property laws are more important then freedom of speech)
I think you used the word entropy way wrong. How does 'people interacting' create more microstates that have the same microstate?
I think the word you are looking for is chaos, or maybe you should have just said "large numbers of people interacting will cause unexpected results"
Entropy is the number if microstates, the individual kinetic energy of each particle) that have the same 'macrostate', like the heat.
For example a block of ice has lower entropy then a glass of water because in the ice the water molecules can only move around a little bit, while in the water they can move all over the place, and have many more possible amounts of kinetic energy.
The 'entropy' in Friendster would be the connections that could be severed without changing the over-all macrostate of the site. So if bob is connected to everyone that Jane is connected to, and he deletes Jane, it doesn't affect anyone else on the site. These fakesters actually do add entropy because lots of people connect to them. In some cases you could drop a whole group of them without changing the over all state for anyone else.
(anyway, please let me know if I made any mistakes in my explanation of entropy)
I actually found some of those 'fakesters' on friendster.com, and I thought they were hilarious. One of the fakesters "giant squid" had a big rant about the CEO being a Nazi, deleting 'fakesters' so I figured there was some sort of battle being waged.
I understand the impetus for deleting these fakesters, for one lots of people want to add the funny ones to their list which creates lots of connections that shouldn't really exist. But it seems kind of harsh. A better solution would be to 'limit' fakesters in such a way that two people who would only have connections through a fakester would not be 'connected'. That way the general concept of the site would not be ruined.
Besides, why shouldn't people be able to be friends with someone like "x-ray hello kitty" or whatever?
I think its to bad. Friendster is actually pretty interesting and I think those 'fakesters' add to the site. Any time you try to 'clamp down' and act all authoritarian it ruins a lot of the fun. Ideal solutions allow people to have fun while shielding people who aren't interested in 'fun' from them... kind of like Slashdot's moderation system.
What Friendster should do is have some sort of mod system like on hotornot, and allow people to opt out of seeing 'fakesters'.
I mean, what this basically amounts to is a corporation telling you who can and cannot be your friend (basically saying that you can't be friends with someone who uses and anon identity and non-photographic image.)
I won't let my kids watch movies, and I certainly don't watch them either. TV's one thing (Discovery channel, etc.) but I'd rather they read information and learn via the Internet or books than stare at some drug-using immoral Hollywood "stars" as they stumble through their lines on screen while we pay $9 for a ticket and $5 for a Coke and $6 for popcorn
Hahaha, because "the internet" is so great for the mind. Certanly better then "movies.
It's sad to think that for $15,000 (give or take), I can make a 35 minute short which will be much more entertaining than this (the script is ready, it's nearly completely cast, all we need is a location and financing).
that's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? Maybe your movie would suck? Have you even seen gigli?
If you like far fetched hollywood plots that have no basis in reality. Wait, this is slashdot, of course you do! Hollywood always has to sensationalize and dramatize everything to a point where it doesn't impart any knowledge or insight to the viewer.
Impart knowlage? What's so fucking intresting about reverse enginering?
And seriously, what 'basis in reality' did Neuromancer have? What about Snowcrash? Just because something is farfetched dosn't mean it can't be intresting, or enjoyable.
a 'sploit is a 'sploit. Although you can limit the damage by giving web servers and other weak restricted shells. There have been 'access promotion' exploits for Linux too, though.
I wonder when someone will release a virus for an exploit that they just found, one that they didn't tell Microsoft about. If they found one for IIS it would basically kill the entire windows internet (since you couldn't just firewall off the port).
And of course the same thing could happen with Linux. There have been security holes in Apache and especially in various distros.
I guess we're lucky that people finding holes so far have been benign. (or at least more interested in having access then causing chaos...)
Look around, try to find someone, anyone who pays per click anymore. No one does. Everyone pays by commision because pay-per-click schemes are way to easy to defraud.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL is the only OSS license I would ever release my work under. Why the hell should I let anyone profit off of my work without giving anything back. Especialy fuckheads like you?
