Tragedy: The Shakespearean tragedy occurs when a fatal character flaw means an unavoiadable fated downfall. Does technology have a fatal flaw? If so, what is it? Will the tragedy be a sci-fi style apocalypse? Or something less tangible and dramatic? Would we be any better off without technology? Or is it humanity that contains the fatal flaw? Disney: Disney Inc. now represents a capitalist regime. It produces cutesy films and a zillion and one products related to said films. Walt Disney, however, was an innovative and imaginative human. During his time, Disney produced animation that was light years ahead. His passion was with the art and what could be acheived. He bought the best equipment and artists he could find and he risked trying new things. Disney Inc. now regularly produces films, that are neither sparklingly imaginative, nor innovative. Disney is no longer a man, unfortunately, its just another company that wants to turn a profit. Technology was used by Walt Disney to it's fullest extent. He pushed it to where he wanted it to go-- which was on flights of imaginative innovation. Disney Inc, uses technology, too... but merely as a tool for profit. Orlando and DisneyWorld: It's just another American city, with an American theme park. There is a stereotpe of an American tourist abroad, the type that is generally despised. Not all Americans are like that... it is a stereotype. But a good number are. They go to some place in Europe, say, and photograph the tourist trap monuments, comment to eachother how adventurous they are, and then go look for a McDonalds or Burger King to eat in. They are not really interested in the country they are visiting. They want the themepark version. Safe, popularised, and shallow. That is what DisneyWorld is. Orlando is a city of contradictions... the restaurants are varied and represent flavours from many parts of the world. (I recall a Lebanese restaurant that was stuck in a random strip mall, but had extremely authentic and delicious Lebanese food). Beneath that sort of cosmopolitan exterior was the same old story, though. For instance, in the time I spent there, I saw only African-Americans working in the "menial" jobs. I doubt that Walt Disney would be pleased with DisneyWorld or Orlando.
I did view your Karma/comment history briefly. You were giving me "pointers" on how to write, implying that mine don't deserve the time of day. My first comment on this thread has recieved a score of 4. And you seem to imply that whatever the readership comments or moderates is good. I see a certain paradox in saying that Katz's articles are worthwhile because they draw moderation and comments, yet saying that mine, which draws moderation and comments, is not. Or yours....or whatever...
Ok, My original comment was a reply to one of yours, thus its contents was intended for that comment and was no reflection on your other comments.
You have misinterpreted what I said. Here is what my second comment said:
"Replies can be an indication of a good comment, but that is a very unreliable criterion. Moderation is not infallible (thus metamoderation), but a heavily moderated comment indicates what slashdot users think"
1. I stated that comments can be an indication, but are NOT reliable. So that dispenses with your statements regarding what comments prove. 2. I also said that moderation IS often a good indication. BUT, articles/stories don't get moderated! Thus, none of what I said can be considered to pertain to the "worth" Katz's articles.
As for giving you "pointers". Only one point in my original post was intended for that, and that was the point regarding the use of facts and proof. I stand by that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to accept your statements without proof (or at least reasonable explanation). You can hold your opinions without proof, if you like, but it's to be expected that people will question their validity. I may not know the context that generated you saying that you didn't need proof, but I still think it sounds foolish.
Ok, for the most part, I agree with you. I personally don't like Katz's articles. I find that he take an idea adequately discussed in a story and blows it out of proportion to create a hyped and silly opinionated feature. However, a lot of people seem genuinely interested in reading his articles, so I think it seems reasonable that he continue to post to slashdot. Neither am I really interested in "promoting" John Vranesevich. But I think that slashdot is a good site, and I don't HAVE to like everything they do, to still find worth in it. I think the post I am replying to seems a lot more thought out than the one I responded to earlier, although admittedly, I may have missed some of the context.
However... You end with what seems an unrelated comment, with little basis:
If you assume that user replies/moderation are an accurate indicator of the intrinsic worth of a comment, then I am significantly better off than yourself. My comment/Karma history demonstrates this well. Or would you have me believe that, perhaps, there are other criterion? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Er... where did I say anything about that... maybe you are infering that I meant a lot of people responding to Katz's stories meant they had intrinsic worth ?? That's my only guess at an explanation... Replies can be an indication of a good comment, but that is a very unreliable criterion. Moderation is not infallible (thus metamoderation), but a heavily moderated comment indicates what slashdot users think. Whether we agree or not, the moderation system seems to regularly bring out good posts, so I'd say that on the whole, it does have SOMETHING to do with the intrinsic worth of a comment.
I doubt you looked at my Karma history... I am guessing you assumed that yours was "significantly better" because my article did not have an automatic +1. Actually, I just make liberal use of the "No Score +1 Bonus", unless my post is directly on topic, which it isn't really, in this thread. As for the worth of my comments otherwise, I will leave that up to the moderators and individual readers to decide on a case by case basis.
