Although note that the two world wars were a bit of a blip, far more devestating than anything we had previously. Also they were not independent (arguably the events from WW1 leading onto WW2), so it wouldn't be unexpected that they are separated by only 20ish years, nor would it be expected that another one should follow.
So yes, we have learned a little: where we have learned is in Europe - the World Wars were mainly an end result of centuries of fighting in Europe, but now the EU has put a stop to that.
Hopefully it is true that we have passed a "peak"; however, the level of fighting since WW2 is still at least as much as what we had in the centuries of warfare before the 20th Century, so we still have a lot to learn.
[citation needed] - people often claim theoretical flaws with Wikipedia, but rarely cite examples of this going wrong in practice.
There are other flaws as well. From my own participation, for example, I have found that often certain groups of people will "take over" a topic as "their own", and interfere with input from outside sources, however valid that input may be.
The key point which keeps Wikipedia going is that there are some fundamental policies which must be kept to. It isn't a complete free-for-all. If people take over a topic, there are places on Wikipedia to raise the issue, to get other editors to take a look. These editors don't need to know about the subject matter - they just see which side is supported by reliable sources. Anyone who continues to edit war by breaking the fundamental policies risks getting blocked.
Now we get to the problem with a law wiki - it's not clear what fundamental policies one could have. If a group "take over" and write a bad law, it's not clear what neutral policies you could use to claim that law was bad, and get it reverted.
You might say things like "claims made to support a law must always be supported by evidence". Though at least here in the UK, the Government themselves are incapable of doing that (and have in some cases stated upfront that it is fine to pass a law in the absence of evidence).
Now if only this would catch on... we might actually see laws that are representative of what the people want instead of some asshole with a few hundred thousand dollars more than they should have in their pocket.
Careful though - what the majority want can lead to bad laws, for example when it comes to persecuting the minority. And a particular problem is that only some people will be bothered to spend time arguing on these Wikis - so you get laws more likely to be written by those who want to force their morals on other people, rather than giving an indication of what most people really think.
Plus, rich organisations are still in a position to mount a campaign to spread bias information about the proposed law, or to encourage people to edit the Wiki in their favour.
Having said that, I am curious to see what sort of laws a Wiki would turn out, especially on controversial issues. One benefit over things like voting or one-sided petitions is that editors actually have to see the exact wording of the law. Also, it may avoid the "paperclip" problem, where an unjust law is tacked onto a popular/sensible law; this way, people could edit out the unjust bits. Similarly, it helps in cases that may be supported by people because it's good in principle, but extremely badly worded, or overly broad - it would be possible for people to enter sensible amendments.
However, if this is the start to allow citizens to write their opinions on forthcoming and existing laws, I'm in favor.
Here in the UK, the Government lets citizens write their opinions through "consultations" (either submitting to an email address, or an online forum).
However, the problem is the Government then ignores anything said. Or rather, when people reply in support, it claims it's doing what people want; when people criticise, it ignores them and still claims it's doing what people want.
Maybe not everyone is playing a MMORPG just so they can hit on girls? Flirting's a lot nicer in real life, by the way.
And - since women don't have the same hangups - they will talk with other people whether they are male or female, so I'm not convinced that playing a male character will mean you see more female avatars.
I can't speak for the "I stare at my avatar..." argument, but I suspect they just mean they want a pleasing avatar to see on screen, and aren't wanting to maximise the number of different women they flirt with. You yourself admit you like having a pleasing avatar, rather than preferring to look at other people's avatars instead.
True, that's an interesting point. More generally though, the experiment of how men and women behave is performed in real life, all the time. Online is an interesting chance to see behaviour where it doesn't have to be constrained by physical sexual organs.
I agree with this - I got sick of girl characters begging for gold in games like WoW. Some guys make girl characters because they find the male players will give a "female" character gold more often than a "male" character.
But surely the fundamental problem there is the way men treat women differently. It's their own tough luck if someone takes advantage of it.
And this wouldn't solve the issue - you'll still have women begging for gold, and men giving them gold.
Heh. I think if you push your "sexiness" on people, then you should pay the penalty when *Woops!* they find out you're on some kind of gender bender. I don't care what you do on IRC, but it's just not classy to take that to a game where the point isn't cybersex.
I don't see why - there's more to gender than sexual acts. And surely if anything, it's cybersex where you might say that identifying as a gender other than your physical sex is deceiving the other person. When the purpose isn't to have sex, it shouldn't be anyone else's business what you're got between your legs.
