I agree that the doj, cdc and fbi are good spots for additional gun violence statistics. . . . Any law enforcement agency actually, esp. on topic of domestic homicide.
More food for thought on this issue for fellow/.'ers: The Brady Campaign maintains factual information on gun violence issues.
There are also some well researched issue briefs on child access to guns, sale of assault weapons, concealed weapon statutes and other aspects of state and federal gun policy.
There is a well-documented connection between actual guns and violence. Yet many would prefer to regulate simulated guns and simulated violence.
Despite studies of this nature, I worry that there will continue to be resistance (in the Western US at least) to *any* type of regulatory initiative directed at actual guns, no matter how reasonable.
Its also troubling because regulation of simulated violence presents a greater burden and risk to principles of free speech and expression --- without any corresponding social benefit except for those who object to the content of the games being regulated.
This is the sort of story that illustrates the risk inherent in a proprietary approach to knowledge. The first duty of a proprietary interest is to secure a financial return on investment. There's a built-in incentive to discount other competing interests, like stifling innovative software or, as in this case, damaging the environment.
Wired has an incentive to play up the romantic angle to sell the magazine. It may be worth a letter to the editor.
Is there a subversive meaning that does not present the word "hacker" as a cheap kind of criminal? Something is definitely lost in the meaning if hackers are presented as do-gooder Eagle Scouts, but the hacker-as-criminal meaning misses the mark even worse.
I think the romantic notion of hacker is someone with the brains, guts and ability to break only rules that are bad and wrong. But who can agree (or gets to decide) which rules are so bad and wrong as to require breaking? . . . Pickle, methinks.
Leaving consumer protection to the market always seems to run the risk that serious problems will get viewed primarily as an opportunity to push through a new avenue for marketing.
There are less invasive ways and more effective ways to warn consumers about bad meat than junk mail based on spending surveillance.
If you buy Lawrence Lessig's argument in Code, corporations like SCO pose as great a threat to fundamental liberties as government.
A gambit like SCO's is particularly threatening since it targets open source code which Lessig identifies as one of the few hopeful signs.
SCO's legal strategy to boost its stock prices could negatively impact the open source movement and, by extension, could undermine civil liberty protections.
This is a trend anticipated by Stanford Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic 1999).
Lessig argues that the greater threat to fundamental liberties is from large business wielding proprietary code. His call --- as counter-intuitive as it may seem --- is for revitalized regulation. He's admittedly skeptical that positive steps can be taken due to popular cynicism about govt. in the US. On the other hand, he is encouraged by the open source movement.
Slashdot is already a fan of Lessig and his said that he has "[a] deep and thus far unmatched view of what will shape the net of tomorrow."
The notion that private businesses are secretly packing spyware into anything that moves in the name of "freedom" should not come as a surprise. The larger question is how to transform the culture so that the threat to individual freedoms posed by such trends is visible to a popular audience.
I think that Alphaville is interesting, esp. in that Lawrence Lessig argues in Code that the larger threats to fundamental liberties now originate from powerful economic interests moreso than government.
The norms embedded in the code (proprietary or open source) of Alphaville are not so different than the norms embedded in the rules of real life.
In Code, Lessig writes about a virtual "rape" that occurs in a MUD called LamdaMOO. The event --- though it is not "real" --- catalyzes a real change within the LamdaMOO community from happy-go-lucky anarchy to a more democratic format. (pp. 74-77).
Slashdot is another example of a similar tension which it addresses through moderation. AOL is another e.g.
The point is not so much that virtual democracy is better than virtual despotism as that choices are necessarily being made about these norms --- whether deliberately or by default.
Lawrence Lessig discusses a similar example of regulation issues in "avatar space" in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. pp. 9-13.
He argues that how these issues of regulation are decided in cyberspace will have serious consequences for fundamental values (freedom of speech, etc.) as the net continues to grow in importance for human interaction, decision-making and economic activity.
His concern for these fundamental constitutional values leads him to favor open source code as a means of limiting centralized control of individuals. Lessig argues that proprietary code lends itself to increased centralized control.
EA's assertion of private property interests over its code is a case in point.