In any case, I don't really know what you meant by this last paragraph, perhaps if you could explain what it was in reference to, I could better explain myself. ---
Ok, you asked for some feedback, so here it is. I don't mean offense by any of this, I just want to help you improve your letter/article.
First, answer these questions: What is the point of this letter? What do you hope to accomplish with this letter? Hopefully, with these two in mind, you can trim your article a bit. At the moment, it seems to be rambling thoughts. (I realise you said you hadn't re-read it).
My take, after having read it all, is that you want to associate those who read AntiOnline with those who are script kiddies. Fair enough. But it takes a long time to get to that point. (Do you really think someone as cuckoo as JP will learn anything from this letter anyways?? I doubt it personally).
A lot of the discussion of teenage rebellion and what computers mean in the 20th century isn't really neccessary. It doesn't further your point, and is rather obvious to most. Keep the intro that you are a high school student etc, though, that's good, it gives your opinions context.
Later on, you sorta slam AOL users and people who don't program in "real" languages. Don't bother, it just makes you look petty and again, it doesn't further your point. Condense your description of the "hax0r d00d" to one paragraph, rather than spreading it out, and then get to the good bit at the end... where you list the questions people ask you. That is effective and makes the point nicely. If you do this, I think your letter will be more succinct and effective.
I hope this helps.:) It was sincerely meant as constructive criticism. Although, I would suggest you consider your audience... If sending this letter makes you feel satisfied, then by all means do it, but I rather doubt it will have any effect on the behaviour/content of AntiOnline. I don't think they are open to criticism or interested in being a useful security site.
ps. My opinion on something: Just because something isn't text oriented doesn't mean has no value. Adobe Photoshop is an excellent program, although I personally prefer the GIMP.:) ---
(I know this is offtopic, but it needs to be said in this thread)
1. You don't read Katz's articles, so what's the problem? If others enjoy them, then good... it shouldn't bother you that other people perhaps like reading what he has to say. If he takes "crtical mass" from other articles, it's becuase lots of people are interested in what he has to say. And if you dislike him so much, go to your preferences and set it so you don't SEE his articles. There is always a better solution than getting upset.
2.You have the right to leave slashdot. As does everyone. But slashdot has a lot of readers. If a few leave because they don't like what it has become, it won't really matter, many more will join becuase they do like what it has become. Things change with time.
4.FUD from Bill Gates or the KKK would not be relevant to Slashdot. You may not like Katz's articles, but their topics are relevant to the Slashdot crowd. They are generally based upon articles posted on Slashdot by other authors. They are his thoughts/opinions, but that is what most of the features are, whoever writes them. Everyone (including you) is entitled to their own opinion.
5.Why should you be exempt from using facts and proof? That seems a little far-fetched. If you want to convince others of your point of view, naturally they will want more than opinions. You seem to think you "know" the minds of the editors. This seems very tainted by your opinions, and facts of some sort might be useful to explain why it's more than just an opinion. You also say that a "significant portion of the mature readership objects to Katz's articles". This statement in particular seems to need something to back it up. What is this significant portion and how do you measure it? How do you know that these people belong to the mature readership? Is the mature readership any more important than the newer readership? Opinions and ideas need to be quantified or explained before they have a chance of acceptance.
My reasoning for this post is that you seem so upset. I am not saying that you need to have a different opinion. I am just suggesting that you need to allow everyone else to have their own opinion and be allowed to question yours.
A few minutes of reflection on my general statements might help you to understand my opinion in this matter:
There is always a better solution than getting upset.
Things change with time.
Everyone (including you) is entitled to their own opinion.
Opinions and ideas need to be quantified or explained before they have a chance of acceptance. ---
You should seek the advice of a lawyer. You certainly have a couple parties that you could prosecute, if your story is accurate. It would take time/energy/money which you may not be interested in spending, but I think you have reasonable cause.
First of all, if JP posted libel on his site, and didn't make an effort to verify it OR (more importantly) post a retraction/apology when it turned out to be false, then you have a case against him. And secondly, the employer who fired you is certainly on shaky legal ground. Admittedly, I don't live in the States and your laws might treat that differently, but I don't think they are allowed to fire you based on false statements about your activities... particularly if you have never been arrested/charged by the FBI and if that was their motive for firing you. Of course, it's possible they may not have explicitly used that as the reason, they could pretend it was something else, but it IS worth looking into. That sort of thing is not only personally damaging, it can make it difficult to find employment in the future.
