Well, I don't know about whether or not you should have been modded down, but I do think there is an distinction between Facebook and "the internets" in general.
Facebook is designed to find out about you. It knows what you like, who you like, where you are and when you were there and most times even how you got to where you are. It stores your photos, your random thoughts and even your aspirations. This is far different from the vast majority of the internet, but you are right that at least Facebook IS more up front about letting you know what they will do with that information.
The lesson? There was an old adage I used to hear, well before the internet was in everyone's lives - the only sure way to keep a secret is to never tell it to anyone else and take it to your grave with you.
First of all, freedom of speech only means that the government cannot impede your right to express constitutionally protected speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone has to give you space on their pulpit to make your speech. So, Facebook can ban you from their site, Yahoo can moderate your comments and the local newspaper can choose not to publish your letter to the editor. You are still free to stand on a street corner and speak out about what you believe to be important.
Similarly, scientific journals do not HAVE to publish your paper. They are not obligated to. And when they have lawyers sending letters, threatening to tie up time and resources for years in a legal battle if the journal does publish your paper,you can bet that the journals will look long and hard at the costs to themselves for publishing your paper. It is not an issue of free speech - the government is not involved at all here. It is just a matter of intimidation. The industry lawyers are essentially school yard bullies, threatening to beat you up if you tell the teacher about what they've been doing. That those same lawyers know they will ultimately lose the case does not matter - they just want to threaten enough to make sure the paper never sees the light of day in a big, respectable public venue.
Is this right? Is it ethical? I'd think not. But, is this legal? Unfortunately, yes. And whatever else it may be, it is not a matter of free speech. It's much more petty and venal than that.
...do everything they can to prevent (or reduce the probability of) rape...
Which is precisely why I don't let my wife or daughters go anywhere in public without me or their uncle. And when they do go out, I make sure they are not dressed provocatively. Never can be sure. And I do not allow my daughters to date. When the time comes for them to be married, they will marry a good man I have selected for them.
I have a blog that I write and own the copyright on. Will Access Copyright send me my cut if a student happens to send a link to my blog to a friend? And what if they send a link to their own blog? Will that student now be entitled to a partial refund of their 27.50 Canadian?
Seems like this could be a revenue stream that bloggers may have to wake up to!!
I mean, the stereotype of them being neat and orderly was not far off, at least from looking at their towns and cities. Some of the cleanest urban areas I've ever seen. I can see them wanting to clean up outer space too.
As the story progresses beyond the hobbit-focused beginning and begins to link with the Silmarillion...
and
The Silmarillion was written as a mythological history for England
I tend to think that we are discussing The Silmarillion and not The Lord of The Rings. In 193 words, you mention The Hobbit twice, The Silmarillion twice and The Lord of The Rings once. What are we supposed to think you are discussing?
And when you say:
Lord of the Rings is a long, dense epic that I always plan to read "sometime" but never get around to...
how in the world are we supposed to know that you have indeed read The Lord of The Rings, but are instead talking about re-reading it?
And just to say something about the meat of the article, do not forget that Tolkien's works were written in reverse order from the way they were published. Thus, The Hobbit, which you find most accessible, was written last and the material that became The Silmarillion and The Lord of The Rings was written well before publication of There and Back Again. I wonder of the accessibility of The Hobbit is a reflection of a writer's skill increasing with time or more a function of the audience the material was aiming for?
And yet strangely enough, the post you reply to is at 5, Insightful
That, despite mostly being a discussion of writing that was not available for the Nobel Committee to consider in 1961 since The Silmarillion was not published until 1977, well after Tolkien's death in 1973. And despite the poster admitting that he had not read the books that were published and available for the committee to judge at the time JRR was nominated for the Nobel.
So, I would say instead that when a commentator that has not read the relevant books and talks instead about material that was not yet published is modded as insightful, then you know that slashdot is dead.
Maybe you should have RTFA and not just looked a the picture. The picture attached to the article shows a view of the star as seen from the planet, NOT a picture of the planet itself. They even explain that the star looks the way it does because the apparent size of the star means that it displays every color absorption at once instead of changing color gradually as Sol does here on Earth.
I can see why you would assume that was a picture of the planet, but you're wrong.
I wish I had modpoints today. This was one of the most insightful posts I've seen in a long time.
