Well, I think the question is what did you actually pay for?
If you buy a faulty (non-software) product, you can get a refund (the law protects you there). Yet when it comes to software, people are willing to accept that they buy faulty products, with it being the norm. I agree people can't create perfect software, but to have them charge for bug fixes is (IMO) ridiculous. If companies can't handle offering non-faulty software (or at least providing fixes for faulty software for free), then their current business model is broken.
I have seen many forums degenerate from high quality postings by the original, idealistic people to rant sessions and flame wars by idiots who drive out the reasonable participants.
As have I. Still, there are some idealistic people here at slashdot.
Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.
Here's a list of what the sites are (from most populous):
1: Porn sites
2: Spam sites
3: Spyware sites
4: Scamming sites
5: Warez sites
6: Blogs
7: Message boards
8: Wikipedia duplicates (where they copy and paste Wikipedia entries)
9: Software related sites
10: Other business related sites
11: Education-related websites.
Was this article about Australia? Does Australia have its problems? Hell yes. But does that mean I am unable to discuss the problems other countries have?
The FBI and all government agencies are really composed of good, hard-working folks that are trying to serve their country in the best way they can.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions. That's how the quote goes, doesn't it?
But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all.
No, what's tough to prove it is this secrecy your organization (along with other organizations like it) demand. When government agency works in secret (which the FBI does, even if it does have to explain itself to a court, that court is also secret so therefore it doesn't count), it takes the power out of the people's hands, and once the power no longer resides in the people's hands corruption is soon to follow. From what little information that has been able to be wrest out of the FBI's hands, it depicts a picture that it they're making mistakes on a regular basis. Even the FBI who defends the report that has been public said that most of them were clerical errors. Most.
When the FBI refuses to explain itself to the people (no matter what justification it uses to keep it's actions secret), then the people have lost their power, and the FBI becomes a danger to freedom. I've been reading about the founding fathers of America (in Australia we don't get it shoved down our throats at school;) So I've been doing it in my own personal time) and I'm concentrating on Thomas Jefferson at the moment. And I've always thought he (along with the other founding fathers) were more then a little crazy. But when I see what they stood for, and what current America is like, I understand why they had the opinions they did.
Thomas Jefferson in particular fought against what America has become. And the FBI is only a small part of the problem (although I'm inclined to say it's a symptom of the problem, with the problem being the people have stopped protecting their rights).
To the Americans who are posting comments like "wow. I never thought that would happen" I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights.
Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.
So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.
If you want to protect students from on-line predators, have some adults that hang out in the online chat rooms.
I thought that was already happening, which is why there is a problem with predators?
P.S. for the humorously challenged the above was not a serious post. See your local doctor about your condition and find out if there is anything s/he can do to help you.
I'd say it's an infraction on your constitution. Shouldn't that be more important The fact that there are no laws closing this legal loop-hole is (in my opinion) disgusting. This isn't a case of them using the school's resources to post on the blog. What I do in my own personal time shouldn't be used for a school (private or public) to justify kicking me out.
People who live in countries that attempt to take away the right to free speech have to do that. However American citizens shouldn't be forced to undertake such steps when they're in their own country. Free speech isn't just for the anonymous, it's for every single citizen of your country.
The fact that so many would be so blaze about this is very telling of the society in America.
I would also like to point out that all people who use open source are zealots
Not true. Despite what you see on slashdot, there are people out there that use open source because it gets the job done best (or they wouldn't use it).
I can predict that the majority of posts will be that this is a good thing. However I can't help but think that if Microsoft worked with a state and university to encourage closed source software and hardware development, develop academic curricula and provide computing infrastructure to closed source projects worldwide that everyone would say how dare a company try to buy a university into spreading it's FUD.
While it's a good thing that this university is helping to develop open source software, this sort of zealotry on slashdot makes it difficult to take any points it offers on closed or open source software. Open source zealots ultimately hurt open source software more then closed source software. So perhaps think about the points you make before you start preaching to the choir.
The problem is, his license allows them to either quote the entire document or merely parts of the document. Under his license you can "quote" everything on a website, minus any advertising. That's going to hurt anyone who makes money from advertising.
P.S. stop relying on google so much, PageRank is obviously flawed if it can be so easily manipulated by spamtards.