You may joke, but there is a serious point there - what about transgendered people who cannot "pass" in real life? (Either pre-op transsexuals, or transgendered people who have no intention of transitioning).
It's sad that the assumption is that playing a gender other than your biological sex is only done for deception. Having to conform to gender roles is bad enough in real life; let's not bring it online too (and a roleplay game, of all places!), where your physical body shouldn't matter.
One of the things I found interesting about traditional (non-computer) roleplaying is that there were no hangups in playing a different gender (after all, no different to playing a different species such as a dwarf or an elf), but I guess as it becomes mainstream, we get all the mainstream prejudices and hangups.
I agree completely with the parent, this is most definitely a Bubble. There is no way that the underlying technology of facebook (CSS, HTML, PHP, Apache, and MySQL or Postgresql)
I'm not saying it isn't a bubble - but I suspect it's the userbase and information that is far more important than the technology. If I had a clone of Facebook up and running today, I wouldn't be worth anything, and it would be a lot of work to generate any income.
(Consider also that LiveJournal open source their code - that doesn't mean that you can be worth as much as they are just by setting up your own server).
Who in their right mind, after reading the TOS and Privacy Policies (assuming for a moment that one should trust a startup, no matter what they say, and especially when there is money at stake) for these sites, would willing create the sort of profile that governments once had to hire informants and file clerks to obtain?
Yes it is worrying what some people put on it, but not all. For Facebook, I limit the amount of information I keep on it. For other sites, I don't use my real name.
I mean, the Government could be watching us right now and noting that "CodeBuster (516420) thinks 'this is most definitely a Bubble'", but you probably aren't worried about that.
But the point is it also depends on your circles of friends. Friendster was never big from my perspective. OTOH, everyone I know was - and still is - on LiveJournal. Facebook seems to be growing rapidly too.
A more accurate measure might be to dig out statistics on number of users.
The problem is that sites like myspace and facebook ARE NOT long term hubs for people to visit. They are trendy sites, back in '99 when I was in a freshman in college the place to go was blackplanet, mi gente, Asian Avenue, and livejournal.
I'm still on LiveJournal. Hell, I'm still on Slashdot after god knows how many years. Whilst some sites may be fads, that doesn't mean they all will be.
In some sense, I could say that something as fundamental as personal email and mailing lists (not to mention Usenet) were a fad for me, since that has almost entirely been replaced by sites such as LiveJournal, or various webforums. For me, LiveJournal has lasted longer than the amount of time I used email as a primary means of online communication.
That being said...I think education should stop AT education. Teach them, but, they are not there to enforce rules off campus. I don't feel that is within their jurisdiction.
I think the particular issue is how they go about it.
If a pupil is bullying other pupils, then even if some of that happens outside of school time, it's still within the school's jurisdiction if they decide to punish that pupil as a result (consider a work analogy - generally what I do in my own time should be my own business, but if I started harrassing fellow employees, even if I did this outside of work hours, you can bet the employer would take an interest).
However, that only applies to disciplining the pupil. The other question is whether they should spend time trying to get material removed from Internet sites. (I guess there's no harm in them trying if they think it's best; but I would oppose new censorship laws to allow them to remove images.)
I know all that. I honestly can't see how your comment relates to mine - what am I incorrect about?
See my later comment for a long-winded explanation. I was being flippant, just like the post I replied to was joking about Windows version numbers (I imagine he is probably aware that 95 in "Windows 95" was short for 1995, and doesn't need someone to point that out to him...)
I know, and you missed my point. I am aware of basic Roman numerals, thanks;)
Currently, as your link shows, Apple market their OS as: "OS X v10.something" which, as you say, is like saying "OS 10 v10.something". So we have the confusion as to whether "X" is now part of the brand name, or whether X is the version number, in which case the version number is always given twice. It's like Windows 95 95 (XCV 95?) or Windows Vista Vista. (I must admit, I always say "OS Ecks 10.something" - do people really say "Mac OS 10 10.something"?)
My point was then, what will happen if they ever need to increment the major version? In the former case we will have Mac OS X 11.something. In the latter, it will be Mac OS XI 11.something. Given the strong association of "OS X" as the brandname, it may well be the former (alternatively they may avoid the issue and switch to a new name entirely).
That's a false dichotomy. There's a remote possibility that a judge could rule that the use of GPL on BusyBox is "copyright abuse" and the developers could lose their copyright.
