The way it will be enforced is to manually shut down any groups whose sole purpose is deemed to be file transfering.
Okay, here's a problem. I have a channel on DALnet which I use solely for the purpose of being locatable so that people can get a script from me via XDCC. Basically, it is a filesharing channel. That's all it is. The purpose for the channel is to get files from me. I am, according to DALnet staff who I mentioned this to, actually violating the policy.
My script is in the public domain though, and I'm certainly not violating any laws. Besides this channel, any group of people who, say, engage in shareware/freeware trading will also get bitten. I think it's a shame that legitimate users are going to get screwed by this misguided policy.
Or we would if there were any hope of it being enforced.:)
As a former DALnet operator / administrator and a rather long time user I can say that DALnet is simply continuing to shoot at an already bloody and bullet-riddled foot.
Way back in the day there was a lot of talk about banning child pornography (which is something that everyone can actually agree is morally wrong, as well as illegal). It was decided not to, on what I think was good advice, because the second you become a moderator of content you open yourself up to legal trouble if you fail to properly moderate that content.
Now some might say that DALnet isn't actually moderating any content, because it's worded in such a way that it simply disallows the channels. However, to disallow these channels DALnet must explicitly moderate content. It must find this 'abusive' content and put an end to it, thereby making it a moderator.
It is, in fact, the official position of DALnet staff (or so I hear) that this is the belief on the network. That the way this clause in their AUP is written prevents them from being considered a moderator. I think this is a big mistake on their part, and will ultimately come back to haunt them.
That said, DALnet has a long history of being utterly incapable of enforcing their own policies, and this is just one more of them that will probably not ever see any real enforcement. For example, DALnet was (when people could get on it) the haven of mass advertising, not to mention a breeding ground for drones and IRC worms. Despite some futile attempts to stop these activities, DALnet has been basically completely incapable of doing any serious work on these fronts.
To add to this, DALnet and its sponsors have been beleaguered by kiddies with a massive array of DDoS weaponry. They have utterly failed to address the issues which have, in large part, led to their current troubles. The main issue is that DALnet harbors a group of extremely absuive operators who basically take enjoyment out of pissing off the kiddies because they feel "invulnerable." Instead of actually just removing these destructive individuals, DALnet has kept them on and "told them not to do it anymore." Basically tantamount to saying "we don't care, keep DDoSing us."
I don't think that the few people left on DALnet right now need to worry too much about this policy, it won't likely be enforced much, if at all.
If it was a faithful reproduction I guess it would have been different. I just found it odd that the poster decided to tack on the extra line at the bottom, with no indiciation that every other portion of the message had been copied. As another post said, it was a good troll.;)
Of course I, unlike you, never demanded anyone or anything be "modded down." I didn't care that much. It's not like karma actually.. you know.. matters.
Well. That was kind of silly. I see you borrowed the text from this posting on bugtraq to whore a little karma. That's fine, but shouldn't you have been logged in?
This story is like the kindergarten example of the question of responsibility in journalism. Because of Time Magazine, millions of people now know of an excellent rifle to snipe with, a brilliant way to do it from inside the back of a car, and the ratio between sniping range and sniping accuracy.
I think there's one key difference that you're missing here, though. Time magazine doesn't have a readerbase with a significant number of serial murderers subscribed to it. Additionally, becoming a sniper isn't much like trolling on the internet. One takes significant amounts of skill, time, and money -- the other just takes a fifteen year old who has decided that "Windoze XP is for fags and I'm going to be a hax0r and terr0r1z3 the intarweb now."
The thing I'm getting at is that Slashdot has a significant group of trolls, flamebaiters, crapflooders, and all the others in its readership and they are always looking for new ways and new places to get noticed for their trolling 'sk1llz'. The editors know this, and the front page story was worded in a way that practically begged these people to go wreak havoc.
If Time magazine knew it had a readerbase which consisted of a large group of gun-toting loonies then it would, indeed, be irresponsible to publish intimate details of murder by sniping. But even that falls short of the example. To make this example really correct Time magazine would need to print an article detailing areas which are deemed 'ripe' for a sniper to attack. I'm not saying they haven't done this, because I'm sure somebody (maybe them) has. I'm just saying that for your analogy that would have been the best way to really make a proper connection, I think.
At any rate... I realize that these days "journalism" and "responsibility" are not very akin, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. And I think that on a website with a readerbase and editorship that at least feels it is above the common denominator some responsbility ought to be shown.