That's a really good point. I also overlooked the extent to which philosophical differences already rend the otherwise cooperative spirit of the open source community.
Its also worth asking whether forcing fewer and more poorly trained journalists to cover increased territories and issues is good or bad journalism.
Individual journalists may not intentionally set out to deceive audiences, but how competent a job can they do under the operating conditions described in the article? Piss poor.
Journalists have the only profession important enough to be specifically protected by the bill of rights. But their current situation resources are starved to point of circus pathos.
Its ironic that the trend (documented by Ben Bagdikian since the 80s in multiple editionis of Media Monopoly) is promoted under the banner of efficiency. What is good for shareholders' retirement income does not always harmonize with the public interest.
These have real potential for communicating a simple message of what "open source" means to non-coders. Unfortunately, I could not discern what that message might be from the site. Also, I'm not familiar enough with the award-winners to understand the significance of their projects within the context of the overall message.
There is a reason these folks were singled out that should resonate beyond the consoles of the like-minded. That reason should state plainly the importance of open source to the mission of civilization overall: service to the higher ideas of truth, freedom and better flavors of ice cream.
But what is that message? And in language that I (or other person with developmentally-delayed level programming knowledge) can understand?
watercooled systems. Though it makes me nervous to have fluid and electrical components sharing such a small space together, its a quiet (and affordable) alternative to trying to insulate a case that's stuffed with fans.
Slashdot Mirror
I need a drink!! **
the message "support our troops" would have gotten him arrested.
I agree that the doj, cdc and fbi are good spots for additional gun violence statistics. . . . Any law enforcement agency actually, esp. on topic of domestic homicide.
More food for thought on this issue for fellow /.'ers: The Brady Campaign maintains factual information on gun violence issues.
There are also some well researched issue briefs on child access to guns, sale of assault weapons, concealed weapon statutes and other aspects of state and federal gun policy.
There is a well-documented connection between actual guns and violence. Yet many would prefer to regulate simulated guns and simulated violence.
Despite studies of this nature, I worry that there will continue to be resistance (in the Western US at least) to *any* type of regulatory initiative directed at actual guns, no matter how reasonable.
Its also troubling because regulation of simulated violence presents a greater burden and risk to principles of free speech and expression --- without any corresponding social benefit except for those who object to the content of the games being regulated.
This is the sort of story that illustrates the risk inherent in a proprietary approach to knowledge. The first duty of a proprietary interest is to secure a financial return on investment. There's a built-in incentive to discount other competing interests, like stifling innovative software or, as in this case, damaging the environment.
Wired has an incentive to play up the romantic angle to sell the magazine. It may be worth a letter to the editor.
Is there a subversive meaning that does not present the word "hacker" as a cheap kind of criminal? Something is definitely lost in the meaning if hackers are presented as do-gooder Eagle Scouts, but the hacker-as-criminal meaning misses the mark even worse.
I think the romantic notion of hacker is someone with the brains, guts and ability to break only rules that are bad and wrong. But who can agree (or gets to decide) which rules are so bad and wrong as to require breaking? . . . Pickle, methinks.
but it will be the fact-finder's (judge or jury) job to weigh the evidence. As long as the research/investigation is sound, it could be valuable.
Slashdot: Use the force, George!
.
Marketing: [The director has turned off his marketing computer. George, is everything okay?]
George: "I'm fine. Everything is okay."
Slashdot: Let go, George!
Darth: Hmmm, the potential to resist the urge to merchandise the crap out of this film is strong in this one. . .
*******
Leaving consumer protection to the market always seems to run the risk that serious problems will get viewed primarily as an opportunity to push through a new avenue for marketing.
There are less invasive ways and more effective ways to warn consumers about bad meat than junk mail based on spending surveillance.
If you buy Lawrence Lessig's argument in Code, corporations like SCO pose as great a threat to fundamental liberties as government.
A gambit like SCO's is particularly threatening since it targets open source code which Lessig identifies as one of the few hopeful signs.
SCO's legal strategy to boost its stock prices could negatively impact the open source movement and, by extension, could undermine civil liberty protections.
