**Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. **
Okay.. now, we ALL know, from reading the editorial pages, that people who agree usually dont pick up pen and paper, but people who DO disagree write vociferously against what they disagree with. Taking the standard response to a Katz column, of @300 posts, you can hack at LEAST half of them off as A.C. crap, first posts, and outright flames, so that leaves us with @150 posts.. now.. out of that 150.. what, probably 25% are dupes or the same person responding back.. so you figure slightly over 100 posts are ACTUAL people posting ACTUAL comments.
Now.. I have a hard time believing that the ENTIRE slashdot community is represented by those 100 posts, nor that ALL of them disagree with katz. (certainly over 50%.. but not all).
So.. here we find out, that due to what is almost certainly a minority opinion, (katz sucks) he should not get posted at all, or someone (rob, nate, someone) should be forced to edit his writing?
I disagree.. I think Katz has a right to say what he wants, freely and unedited.
I saw someone say "why he continues to write longwindedly in a medium that requires brevity".. I disagree heartily. I suspect if you dont want to actually READ the entire piece, you shouldnt be reading.. wait.. that sounds too harsh.. lets just say if you want New York Daily News style headlines with no substance, READ the Daily News.. I would rather read the comparatively verbose Wall Stree Journal and LEARN the facts, not just a 30 second blurb on the news.
**And, yes, the/. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it. **
"serve us better"? "serve" insinuates a paid relationship.. now.. i see people whining about the single add I see at the top of Slashdot.. it has never bothered me.. but the fact that some people expect to be "served" by something they put 0 dollars into, and, basically, 0 work into, seems ludicrous to me./. is a hobby by someone that has gotten out of hand, tho not in a bad way, and is now viewed as a RIGHT by some people. Im more than happy to skip articles I dont want to read, and dont feel the need to read them, knowing I dont like the subject matter, then post stating the obvious, that I dont like the subject matter.
I would rather spend my time, energy, and bandwidth reading and supporting things I like.
I gotta say.. I have more respect for Katz than I did before.
My take is: this dude is just voicing his opinion, as you, or I do on a daily basis. I find myself speaking to my knowledgeless co-workers about topics they dont understand, and he does the same, granted to a wider audience. THe difference, I suspect, is that HE gets published, while WE do not. sure.. his message wont hit EVERYONE square on, but it does make me think about things, even if I dont necessarily agree 100%.
As far as the avenue goes.. hey.. its a free country, you are not FORCED to read something.. and I still think its up to the people who run/. to pick and choose our stories for us. What strikes me as funny is the number of people who WANT the editors to censor Katz, to the point of removing him entirely, yet complain bitterly when their post gets moderated down, or when an article they submit does not make it on the page. *tsk tsk* Guess it depends on whose bull is getting gored.
As for the "religion" portion.. RIGHT ON JOHN! YOu hit it SQUARELY on the head IMHO.. a LOT of people band together under the flag of "Xianity" who dont belong there, which is why I choose to call myself pagan.. I dont follow the catholic church, or the baptist, etc etc, I follow the bible, as best I can. But taking ANY dogmatic approach decided by some dude in a pointy white hat in Rome and decreeing it as the final word of god seems silly, stupid, and kind of ridiculous to me, so YES.. keep the "church" *(read organization, NOT read "morals") OUT of technology, school, and etc. Any time you PRESCRIBE a faith, you exclude.. give people the right to make moral decisions based on the laws and stop brow beating them, and the world WILL be a better place.
Anyway, keep up the good work, Katz.. I, for one, actually LIKE you pieces.
the JOB of a journalist, IMHO, is to make you think. IF your idea of thinking is a gut reaction to "I hate you" then great, if it means looking deeper into what someone said to find flaws, or find backing, then even BETTER
everytime something from Katz comes up, we get a gazillion posts saying nothing more than "I hate katz I hate katz".. fine.. dont read it then, and PLEASE dont consider yourself forced to give us your opinion.. after all.. *(most)* of the flames are people saying "katz's opinion is wrong" when in fact the same ruler could be layed against the poster.. *YOUR* opinion is wrong to ME.. so if you have nothing to add, please go post about Natalie somewhere else, okay? PLEASE?
Now.. onto the article.. Im not sure what this bodes for the net.. (do we REALLY want that many people suddenly dumped on it? *sigh*) But I think this is a GOOD thing in the long term. IF you are all worried about Ford finding something illegal on your machine, umm, well, dont d/l illegal stuff.. that's pretty cut and dried. Anyone who would accept this sort of thing without it VERY clearly spelled out in writing what is acceptable terms of use, and what is not needs to have their head examined, I suspect.
