The question remains... will English Teachers/Professors view Veropedia as a valid source? I somehow doubt it as they seem to be in love with print sources (atleast from my experience).
No. The fact that wiki is user editable is not the reason professors dislike it. It's because wiki is an encyclopedia. While an encyclopedia is a fine place to get background on a research project, it isn't a primary source and hence isn't citable. Note that the same is true for Britannica.
The point of a research project/paper isn't to provide a regurgitation summary. It's to come up with your own angle on a topic based on original evidence, which isn't something one can glean from an encyclopedia synopsis.
If you're out of middle school, you shouldn't be citing encyclopedias.
Do you think you're everyone's Mom? Do we all need your advice on how fast we should go on each stretch of road in every weather and traffic condition at every time of the day?
I have a vested interest in knowing that there are laws to prevent morons from driving a 3000lb vehicle 90mph on surface streets.
Unless of course you're fine with the police using broad discretion for tickets rather than posted limits.
I take issue with your implication that "tech savvy" means is the same thing as "I enjoy this technology"
If you'll read it, that's the thesis of my original argument - that assertion is of course incorrect, but it's the implicit assumption of the many stories that applaud the kids' use of 'technology'.
I think it would be much better to define it as technical plasticity - the ability to learn to competently use new technologies. And by that definition, yes, I think younger generations are much more tech savvy than older people.
Which I also stated. The point is that it's not some innate ability of the people who are now young; they will lose the same advantage to the people who will be young in 20 years.
You might not like text messaging, but you figured out how to do it -- which is something most older people can't figure out for themselves.
But I'm only 30. Give me 20 years and we'll see how I'm doing. Better example - I like C++ and python just fine and can't adapt easily to the whole web 2.0 crap. It probably passed me by. People tend to become attached to the technology that they learned when they were young. And again, the current generation isn't more 'tech savvy' than the last - the only thing that's changed is what is actually considered 'high tech.'
In other words, there's nothing special about this particular generation. Their ability to grasp new technology will, as a whole, fade as their parents and grandparents did.
These stories simply reflect the fact that, for any value of N, people in generation N-1 generally do not understand technology that became available during the childhood of generation N. This does not make generation N more technically savvy than generation N-1; by the time generation N+1 comes around, generation N will not understand the stuff they have. This was just as true for the baby boomers using remote controls and VCRs that their parents couldn't understand as it is for me using computers that the boomers have trouble with. It didn't mean that the boomers were geniuses because they could use a VCR.
Probably sort of like how my mom can't figure out the internet really well, which I think is rather simple; on the other hand, I can't understand the compulsion 'them darned kids' have for constantly text messaging each other.
Just because you can use mass-market electronic goods does not make one 'technically savvy'.
Give us the story, facts-only. Let us decide if it's an assault on free speech. Allowing the reader to come to that conclusion on their own is far more powerful and effective.
I don't care what the motivation is, anytime someone needs to get permission from a government to express their views, that's an assault on free speech.
The more controversial question is whether it's an assault on free speech designed to stifle criticism of the government.
No it's not. It's a concrete, proveable assertion, unlike the vague conclusionary claims of things that generally fall under the canopy of 'Social Darwinism'. However, the evidence I've seen does indicate a correlation between low IQ and violent crime. That doesn't suggest a direct causation.
What other industry is there that abuses their customers like this? I feel like I'm being accused of criminal activity from the first second I install a MS product now.
This is slashdot. I'll give you two guesses, and they both end in 'AA'.
That is why software patents need to disappear, since all someone has to do is come up with a flowchart, and the idea can be patented
That is why mechanical patents need to disappear, since all someone has to do is come up with a CAD drawing, and the idea can be patented.
Really, there's nothing wrong with software patents per se - it's just that the most egregious patent stupidity has involved software. But that's not to say that an innovative algorithm implemented in code instead of gears deserves any more or less protection.
It'd be interesting to see if this can be replicated and used as a medical device.
It's been done. In most cases the dogs are still far more sensitive, but in some cases the device is still sensitive enough. One exception is detection of biogenic amines, which are markers for kidney failure among other things. For those, specific types of sensors are actually more sensitive than the dogs by a fair margin.
