I think the general rule of thumb is to inform the software publisher first, and then go public after they've had a chance to fix it. Going public forces the publisher to fix the problem if it hasn't already, and it let's the public know that there's a problem and they should do an update. (Or if the publisher still hasn't fixed the problem, switch to a different program.)
According to the article the article links to, the copyright infringement charge is somewhat similar to the anti-DeCSS application of the DMCA. The researcher, AFAICT, is being sued because he *reversed engineered* the program, which is a traditionally accepted practice.
First off, I know nothing about how HR or management or other kinds of suits want. I'm also very underemployed at the moment myself.
My advice would be to get a degree in something else entirely. Like history or art. I'm not sure whether a bachelor's or master's would be better. But getting a degree (or more importantly, an education) in a completely unrelated field might make you a better programmer. Even if that's not true, then at least you're learning something. In the long run, that might be a better thing than worrying about degrees.
What degrees you have and who you know will get you a job, but what you actually know will let you keep one. Or at least that's what somebody said - I'm still stuck at the first one.
Just go out and pick a field you like, but never had the chance to work on because you were too busy cramming for the calculus final or whatever.
China's not communist anymore. They're full blow capitalists. Unfortunately, they're still totalitarians. Some people are calling China the world's first mature fascist state.
I suppose the solution is to increase private donations to politicians and PACs that actually act in the public interest, and hopefully crowd out corporate donations and lobbies. Here's is an idea I've been working on that I think would be a step in the right direction. Any PHP coders willing to lend a hand?
I was wondering if somebody was going to mention a dirty bomb. Popular science doesn't seem to take that into account. I would think a dirty bomb (a system that disperses radioactive material instead of causing it to explode) might be better for the purposes of terrorism than an actual nuclear bomb. Wouldn't kill as many people, but it would cover a larger area, cause more panic. Wouldn't have to use refined weapons grade material either.
Oh, I got the joke. I just didn't think it was funny:-p
It might well be that Encyclopædia Britannica is selling buggy whips. However, they do have existing revenue streams. Firstly, there is the dead tree publishing. Yes, a dead-tree version would have to be drastically scaled down, but there is apparently still a (shrinking) market for it. Then there is online publishing, which could bring in pay-for-content or advertising revenues. (Encyclopædia Britannica currently uses pay-for-content.)
By reducing writting costs, a hybrid "Wikipedia Britannica" might not be enough to keep Encyclopædia Britannica from dying, but it would at least keep it circling the drain a bit longer. And provide a service to the community while doing so.
Since the Wikipedia is under GFDL, Encyclopædia Britannica would be required to release their changes back to the community. But that doesn't really matter because what they would be selling is authentication of the content, not the content itself.
First off, Britannica wouldn't have to peer review all 450,000 articles. (I don't think Britannica readers really want to know what special attack Inuyasha used in Episode 35.) Just compare against Britannica's existing index, and pick which articles are superior to their own. And maybe add which ever Featured Articles catch their eye.
As for making profit, Britannica hopefully already has a model for selling their content. If they don't then they're already screwed. Then main effect would be that the actually writting has been done for them, they just have to debug it. Ideally, that would mean less writting staff, which would be good for the bottom line.
Naw, fork it to "stable" (which has gone through the review process) and "unstable" which starts out the same as the stable fork, but is still able to be edited. Periodically re-review the unstable version and backport the changes to the stable version. If you need authoritative information, use the stable fork. If you need up to date information, use the unstable.
Secondly, you don't do the whole Wikipedia, at least not at first. Start with the Featured Articles, move on from there.
The main problem is you need *experts*, not just mods. (Mods are just people who are respected in the Wikipedia, not necessarily experts.) And you have to decide what type of expert is needed for each article. That's where the Britannica could step in.
Wikipedia is considering a "stable" version, consisting of articles that have gone through a formal peer-review process. The stable version would be locked down, but would be updated from time to time. Problem is, nobody is really sure how to go about doing this.
I think this is a good place for the Encyclopedia Britanica to step in. They've been hit hard by the rise of the Internet. From the quote from TFA, it sounds like their trying to spread FUD about the Wikipedia. So apparently they find the Wikipedia a threat. They have experience at fact-checking articles, and have a staff of experts who could perform peer-review. The Wikipedia (with the exception of some images and other multimedia files) is available under the GFDL, which allows commercial use.
So why doesn't Britanica just take Wikipedia articles, work the bugs out, and find a way of making a profit for their troubles?