I'm sure this won't be a popular commentary... but do the editors here just see submissions related to Linux and hit "approve" before thinking about what they approve? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think posting this on the front page is an open invitation to all the slashtrolls to go troll somewhere new. Doubly so since these forums already got shut down as a result of trolling beforehand.
Had the editors considered this they might have noticed that not only is Slashdot rife with trolls, but that these trolls would love to go take out a site that is obviously "vulnerable" to their actions. The forums may be read-only now, but if they become rw any time soon they may not last long because of poorly considered decisions like "let's post an open invitation to troll on the slashdot front page."
The thing is, I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy, but sometimes it isn't responsible to print things like this. Especially when you know you're likely to get a bad (bad for others) reaction from your audience.
Think before you approve, guys. Er, end maybe edit once in a while too?;)
I'm surprised he didn't say more about how godawful the quality of syndicated comics is these days. They're so bland and unentertaining that it hurts to even look at them. I think the best thing the internet has done for comics is to allow some really great offbeat stuff (like Diesel Sweeties) to exist and get some recognition. In a print-only world some really good, funny comics would never be seen by most people.
In fact, I think the great thing about the internet in general, and something that still hasn't been fully embraced, is the ability to self-publish. In days gone by it was only possible to self publish in a small geographic region without spending a lot of money. These days I can self publish media of many forms online with no muss or fuss, and people from all over the world can look at my writing, listen to my music, or watch my home videos(heh, right..).
I guess at the end of the day it's about empowerment. The internet empowers me by allowing me to find what I want, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm certainly better equipped to do it than the suits who only look for the lowest common denominator and play to that. Also, of course, it empowers the artist to not only be able to create and publish, but to reach a large global audience without the aid of a middle-man. Overall, it's the removal of a rather shoddy bidirectional filter.
On the flip side, of course, the internet has caused the downfall of the community artist, and it's only going to get worse. Around here, local alternative press is all but dead. I mean, who wants to read poorly printed dead tree stuff when you can go to poorly designed websites instead, and for no money? And since that's the mentality, why pay to print it at all? The sad thing is, of course, that local "scenes" will continue to fade away like this, especially as music and movies become more easy to retrieve online, and to publish. I guess it's the death of the local community in order to give birth to the global.
If you take a defeatist attitude to a task, there will never be much hope in completing it. It's like giving up the race before you come out of the gate.
Let my throw a little example in here. My grilf's daughter is a short-track speed skater (olympic class), so I actually kind of pay attention to speed skating in the olympics. Some of you may recall that the Australian men actually won a speed skating event in the winter olympics. Now, since my grilf is Australian, I know well of the shitty state of Australian speed skating. In general, the country has as much hope of winning in this event at the olympics as you do of not seeing an "in soviet russia" post when you browse at -1.
However, by various luck and effort, in one of the races, someone from the Australian team actually.. well.. won. A lot of it had to do with the bad luck of other competitors, but still, he wouldn't have won if he hadn't actually been trying the whole way through. It is totally reasonable for these skaters to believe they have no real shot at winning, but they don't give up before the race anyways.
If you're going to give up before you start, I hope you simply keep away from the voting/legislation system. People with defeatist/it-doesn't-matter-anyways attitudes should not vote "just because." Like I said in another post, I am glad the US does not legally require voting. It lets only the people interested enough to vote control the system. This is as it should be. If you aren't interested enough in change to commit to it, then stay the hell away from the system. Please.
Now that I'm done being tangential, I can go to bed.;)
Yes. Thank you. I really do get tired of hearing about how it sucks that you get busted for breaking the law. Also, I greatly appreciate the OBSD reference you tucked in there. What a pleasant easter-egg in a post.;)
I guess it seems like people have forgotten that the system is indeed set up so that they can make a difference. People alternatively bitch about elected officials and don't vote, or bitch about all politicians being "the same" and continue to enforce the two-party system (in the US) at the same time by refusing to do anything more than watch debates on TV. It's really frustrating.
On the other hand, at least the US doesn't have legally mandated voting. That would doubleplussuck!;)
Does "Big Brother" really give two farts about whether or not I am speeding, though? I mean, if you're going to be paranoid at least be paranoid about something worthwhile. I don't even think it's so much easier to watch me than it was before. In the days of yore people had a lot less information swirling around, and so you could learn all there was to know about someone without having to collect and save the data. It wasn't too tough, back in the day, for BB to find out all about you through what some would call 'conventional methods' (using spies/trackers/etc). I think that BB has simply been keeping up with the times. We are no more or less secure now than we were before, it's just that our (in)security has changed.