I often hear this claim with respect to the GPL - but has there ever been a case where a judge disagreed with the distribution terms, and declared it public domain?
Why only the GPL? Do commercial copyright holders fear that a court may disagree with whatever licensing terms they set (e.g., software available for free download, or a company who licences their content to be distributed by another company), and declare it public domain?
The idea that we know what would happen in a US court should the GPL ever be tested is wishful thinking.
Yes but claiming that something might conceivably happen, when the same argument applies to all commonplace commercial licencing, is paranoia.
Maybe a court will decide that the MPAA/RIAA are idiots, and declare all their content public domain. I'm not going to hold such wishful thinking as anything more than a fantasy, or let it affect my decisions.
Well, note it's the Lisa that introduced changes that weren't in Xerox - not the Macintosh, which just developed on changes just like every other GUI in the 80s did.
Oh I know, but my point is that it's the "came up with" that's important here, not "made popular". By all means give credit for what Apple came up with first - but it's hard to know what they did come up with first, because you usually only hear from people who seem to think that Apple created the GUI as a whole (or people who only ever go on about "Apple made it popular").
As I say, other operating systems followed quickly after Apple, each introducing new bits here and there.
Apple actually came up with, or made popular, a great number of the UI abstrations we take for granted nowadays...
Ah but which is it - came up with, or made popular?
Yes, they did come up with a few things which weren't developed by Xerox (though lots of little improvements to the GUI were developed by different companies over time). But "made popular"? For that, the grandparent's points still stand. If they were pre-existing concepts, they still would have existed if Apple hadn't been around. By the time Windows 95 came around, there were loads of other operating systems that had also popularised these concepts. And, as much as I hate to say it, it is Windows that has popularised the GUI, in that it is by far what most people first used. Popularity isn't really a good measure here.
Slashdot Mirror
Although note that the two world wars were a bit of a blip, far more devestating than anything we had previously. Also they were not independent (arguably the events from WW1 leading onto WW2), so it wouldn't be unexpected that they are separated by only 20ish years, nor would it be expected that another one should follow.
So yes, we have learned a little: where we have learned is in Europe - the World Wars were mainly an end result of centuries of fighting in Europe, but now the EU has put a stop to that.
Hopefully it is true that we have passed a "peak"; however, the level of fighting since WW2 is still at least as much as what we had in the centuries of warfare before the 20th Century, so we still have a lot to learn.
I suspect that the US military is not "prohibited by United States law"...
[citation needed] - people often claim theoretical flaws with Wikipedia, but rarely cite examples of this going wrong in practice.
There are other flaws as well. From my own participation, for example, I have found that often certain groups of people will "take over" a topic as "their own", and interfere with input from outside sources, however valid that input may be.
The key point which keeps Wikipedia going is that there are some fundamental policies which must be kept to. It isn't a complete free-for-all. If people take over a topic, there are places on Wikipedia to raise the issue, to get other editors to take a look. These editors don't need to know about the subject matter - they just see which side is supported by reliable sources. Anyone who continues to edit war by breaking the fundamental policies risks getting blocked.
Now we get to the problem with a law wiki - it's not clear what fundamental policies one could have. If a group "take over" and write a bad law, it's not clear what neutral policies you could use to claim that law was bad, and get it reverted.
You might say things like "claims made to support a law must always be supported by evidence". Though at least here in the UK, the Government themselves are incapable of doing that (and have in some cases stated upfront that it is fine to pass a law in the absence of evidence).
Now if only this would catch on... we might actually see laws that are representative of what the people want instead of some asshole with a few hundred thousand dollars more than they should have in their pocket.
Careful though - what the majority want can lead to bad laws, for example when it comes to persecuting the minority. And a particular problem is that only some people will be bothered to spend time arguing on these Wikis - so you get laws more likely to be written by those who want to force their morals on other people, rather than giving an indication of what most people really think.
Plus, rich organisations are still in a position to mount a campaign to spread bias information about the proposed law, or to encourage people to edit the Wiki in their favour.
Having said that, I am curious to see what sort of laws a Wiki would turn out, especially on controversial issues. One benefit over things like voting or one-sided petitions is that editors actually have to see the exact wording of the law. Also, it may avoid the "paperclip" problem, where an unjust law is tacked onto a popular/sensible law; this way, people could edit out the unjust bits. Similarly, it helps in cases that may be supported by people because it's good in principle, but extremely badly worded, or overly broad - it would be possible for people to enter sensible amendments.