Of course, without proper legal advice, or all the details, it is hard to judge what sort of evidence you'd have, or if you could prove your story satisfactorily to a judge. Heh, ironic... JP is always threatening to take people to court for slander, maybe it's about time he got a taste of that. ---
Treatment for clinical depression? making someone emotionally controlled to be happy isn't really a solution.. but I guess I can see your point.
Training aid?... god, I hope not! Imagine if you were having trouble with a concept... you'd feel terrible... so much for motivation... I'd start not wanting to train at all!
I think the earlier experiment where the computer followed him around campus and could turn lights on for him sounded cool. (although as mentioned, the big brother aspect is scary). But what really scares me is the emotion control.
I so wouldn't want a computer to control my emotions... how could I really feel that I was being "myself". And although it's not really related, it starts making me worry about a future where our thoughts are controlled by more than just propaganda. I think it's interesting research, but what the heck would you _really_ want to do with an emotion controlling computer??
The idea of it making me happy all the time is just as strange as the idea of it making me upset or sad... the natural range and flow of emotions is part of what makes us who we are and part of what makes us human. What would be the application of this? If any one has any ideas about a positive application, I'm interested. My paranoid mind can't think of anything that's not sinister, right now. ---
Yep, I can see that this movie would be tough to extend into a trilogy. Actually, the only part of the movie I disliked was Neo flying off at the end. It was just silly.
I suppose that there is potential for interesting stories or characters in Zion, but I'm doubtful. I think it will be very easy for this movie to go from geek/cult (and amazingly mainstream... I was surprised) to lame/formula (and stay mainstream popular, but lose the geek/cult appeal).
I think the most worrisome announcement in the article was the "super powers"... that sounds silly. I thought that the coolest part of the matrix was the story of a hacker completely and totally hacking his world/the system... (and the initial clash of realities). I think those qualities might be hard to maintain. ---
While I agree that a reason for rejected articles would be nice, it's not really feasible. I know you said a *short* reply, but when they get hundreds of submissions a day, even that is a bit much. To even have a one word reply to 400+ submissions, that would take a considerable amount of time/effort on the part of the editors. That time is likely much better spent now. ---
I have to agree with you. When I saw the distorted screen shot with GIMP in it, it occured to me that while a 3D space was a cool concept, it would be a burden for many of the apps we run now. Imagine trying to use the GIMP at that angle... ridiculous, you wouldn't have any idea what you were doing.
This makes me think of the virtual computer worlds of cyberpunk novels. That would be cool. I have nothing against 3D wm's, I just don't think they'd be useable yet. I know I'd spend most of my time with it twisted so that it looked just the same as my normal 2D wm. I think it's going to be just a fun toy for awhile, but I'm sure its time will come. ---
I certainly hope there's some such international agreement. I don't like the idea of someone buying peieces of space and defacing it. As far as I'm concerned, I think the moon belongs to me, just as much as anyone. Just like there are national parks and reserves, I think the moon (and the rest of the universe) should be an international park/reserve.
I wonder if anyone will actually pay for this, thinking they have some right to buy it and moreover that the person they are buying it from has the right to sell it. Yuck! Capitalism at its worst. ---
Would you want the ability to buy a house, get a job, anything in your life to be in the hands of your worst enemy?
Um... whoah... buy a house?? get a job??? where did you get the impression that this program will affect those things?! This program is supposed to identify who among the students who make threats is likely to carry through! As I stated, there would be concerns about confidentiality and what was done with this information after you left the school.
However, I think you've picked up on too much of Katz's FUD. A single teacher would likely have very little ability to change the output of such a program... it's not going to rate you based on how much your teacher's dislike you! I imagine such a teacher would have to make up a lot of imaginary incidents before it could rate someone unharmful as dangerous. And besides, it's a program designed to help identify possible problems... if it's used properly (and isn't that the REAL issue here?) it will allow administrators to find out who isn't a threat and whose actions need to be taken seriously.
Of course it could be abused, like EVERYTHING school officials control. The point is, that the program might be useful or at least harmless if used PROPERLY. That's always an issue though, and if they didn't have the program, they'd have soemthing else. Better to use a program that has a knowledge base behind it to judge a student, than an educator who doesn't know much about what indicates an actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. This is a tool like any other. If abused it will cause harm, if used properly, it could help. If you're so worried, go find out more about how it's worked and been used in the federal court system and at Yale. Neither the original article nor Katz's feature offer much more than speculation and opinions. ---
Katz's articles seem to be getting more incendiary and less informed every time...
The program (which none of us has seen anyways) sounds like it is a lot more sophisticated than Katz suggests. It appears to have been utilised in reputable places, and has a lot of expertise behind it. I got the impression from the original article that this tool used a lot of factors and comparative information to judge what school administrators input about a student. It says that it differentiates between those who are just making threats and those who will carry through on threats. If that's true, it sounds like it might be useful.