Am I the only person (in the UK) who saw the Tomorrow's World back in the days of Phillipa Forester or earlier where they had something IDENTICAL to this and were "on the verge" of commercialising it.
This is in fact old news. The first publication from this research group regarding chemical sensing was in 1995. I don't think any major breakthroughs have been made recently.
See this is where digg clearly has the upper hand. I mean you could take away KR for days and digg would just keep going (and going, and going....) Hell I think he's been in a hole for the past entire year;)
It works here too. The slashdot server has a daemon process called 'kdawson' that puts random submissions on the front page. I think it's in line for a promotion to senior editor as soon as it gets its 'Turing Test' accreditation.
Does that sound like they're proud to be bloat and have no plans to reduce because machines are getting bigger?
No, but it makes sense in a twisted way for MS. What are they averaging, 5 years between major releases? When you have that long between releases you have to balance the featureset you want to include against the fact that it's going to be a long time before the next OS release. As a result, it makes sense that you design it such that the full 'experience' will just barely run on a decent new machine at release.
This does illustrate the utility of more frequent releases.
He changed the license from the original. He specifically chose the GPL. It was a conscious decision on his part.
Though not necessarily for the reasons you assume.
Did I say that his goal was "to change the world"? No? I didn't think I did.
Sounds like that was an allusion to 'Linux is about Freedom', which seems an attempt to refute the notion that including closed-source packages with a Linux distro is OK. This was the original point of the thread, correct? There are two problems with this: 1) it puts words in Linus' mouth which his previous statements tends to refute, and 2) it blurs the line between the kernel and the distribution.
From what I can tell, Linus doesn't like including closed-source *drivers* in the kernel because it makes maintenance a nightmare. But that has nothing to do with closed-source *applications*, which I've never heard Linus have a real problem with.
Linus is frequently on record as saying he puts the goal of making top-quality software higher than any political agenda. See any of his many comments against the GPLv3.
Ahh, the old chestnut about "true" capitalists really loving socialis...I mean "regulation" to "keep things fair".
Ah, the old false dichotomy that equates anything short of anarchy with socialism.
You know, that would make great sense if we were talking about something like, say, oil. Or power. Or food. Or maybe even copper laid partially at the taxpayer's expense. Or phones using public airwaves. You know, something that _exists_ and is limited and "important".
Nothing in anti-trust law says that protection is limited to something deemed 'important'. It also is not limited to selling physical goods. And in today's economy, software is pretty danged important anyway.
People have chosen to buy MS's operating systems because they like them.
Or because they really don't have a choice given MS's proven monopolistic practices.
That gave MS the power, in the past, to dictate terms to companies. That should have been fine...
Except that it was illegal.
but if enough nerds and competitors whine it became an issue.
Yeah, nerds like the DOJ and attorneys general for a whole lot of states. Ad hominem attacks, always the last resort when reason fails. Wait, I thought you said people loved Windows, why would the 'nerds' complain?
The simple fact, however, is that even if Microsoft instituted an across the board price with well defined bulk purchasing discounts and no "special deal" they would still dominate the OS market.
If that were the case, why would they need to strongarm manufacturers not to sell other operating systems?
The OS market is one that demands a monopoly,
Note that simply possessing the Windows monopoly is not illegal. It's their history of predatory marketing that is. Also note that with open standards, there's absolutely no reason that an OS monopoly is necessary for interoperability. That's the result of MS intentionally making it difficult/impossible for other systems to interact with it.
and no amount of hand-wringing or nerdish "n-glaven!" ranting will change that.
What the hell is n-glaven? Oh, and what is your relationship with Microsoft, anyway? Employee?
People liking windows has never been an issue. If your customers like Windows better than whateverthehell version of unix or linux you prefer, that's their option. The problem has been when MS has threatened a vendor with not selling Windows if they continue to sell non-MS machines. And MS has done this. And it violates the Sherman Anti-trust act.
We're not talking about a non-competitive company bitching because it lost, as you seem to imply. We're talking about a company that's illegaly leveragaing a monopoly into various business areas in ways that aren't in the consumer's best interests.