I know what "acceptable use" at my company constitutes, so Im just very careful about where I go (so far, no flack about/. thank god).
But this is good.. it brings computers into the home, it gives us Linux junkies a chance to bring over more millions to the dark side.. and it gives a LOT of small children access to something they critically NEED in this day and age.. a computer, so they can LEARN how to use one. NOt the 'net' as much as just the box itself.. all the training in the world wont help you if you are alien to the equipment.
*Linux addresses some of these issues, but that was not intentional. It just happens to be free.*
Unless I am misunderstanding your intent here, I heartily disagree.. Linux was written by Linus because he didnt want to/couldnt afford to/pay for a full distro of a commercial Unix. He DECIDED to keep it free to give others in his position the same benefit he gave himself.
That sound to me very much like Intent.. it IS the OS for the masses, if the masses just want to learn a bit to use it.
Now.. as far as "intent" meaning it can run on cheap boxen anyone can get at a thrift store these days, that was more of an accident, or a lack of real forward momentum in the Linux Movement. (a combination, I would say, as Linux tends to progress linearly, whereas WIndows Stair-steps upwards to new hardware every release or two, Linux takes them into account, but remains an option for everthing previous).
**What is boils down to (in example) was that he was asking you to take my unescorted 12 year-old child into a movie...with no interaction with or approval from me...the child's parent. As a parent, I am aware that the world itself will influence my child in ways that I could never hope to control. The best that I can do is to inform and educate them responsibly and hope for the best. But to see someone outright telling the general public to remove my right to so much as make that attempt to guide my child is ludicrous to me. **
I recall reading that article, and I dont EVER recall him saying "12 year old child".. I suspect he was using his article with the assumption that anyone who would actually DO it would have SOME form of basic judgement that would translate to "if your neighbors 16 year old wants to see it that is one thing, but a 9 year old is a different story".. or at least, that was MY take on the article. One of the things about Katz that I like is many different people get many different impressions of what he meant, which is kind of kewl, IMHO.
So.. I can see your point, but I did not think he meant 12 year olds, I thought he meant children who are close enough to the age of majority to make decisions for themselves, especially regarding a cartoon.
**He's not a gasbag, he is, ironicaly, speaking about something which most of this crowd have no interest in: social movements. Let's face it, most geeks are interested in our machines and whatever directly affects that, not large viewpoints about all the massive changes to society which our behaviour is influencing. **
And I would submit that a lot of the people who complain about him being long-winded and rambling grew up in the age of 30 second sound bites and cover blurbs on pulp books being more important than the actual CONTENT of the work.
I grew up reading Science Fiction of the type of Heinlein, Asimov, etc.. VERY wordy authors.. but I learned in that that READING the entire thing did much to enhance the ENJOYMENT of the thing. Just like a Cliff Notes will let you pass the test, you cannot claim you KNOW "The Scarlet Letter" until you have actually READ it.
Another point: I think you are right on the nose.. the first time Katz claims that "Geeks are against the dehumanization of the working class by the demagoguist huge corporations through the use of suits and job titles" or some close thought to that, some dude who is a communist devil worshiping homosexual with three feet decides HE has just been insulted because he doesnt fit (one) of those ideas, and just has to flame to preserve his good name.
I think you are right.. may geeks treat life like they treat slashdot.. check off the boxes about what you want to read, ignore the rest of the world, whether or not it matters, and then bitch yea and mightily when you even SEE reference to something that you didnt check off.. (see all the people whining that they saw a piece on Katz.. I for one could care LESS about BSD, but if I see a piece I dont want to read, hey, I dont read it, I dont get my panties in a knot because the blurb appeared on SlashDot.)
I mean, Slashdot is FREE.. it is put up by someone else, it is a PRIVELEGE to people, NOT a right, so quit whining.. if you dont wanna read it, skip the blurb and dont click "read more".. also humorous to me is the number of people who seem to feel that their opinion is great, but are afraid to express it anywhere but under A/C.. *sigh*
The First Amendment, unfortunately, does not come with an instruction manual.