I certainly didn't get the idea that geeks would be singled out by this tool -if used correctly- and persecuted. I think clueless teachers/counselors might create a profile for a geek/non-coformist, but it sounds like this program is designed to judge such a person unharmful. Of course, all this is dependant on the fact that Mosaic 2000 works like it says it does and that administrators use it properly. And mistakes could still be made. And confidential profiles could be disclosed or not discarded or whatever...
But I hardly think it's worth the uninformed FUD, that Katz is spreading. We all need to learn a little more about this program before we judge it. Sure I'm wary of it, but at this point, hardly panicking. ---
or create your own account.. it's free and you don't even have to give them a real email address, they don't mail you your password or anything.
The above account is made out for a male from Uruguay with email guest@hotmail.com. So if, you're paranoid, they won't know anything useful about you. ---
I think too much attention seems to be focused on finding someone. You've gotta be able to enjoy life on your own before you can enjoy it with someone else.
I am a geek girl in a happy relationship with a geek guy. We both spend time doing geeky stuff, but we know when we need to spend time with eachother too. (to be redundant, I must reiterate... just because we are geeks, doesn't mean we are inconsiderate bastards).
As with many geeks, my high school experience was not a terrible success. I had friends, but I was certainly not a desirable candidate for the gf role. So what? I learned a lot of cool stf, and made some good friends.
When I came to university, I didn't look to find an SO... I looked to find friends. And being in the minority of a cs program at univ, all of my friends are guys. They are equals. And one of my friends became my bf. It wasn't a forced manhunt, it was a natural attraction between two equals, two individuals, two multi-talented-interesting people. And that's why it works so well. We can respect eachothers headspace. We are friends.
The things I wanted fufilled weren't rigorous or difficult. I wanted an equal, who treated me as an equal, who was fun to be with, and made me smile. Someone I just felt really good being around. That sort of natural attraction that can't be manufactured. Intelligence and personality were truly the most important.
There are other geek girls AND non-geek girls like this. If someone is really worth being with, they won't care that you don't look like the ideal wo/man. And you'd be surprised how attractive most people really are, once you drop the idea of prefection.;) ---
Yay. Now you too can be part of the online meat market.
College Meat Market: Are you finishing high school? Well, sign up now. Enter your stats (GPA, test scores, etc) and how much your parents can/want to pay and be picked out like a side of meat.
Innocent Student: What you mean I don't get to put down all of my fantastic attributes like my extra-curricular activities and hobbies?(that make me a well-rounded person)
College Meat Market: Oh no, no need for all that superfluos information, we'll just pick that hunk of student meat that has enough money and high enough marks/scores.
Innocent Student: Ok, sounds like the road to higher education.
Right... hmmm... are you seeing the problem here? What happened to picking out a school based on what you wanted to study? Sure, money has to be an issue, and in the US, standardized test scores are magic numbers, but c'mon, this is your child's education... you really want to "sell" them on a website to whatever college will accept your "bid"??? Yuck!!!! ---
yes. It's the good ol' James Bond Syndrome. Media and entertainment have glamorized encryption and computers and secrets.
For example: People think that being a secret agent is really nifty because of the Mission Impossible and James Bond type movies they see. In reality, secret agents spend most of their time sitting around reading newspapers and magazines to put together little bits of information. A lot of the secrets out there are available, if you just collect enough information. A piece in this trade magazine here, a bit in that newscast there... lots of unclassified information put together creates classified information.
But you rarely see this put forth in the media/entertainment because it's not as glamourous and interesting as breaking into a well guarded room to steal a paper stamped with TOP SECRET.
Most "TOP SECRET" stuff is boring, classified for a reason, and not part of a coverup/conspiracy. People should be worrying more about having access to strong encryption for their own uses, than about what the gov't is busy encrypting for gov't purposes. ---
At the Comdex's held in Canada, it seems the rules change every year. The age restriction seems to fluctuate from anywhere between 16 and 21. But volunteers who are under the age required are allowed. Thus, I would assume exceptions could be made for exhibitors. Maybe it's different in the States, but here, although they have stupid rules, they at least have smart people, running Comdex. ---
My bf is a geek. Utterly and thoroughly, and I love him for it. I don't think I could ever date a non-geek. And while all my best friends are geeks, not all of them are single. Many a geek guy has met a girl (geeky or not) who wants more than just friendship. Most geek guys probably wouldn't really want the average girl who goes for jocks, anyways, so why mourn the loss of her. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Tragedy:
The Shakespearean tragedy occurs when a fatal character flaw means an unavoiadable
fated downfall. Does technology have a fatal flaw? If so, what is it? Will the
tragedy be a sci-fi style apocalypse? Or something less tangible and dramatic?