We're talking about an actually *convicted* (by the DOJ) monopolist. So to say that people feel that Windows is better than Linux because its market share is higher might be a specious argument.
As far as unbundling, I'm divided. One one hand, I have no desire to use the worthless MS crap. On the other, I would point out to the author that Windows and other operating systems are treated differently specificically because of MS's high market share which other systems don't share.
In the end, I can't tell if the parent poster is a true capitalist who doesn't understand the damage monopolies bring, or simply a MS astroturfer.
It's not about content length or page count. I think most people here have read long articles or other works online before. The key is that they have to be *interesting*.
I don't know about that - I can personally attest that I've stopped reading things because of the moronic pagination on the web. I read fairly quickly, and there have been many times that I simply gave up because I was spending more time watching the page load than actually reading it.
You're right - articles on web or elsewhere have to be interesting. And a ton of page loads is one of the best ways to kill that, in my opinion. It's not web specific - what if newspapers split columns across 7 different pages and made you wait 20 seconds before you were allowed to turn the page? When I'm reading something, I don't like being interrupted, and I don't think I'm alone.
You might think I'm exaggerating, but I've actually seen articles split into up to 10 different pages with two short paragraphs per page. I can read a couple of short paragraphs in 5-10 seconds. I don't want to get the next page every 10 seconds. I won't read it.
If writers are perceiving a lower demand for longer articles, it's probably because they break them up into 57 pages of three sentences each, with 20 second page loads in between thanks to a bunch of flash ads.
Don't have an account myself, but I know an Englishman who might find your offer interesting. Name's Arthur - good chap but a little daft. Haven't seen him for ages myself; living in a cave last I saw. Not sure what his liquidity situation is.
I've got the same problem with movies. No way I'm spending $10 for 90 minutes of entertainment. So, if anyone knows some actors, film crew, etc. I am willing to pay salaries, as long as we can keep the entire budget under about 7 dollars.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think all of those 'questions' you addressed would be objected to, and stricken, based on the fact they they're all hearsay (the various studies) or leading the witness.
There's a reason lawyers don't play that game with expert witnesses - if you ask them 'does everyone in your field agree with you?' he will answer 'everyone who knows what they're doing.' If you want to counter Sherman's hypothetical testimony, you're going to have to bring in the expert parade - you can't just hand him a stack of research papers and badger him about them because that's not going to be admissable.
Whether you would want to bring in other experts to address the actual harm committed by piracy is another matter, but I think her defense is still that she didn't do it.
Otherwise, the best thing you can do is ask him about the claims he's making, who reached the conclusions he's repeating, and who funded the research. That's about all.
They've only established that they could personally commit an act of computer
tresspass and take files off of her machine.
I don't think it would be considered trespassing if it's on a kazaa share. That sounds like people griping because you 'steal' info they've stuck in their/var/www/htdocs directory
They have not established that she pirated the music files that were in her possession.
True.
At worst, they could demonstrate that she's the sort of person that would spend money like a drunken sailor at Best Buy and then go home and offer all of the CD's she bought online.
Unfortunately, that's bad in itself. I can't remember - how did that legal argument go where they claimed that offering something for download counted as infringement? I can't recall the outcome of that.
Modern software has taking something along the lines of putting up an 80's era pirate BBS
and turned it into something completely automated, completely casual and something that
the clueless could do by mistake.
Possible...I don't use Kazaa - does it actually share the 'Music' folder by default? Devil's in the details there, but I haven't seen them. I'd assumed from the nature of the defense that the prosecution had them on that one. Bonus points for BBS nostaligia. Ah, the good old pre-AOL days.
So if she can show that a default install of Kazaa would cause her Music folder to be shared without action on her part, then I buy it. But if she has to do something to cause it to be shared, she's going to have some trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
The question remains... will English Teachers/Professors view Veropedia as a valid source? I somehow doubt it as they seem to be in love with print sources (atleast from my experience).
No. The fact that wiki is user editable is not the reason professors dislike it. It's because wiki is an encyclopedia. While an encyclopedia is a fine place to get background on a research project, it isn't a primary source and hence isn't citable. Note that the same is true for Britannica.