I should be able to release my code how I want. If you don't like it, then don't fucking use it.
If the only choice was All rights reserved or public domain, then I would choose rights-reserved over PD any day.
Yeah sure, I'm sure you consider yourself a 'hipster' mr. porn-site.
Face it, no one who operates a porn site can be 'hip'. Deal with it.
Oh, wait...
What they should do is allow you to kill file people. You could add Seattle to your killfile and never worry about it again.
But the Friendster people would rather get all authoritarian and alienate people then add a few more lines of code. So whatever.
I know what Friendster is, but you obviously don't know what censorship actualy means.
What if I make a website and it gets pulled by the ISP? Censorship? yes. Not any diffrent then a profile being pulled by Friendster, either.
Wern't java iButtons out before the iMac? Just askin'
If you don't like someone, killfile them. They already have enough CPU power to calculate everyone's 'links' in somewhat real-time. Adding kill files wouldn't be too much more work.
Let people decide for themselves who they want to be 'protected from' and more importantly, who they don't.
This is a little more like if I were to bring a group together to paint posters, and having a good portion of the group decide it would be more fun to use the paper to make paper airplanes.
No, it's more like this. You have a group thousands of people together to paint portraits of themselves and get to know each other -- sort of a hippy type 'themed' party. Some of the people decide to start painting portraits of other things. Like Abe Lincoln and what Hello Kitty might look like if she was X-rayed. And then you Took those people, burned their paintings and threw them out
Could you do it? I guess. Would you or anyone else have much fun after that?
Hold it right there, Francine. What does "killing profiles" have to do with "deciding what other people can or cannot say?"
If your profile dies, then it cannot talk. If you can't talk, you ar censored.
it's a two-step induction. Come on people, not that hard...
The definition of 'censorship' does not have the word 'government' in it.
When a newspaper declines an advertisement, it is censorship. It's not illegal, but it is censorship.
Maybe it is on a theoretical level too when they decline letters, but no one would expect them to publish every letter. On the net, though, you can.
Non-government censorship isn't 'evil' sometimes it's necessary. The question is when it is good, and when is it bad?
Deleting fake profiles may be more drastic of a solution, but I think the post indicating the use of a "karma" system is the best solution. Basically have a system where people can rate each other. Act like an ass, and you get an ass profile.
The thing is, there really is no reason to do this. On Friendster, you get to pick who your friends are. No interested in knowing fictional characters? Then don't let them be your friends. It's pretty simple.
All Friendster needs to do is add a 'killfile' property and let people 'hide' people they don't like who are in their social network.
Yeah, they own the domain name and the servers and the code, but other then the code (which would probably not be that hard to re-implement) the value of the site is not created by them. It's created by the users. If the users get bored or pissed off at the people who control things. Just look at Slashdot. I think a lot of people don't really like the people who run this site because they take all of our value (submissions and comments) profit off of it, and never seem the least bit grateful.
Who knows if this fakester deletion spree would be more or less annoying then all the lameness filters and two-minute waiting limits we have to deal with here? Maybe it'll be a lot more annoying to Friendster users.
If interesting people stop using Friendster, Friendster will get a lot less interesting. People might move to another service or just give up on the site.
can do whatever they like. That doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
If I ban your book in my house, is that censorship? You would say no? But what if I owned an sovereign island nation? Would that be censorship? What if I raised an army on my island and took over the US and banned your book here? You could always just leave. It wouldn't be congress doing the censoring because they would all be in jail.
Anytime someone's voice is silenced, it's censorship. In particular, it's censorship within a community. If I remove Graffiti from my house is it is censorship, but most people would say that having a clean house is more important then the expression of vandals on property they don't own (or in other words, private property laws are more important then freedom of speech)
I think you used the word entropy way wrong. How does 'people interacting' create more microstates that have the same microstate?
I think the word you are looking for is chaos, or maybe you should have just said "large numbers of people interacting will cause unexpected results"
Entropy is the number if microstates, the individual kinetic energy of each particle) that have the same 'macrostate', like the heat.