I remember hearing somewhere that the predicted sea rise from global warming would be caused mainly by thermal expansion of the seas, and that the "ice caps melting" thing was just a way to popularize the idea. Don't know if this is true or not. Anybody have any sources?
Um, objective reality means a reality that exists independent of our observing it. Noumenon as opposed to phenomena (which is what we observe). In addition, there is consensus reality, which is the sum of our individual subjective realites.
The existance of objective reality is an unproven axiom of science, which tries to use our consensus reality to deduce the properties of objective reality. Or at least that's what Philosophy 101 taught me.
I think (I haven't read the article either, or at least not recently) that the main thesis of existentialism is "existance preceeds essence" - or that the universe and humanity just *are* - that we have to come up with our purpose ourselves.
The really sad part about "new, improved" TSS (at least this was true when I stopped watching) was that Kevin went from being the irresponsible one to the adult-on-the-set. Blrg. Bring back the old TSS damn it!
Part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a spellchecker.
>but no-one goes through articles checking to see if the author of that particular paragraph had the same ideas on formatting and punctuation as the authors of the adjacent texts did.
Actually, I do, especially in articles where it's clear that the previous contributor didn't have the firmest grasp on the English language. I guess it's a question of how many grammar nazis there are.
I was being a little ironic. China, while paying lip service to communistic ideals, is definitely capitalist. It has, IIRC, the fastest growning economy in the world, but the benefits are limited to an urban elite. All the workers and the rural farmers get is the shaft. In addition, the boom is causing environmental damage. In a democracy, the environmental lobbyists would step in, but under China's totalitarian government, critics of all stripes are silenced.
The situation in China is like that which originally inspired communism/socialism in Europe and America. Except that Europe and America had democratic governments, and instead of a full-fledged revolution, a very mild form of socialism was created.
If China isn't careful, its economic inequality will cause a proletarian revolution. Hopefully this revolution would create a democratic government. The alternative would be for the government to relinquish some of its power voluntarily, and allow a democratic government to develop peacefully, but I don't see that happening.
The only way to get around that is to make the prize big enough to make it worth their while. Of course the alternative is to go with the lowest bidder...
I've heard that it looks like HIV is similar to related monkey and chimp retroviruses. Chimps eat this species of monkeys, and the local humans eat both. The two viruses (so the theory goes) swapped genes, creating HIV, which was able to infect humans, unlike the two original viruses.
There are two reasons why censorship is a bad idea. The first is that democracy depends on there being a healthy debate of the issues. Using the law to silence your opponent in a debate is like winning a chess match by shooting your opponent.
The second reason is that censorship is often counterproductive - instead of silencing the subject of the censoring, it brings the subject into sharp focus.
While propaganda can influence opinion, it is not mind control. If we believe in democracy, we have to have faith on this, or we might as well just roll over and wait for our new alien overlords to take over.
If someone says something you disagree with, the solution is not to silence them, but to state why you disagree with them. Or, perhaps better, ignore them. We should you give a little-heard idea notoriety by your opposition?
If you want to fight against somebody using propaganda, which can't be fought be logical argument, then teach people the critical thinking skills they need to make their own decisions.
If we don't want our children to grow up Nazis, then we shouldn't ban Triumph of the Will. Instead, we should show it in schools - and then take a week to discuss the propaganda techniques used in it. And refute what few logical arguments it uses.
Speech, by itself, very rarely does harm. There are some exceptions, such as libel. Another exception is telling someone to cause a specific person harm. "Kill whitey!" is political speech. "Kill John Doe, who lives at..." isn't.
If an individual causes another harm, then they should be punished. The author whose work they choose to (mis)interpret as urging them to do this act should not.
Photographic pedophiliac images cause harm in the process of their creation. It could be argued that people who seek out pedophiliac pornography are a danger to themselves or others, and should be committed. But how about synthetic pedophiliac imagery whose primary purpose is not pornographic, such as the anime Domination Kite? I think we can agree that sex with children is wrong. But what about sex with minors who are past the age of puberty but are below the (local) age of consent? Note that I'm not advocating a position on these issues - but would it matter if I was?
Yes, the welfare of children is very important to society. But so is the freedom of speech. Finding moral solutions means finding optimum, compromise positions between two or more opposing principles. The laying down of absolutes is not helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the general rule of thumb is to inform the software publisher first, and then go public after they've had a chance to fix it. Going public forces the publisher to fix the problem if it hasn't already, and it let's the public know that there's a problem and they should do an update. (Or if the publisher still hasn't fixed the problem, switch to a different program.) According to the article the article links to, the copyright infringement charge is somewhat similar to the anti-DeCSS application of the DMCA. The researcher, AFAICT, is being sued because he *reversed engineered* the program, which is a traditionally accepted practice.