Would we be any better off without technology? Or is it humanity that contains
the fatal flaw?
Disney:
Disney Inc. now represents a capitalist regime. It produces cutesy films and a zillion
and one products related to said films.
Walt Disney, however, was an innovative and imaginative human. During his time, Disney
produced animation that was light years ahead. His passion was with the art and what
could be acheived. He bought the best equipment and artists he could find and he
risked trying new things.
Disney Inc. now regularly produces films, that are neither sparklingly imaginative, nor
innovative. Disney is no longer a man, unfortunately, its just another company that
wants to turn a profit.
Technology was used by Walt Disney to it's fullest extent. He pushed it to where he
wanted it to go-- which was on flights of imaginative innovation. Disney Inc, uses
technology, too... but merely as a tool for profit.
Orlando and DisneyWorld:
It's just another American city, with an American theme park. There is a stereotpe of
an American tourist abroad, the type that is generally despised. Not all Americans
are like that... it is a stereotype. But a good number are. They go to some place
in Europe, say, and photograph the tourist trap monuments, comment to eachother how
adventurous they are, and then go look for a McDonalds or Burger King to eat in. They
are not really interested in the country they are visiting. They want the themepark
version. Safe, popularised, and shallow. That is what DisneyWorld is. Orlando is a
city of contradictions... the restaurants are varied and represent flavours from many
parts of the world. (I recall a Lebanese restaurant that was stuck in a random strip
mall, but had extremely authentic and delicious Lebanese food). Beneath that sort of
cosmopolitan exterior was the same old story, though. For instance, in the time I
spent there, I saw only African-Americans working in the "menial" jobs. I doubt
that Walt Disney would be pleased with DisneyWorld or Orlando.
---
...has Katz used the term "Luddite" in every article he has written lately?
---
I did view your Karma/comment history briefly. You were giving me "pointers" on how to write, implying that mine don't deserve the time of day. My first comment on this thread has recieved a score of 4. And you seem to imply that whatever the readership comments or moderates is good. I see a certain paradox in saying that Katz's articles are worthwhile because they draw moderation and comments, yet saying that mine, which draws moderation and comments, is not. Or yours....or whatever...
Ok, My original comment was a reply to one of yours, thus its contents was intended for that comment and was no reflection on your other comments.
You have misinterpreted what I said. Here is what my second comment said:
1. I stated that comments can be an indication, but are NOT reliable. So that dispenses with your statements regarding what comments prove.2. I also said that moderation IS often a good indication. BUT, articles/stories don't get moderated! Thus, none of what I said can be considered to pertain to the "worth" Katz's articles.
As for giving you "pointers". Only one point in my original post was intended for that, and that was the point regarding the use of facts and proof. I stand by that. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to accept your statements without proof (or at least reasonable explanation). You can hold your opinions without proof, if you like, but it's to be expected that people will question their validity. I may not know the context that generated you saying that you didn't need proof, but I still think it sounds foolish.
yes, I need to work too. bye.
---
Ok, for the most part, I agree with you. I personally don't like Katz's articles. I find that he take an idea adequately discussed in a story and blows it out of proportion to create a hyped and silly opinionated feature. However, a lot of people seem genuinely interested in reading his articles, so I think it seems reasonable that he continue to post to slashdot. Neither am I really interested in "promoting" John Vranesevich. But I think that slashdot is a good site, and I don't HAVE to like everything they do, to still find worth in it. I think the post I am replying to seems a lot more thought out than the one I responded to earlier, although admittedly, I may have missed some of the context.
However...
You end with what seems an unrelated comment, with little basis:
If you assume that user replies/moderation are an accurate indicator of the intrinsic worth of a comment, then I am significantly better off than yourself. My comment/Karma history demonstrates this well. Or would you have me believe that, perhaps, there are other criterion? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Er... where did I say anything about that... maybe you are infering that I meant a lot of people responding to Katz's stories meant they had intrinsic worth ?? That's my only guess at an explanation... Replies can be an indication of a good comment, but that is a very unreliable criterion. Moderation is not infallible (thus metamoderation), but a heavily moderated comment indicates what slashdot users think. Whether we agree or not, the moderation system seems to regularly bring out good posts, so I'd say that on the whole, it does have SOMETHING to do with the intrinsic worth of a comment.
I doubt you looked at my Karma history... I am guessing you assumed that yours was "significantly better" because my article did not have an automatic +1. Actually, I just make liberal use of the "No Score +1 Bonus", unless my post is directly on topic, which it isn't really, in this thread. As for the worth of my comments otherwise, I will leave that up to the moderators and individual readers to decide on a case by case basis.