Furthermore, why is everyone so upset about getting caught speeding? Don't want to get caught? Don't do it. If you don't like the laws, then use the appropriate paths (voting, lobbying, running for office) to get the laws fixed. Don't grouse because now all of a sudden you can be caught breaking the law. If the law seems inappropriate to you then get it fixed. Don't let bad laws sit and gain acceptance with age. There are a lot of silly/bad laws out there that only exist because people ignore them or go around them since "it's not a big deal." It's ridiculous. Don't ignore the law, change it!
Duke Nukem Forever is looking better than ever. No, really. It's going to rock! This will be the ultimate computer game. Really. It's gonna be great. I'll see you all in line at Best Buy!
Okay, can you tell me (without looking it up) the difference between Paraguay and Uruguay? How about Zaire and Zimbabwe? There are a very large number oc countries in the world, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to know about even half of them that well. Have you never confused one country for another?
This attitude that americans are the only people who are capable of mistaking one country for another is getting really old. When you live in a country of this size it's pretty easy to forget the difference between Sweden and Switzerland, especially when neither country has much obvious impact on your life.
Of a more general principle. It's not per se a bad thing to check up on people who you plan to share intimate time/contact/etc with. Just be careful that you don't let your imagination run away with you, or believe everything you hear. I'm sure I've seen the concept played out in many a movie/television show/etc.
It's just a general principle of being wary, both of walking blindly into relationships and blindly following the words of others. Google simply provides a new path to doing background research on people.
If you could put cameras on these things they would be great for espionage. I imagine the military would love to see some tiny radio controlled flying vehicles with video capture capability.
Yeah, I just gave it a shot looking for a very particular piece of jewelry and I found it within about three minutes. I was really impressed. Even better, Froogle is in beta! If it already works this will as a beta product I can only imagine how great it will be when it has been rolled out.
I wonder if, given that Froogle could become quite popular, this will make it easier for small independent web-vendors to compete against giants like Amazon. One of the things I do like about Amazon is that it's pretty easy to find what I'm looking for, and they have lots of stuff (shady business/patent practices aside). However, if Froogle makes it this easy for me to find stuff from multiple small vendors then I might just stick with that.
It seems like google is never content to rest on its laurels. Unlike some of the goneby search engines of the past it seems to be interested in doing more than pimping out its popularity to commercial interests at the cost of its quality. Hopefully they'll continue on this track for a long time to come. None of this stuff is revolutionary, but it does seem to be at least nifty. And that's all google needs at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, here's a problem. I have a channel on DALnet which I use solely for the purpose of being locatable so that people can get a script from me via XDCC. Basically, it is a filesharing channel. That's all it is. The purpose for the channel is to get files from me. I am, according to DALnet staff who I mentioned this to, actually violating the policy.
My script is in the public domain though, and I'm certainly not violating any laws. Besides this channel, any group of people who, say, engage in shareware/freeware trading will also get bitten. I think it's a shame that legitimate users are going to get screwed by this misguided policy.
Or we would if there were any hope of it being enforced.
As a former DALnet operator / administrator and a rather long time user I can say that DALnet is simply continuing to shoot at an already bloody and bullet-riddled foot.
Way back in the day there was a lot of talk about banning child pornography (which is something that everyone can actually agree is morally wrong, as well as illegal). It was decided not to, on what I think was good advice, because the second you become a moderator of content you open yourself up to legal trouble if you fail to properly moderate that content.
Now some might say that DALnet isn't actually moderating any content, because it's worded in such a way that it simply disallows the channels. However, to disallow these channels DALnet must explicitly moderate content. It must find this 'abusive' content and put an end to it, thereby making it a moderator.
It is, in fact, the official position of DALnet staff (or so I hear) that this is the belief on the network. That the way this clause in their AUP is written prevents them from being considered a moderator. I think this is a big mistake on their part, and will ultimately come back to haunt them.
That said, DALnet has a long history of being utterly incapable of enforcing their own policies, and this is just one more of them that will probably not ever see any real enforcement. For example, DALnet was (when people could get on it) the haven of mass advertising, not to mention a breeding ground for drones and IRC worms. Despite some futile attempts to stop these activities, DALnet has been basically completely incapable of doing any serious work on these fronts.
To add to this, DALnet and its sponsors have been beleaguered by kiddies with a massive array of DDoS weaponry. They have utterly failed to address the issues which have, in large part, led to their current troubles. The main issue is that DALnet harbors a group of extremely absuive operators who basically take enjoyment out of pissing off the kiddies because they feel "invulnerable." Instead of actually just removing these destructive individuals, DALnet has kept them on and "told them not to do it anymore." Basically tantamount to saying "we don't care, keep DDoSing us."