Do you have any alternate search engines (preferably with examples to prove that they're actually better) to use instead of google? I've tested out all the big names, and the results I get are almost always near-identical, with the small differences in the results returned not being that important.
It is extremely frustrating when Google returns nothing useful, but I've yet to find a search engine that works better. Google's level of results seems to be the best anyone can achieve at the moment (and it's not really google that's setting the level of excellence).
Well, no, since he's been saying it for years (since before the WWW)...
Which I addressed in my post
Me: (sure, it may have semed that way back in the 60s, but it's 40 years later and while he hasn't done anything that's been successful on a large scale, plenty of people have which basically does what he wants). It actually sounds quite restrictive.
He's still waving it around, acting as if his ideas are still revolutionary and haven't occurred yet. When in fact, they have occurred seperately (but thankfully haven't occurred together AFAIK).
Oh he's got that one covered. All content published in his new system would be placed under a particular license letting other people pretty much do whatever the hell they want with it. I don't think he's quite covered the business world angle yet. But I think he's ignoring that by saying "anyone who doesn't think my idea is a good one is too entrenched in the current set up." He then talks about creating a new breed of people under the new system. I bet he also wants to help inseminate women to breed the people as well.
Basically what he's looking for is:
* An open-source document format that is simpler then HTML and XML and can cover ANY type of document
* Every webpage has track-backs built into it.
* A Creative Commons license forced onto everyone who uses the document format.
Although I lack any details on his system, the above points don't sound all that new. Basically it's just creating an impossible document format that FORCES people to license any content placed into the document format under a particular CC license. Oh and track-backs built into the system. For all his posturing, it doesn't sound that new or revolutionary (sure, it may have semed that way back in the 60s, but it's 40 years later and while he hasn't done anything that's been successful on a large scale, plenty of people have which basically does what he wants). It actually sounds quite restrictive.
Now I like CC. For content I don't give a damn I'm more then happy to license it under a CC license. But there's plenty of content I wouldn't want to license under a CC license. But if I were to use his document format, well I'd be forced to use it only for particular content, with an alternative delivery system for rest of my content. And people who make a living off their websites (such as Penny-Arcade, 8-Bit Theatre and Schlock Mercenary) are probably counting their blessings that this guy was such a complete failure. Otherwise they'd have to have real jobs and probably wouldn't be creating the webcomics they do anywhere near as much.
Q: You have said that we have settled for less basically. Because I have been brought up with computers the way they are, I can't see this difference or quite comprehend what you are talking about. What would it mean for me if we had what you're suggesting.
[snipped]long ass answer that doesn't answer the question[/snipped]
Q: You haven't answered my question yet. How would life be different for me if we had?
A: I don't know.
So what's this guy talking about? All I can seem to pin down is he wants links to flow both ways (track-backs? Yeeesh. Haven't blogs taught us that these are horrible?) and he wants open-source document standards. Oh, and there's some talk of a license in this, he (again) doesn't mention any specifics, but the impression I get is his "new system" would have all content licensed under the one partiuclar license (which allows people to do whatever they like with it, from what I understood of his ramblings anyway).
He doesn't say HOW this is going to happen, he doesn't mention any benefits to it. Only that it would be a good thing.
Has he been more coherent and specific elsewhere? Or is he always like this?
Actually the real reason he is forever destined to obscurity is:
To be able to collage freely is one of my objectives. So that you can just gather material in a new document, comment on it, annotate it, overlay it anyway you like and yet within a feasible copyright system - since we are not going to escape from copyright law - that allows this. That is what I have always tried to do.
It's never happened, nor is it likely to happen within his lifetime (at least, not by him anyway). People become famous for creating things, not thinking up ideas for cool inventions. Anyone can come up with a cool system. Not everyone can come up with a working system.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think the question is what did you actually pay for?
If you buy a faulty (non-software) product, you can get a refund (the law protects you there). Yet when it comes to software, people are willing to accept that they buy faulty products, with it being the norm. I agree people can't create perfect software, but to have them charge for bug fixes is (IMO) ridiculous. If companies can't handle offering non-faulty software (or at least providing fixes for faulty software for free), then their current business model is broken.
How about twice in 2 years, while having not occurred until 60,000 years before that?