This is a trend anticipated by Stanford Law Prof. Lawrence Lessig in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic 1999). Lessig argues that the greater threat to fundamental liberties is from large business wielding proprietary code. His call --- as counter-intuitive as it may seem --- is for revitalized regulation. He's admittedly skeptical that positive steps can be taken due to popular cynicism about govt. in the US. On the other hand, he is encouraged by the open source movement. Slashdot is already a fan of Lessig and his said that he has "[a] deep and thus far unmatched view of what will shape the net of tomorrow." The notion that private businesses are secretly packing spyware into anything that moves in the name of "freedom" should not come as a surprise. The larger question is how to transform the culture so that the threat to individual freedoms posed by such trends is visible to a popular audience.
No? Good.
I think that Alphaville is interesting, esp. in that Lawrence Lessig argues in Code that the larger threats to fundamental liberties now originate from powerful economic interests moreso than government.
The norms embedded in the code (proprietary or open source) of Alphaville are not so different than the norms embedded in the rules of real life.
In Code, Lessig writes about a virtual "rape" that occurs in a MUD called LamdaMOO. The event --- though it is not "real" --- catalyzes a real change within the LamdaMOO community from happy-go-lucky anarchy to a more democratic format. (pp. 74-77).
Slashdot is another example of a similar tension which it addresses through moderation. AOL is another e.g.
The point is not so much that virtual democracy is better than virtual despotism as that choices are necessarily being made about these norms --- whether deliberately or by default.
Lawrence Lessig discusses a similar example of regulation issues in "avatar space" in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. pp. 9-13.
He argues that how these issues of regulation are decided in cyberspace will have serious consequences for fundamental values (freedom of speech, etc.) as the net continues to grow in importance for human interaction, decision-making and economic activity.
His concern for these fundamental constitutional values leads him to favor open source code as a means of limiting centralized control of individuals. Lessig argues that proprietary code lends itself to increased centralized control.
EA's assertion of private property interests over its code is a case in point.
That's a really good point. I also overlooked the extent to which philosophical differences already rend the otherwise cooperative spirit of the open source community.
its amazing just to see Rehnquist and Burger failing to agree on something.
Then why distinguish at all between open and closed source programming?
Its also worth asking whether forcing fewer and more poorly trained journalists to cover increased territories and issues is good or bad journalism.
Individual journalists may not intentionally set out to deceive audiences, but how competent a job can they do under the operating conditions described in the article? Piss poor.
Journalists have the only profession important enough to be specifically protected by the bill of rights. But their current situation resources are starved to point of circus pathos.
Its ironic that the trend (documented by Ben Bagdikian since the 80s in multiple editionis of Media Monopoly) is promoted under the banner of efficiency. What is good for shareholders' retirement income does not always harmonize with the public interest.
These have real potential for communicating a simple message of what "open source" means to non-coders. Unfortunately, I could not discern what that message might be from the site. Also, I'm not familiar enough with the award-winners to understand the significance of their projects within the context of the overall message.
There is a reason these folks were singled out that should resonate beyond the consoles of the like-minded. That reason should state plainly the importance of open source to the mission of civilization overall: service to the higher ideas of truth, freedom and better flavors of ice cream.
But what is that message? And in language that I (or other person with developmentally-delayed level programming knowledge) can understand?
watercooled systems. Though it makes me nervous to have fluid and electrical components sharing such a small space together, its a quiet (and affordable) alternative to trying to insulate a case that's stuffed with fans.
Sir, we've run into a serious problem with the mission. These Nielsen ratings are the lowest ever.
Oh my God! We've been beaten by a "Connie Chung Christmas."
Look at them, Smithers. Goldbrickers, layabouts, slugabeds! Little do they realize their days of sucking at the SCO teat are numbered!
for SCO to lose in the US and Europe?
The company should be broken into a billion tiny 1's and 0's and sprinkled into the fires of Mount Doom.
Any ideas on why led lights for the home are not more widely available? The technology is not new.
The site reports that that led lights are up to 10,000% longer lasting and can produce up to 10 times more light than incandescent bulbs.
The site also states that led's use less power and are less expensive.