First off, I know nothing about how HR or management or other kinds of suits want. I'm also very underemployed at the moment myself. My advice would be to get a degree in something else entirely. Like history or art. I'm not sure whether a bachelor's or master's would be better. But getting a degree (or more importantly, an education) in a completely unrelated field might make you a better programmer. Even if that's not true, then at least you're learning something. In the long run, that might be a better thing than worrying about degrees. What degrees you have and who you know will get you a job, but what you actually know will let you keep one. Or at least that's what somebody said - I'm still stuck at the first one. Just go out and pick a field you like, but never had the chance to work on because you were too busy cramming for the calculus final or whatever.
China's not communist anymore. They're full blow capitalists. Unfortunately, they're still totalitarians. Some people are calling China the world's first mature fascist state.
I suppose the solution is to increase private donations to politicians and PACs that actually act in the public interest, and hopefully crowd out corporate donations and lobbies. Here's is an idea I've been working on that I think would be a step in the right direction. Any PHP coders willing to lend a hand?
I was wondering if somebody was going to mention a dirty bomb. Popular science doesn't seem to take that into account. I would think a dirty bomb (a system that disperses radioactive material instead of causing it to explode) might be better for the purposes of terrorism than an actual nuclear bomb. Wouldn't kill as many people, but it would cover a larger area, cause more panic. Wouldn't have to use refined weapons grade material either.
Eh, we all do stupid things. Sure, ideally, he shouldn't have screwed up. But it's nice to know you can fix things when you do screw up.
Oh, I got the joke. I just didn't think it was funny :-p
It might well be that Encyclopædia Britannica is selling buggy whips. However, they do have existing revenue streams. Firstly, there is the dead tree publishing. Yes, a dead-tree version would have to be drastically scaled down, but there is apparently still a (shrinking) market for it. Then there is online publishing, which could bring in pay-for-content or advertising revenues. (Encyclopædia Britannica currently uses pay-for-content.)
By reducing writting costs, a hybrid "Wikipedia Britannica" might not be enough to keep Encyclopædia Britannica from dying, but it would at least keep it circling the drain a bit longer. And provide a service to the community while doing so.
Since the Wikipedia is under GFDL, Encyclopædia Britannica would be required to release their changes back to the community. But that doesn't really matter because what they would be selling is authentication of the content, not the content itself.
First off, Britannica wouldn't have to peer review all 450,000 articles. (I don't think Britannica readers really want to know what special attack Inuyasha used in Episode 35.) Just compare against Britannica's existing index, and pick which articles are superior to their own. And maybe add which ever Featured Articles catch their eye.
As for making profit, Britannica hopefully already has a model for selling their content. If they don't then they're already screwed. Then main effect would be that the actually writting has been done for them, they just have to debug it. Ideally, that would mean less writting staff, which would be good for the bottom line.
Naw, fork it to "stable" (which has gone through the review process) and "unstable" which starts out the same as the stable fork, but is still able to be edited. Periodically re-review the unstable version and backport the changes to the stable version. If you need authoritative information, use the stable fork. If you need up to date information, use the unstable.
Secondly, you don't do the whole Wikipedia, at least not at first. Start with the Featured Articles, move on from there.
The main problem is you need *experts*, not just mods. (Mods are just people who are respected in the Wikipedia, not necessarily experts.) And you have to decide what type of expert is needed for each article. That's where the Britannica could step in.
Wikipedia is considering a "stable" version, consisting of articles that have gone through a formal peer-review process. The stable version would be locked down, but would be updated from time to time. Problem is, nobody is really sure how to go about doing this. I think this is a good place for the Encyclopedia Britanica to step in. They've been hit hard by the rise of the Internet. From the quote from TFA, it sounds like their trying to spread FUD about the Wikipedia. So apparently they find the Wikipedia a threat. They have experience at fact-checking articles, and have a staff of experts who could perform peer-review. The Wikipedia (with the exception of some images and other multimedia files) is available under the GFDL, which allows commercial use. So why doesn't Britanica just take Wikipedia articles, work the bugs out, and find a way of making a profit for their troubles?
Maybe slashdot should go to a "digs" system - have members vote on stories they like, and the most popular stories go on the front page.
I remember hearing somewhere that the predicted sea rise from global warming would be caused mainly by thermal expansion of the seas, and that the "ice caps melting" thing was just a way to popularize the idea. Don't know if this is true or not. Anybody have any sources?