I have seen many forums degenerate from high quality postings by the original, idealistic people to rant sessions and flame wars by idiots who drive out the reasonable participants.
As have I. Still, there are some idealistic people here at slashdot.
Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.
Here's a list of what the sites are (from most populous): 1: Porn sites
2: Spam sites
3: Spyware sites
4: Scamming sites
5: Warez sites
6: Blogs
7: Message boards
8: Wikipedia duplicates (where they copy and paste Wikipedia entries)
9: Software related sites
10: Other business related sites
11: Education-related websites.
As you can see, most of it is just rubbish.
Was this article about Australia? Does Australia have its problems? Hell yes. But does that mean I am unable to discuss the problems other countries have?
The FBI and all government agencies are really composed of good, hard-working folks that are trying to serve their country in the best way they can.
;) So I've been doing it in my own personal time) and I'm concentrating on Thomas Jefferson at the moment. And I've always thought he (along with the other founding fathers) were more then a little crazy. But when I see what they stood for, and what current America is like, I understand why they had the opinions they did.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions. That's how the quote goes, doesn't it?
But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all.
No, what's tough to prove it is this secrecy your organization (along with other organizations like it) demand. When government agency works in secret (which the FBI does, even if it does have to explain itself to a court, that court is also secret so therefore it doesn't count), it takes the power out of the people's hands, and once the power no longer resides in the people's hands corruption is soon to follow. From what little information that has been able to be wrest out of the FBI's hands, it depicts a picture that it they're making mistakes on a regular basis. Even the FBI who defends the report that has been public said that most of them were clerical errors. Most.
When the FBI refuses to explain itself to the people (no matter what justification it uses to keep it's actions secret), then the people have lost their power, and the FBI becomes a danger to freedom. I've been reading about the founding fathers of America (in Australia we don't get it shoved down our throats at school
Thomas Jefferson in particular fought against what America has become. And the FBI is only a small part of the problem (although I'm inclined to say it's a symptom of the problem, with the problem being the people have stopped protecting their rights).
Which was my point. If you want to keep your freedoms you have to do more then just vote.
To the Americans who are posting comments like "wow. I never thought that would happen" I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights.
Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.
So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.
If you want to protect students from on-line predators, have some adults that hang out in the online chat rooms.
I thought that was already happening, which is why there is a problem with predators?
P.S. for the humorously challenged the above was not a serious post. See your local doctor about your condition and find out if there is anything s/he can do to help you.
not a legal infraction.
I'd say it's an infraction on your constitution. Shouldn't that be more important The fact that there are no laws closing this legal loop-hole is (in my opinion) disgusting. This isn't a case of them using the school's resources to post on the blog. What I do in my own personal time shouldn't be used for a school (private or public) to justify kicking me out.
Blog anonymously? That should solve the problem.
People who live in countries that attempt to take away the right to free speech have to do that. However American citizens shouldn't be forced to undertake such steps when they're in their own country. Free speech isn't just for the anonymous, it's for every single citizen of your country.
The fact that so many would be so blaze about this is very telling of the society in America.
Free speech advocates are concerned about the restriction of speech in a private high school?
No, fee speech advocates are concerned about restriction of speech outside of a high school for students who attend the high school.
I would also like to point out that all people who use open source are zealots
Not true. Despite what you see on slashdot, there are people out there that use open source because it gets the job done best (or they wouldn't use it).
Because closed source is bad open source is good.
That is zealotry.
I can predict that the majority of posts will be that this is a good thing. However I can't help but think that if Microsoft worked with a state and university to encourage closed source software and hardware development, develop academic curricula and provide computing infrastructure to closed source projects worldwide that everyone would say how dare a company try to buy a university into spreading it's FUD.
While it's a good thing that this university is helping to develop open source software, this sort of zealotry on slashdot makes it difficult to take any points it offers on closed or open source software. Open source zealots ultimately hurt open source software more then closed source software. So perhaps think about the points you make before you start preaching to the choir.
The problem is, his license allows them to either quote the entire document or merely parts of the document. Under his license you can "quote" everything on a website, minus any advertising. That's going to hurt anyone who makes money from advertising.
splogbot.com will be the next big website Google will buy.
How would we be able to tell when it's purposeful though?
P.S. stop relying on google so much, PageRank is obviously flawed if it can be so easily manipulated by spamtards.