**Where is the oppression in a 12 year-old not being allowed to enter a rated R film without his parents? This is IMPORTANT?? Come off it. How valid is the opinion of a man who would advise you to expose children to things that their young minds may not be prepared to comprehend? How valid are the thoughts of a man that would have us go to such ridiculous extremes for so little...for nothing at all. **
The opression? the opression, in my mind, comes from the fact that the MPAA rating system SUCKS, that its okay to have people blown to hell in a film, but a naked arse or a bad word is not. HUH???? I think that parents should be required to accompany ANYONE under the age of 18 to ALL movies.. maybe then their kids wouldnt be in the parking lot breaking the antenna off my car, or setting fire to my cat. But seriously: why does a movie get an NC:17, or R rating for the FAKE portrayal of something they can see on The evening news (real, and usually just as graphic) or on the Soap Operas (fake, but graphic none-theless) or on NYPD Blue? Its the PARENTS decision, and the difference between an INFORMED decision and a FORCED decision is quite large indeed.
If I remember correctly, the movie in question was SP BLU.. and that was not a movie I would take my 7 year old to see, *nor is the series something I allow him to watch* however, I dont think there was ANYTHING in there that I wouldnt let him experience at 15, 16, etc.. I dont think we can keep children sheltered until they turn 18 and then go "Okay.. here ya go.. now you can vote, go kill in the army, see movies, FINALLY see a naked breast on Film, and BTW, you are now totally responsible for your entire life, and please dont kill anyone learning how to exercise that responsibility".
***The 'outsider' stereotype that katz presents of geeks, is IMHO total BULL. I've always considered myself a computer geek, a Star Trek geek, a RPG geek, later a MTG geek, and general all-around techno-geek. My friends also shared my interests. However, none of us were alienated outsiders in High School. I was an athlete, a thespian, a class clown. In no way did I, or do I fit the stereotypes, and I don't believe that Katz should be perpetuating them.***
Right.. YOU didnt. but I did. and a lot of people I know did (suffer in school that is) and some of them didnt.. one of the geekiest guys I know has a wonderful outlook, a warm personality, and fits in wonderefully with the real world (or would, if it werent for the shaved head, huge tattoos, and the leg braces from the MS.. ) but he chooses to eschew that so he can be a programmer/net admin at a small local ISP. He wouldnt be HIM if he wore a suit, had a Pierce Brosnan cut, and didnt scream profanity at random just to watch people jump.
One must remember, not ALL geeks will fit ALL the profile points Katz gave, some will fit most, some will fit few, and a few will fit NONE of them.. there HAS to be a geek in the world that had it ALL up until a traumatic car accident at 23 forced him into the world of the net, etc etc etc.. and I didnt see that mentioned anywhere.
Not all hippies had long hair and smoked pot either, but a group classification, by its very nature, has to take the stats exhibited by the majority, and, unfortunately, miss the minority.
I would assume, that if you read/. regularly and understand what you read, and DONT do it just to flame and get your name on a webpage, you fall into at least enough of the category of "geek" that you can call yourself one. But dont let anyone call YOU one if you dont FEEL like one.
Im not sure what take to take on this, so I will start here: Im a little uncomfortable with the assertion that ALL geeks are tecnologically advanced.. with computers, anyway.. I mean, wouldnt someone who loves to work on cars and make them all they can be fall into the same category? Im not sure. High school alienation.. wow.. theres a new one.. by that definition, most of the people I know would be a "geek".. yet I have several friends whom I have to set up Quake for who then CALL themselves geeks cause they play quake. I dont THINK so tim. I suspect the definition lies in a mass subset of what he said.. I mean, the definitions he gave fit just about anyone, in the long view, hippies, militarists, gays, etc.. and I know geeks who are all of the above.. I dont think a "geek" can be defined by anyone BUT the geek in question. I dont NEED someone telling me Im a geek, but I'll be pissed if someone tells me im NOT when I define myself that way. *(and im not ashamed to do so, as the amount of money I have sent to Copyleft will attest.)*
I just think the "geek" culture are the ones who make the most SENSE (you know? logic?) in the world right now. WHat the HELL does it matter how long my hair is, whether or not I wear wingtips or sneakers, or denim or Armani, if I DO MY JOB WELL AND MAKE MONEY FOR THE SYSTEM? The assumption that EVERYONE in an office must wear a suit is outdated, ridiculous, and just plain silly.. make the people who have contact with the outside world wear them, let those of us who wander around dirty and climb under desks and behind machines in labs to repair them wear clothes that are DESIGNED to get dirty.
I like Katz, and I dont think he is "cashing in on geeks" anymore than Gibson did, or Star Trek does every time they open a new movie, Im not unhappy that hes written a book about it. I mean face it folks, if you dont like it, dont read it, and if you can do BETTER DO IT!