In any case, I don't really know what you meant by this last paragraph, perhaps if you could explain what it was in reference to, I could better explain myself.
---
Ok, you asked for some feedback, so here it is. I don't mean offense by any of this, I just want to help you improve your letter/article.
First, answer these questions:
What is the point of this letter?
What do you hope to accomplish with this letter?
Hopefully, with these two in mind, you can trim your article a bit. At the moment, it seems to be rambling thoughts. (I realise you said you hadn't re-read it).
My take, after having read it all, is that you want to associate those who read AntiOnline with those who are script kiddies. Fair enough. But it takes a long time to get to that point. (Do you really think someone as cuckoo as JP will learn anything from this letter anyways?? I doubt it personally).
A lot of the discussion of teenage rebellion and what computers mean in the 20th century isn't really neccessary. It doesn't further your point, and is rather obvious to most. Keep the intro that you are a high school student etc, though, that's good, it gives your opinions context.
Later on, you sorta slam AOL users and people who don't program in "real" languages. Don't bother, it just makes you look petty and again, it doesn't further your point. Condense your description of the "hax0r d00d" to one paragraph, rather than spreading it out, and then get to the good bit at the end... where you list the questions people ask you. That is effective and makes the point nicely. If you do this, I think your letter will be more succinct and effective.
I hope this helps. :) It was sincerely meant as constructive criticism. Although, I would suggest you consider your audience... If sending this letter makes you feel satisfied, then by all means do it, but I rather doubt it will have any effect on the behaviour/content of AntiOnline. I don't think they are open to criticism or interested in being a useful security site.
ps. My opinion on something: Just because something isn't text oriented doesn't mean has no value. Adobe Photoshop is an excellent program, although I personally prefer the GIMP. :)
---
1. You don't read Katz's articles, so what's the problem? If others enjoy them, then good... it shouldn't bother you that other people perhaps like reading what he has to say. If he takes "crtical mass" from other articles, it's becuase lots of people are interested in what he has to say. And if you dislike him so much, go to your preferences and set it so you don't SEE his articles. There is always a better solution than getting upset.
2.You have the right to leave slashdot. As does everyone. But slashdot has a lot of readers. If a few leave because they don't like what it has become, it won't really matter, many more will join becuase they do like what it has become. Things change with time.
4.FUD from Bill Gates or the KKK would not be relevant to Slashdot. You may not like Katz's articles, but their topics are relevant to the Slashdot crowd. They are generally based upon articles posted on Slashdot by other authors. They are his thoughts/opinions, but that is what most of the features are, whoever writes them. Everyone (including you) is entitled to their own opinion.
5.Why should you be exempt from using facts and proof? That seems a little far-fetched. If you want to convince others of your point of view, naturally they will want more than opinions. You seem to think you "know" the minds of the editors. This seems very tainted by your opinions, and facts of some sort might be useful to explain why it's more than just an opinion. You also say that a "significant portion of the mature readership objects to Katz's articles". This statement in particular seems to need something to back it up. What is this significant portion and how do you measure it? How do you know that these people belong to the mature readership? Is the mature readership any more important than the newer readership? Opinions and ideas need to be quantified or explained before they have a chance of acceptance.
My reasoning for this post is that you seem so upset. I am not saying that you need to have a different opinion. I am just suggesting that you need to allow everyone else to have their own opinion and be allowed to question yours.
A few minutes of reflection on my general statements might help you to understand my opinion in this matter:
There is always a better solution than getting upset.
Things change with time.
Everyone (including you) is entitled to their own opinion.
Opinions and ideas need to be quantified or explained before they have a chance of acceptance.
---
You should seek the advice of a lawyer. You certainly have a couple parties that you could prosecute, if your story is accurate. It would take time/energy/money which you may not be interested in spending, but I think you have reasonable cause.
First of all, if JP posted libel on his site, and didn't make an effort to verify it OR (more importantly) post a retraction/apology when it turned out to be false, then you have a case against him. And secondly, the employer who fired you is certainly on shaky legal ground. Admittedly, I don't live in the States and your laws might treat that differently, but I don't think they are allowed to fire you based on false statements about your activities... particularly if you have never been arrested/charged by the FBI and if that was their motive for firing you. Of course, it's possible they may not have explicitly used that as the reason, they could pretend it was something else, but it IS worth looking into. That sort of thing is not only personally damaging, it can make it difficult to find employment in the future.
Of course, without proper legal advice, or all the details, it is hard to judge what sort of evidence you'd have, or if you could prove your story satisfactorily to a judge. Heh, ironic... JP is always threatening to take people to court for slander, maybe it's about time he got a taste of that.