Do you have any alternate search engines (preferably with examples to prove that they're actually better) to use instead of google? I've tested out all the big names, and the results I get are almost always near-identical, with the small differences in the results returned not being that important.
It is extremely frustrating when Google returns nothing useful, but I've yet to find a search engine that works better. Google's level of results seems to be the best anyone can achieve at the moment (and it's not really google that's setting the level of excellence).
Well, no, since he's been saying it for years (since before the WWW)...
Which I addressed in my post
Me: (sure, it may have semed that way back in the 60s, but it's 40 years later and while he hasn't done anything that's been successful on a large scale, plenty of people have which basically does what he wants). It actually sounds quite restrictive.
He's still waving it around, acting as if his ideas are still revolutionary and haven't occurred yet. When in fact, they have occurred seperately (but thankfully haven't occurred together AFAIK).
His is an agenda of freedom, the agendas he decries are those of user-locking.
A freedom that forces anyone that uses his (at the moment thankfully theoretical) document format to license their content under a particular license.
Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather the being locked into OpenOffice, which lets me apply any license I want to OpenOffice documents.
which you can get sued over nowadays.
Oh he's got that one covered. All content published in his new system would be placed under a particular license letting other people pretty much do whatever the hell they want with it. I don't think he's quite covered the business world angle yet. But I think he's ignoring that by saying "anyone who doesn't think my idea is a good one is too entrenched in the current set up." He then talks about creating a new breed of people under the new system. I bet he also wants to help inseminate women to breed the people as well.
Basically what he's looking for is:
* An open-source document format that is simpler then HTML and XML and can cover ANY type of document
* Every webpage has track-backs built into it.
* A Creative Commons license forced onto everyone who uses the document format.
Although I lack any details on his system, the above points don't sound all that new. Basically it's just creating an impossible document format that FORCES people to license any content placed into the document format under a particular CC license. Oh and track-backs built into the system. For all his posturing, it doesn't sound that new or revolutionary (sure, it may have semed that way back in the 60s, but it's 40 years later and while he hasn't done anything that's been successful on a large scale, plenty of people have which basically does what he wants). It actually sounds quite restrictive.
Now I like CC. For content I don't give a damn I'm more then happy to license it under a CC license. But there's plenty of content I wouldn't want to license under a CC license. But if I were to use his document format, well I'd be forced to use it only for particular content, with an alternative delivery system for rest of my content. And people who make a living off their websites (such as Penny-Arcade, 8-Bit Theatre and Schlock Mercenary) are probably counting their blessings that this guy was such a complete failure. Otherwise they'd have to have real jobs and probably wouldn't be creating the webcomics they do anywhere near as much.
Don't spam companies sometime use them to spam links onto blogs?
Q: You have said that we have settled for less basically. Because I have been brought up with computers the way they are, I can't see this difference or quite comprehend what you are talking about. What would it mean for me if we had what you're suggesting.
[snipped]long ass answer that doesn't answer the question[/snipped]
Q: You haven't answered my question yet. How would life be different for me if we had?
A: I don't know.
So what's this guy talking about? All I can seem to pin down is he wants links to flow both ways (track-backs? Yeeesh. Haven't blogs taught us that these are horrible?) and he wants open-source document standards. Oh, and there's some talk of a license in this, he (again) doesn't mention any specifics, but the impression I get is his "new system" would have all content licensed under the one partiuclar license (which allows people to do whatever they like with it, from what I understood of his ramblings anyway).
He doesn't say HOW this is going to happen, he doesn't mention any benefits to it. Only that it would be a good thing.
Has he been more coherent and specific elsewhere? Or is he always like this?
Actually the real reason he is forever destined to obscurity is:
To be able to collage freely is one of my objectives. So that you can just gather material in a new document, comment on it, annotate it, overlay it anyway you like and yet within a feasible copyright system - since we are not going to escape from copyright law - that allows this. That is what I have always tried to do.
It's never happened, nor is it likely to happen within his lifetime (at least, not by him anyway). People become famous for creating things, not thinking up ideas for cool inventions. Anyone can come up with a cool system. Not everyone can come up with a working system.
Maybe they aren't juvenile enough to be making jokes about rape.
You've never actually read a Penny-Arcade strip have you?