It is not just browsers that this happens with. Microsoft reaches a position of dominance, crushes viable competition and then tries to keep everything in stasis so their market share does not shrink. Then, after enough people become frustrated with the glacial pace of innovation, alternatives begin to emerge. This then forces Microsoft to re-invigorate their products to remain relevant.
Would the advances MS made with Office have happened if Open Office hadn't started to take off? Would the OS have remained where it was if Linux and Apple hadn't started nipping at Microsoft's heels? And would IE9 be anywhere near as good if Firefox hadn't grabbed such a large installed user base?
Microsoft can be innovative and they can create good products, but every once in a while they need to be kicked in the ass to remind them of that.
I've seen your post before, but on the off chance that you're not just getting paid to copy and paste, let me tell you that there IS a home button in Chrome.
Click on "Customize and Control Google Chrome" (the wrench in the upper right corner).
Click on "Options" (about two-thirds down in the list of choices, fifth from the bottom).
On the first page that opens, "Basics", in the third section down, "Toolbar", check the box for "Show Home Button".
Close out the options page and the "Home" icon will now be in your toolbar.
"looted from the workers" - in what way? The workers made an investment in time and effort and now they will reap the rewards for their patience. In what way were they "looted"?
I always tell clients that their projects can be good, fast and cheap - pick any two. Good and cheap will not be fast, fast and good will not be cheap and fast and cheap... well, you get what you pay for. Realistic goals need reliable resources, not the lowest bidder.
Why not just have your Android device use the USB connection as a hard-wired network connection and transfer files using SFTP or similar? Won't matter what file system the Android uses for local storage since all transfers will be done between operating systems, instead of using the Androids storage as an external hard drive for the Windows machine.
Ryanair are well-known for making their customers jump through ludicrous hoops to get the misleadingly low advertised price (i.e. you won't) and then nickel and dime them every step of the way
Explained brilliantly by Fascinating Aida in this video:
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't know about whether or not you should have been modded down, but I do think there is an distinction between Facebook and "the internets" in general.
Facebook is designed to find out about you. It knows what you like, who you like, where you are and when you were there and most times even how you got to where you are. It stores your photos, your random thoughts and even your aspirations. This is far different from the vast majority of the internet, but you are right that at least Facebook IS more up front about letting you know what they will do with that information.
The lesson? There was an old adage I used to hear, well before the internet was in everyone's lives - the only sure way to keep a secret is to never tell it to anyone else and take it to your grave with you.
First of all, freedom of speech only means that the government cannot impede your right to express constitutionally protected speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that someone has to give you space on their pulpit to make your speech. So, Facebook can ban you from their site, Yahoo can moderate your comments and the local newspaper can choose not to publish your letter to the editor. You are still free to stand on a street corner and speak out about what you believe to be important.
Similarly, scientific journals do not HAVE to publish your paper. They are not obligated to. And when they have lawyers sending letters, threatening to tie up time and resources for years in a legal battle if the journal does publish your paper,you can bet that the journals will look long and hard at the costs to themselves for publishing your paper. It is not an issue of free speech - the government is not involved at all here. It is just a matter of intimidation. The industry lawyers are essentially school yard bullies, threatening to beat you up if you tell the teacher about what they've been doing. That those same lawyers know they will ultimately lose the case does not matter - they just want to threaten enough to make sure the paper never sees the light of day in a big, respectable public venue.
Is this right? Is it ethical? I'd think not. But, is this legal? Unfortunately, yes. And whatever else it may be, it is not a matter of free speech. It's much more petty and venal than that.
One bad game does not mean that the other quarterback is necessarily better in EVERY game.
Did you google for it?
Yes, but the size of a VW Bug has always been a constant, thus explaining its popularity as a unit of comparative measurement.
...do everything they can to prevent (or reduce the probability of) rape...
Which is precisely why I don't let my wife or daughters go anywhere in public without me or their uncle. And when they do go out, I make sure they are not dressed provocatively. Never can be sure. And I do not allow my daughters to date. When the time comes for them to be married, they will marry a good man I have selected for them.
Obligatory -
You may have a long wait. This is Slashdot after all.
I have a blog that I write and own the copyright on. Will Access Copyright send me my cut if a student happens to send a link to my blog to a friend? And what if they send a link to their own blog? Will that student now be entitled to a partial refund of their 27.50 Canadian?
Seems like this could be a revenue stream that bloggers may have to wake up to!!