I got an 80% - but that was mainly by outguessing the bias. Would've gotten a 90%, but I misread one question.
Um, objective reality means a reality that exists independent of our observing it. Noumenon as opposed to phenomena (which is what we observe). In addition, there is consensus reality, which is the sum of our individual subjective realites. The existance of objective reality is an unproven axiom of science, which tries to use our consensus reality to deduce the properties of objective reality. Or at least that's what Philosophy 101 taught me. I think (I haven't read the article either, or at least not recently) that the main thesis of existentialism is "existance preceeds essence" - or that the universe and humanity just *are* - that we have to come up with our purpose ourselves.
So, to restate your post, you believe in, but can't prove, the existance of objective reality.
...and that was how we all learned why nobody was watching G4.
The really sad part about "new, improved" TSS (at least this was true when I stopped watching) was that Kevin went from being the irresponsible one to the adult-on-the-set. Blrg. Bring back the old TSS damn it!
Damn, now I have to change my combination!
>The text has copious spelling mistakes
Part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a spellchecker.
>but no-one goes through articles checking to see if the author of that particular paragraph had the same ideas on formatting and punctuation as the authors of the adjacent texts did.
Actually, I do, especially in articles where it's clear that the previous contributor didn't have the firmest grasp on the English language. I guess it's a question of how many grammar nazis there are.
I was being a little ironic. China, while paying lip service to communistic ideals, is definitely capitalist. It has, IIRC, the fastest growning economy in the world, but the benefits are limited to an urban elite. All the workers and the rural farmers get is the shaft. In addition, the boom is causing environmental damage. In a democracy, the environmental lobbyists would step in, but under China's totalitarian government, critics of all stripes are silenced.
The situation in China is like that which originally inspired communism/socialism in Europe and America. Except that Europe and America had democratic governments, and instead of a full-fledged revolution, a very mild form of socialism was created.
If China isn't careful, its economic inequality will cause a proletarian revolution. Hopefully this revolution would create a democratic government. The alternative would be for the government to relinquish some of its power voluntarily, and allow a democratic government to develop peacefully, but I don't see that happening.
China *is* a Capitalist society. What they need is another communist revolution. Maybe then they could get a democracy going.
I was about to say correlation is not causation. Then I RTFA.
The only way to get around that is to make the prize big enough to make it worth their while. Of course the alternative is to go with the lowest bidder...
I've heard that it looks like HIV is similar to related monkey and chimp retroviruses. Chimps eat this species of monkeys, and the local humans eat both. The two viruses (so the theory goes) swapped genes, creating HIV, which was able to infect humans, unlike the two original viruses.
There are two reasons why censorship is a bad idea. The first is that democracy depends on there being a healthy debate of the issues. Using the law to silence your opponent in a debate is like winning a chess match by shooting your opponent.
The second reason is that censorship is often counterproductive - instead of silencing the subject of the censoring, it brings the subject into sharp focus.
While propaganda can influence opinion, it is not mind control. If we believe in democracy, we have to have faith on this, or we might as well just roll over and wait for our new alien overlords to take over.
If someone says something you disagree with, the solution is not to silence them, but to state why you disagree with them. Or, perhaps better, ignore them. We should you give a little-heard idea notoriety by your opposition?
If you want to fight against somebody using propaganda, which can't be fought be logical argument, then teach people the critical thinking skills they need to make their own decisions.
If we don't want our children to grow up Nazis, then we shouldn't ban Triumph of the Will. Instead, we should show it in schools - and then take a week to discuss the propaganda techniques used in it. And refute what few logical arguments it uses.
Speech, by itself, very rarely does harm. There are some exceptions, such as libel. Another exception is telling someone to cause a specific person harm. "Kill whitey!" is political speech. "Kill John Doe, who lives at..." isn't.
If an individual causes another harm, then they should be punished. The author whose work they choose to (mis)interpret as urging them to do this act should not.
Photographic pedophiliac images cause harm in the process of their creation. It could be argued that people who seek out pedophiliac pornography are a danger to themselves or others, and should be committed. But how about synthetic pedophiliac imagery whose primary purpose is not pornographic, such as the anime Domination Kite? I think we can agree that sex with children is wrong. But what about sex with minors who are past the age of puberty but are below the (local) age of consent? Note that I'm not advocating a position on these issues - but would it matter if I was?
Yes, the welfare of children is very important to society. But so is the freedom of speech. Finding moral solutions means finding optimum, compromise positions between two or more opposing principles. The laying down of absolutes is not helpful.