I don't think that the few people left on DALnet right now need to worry too much about this policy, it won't likely be enforced much, if at all.
How about "SVG's Very Good"?
If it was a faithful reproduction I guess it would have been different. I just found it odd that the poster decided to tack on the extra line at the bottom, with no indiciation that every other portion of the message had been copied. As another post said, it was a good troll. ;)
Of course I, unlike you, never demanded anyone or anything be "modded down." I didn't care that much. It's not like karma actually.. you know.. matters.
Well. That was kind of silly. I see you borrowed the text from this posting on bugtraq to whore a little karma. That's fine, but shouldn't you have been logged in?
I think there's one key difference that you're missing here, though. Time magazine doesn't have a readerbase with a significant number of serial murderers subscribed to it. Additionally, becoming a sniper isn't much like trolling on the internet. One takes significant amounts of skill, time, and money -- the other just takes a fifteen year old who has decided that "Windoze XP is for fags and I'm going to be a hax0r and terr0r1z3 the intarweb now."
The thing I'm getting at is that Slashdot has a significant group of trolls, flamebaiters, crapflooders, and all the others in its readership and they are always looking for new ways and new places to get noticed for their trolling 'sk1llz'. The editors know this, and the front page story was worded in a way that practically begged these people to go wreak havoc.
If Time magazine knew it had a readerbase which consisted of a large group of gun-toting loonies then it would, indeed, be irresponsible to publish intimate details of murder by sniping. But even that falls short of the example. To make this example really correct Time magazine would need to print an article detailing areas which are deemed 'ripe' for a sniper to attack. I'm not saying they haven't done this, because I'm sure somebody (maybe them) has. I'm just saying that for your analogy that would have been the best way to really make a proper connection, I think.
At any rate... I realize that these days "journalism" and "responsibility" are not very akin, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be. And I think that on a website with a readerbase and editorship that at least feels it is above the common denominator some responsbility ought to be shown.
I'm sure this won't be a popular commentary... but do the editors here just see submissions related to Linux and hit "approve" before thinking about what they approve? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think posting this on the front page is an open invitation to all the slashtrolls to go troll somewhere new. Doubly so since these forums already got shut down as a result of trolling beforehand.
;)
Had the editors considered this they might have noticed that not only is Slashdot rife with trolls, but that these trolls would love to go take out a site that is obviously "vulnerable" to their actions. The forums may be read-only now, but if they become rw any time soon they may not last long because of poorly considered decisions like "let's post an open invitation to troll on the slashdot front page."
The thing is, I'm not saying this isn't newsworthy, but sometimes it isn't responsible to print things like this. Especially when you know you're likely to get a bad (bad for others) reaction from your audience.
Think before you approve, guys. Er, end maybe edit once in a while too?
I'm surprised he didn't say more about how godawful the quality of syndicated comics is these days. They're so bland and unentertaining that it hurts to even look at them. I think the best thing the internet has done for comics is to allow some really great offbeat stuff (like Diesel Sweeties) to exist and get some recognition. In a print-only world some really good, funny comics would never be seen by most people.
In fact, I think the great thing about the internet in general, and something that still hasn't been fully embraced, is the ability to self-publish. In days gone by it was only possible to self publish in a small geographic region without spending a lot of money. These days I can self publish media of many forms online with no muss or fuss, and people from all over the world can look at my writing, listen to my music, or watch my home videos(heh, right..).
I guess at the end of the day it's about empowerment. The internet empowers me by allowing me to find what I want, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm certainly better equipped to do it than the suits who only look for the lowest common denominator and play to that. Also, of course, it empowers the artist to not only be able to create and publish, but to reach a large global audience without the aid of a middle-man. Overall, it's the removal of a rather shoddy bidirectional filter.
On the flip side, of course, the internet has caused the downfall of the community artist, and it's only going to get worse. Around here, local alternative press is all but dead. I mean, who wants to read poorly printed dead tree stuff when you can go to poorly designed websites instead, and for no money? And since that's the mentality, why pay to print it at all? The sad thing is, of course, that local "scenes" will continue to fade away like this, especially as music and movies become more easy to retrieve online, and to publish. I guess it's the death of the local community in order to give birth to the global.
If you take a defeatist attitude to a task, there will never be much hope in completing it. It's like giving up the race before you come out of the gate.
