The below quote is from this Reuters article; http://www.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompa nyNewsArti cle.jhtml?storyID=2839994&ric=SCOX&infotype=news&c ompname=SCO+GROUP+INC I suppose this wraps it up for the day. The market came down with a tough verdict on SCO.
"Shares of SCO closed down $2.11, or more than 24 percent, at $6.60 on the Nasdaq. Novell gained 13 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $3.13."
Did anyone even consider if this is a technical problem or a social problem?
The natural conclusion is given (it's a social one). Past AOL - USENET issues has proven this.
Can you straighten social problems out solely using technology?
To some degree yes but you will never get to the root of the problem.
Thesis -
My thesis is that you have to decide if you want an open forum or a closed forum.
Explanation -
Open forums render spam and all sorts of shit in masses and there's nothing no one is gonna be able to do about it (it's like freedom of speach, even nazi opinions can be expressed). Though the as they are open they are in a way the nicest ones.
Closed forums means you have to be a member to express your opinion and the nice thing is you can keep track of the users and see what they do and controll them if they missbehave. Though it is a closed forum meaning it's not likely to gain any wider acceptance among the broad public.
The current form of semi-open forum with means of sensorship (moderators) is obviously not working. The spam gets thruu. The moderators are flooded. The maintainers of the forum is being adressed and complained at.
Theory -
Adding extremely complex security like systems will in the end probably mean the forum becomes less userfriendly.
This could create a situation where only those who either has a whole lot of time to waste or those who are really smart will catch up on how the forum actually works in depth.
Giving this it's likely the forum will decrease in popularity among serious users and history has told us that the more complex the security systems gets the more intense gets the destroying efforts.
To assume the forum could drop a whole bunch of people/users here, however passively, is not unthinkable.
The effect of such an event may not show in the site maintainers user logfiles since most of these users are likely to silently leave, without actually removing their accounts why the actual result would show in less serious debating and fewer real discussion as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
The below quote is from this Reuters article;a nyNewsArti cle.jhtml?storyID=2839994&ric=SCOX&infotype=news&c ompname=SCO+GROUP+INC
http://www.reuters.com/financeQuoteComp
I suppose this wraps it up for the day.
The market came down with a tough verdict on SCO.
"Shares of SCO closed down $2.11, or more than 24 percent, at $6.60 on the Nasdaq. Novell gained 13 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $3.13."
There were quite solid foundation for opposing that particular bill.
As was shown in practice, bye journalists, the system simply didn't work it was quite easy to actually falsify _large_ number of votes this way.
reference - CBS 60 Minutes, I believe it was Mike Wallace but I'm not sure.
Introduction -
Did anyone even consider if this is a technical problem or a social problem?
The natural conclusion is given (it's a social one).
Past AOL - USENET issues has proven this.
Can you straighten social problems out solely using technology?
To some degree yes but you will never get to the root of the problem.
Thesis -
My thesis is that you have to decide if you want an open forum or a closed forum.
Explanation -
Open forums render spam and all sorts of shit in masses and there's nothing no one
is gonna be able to do about it (it's like freedom of speach, even nazi opinions can be expressed).
Though the as they are open they are in a way the nicest ones.
Closed forums means you have to be a member to express your opinion and the nice thing is you can keep
track of the users and see what they do and controll them if they missbehave. Though it is a closed
forum meaning it's not likely to gain any wider acceptance among the broad public.
The current form of semi-open forum with means of sensorship (moderators) is obviously not working.
The spam gets thruu.
The moderators are flooded.
The maintainers of the forum is being adressed and complained at.
Theory -
Adding extremely complex security like systems will in the end probably mean the forum becomes less userfriendly.
This could create a situation where only those who either has a whole lot of time to waste or those who are
really smart will catch up on how the forum actually works in depth.
Giving this it's likely the forum will decrease in popularity among serious users and history has told us that
the more complex the security systems gets the more intense gets the destroying efforts.
To assume the forum could drop a whole bunch of people/users here, however passively, is not unthinkable.
The effect of such an event may not show in the site maintainers user logfiles since most of these users are likely
to silently leave, without actually removing their accounts why the actual result would show in less serious
debating and fewer real discussion as a whole.