The point of a research project/paper isn't to provide a regurgitation summary. It's to come up with your own angle on a topic based on original evidence, which isn't something one can glean from an encyclopedia synopsis.
If you're out of middle school, you shouldn't be citing encyclopedias.
Do you think you're everyone's Mom? Do we all need your advice on how fast we should go on each stretch of road in every weather and traffic condition at every time of the day?
I have a vested interest in knowing that there are laws to prevent morons from driving a 3000lb vehicle 90mph on surface streets.
Unless of course you're fine with the police using broad discretion for tickets rather than posted limits.
Now if they could just get the ISPs to charge reasonable prices for those connections...
$20/mo for DSL isn't reasonable?
I take issue with your implication that "tech savvy" means is the same thing as "I enjoy this technology"
If you'll read it, that's the thesis of my original argument - that assertion is of course incorrect, but it's the implicit assumption of the many stories that applaud the kids' use of 'technology'.
I think it would be much better to define it as technical plasticity - the ability to learn to competently use new technologies. And by that definition, yes, I think younger generations are much more tech savvy than older people.
Which I also stated. The point is that it's not some innate ability of the people who are now young; they will lose the same advantage to the people who will be young in 20 years.
You might not like text messaging, but you figured out how to do it -- which is something most older people can't figure out for themselves.
But I'm only 30. Give me 20 years and we'll see how I'm doing. Better example - I like C++ and python just fine and can't adapt easily to the whole web 2.0 crap. It probably passed me by. People tend to become attached to the technology that they learned when they were young. And again, the current generation isn't more 'tech savvy' than the last - the only thing that's changed is what is actually considered 'high tech.'
In other words, there's nothing special about this particular generation. Their ability to grasp new technology will, as a whole, fade as their parents and grandparents did.
These stories simply reflect the fact that, for any value of N, people in generation N-1 generally do not understand technology that became available during the childhood of generation N. This does not make generation N more technically savvy than generation N-1; by the time generation N+1 comes around, generation N will not understand the stuff they have. This was just as true for the baby boomers using remote controls and VCRs that their parents couldn't understand as it is for me using computers that the boomers have trouble with. It didn't mean that the boomers were geniuses because they could use a VCR.
Probably sort of like how my mom can't figure out the internet really well, which I think is rather simple; on the other hand, I can't understand the compulsion 'them darned kids' have for constantly text messaging each other.
Just because you can use mass-market electronic goods does not make one 'technically savvy'.
Give us the story, facts-only. Let us decide if it's an assault on free speech. Allowing the reader to come to that conclusion on their own is far more powerful and effective.
I don't care what the motivation is, anytime someone needs to get permission from a government to express their views, that's an assault on free speech.
The more controversial question is whether it's an assault on free speech designed to stifle criticism of the government.
m != M ...or is it just me? MB and Mb...let's use them correctly. [/rant]
No, this guy's just finally managed to get 200 millibits per second. Get yer bits, once every 5 seconds...
No it's not. It's a concrete, proveable assertion, unlike the vague conclusionary claims of things that generally fall under the canopy of 'Social Darwinism'. However, the evidence I've seen does indicate a correlation between low IQ and violent crime. That doesn't suggest a direct causation.
What other industry is there that abuses their customers like this? I feel like I'm being accused of criminal activity from the first second I install a MS product now.
This is slashdot. I'll give you two guesses, and they both end in 'AA'.
When was the "fooled me once" time? I don't think it's twice yet.
XP activation issues?
That is why software patents need to disappear, since all someone has to do is come up with a flowchart, and the idea can be patented
That is why mechanical patents need to disappear, since all someone has to do is come up with a CAD drawing, and the idea can be patented.
Really, there's nothing wrong with software patents per se - it's just that the most egregious patent stupidity has involved software. But that's not to say that an innovative algorithm implemented in code instead of gears deserves any more or less protection.
It'd be interesting to see if this can be replicated and used as a medical device.
It's been done. In most cases the dogs are still far more sensitive, but in some cases the device is still sensitive enough. One exception is detection of biogenic amines, which are markers for kidney failure among other things. For those, specific types of sensors are actually more sensitive than the dogs by a fair margin.