I mean, the stereotype of them being neat and orderly was not far off, at least from looking at their towns and cities. Some of the cleanest urban areas I've ever seen. I can see them wanting to clean up outer space too.
When you say things like
As the story progresses beyond the hobbit-focused beginning and begins to link with the Silmarillion...
and
The Silmarillion was written as a mythological history for England
I tend to think that we are discussing The Silmarillion and not The Lord of The Rings. In 193 words, you mention The Hobbit twice, The Silmarillion twice and The Lord of The Rings once. What are we supposed to think you are discussing?
And when you say:
Lord of the Rings is a long, dense epic that I always plan to read "sometime" but never get around to...
how in the world are we supposed to know that you have indeed read The Lord of The Rings, but are instead talking about re-reading it?
And just to say something about the meat of the article, do not forget that Tolkien's works were written in reverse order from the way they were published. Thus, The Hobbit, which you find most accessible, was written last and the material that became The Silmarillion and The Lord of The Rings was written well before publication of There and Back Again. I wonder of the accessibility of The Hobbit is a reflection of a writer's skill increasing with time or more a function of the audience the material was aiming for?
And yet strangely enough, the post you reply to is at 5, Insightful
That, despite mostly being a discussion of writing that was not available for the Nobel Committee to consider in 1961 since The Silmarillion was not published until 1977, well after Tolkien's death in 1973. And despite the poster admitting that he had not read the books that were published and available for the committee to judge at the time JRR was nominated for the Nobel.
So, I would say instead that when a commentator that has not read the relevant books and talks instead about material that was not yet published is modded as insightful, then you know that slashdot is dead.
Maybe you should have RTFA and not just looked a the picture. The picture attached to the article shows a view of the star as seen from the planet, NOT a picture of the planet itself. They even explain that the star looks the way it does because the apparent size of the star means that it displays every color absorption at once instead of changing color gradually as Sol does here on Earth.
I can see why you would assume that was a picture of the planet, but you're wrong.
I wish I had modpoints today. This was one of the most insightful posts I've seen in a long time.
It is not just browsers that this happens with. Microsoft reaches a position of dominance, crushes viable competition and then tries to keep everything in stasis so their market share does not shrink. Then, after enough people become frustrated with the glacial pace of innovation, alternatives begin to emerge. This then forces Microsoft to re-invigorate their products to remain relevant.
Would the advances MS made with Office have happened if Open Office hadn't started to take off? Would the OS have remained where it was if Linux and Apple hadn't started nipping at Microsoft's heels? And would IE9 be anywhere near as good if Firefox hadn't grabbed such a large installed user base?
Microsoft can be innovative and they can create good products, but every once in a while they need to be kicked in the ass to remind them of that.
I've seen your post before, but on the off chance that you're not just getting paid to copy and paste, let me tell you that there IS a home button in Chrome.
Click on "Customize and Control Google Chrome" (the wrench in the upper right corner).
Click on "Options" (about two-thirds down in the list of choices, fifth from the bottom).
On the first page that opens, "Basics", in the third section down, "Toolbar", check the box for "Show Home Button".
Close out the options page and the "Home" icon will now be in your toolbar.
You are special AND unique, just like everyone else...
But you're right that I bucked the usual trend by reading on Slashdot.
FTFY.
"looted from the workers" - in what way? The workers made an investment in time and effort and now they will reap the rewards for their patience. In what way were they "looted"?
I always tell clients that their projects can be good, fast and cheap - pick any two. Good and cheap will not be fast, fast and good will not be cheap and fast and cheap... well, you get what you pay for. Realistic goals need reliable resources, not the lowest bidder.
I can't think of a career where less efficient just for greed is a good thing. Always strive to be better than what you are.
You, my son, will never have a career in politics...
They would have spelled the term correctly, but to do so violates someones trademark on the term "M-a-o-r-i"
Why not just have your Android device use the USB connection as a hard-wired network connection and transfer files using SFTP or similar? Won't matter what file system the Android uses for local storage since all transfers will be done between operating systems, instead of using the Androids storage as an external hard drive for the Windows machine.
Ryanair are well-known for making their customers jump through ludicrous hoops to get the misleadingly low advertised price (i.e. you won't) and then nickel and dime them every step of the way
Explained brilliantly by Fascinating Aida in this video:
Cheap Flights
Did someone say a key party? I'm there, as long as there are hot chicks too!
The Earth has abandoned all that parochial school teaching and pick up some Trojans...
You should patent that process....