However, if this is the start to allow citizens to write their opinions on forthcoming and existing laws, I'm in favor.
Here in the UK, the Government lets citizens write their opinions through "consultations" (either submitting to an email address, or an online forum).
However, the problem is the Government then ignores anything said. Or rather, when people reply in support, it claims it's doing what people want; when people criticise, it ignores them and still claims it's doing what people want.
Maybe not everyone is playing a MMORPG just so they can hit on girls? Flirting's a lot nicer in real life, by the way.
And - since women don't have the same hangups - they will talk with other people whether they are male or female, so I'm not convinced that playing a male character will mean you see more female avatars.
I can't speak for the "I stare at my avatar..." argument, but I suspect they just mean they want a pleasing avatar to see on screen, and aren't wanting to maximise the number of different women they flirt with. You yourself admit you like having a pleasing avatar, rather than preferring to look at other people's avatars instead.
You mean transphobia :)
The policy AIUI doesn't apply to people playing as men. So "looking like a chick" either won't matter, or will be an advantage.
True, that's an interesting point. More generally though, the experiment of how men and women behave is performed in real life, all the time. Online is an interesting chance to see behaviour where it doesn't have to be constrained by physical sexual organs.
I agree with this - I got sick of girl characters begging for gold in games like WoW. Some guys make girl characters because they find the male players will give a "female" character gold more often than a "male" character.
But surely the fundamental problem there is the way men treat women differently. It's their own tough luck if someone takes advantage of it.
And this wouldn't solve the issue - you'll still have women begging for gold, and men giving them gold.
Heh. I think if you push your "sexiness" on people, then you should pay the penalty when *Woops!* they find out you're on some kind of gender bender. I don't care what you do on IRC, but it's just not classy to take that to a game where the point isn't cybersex.
I don't see why - there's more to gender than sexual acts. And surely if anything, it's cybersex where you might say that identifying as a gender other than your physical sex is deceiving the other person. When the purpose isn't to have sex, it shouldn't be anyone else's business what you're got between your legs.
You may joke, but there is a serious point there - what about transgendered people who cannot "pass" in real life? (Either pre-op transsexuals, or transgendered people who have no intention of transitioning).
It's sad that the assumption is that playing a gender other than your biological sex is only done for deception. Having to conform to gender roles is bad enough in real life; let's not bring it online too (and a roleplay game, of all places!), where your physical body shouldn't matter.
One of the things I found interesting about traditional (non-computer) roleplaying is that there were no hangups in playing a different gender (after all, no different to playing a different species such as a dwarf or an elf), but I guess as it becomes mainstream, we get all the mainstream prejudices and hangups.
I wonder, can women still play men in this game?
It's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If Microsoft figures it's worth $10 bn, then it's worth $10bn.
Yes - but Microsoft aren't paying $10b, so that doesn't apply.
I agree completely with the parent, this is most definitely a Bubble. There is no way that the underlying technology of facebook (CSS, HTML, PHP, Apache, and MySQL or Postgresql)
I'm not saying it isn't a bubble - but I suspect it's the userbase and information that is far more important than the technology. If I had a clone of Facebook up and running today, I wouldn't be worth anything, and it would be a lot of work to generate any income.
(Consider also that LiveJournal open source their code - that doesn't mean that you can be worth as much as they are just by setting up your own server).
Who in their right mind, after reading the TOS and Privacy Policies (assuming for a moment that one should trust a startup, no matter what they say, and especially when there is money at stake) for these sites, would willing create the sort of profile that governments once had to hire informants and file clerks to obtain?
Yes it is worrying what some people put on it, but not all. For Facebook, I limit the amount of information I keep on it. For other sites, I don't use my real name.
I mean, the Government could be watching us right now and noting that "CodeBuster (516420) thinks 'this is most definitely a Bubble'", but you probably aren't worried about that.
That's his point. Friendster used to be big.
But the point is it also depends on your circles of friends. Friendster was never big from my perspective. OTOH, everyone I know was - and still is - on LiveJournal. Facebook seems to be growing rapidly too.
A more accurate measure might be to dig out statistics on number of users.
The problem is that sites like myspace and facebook ARE NOT long term hubs for people to visit. They are trendy sites, back in '99 when I was in a freshman in college the place to go was blackplanet, mi gente, Asian Avenue, and livejournal.