Am I the only person (in the UK) who saw the Tomorrow's World back in the days of Phillipa Forester or earlier where they had something IDENTICAL to this and were "on the verge" of commercialising it.
This is in fact old news. The first publication from this research group regarding chemical sensing was in 1995. I don't think any major breakthroughs have been made recently.
See http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/7/2652
That's not to say it isn't interesting - I have experience in the chemical sensing field so I think it's cool - but it's definitely not news.
See this is where digg clearly has the upper hand. I mean you could take away KR for days and digg would just keep going (and going, and going....) Hell I think he's been in a hole for the past entire year ;)
It works here too. The slashdot server has a daemon process called 'kdawson' that puts random submissions on the front page. I think it's in line for a promotion to senior editor as soon as it gets its 'Turing Test' accreditation.
What's the old quote? We've already established you're a whore, now we're just haggling on price.
Does that sound like they're proud to be bloat and have no plans to reduce because machines are getting bigger?
No, but it makes sense in a twisted way for MS. What are they averaging, 5 years between major releases? When you have that long between releases you have to balance the featureset you want to include against the fact that it's going to be a long time before the next OS release. As a result, it makes sense that you design it such that the full 'experience' will just barely run on a decent new machine at release.
This does illustrate the utility of more frequent releases.
He changed the license from the original. He specifically chose the GPL. It was a conscious decision on his part.
Though not necessarily for the reasons you assume.
Did I say that his goal was "to change the world"? No? I didn't think I did.
Sounds like that was an allusion to 'Linux is about Freedom', which seems an attempt to refute the notion that including closed-source packages with a Linux distro is OK. This was the original point of the thread, correct? There are two problems with this: 1) it puts words in Linus' mouth which his previous statements tends to refute, and 2) it blurs the line between the kernel and the distribution.
From what I can tell, Linus doesn't like including closed-source *drivers* in the kernel because it makes maintenance a nightmare. But that has nothing to do with closed-source *applications*, which I've never heard Linus have a real problem with.
Linus is frequently on record as saying he puts the goal of making top-quality software higher than any political agenda. See any of his many comments against the GPLv3.
Ahh, the old chestnut about "true" capitalists really loving socialis...I mean "regulation" to "keep things fair".
Ah, the old false dichotomy that equates anything short of anarchy with socialism.
You know, that would make great sense if we were talking about something like, say, oil. Or power. Or food. Or maybe even copper laid partially at the taxpayer's expense. Or phones using public airwaves. You know, something that _exists_ and is limited and "important".
Nothing in anti-trust law says that protection is limited to something deemed 'important'. It also is not limited to selling physical goods. And in today's economy, software is pretty danged important anyway.
People have chosen to buy MS's operating systems because they like them.
Or because they really don't have a choice given MS's proven monopolistic practices.
That gave MS the power, in the past, to dictate terms to companies. That should have been fine...
Except that it was illegal.
but if enough nerds and competitors whine it became an issue.
Yeah, nerds like the DOJ and attorneys general for a whole lot of states. Ad hominem attacks, always the last resort when reason fails. Wait, I thought you said people loved Windows, why would the 'nerds' complain?
The simple fact, however, is that even if Microsoft instituted an across the board price with well defined bulk purchasing discounts and no "special deal" they would still dominate the OS market.
If that were the case, why would they need to strongarm manufacturers not to sell other operating systems?
The OS market is one that demands a monopoly,
Note that simply possessing the Windows monopoly is not illegal. It's their history of predatory marketing that is. Also note that with open standards, there's absolutely no reason that an OS monopoly is necessary for interoperability. That's the result of MS intentionally making it difficult/impossible for other systems to interact with it.
and no amount of hand-wringing or nerdish "n-glaven!" ranting will change that.
What the hell is n-glaven? Oh, and what is your relationship with Microsoft, anyway? Employee?
Here's the crux of the problem:
People liking windows has never been an issue. If your customers like Windows better than whateverthehell version of unix or linux you prefer, that's their option. The problem has been when MS has threatened a vendor with not selling Windows if they continue to sell non-MS machines. And MS has done this. And it violates the Sherman Anti-trust act.