;)
Let my throw a little example in here. My grilf's daughter is a short-track speed skater (olympic class), so I actually kind of pay attention to speed skating in the olympics. Some of you may recall that the Australian men actually won a speed skating event in the winter olympics. Now, since my grilf is Australian, I know well of the shitty state of Australian speed skating. In general, the country has as much hope of winning in this event at the olympics as you do of not seeing an "in soviet russia" post when you browse at -1.
However, by various luck and effort, in one of the races, someone from the Australian team actually.. well.. won. A lot of it had to do with the bad luck of other competitors, but still, he wouldn't have won if he hadn't actually been trying the whole way through. It is totally reasonable for these skaters to believe they have no real shot at winning, but they don't give up before the race anyways.
If you're going to give up before you start, I hope you simply keep away from the voting/legislation system. People with defeatist/it-doesn't-matter-anyways attitudes should not vote "just because." Like I said in another post, I am glad the US does not legally require voting. It lets only the people interested enough to vote control the system. This is as it should be. If you aren't interested enough in change to commit to it, then stay the hell away from the system. Please.
Now that I'm done being tangential, I can go to bed.
Yes. Thank you. I really do get tired of hearing about how it sucks that you get busted for breaking the law. Also, I greatly appreciate the OBSD reference you tucked in there. What a pleasant easter-egg in a post. ;)
;)
I guess it seems like people have forgotten that the system is indeed set up so that they can make a difference. People alternatively bitch about elected officials and don't vote, or bitch about all politicians being "the same" and continue to enforce the two-party system (in the US) at the same time by refusing to do anything more than watch debates on TV. It's really frustrating.
On the other hand, at least the US doesn't have legally mandated voting. That would doubleplussuck!
Does "Big Brother" really give two farts about whether or not I am speeding, though? I mean, if you're going to be paranoid at least be paranoid about something worthwhile. I don't even think it's so much easier to watch me than it was before. In the days of yore people had a lot less information swirling around, and so you could learn all there was to know about someone without having to collect and save the data. It wasn't too tough, back in the day, for BB to find out all about you through what some would call 'conventional methods' (using spies/trackers/etc). I think that BB has simply been keeping up with the times. We are no more or less secure now than we were before, it's just that our (in)security has changed.
Furthermore, why is everyone so upset about getting caught speeding? Don't want to get caught? Don't do it. If you don't like the laws, then use the appropriate paths (voting, lobbying, running for office) to get the laws fixed. Don't grouse because now all of a sudden you can be caught breaking the law. If the law seems inappropriate to you then get it fixed. Don't let bad laws sit and gain acceptance with age. There are a lot of silly/bad laws out there that only exist because people ignore them or go around them since "it's not a big deal." It's ridiculous. Don't ignore the law, change it!
Duke Nukem Forever is looking better than ever. No, really. It's going to rock! This will be the ultimate computer game. Really. It's gonna be great. I'll see you all in line at Best Buy!
Okay, can you tell me (without looking it up) the difference between Paraguay and Uruguay? How about Zaire and Zimbabwe? There are a very large number oc countries in the world, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to know about even half of them that well. Have you never confused one country for another?
This attitude that americans are the only people who are capable of mistaking one country for another is getting really old. When you live in a country of this size it's pretty easy to forget the difference between Sweden and Switzerland, especially when neither country has much obvious impact on your life.
Of a more general principle. It's not per se a bad thing to check up on people who you plan to share intimate time/contact/etc with. Just be careful that you don't let your imagination run away with you, or believe everything you hear. I'm sure I've seen the concept played out in many a movie/television show/etc.
It's just a general principle of being wary, both of walking blindly into relationships and blindly following the words of others. Google simply provides a new path to doing background research on people.
If you could put cameras on these things they would be great for espionage. I imagine the military would love to see some tiny radio controlled flying vehicles with video capture capability.
Yeah, I just gave it a shot looking for a very particular piece of jewelry and I found it within about three minutes. I was really impressed. Even better, Froogle is in beta! If it already works this will as a beta product I can only imagine how great it will be when it has been rolled out.
I wonder if, given that Froogle could become quite popular, this will make it easier for small independent web-vendors to compete against giants like Amazon. One of the things I do like about Amazon is that it's pretty easy to find what I'm looking for, and they have lots of stuff (shady business/patent practices aside). However, if Froogle makes it this easy for me to find stuff from multiple small vendors then I might just stick with that.
It seems like google is never content to rest on its laurels. Unlike some of the goneby search engines of the past it seems to be interested in doing more than pimping out its popularity to commercial interests at the cost of its quality. Hopefully they'll continue on this track for a long time to come. None of this stuff is revolutionary, but it does seem to be at least nifty. And that's all google needs at this point.