I'm still on LiveJournal. Hell, I'm still on Slashdot after god knows how many years. Whilst some sites may be fads, that doesn't mean they all will be.
In some sense, I could say that something as fundamental as personal email and mailing lists (not to mention Usenet) were a fad for me, since that has almost entirely been replaced by sites such as LiveJournal, or various webforums. For me, LiveJournal has lasted longer than the amount of time I used email as a primary means of online communication.
That being said...I think education should stop AT education. Teach them, but, they are not there to enforce rules off campus. I don't feel that is within their jurisdiction.
I think the particular issue is how they go about it.
If a pupil is bullying other pupils, then even if some of that happens outside of school time, it's still within the school's jurisdiction if they decide to punish that pupil as a result (consider a work analogy - generally what I do in my own time should be my own business, but if I started harrassing fellow employees, even if I did this outside of work hours, you can bet the employer would take an interest).
However, that only applies to disciplining the pupil. The other question is whether they should spend time trying to get material removed from Internet sites. (I guess there's no harm in them trying if they think it's best; but I would oppose new censorship laws to allow them to remove images.)
Commercial companies sometimes offer things for free download, but wouldn't want that software to become public domain.
I know all that. I honestly can't see how your comment relates to mine - what am I incorrect about?
See my later comment for a long-winded explanation. I was being flippant, just like the post I replied to was joking about Windows version numbers (I imagine he is probably aware that 95 in "Windows 95" was short for 1995, and doesn't need someone to point that out to him...)
I know, and you missed my point. I am aware of basic Roman numerals, thanks ;)
Currently, as your link shows, Apple market their OS as: "OS X v10.something" which, as you say, is like saying "OS 10 v10.something". So we have the confusion as to whether "X" is now part of the brand name, or whether X is the version number, in which case the version number is always given twice. It's like Windows 95 95 (XCV 95?) or Windows Vista Vista. (I must admit, I always say "OS Ecks 10.something" - do people really say "Mac OS 10 10.something"?)
My point was then, what will happen if they ever need to increment the major version? In the former case we will have Mac OS X 11.something. In the latter, it will be Mac OS XI 11.something. Given the strong association of "OS X" as the brandname, it may well be the former (alternatively they may avoid the issue and switch to a new name entirely).
That's a false dichotomy. There's a remote possibility that a judge could rule that the use of GPL on BusyBox is "copyright abuse" and the developers could lose their copyright.
I often hear this claim with respect to the GPL - but has there ever been a case where a judge disagreed with the distribution terms, and declared it public domain?
Why only the GPL? Do commercial copyright holders fear that a court may disagree with whatever licensing terms they set (e.g., software available for free download, or a company who licences their content to be distributed by another company), and declare it public domain?
The idea that we know what would happen in a US court should the GPL ever be tested is wishful thinking.
Yes but claiming that something might conceivably happen, when the same argument applies to all commonplace commercial licencing, is paranoia.
Maybe a court will decide that the MPAA/RIAA are idiots, and declare all their content public domain. I'm not going to hold such wishful thinking as anything more than a fantasy, or let it affect my decisions.
I'm similarly amused by the lack of Mac OS X 1-9; or alternatively, the lack of Mac OS I-IX.
I look forward however to Mac OS X 11, or will it be Mac OS XI 11?
Well, note it's the Lisa that introduced changes that weren't in Xerox - not the Macintosh, which just developed on changes just like every other GUI in the 80s did.
Oh I know, but my point is that it's the "came up with" that's important here, not "made popular". By all means give credit for what Apple came up with first - but it's hard to know what they did come up with first, because you usually only hear from people who seem to think that Apple created the GUI as a whole (or people who only ever go on about "Apple made it popular").
As I say, other operating systems followed quickly after Apple, each introducing new bits here and there.
Apple actually came up with, or made popular, a great number of the UI abstrations we take for granted nowadays...
Ah but which is it - came up with, or made popular?
Yes, they did come up with a few things which weren't developed by Xerox (though lots of little improvements to the GUI were developed by different companies over time). But "made popular"? For that, the grandparent's points still stand. If they were pre-existing concepts, they still would have existed if Apple hadn't been around. By the time Windows 95 came around, there were loads of other operating systems that had also popularised these concepts. And, as much as I hate to say it, it is Windows that has popularised the GUI, in that it is by far what most people first used. Popularity isn't really a good measure here.