---
Treatment for clinical depression? making someone emotionally controlled to be happy isn't really a solution.. but I guess I can see your point.
Training aid? ... god, I hope not! Imagine if you were having trouble with a concept... you'd feel terrible... so much for motivation... I'd start not wanting to train at all!
---
I so wouldn't want a computer to control my emotions... how could I really feel that I was being "myself". And although it's not really related, it starts making me worry about a future where our thoughts are controlled by more than just propaganda. I think it's interesting research, but what the heck would you _really_ want to do with an emotion controlling computer??
The idea of it making me happy all the time is just as strange as the idea of it making me upset or sad... the natural range and flow of emotions is part of what makes us who we are and part of what makes us human. What would be the application of this? If any one has any ideas about a positive application, I'm interested. My paranoid mind can't think of anything that's not sinister, right now.
---
Yep, I can see that this movie would be tough to extend into a trilogy. Actually, the only part of the movie I disliked was Neo flying off at the end. It was just silly.
I suppose that there is potential for interesting stories or characters in Zion, but I'm doubtful. I think it will be very easy for this movie to go from geek/cult (and amazingly mainstream... I was surprised) to lame/formula (and stay mainstream popular, but lose the geek/cult appeal).
I think the most worrisome announcement in the article was the "super powers"... that sounds silly. I thought that the coolest part of the matrix was the story of a hacker completely and totally hacking his world/the system... (and the initial clash of realities). I think those qualities might be hard to maintain.
---
While I agree that a reason for rejected articles would be nice, it's not really feasible. I know you said a *short* reply, but when they get hundreds of submissions a day, even that is a bit much. To even have a one word reply to 400+ submissions, that would take a considerable amount of time/effort on the part of the editors. That time is likely much better spent now.
---
I have to agree with you. When I saw the distorted screen shot with GIMP in it, it occured to me that while a 3D space was a cool concept, it would be a burden for many of the apps we run now. Imagine trying to use the GIMP at that angle... ridiculous, you wouldn't have any idea what you were doing.
This makes me think of the virtual computer worlds of cyberpunk novels. That would be cool. I have nothing against 3D wm's, I just don't think they'd be useable yet. I know I'd spend most of my time with it twisted so that it looked just the same as my normal 2D wm. I think it's going to be just a fun toy for awhile, but I'm sure its time will come.
---
I certainly hope there's some such international agreement. I don't like the idea of someone buying peieces of space and defacing it. As far as I'm concerned, I think the moon belongs to me, just as much as anyone. Just like there are national parks and reserves, I think the moon (and the rest of the universe) should be an international park/reserve.
I wonder if anyone will actually pay for this, thinking they have some right to buy it and moreover that the person they are buying it from has the right to sell it. Yuck! Capitalism at its worst.
---
Would you want the ability to buy a house, get a job, anything in your life to be in the hands of your worst enemy?
Um... whoah... buy a house?? get a job??? where did you get the impression that this program will affect those things?! This program is supposed to identify who among the students who make threats is likely to carry through! As I stated, there would be concerns about confidentiality and what was done with this information after you left the school.
However, I think you've picked up on too much of Katz's FUD. A single teacher would likely have very little ability to change the output of such a program ... it's not going to rate you based on how much your teacher's dislike you! I imagine such a teacher would have to make up a lot of imaginary incidents before it could rate someone unharmful as dangerous. And besides, it's a program designed to help identify possible problems... if it's used properly (and isn't that the REAL issue here?) it will allow administrators to find out who isn't a threat and whose actions need to be taken seriously.
Of course it could be abused, like EVERYTHING school officials control. The point is, that the program might be useful or at least harmless if used PROPERLY. That's always an issue though, and if they didn't have the program, they'd have soemthing else. Better to use a program that has a knowledge base behind it to judge a student, than an educator who doesn't know much about what indicates an actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. This is a tool like any other. If abused it will cause harm, if used properly, it could help. If you're so worried, go find out more about how it's worked and been used in the federal court system and at Yale. Neither the original article nor Katz's feature offer much more than speculation and opinions.
---
Katz's articles seem to be getting more incendiary and less informed every time...
The program (which none of us has seen anyways) sounds like it is a lot more sophisticated than Katz suggests. It appears to have been utilised in reputable places, and has a lot of expertise behind it. I got the impression from the original article that this tool used a lot of factors and comparative information to judge what school administrators input about a student. It says that it differentiates between those who are just making threats and those who will carry through on threats. If that's true, it sounds like it might be useful.