We're not talking about a non-competitive company bitching because it lost, as you seem to imply. We're talking about a company that's illegaly leveragaing a monopoly into various business areas in ways that aren't in the consumer's best interests.
We're talking about an actually *convicted* (by the DOJ) monopolist. So to say that people feel that Windows is better than Linux because its market share is higher might be a specious argument.
As far as unbundling, I'm divided. One one hand, I have no desire to use the worthless MS crap. On the other, I would point out to the author that Windows and other operating systems are treated differently specificically because of MS's high market share which other systems don't share.
In the end, I can't tell if the parent poster is a true capitalist who doesn't understand the damage monopolies bring, or simply a MS astroturfer.
It's not about content length or page count. I think most people here have read long articles or other works online before. The key is that they have to be *interesting*.
I don't know about that - I can personally attest that I've stopped reading things because of the moronic pagination on the web. I read fairly quickly, and there have been many times that I simply gave up because I was spending more time watching the page load than actually reading it.
You're right - articles on web or elsewhere have to be interesting. And a ton of page loads is one of the best ways to kill that, in my opinion. It's not web specific - what if newspapers split columns across 7 different pages and made you wait 20 seconds before you were allowed to turn the page? When I'm reading something, I don't like being interrupted, and I don't think I'm alone.
You might think I'm exaggerating, but I've actually seen articles split into up to 10 different pages with two short paragraphs per page. I can read a couple of short paragraphs in 5-10 seconds. I don't want to get the next page every 10 seconds. I won't read it.
If writers are perceiving a lower demand for longer articles, it's probably because they break them up into 57 pages of three sentences each, with 20 second page loads in between thanks to a bunch of flash ads.
Don't have an account myself, but I know an Englishman who might find your offer interesting. Name's Arthur - good chap but a little daft. Haven't seen him for ages myself; living in a cave last I saw. Not sure what his liquidity situation is.
Regards,
Ford
I've got the same problem with movies. No way I'm spending $10 for 90 minutes of entertainment. So, if anyone knows some actors, film crew, etc. I am willing to pay salaries, as long as we can keep the entire budget under about 7 dollars.
Hey, it worked for Clerks!
I'm not a lawyer either, but I think all of those 'questions' you addressed would be objected to, and stricken, based on the fact they they're all hearsay (the various studies) or leading the witness.
There's a reason lawyers don't play that game with expert witnesses - if you ask them 'does everyone in your field agree with you?' he will answer 'everyone who knows what they're doing.' If you want to counter Sherman's hypothetical testimony, you're going to have to bring in the expert parade - you can't just hand him a stack of research papers and badger him about them because that's not going to be admissable.
Whether you would want to bring in other experts to address the actual harm committed by piracy is another matter, but I think her defense is still that she didn't do it.
Otherwise, the best thing you can do is ask him about the claims he's making, who reached the conclusions he's repeating, and who funded the research. That's about all.
They've only established that they could personally commit an act of computer tresspass and take files off of her machine.
I don't think it would be considered trespassing if it's on a kazaa share. That sounds like people griping because you 'steal' info they've stuck in their /var/www/htdocs directory
They have not established that she pirated the music files that were in her possession.
True.
At worst, they could demonstrate that she's the sort of person that would spend money like a drunken sailor at Best Buy and then go home and offer all of the CD's she bought online.
Unfortunately, that's bad in itself. I can't remember - how did that legal argument go where they claimed that offering something for download counted as infringement? I can't recall the outcome of that.
Modern software has taking something along the lines of putting up an 80's era pirate BBS and turned it into something completely automated, completely casual and something that the clueless could do by mistake.
Possible...I don't use Kazaa - does it actually share the 'Music' folder by default? Devil's in the details there, but I haven't seen them. I'd assumed from the nature of the defense that the prosecution had them on that one. Bonus points for BBS nostaligia. Ah, the good old pre-AOL days.
So if she can show that a default install of Kazaa would cause her Music folder to be shared without action on her part, then I buy it. But if she has to do something to cause it to be shared, she's going to have some trouble.