For example a block of ice has lower entropy then a glass of water because in the ice the water molecules can only move around a little bit, while in the water they can move all over the place, and have many more possible amounts of kinetic energy.
The 'entropy' in Friendster would be the connections that could be severed without changing the over-all macrostate of the site. So if bob is connected to everyone that Jane is connected to, and he deletes Jane, it doesn't affect anyone else on the site. These fakesters actually do add entropy because lots of people connect to them. In some cases you could drop a whole group of them without changing the over all state for anyone else.
(anyway, please let me know if I made any mistakes in my explanation of entropy)
I actually found some of those 'fakesters' on friendster.com, and I thought they were hilarious. One of the fakesters "giant squid" had a big rant about the CEO being a Nazi, deleting 'fakesters' so I figured there was some sort of battle being waged.
I understand the impetus for deleting these fakesters, for one lots of people want to add the funny ones to their list which creates lots of connections that shouldn't really exist. But it seems kind of harsh. A better solution would be to 'limit' fakesters in such a way that two people who would only have connections through a fakester would not be 'connected'. That way the general concept of the site would not be ruined.
Besides, why shouldn't people be able to be friends with someone like "x-ray hello kitty" or whatever?
I think its to bad. Friendster is actually pretty interesting and I think those 'fakesters' add to the site. Any time you try to 'clamp down' and act all authoritarian it ruins a lot of the fun. Ideal solutions allow people to have fun while shielding people who aren't interested in 'fun' from them... kind of like Slashdot's moderation system.
What Friendster should do is have some sort of mod system like on hotornot, and allow people to opt out of seeing 'fakesters'.
I mean, what this basically amounts to is a corporation telling you who can and cannot be your friend (basically saying that you can't be friends with someone who uses and anon identity and non-photographic image.)
I won't let my kids watch movies, and I certainly don't watch them either. TV's one thing (Discovery channel, etc.) but I'd rather they read information and learn via the Internet or books than stare at some drug-using immoral Hollywood "stars" as they stumble through their lines on screen while we pay $9 for a ticket and $5 for a Coke and $6 for popcorn
Hahaha, because "the internet" is so great for the mind. Certanly better then "movies.
What's wrong with letting us know what movies to pirate off the kazzalite?
It's sad to think that for $15,000 (give or take), I can make a 35 minute short which will be much more entertaining than this (the script is ready, it's nearly completely cast, all we need is a location and financing).
that's a bit presumptuous, isn't it? Maybe your movie would suck? Have you even seen gigli?
If you like far fetched hollywood plots that have no basis in reality. Wait, this is slashdot, of course you do! Hollywood always has to sensationalize and dramatize everything to a point where it doesn't impart any knowledge or insight to the viewer.
Impart knowlage? What's so fucking intresting about reverse enginering?
And seriously, what 'basis in reality' did Neuromancer have? What about Snowcrash? Just because something is farfetched dosn't mean it can't be intresting, or enjoyable.
Well, why not just get your own voice stress analyzer and practice in order to find out how to beat it?
a 'sploit is a 'sploit. Although you can limit the damage by giving web servers and other weak restricted shells. There have been 'access promotion' exploits for Linux too, though.
I wonder when someone will release a virus for an exploit that they just found, one that they didn't tell Microsoft about. If they found one for IIS it would basically kill the entire windows internet (since you couldn't just firewall off the port).
And of course the same thing could happen with Linux. There have been security holes in Apache and especially in various distros.
I guess we're lucky that people finding holes so far have been benign. (or at least more interested in having access then causing chaos...)
Whereas Arnold probably has an agent and doesn't even need to find movies to star in. They just land in his lap.
Arnold was a self-made millionare before he even got into the movie biz, with his own line of workout equpipment and real-estate stuff.
Look around, try to find someone, anyone who pays per click anymore. No one does. Everyone pays by commision because pay-per-click schemes are way to easy to defraud.