I certainly didn't get the idea that geeks would be singled out by this tool -if used correctly- and persecuted. I think clueless teachers/counselors might create a profile for a geek/non-coformist, but it sounds like this program is designed to judge such a person unharmful. Of course, all this is dependant on the fact that Mosaic 2000 works like it says it does and that administrators use it properly. And mistakes could still be made. And confidential profiles could be disclosed or not discarded or whatever...
But I hardly think it's worth the uninformed FUD, that Katz is spreading. We all need to learn a little more about this program before we judge it. Sure I'm wary of it, but at this point, hardly panicking.
---
cypherpunks321 (pass=cypher)
or create your own account.. it's free and you don't even have to give them a real email address, they don't mail you your password or anything.
The above account is made out for a male from Uruguay with email guest@hotmail.com. So if, you're paranoid, they won't know anything useful about you.
---
What do you predict will be happening to cryptography techniques over the next year? 5 years? 10 years?
---
What are your thoughts on the recent reports of quantum computing and its effects on encryption?
---
Not yet. It runs on Sinux, at the moment, but I think a port is in the works. Check out the game news at Angelix.org and Demonix.net. ;)
---
I think too much attention seems to be focused on finding someone. You've gotta be able to enjoy life on your own before you can enjoy it with someone else.
I am a geek girl in a happy relationship with a geek guy. We both spend time doing geeky stuff, but we know when we need to spend time with eachother too. (to be redundant, I must reiterate... just because we are geeks, doesn't mean we are inconsiderate bastards).
As with many geeks, my high school experience was not a terrible success. I had friends, but I was certainly not a desirable candidate for the gf role. So what? I learned a lot of cool stf, and made some good friends.
When I came to university, I didn't look to find an SO... I looked to find friends. And being in the minority of a cs program at univ, all of my friends are guys. They are equals. And one of my friends became my bf. It wasn't a forced manhunt, it was a natural attraction between two equals, two individuals, two multi-talented-interesting people. And that's why it works so well. We can respect eachothers headspace. We are friends.
The things I wanted fufilled weren't rigorous or difficult. I wanted an equal, who treated me as an equal, who was fun to be with, and made me smile. Someone I just felt really good being around. That sort of natural attraction that can't be manufactured. Intelligence and personality were truly the most important.
There are other geek girls AND non-geek girls like this. If someone is really worth being with, they won't care that you don't look like the ideal wo/man. And you'd be surprised how attractive most people really are, once you drop the idea of prefection. ;)
---
Yay. Now you too can be part of the online meat market.
College Meat Market: Are you finishing high school? Well, sign up now. Enter your stats (GPA, test scores, etc) and how much your parents can/want to pay and be picked out like a side of meat.
Innocent Student: What you mean I don't get to put down all of my fantastic attributes like my extra-curricular activities and hobbies?(that make me a well-rounded person)
College Meat Market: Oh no, no need for all that superfluos information, we'll just pick that hunk of student meat that has enough money and high enough marks/scores.
Innocent Student: Ok, sounds like the road to higher education.
Right... hmmm... are you seeing the problem here? What happened to picking out a school based on what you wanted to study? Sure, money has to be an issue, and in the US, standardized test scores are magic numbers, but c'mon, this is your child's education ... you really want to "sell" them on a website to whatever college will accept your "bid"??? Yuck!!!!
---
yes. It's the good ol' James Bond Syndrome. Media and entertainment have glamorized encryption and computers and secrets.
For example: People think that being a secret agent is really nifty because of the Mission Impossible and James Bond type movies they see. In reality, secret agents spend most of their time sitting around reading newspapers and magazines to put together little bits of information. A lot of the secrets out there are available, if you just collect enough information. A piece in this trade magazine here, a bit in that newscast there... lots of unclassified information put together creates classified information.
But you rarely see this put forth in the media/entertainment because it's not as glamourous and interesting as breaking into a well guarded room to steal a paper stamped with TOP SECRET.
Most "TOP SECRET" stuff is boring, classified for a reason, and not part of a coverup/conspiracy. People should be worrying more about having access to strong encryption for their own uses, than about what the gov't is busy encrypting for gov't purposes.
---
At the Comdex's held in Canada, it seems the rules change every year. The age restriction seems to fluctuate from anywhere between 16 and 21.
But volunteers who are under the age required are allowed. Thus, I would assume exceptions could be made for exhibitors.
Maybe it's different in the States, but here, although they have stupid rules, they at least have smart people, running Comdex.
---
My bf is a geek. Utterly and thoroughly, and I love him for it. I don't think I could ever date a non-geek. And while all my best friends are geeks, not all of them are single. Many a geek guy has met a girl (geeky or not) who wants more than just friendship.
Most geek guys probably wouldn't really want the average girl who goes for jocks, anyways, so why mourn the loss of her.
---
(this one is sooo appropriate)
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/98 oct/19981011.html
---