This is a fallacious argument. There are a lot *more ways to pirate a movie than to burn it do a DVD. Now it's possible to rip a DVD to your HD and do the translation to VCD/MPEG1 from there (rather than doing the decoding via the original DVD which has some heat issues.) Look at the number of people running around with little hard-ons because they managed to DL the crappy Star Wars mpeg. Or those who were l33t and got a copy of the Matrix. Woo. *
Yes.. but I can do that without software of the kind they are discussing.. I can just throw it in my DVD player at home, and rip it to a VHS tape via vcr.. or pipe it into the BTTV card in my machine and encode the incoming stream as mpg.
The point of DVD's is not ONLY the digital media, its the fact that they put all those nifty little things in there with them (see The Wall DVD or The Matrix DVD) that you dont get with the VHS or the cheap little mpg copy. I suspect THAT is what the BIg Brothers companys are worried about, not about people ripping it to their harddrive.. WHICH, by the way, is STILL not illegal to do.. its just illegal to do with anything not produced by a very select few companies who are in bed with the MPAA.. the very same people who wont stand up to the ratings system and put out what we want to see.. they wont stand up to a review board of 10 nameless people who rate tapes on a medievel system, yet they will take on one guy in a foreign country who wrote some code.. curious.
Okay.. neat thing about Heinlein is you can read his adult stuff (Friday, Time Enough for Love, etc) while your niece? read his younger audience stuff (Have space suit will travel, podkayne of mars, The Star Beast).. and then there are some that you can BOTH read, together, like Troopers, etc.
Now.. on to what I consider a MUST HAVE list for any self respecting science fiction librarist: Heinlien.. pick a few threads you like and follow them.. or dont. *grin* but you should have SOME heinlein.
Asimov.. not just Foundation series, Robots Series.. read some of his anthologies too.. he had a knack for putting together some REAL good authors you would otherwise not have heard of.
A.E.Van Vogt (rest his soul) anything you can find by him.
E.E Doc Smith: the Lensmen.. foundation for some of the best space opera stories ever written.
Spider Robinson: do you have a sense of humor? she does.
Robert Howard for the more fantasy oriented, the L. Sprague DeCamp Conan novels are pretty good, Robert Adams..
I think one of the main problems today is there are VERY few "Science Fiction" authors left.. the dude who writes the Ender books and Greg Bear come to mind, but the rest of em all write Fantasy, and the only thing new I can find in science fiction at Waldenbooks is "STar Trek:TNG".. I think this is a problem.. we need to get this genre back, and NOT just for those of us who eat sleep and live IASFM and ANALOG....
THanks for your time.
Maeryk
Re:I disagree with this one bit:
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
**I suppose one of the best uses of this technique would be to properly determine the originator of your sig quote.**
I, as I assume you, used to think this was a Voltaire quote. Someone here pointed me to the fact that it was *not* Voltaire, but was Tallentyre who said it. I went and looked it up on the one quote database, and it said "usually attributed to Voltaire, but not appearing anywhere in his repertoire, actually said by Tallentyre".
So nyahh.
*grin*
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
**No, I want to see some proof. Hmm... Did you understand this little demonstrations? **
No, Frankly, I dont. It is one thing to accept uncoroborated evidence as fact, and yet another to doubt something that was duly testified to in court and investigated. You can be an idiot if you wish, and say "they are just as valid", but, well, the fool is you.
**As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not*
to allow the State of Florida to finish do its count, thereby selecting Bush. The Supreme Court even said they made a mistake to stop the counts, but that because of their mistake it was too late so Bush would have to do. ***
can I distort your myopic world view for a moment?
1) the recount (the FIRST) recount was mandated by Florida state law. The second, third, ad nauseum were mandated only by Gores crack team of lawyers, to force the issue.
2) By the laws of the state of Florida, and the laws of the US, (electoral college) Bush won the election. All the civil rights lawsuits in the world wont help.
3) Gores claims (and clintons, as well) of "every vote a counted one" rang with hypocrisy even as they said them, as there were many other counties in Florida that were just as close, yet on Gore's side, which were *not* recounted, or even mentioned.
4) Gored DNC president RESIGNED because of this issue! Gore got *just* close enough to being a ridiculous whining little child over this entire thing, that Rendell was *removed* from his position when he stated it was time for Gore to give it up, it was Bush's game!
How can you, in good conscience, follow that and *still* claim the wrong man got in? you can have objections to bush, or be for Gore, but you cannot claim that the election was the cause..
I honestly believe that the biggest fear about Ashcroft is that he wont be a presidential ass-kisser like Reno was, and that he may actually have some sort of spine, ulike Reno. Course, with a republican regime, no-one will be able to do anything without it being under the microscope. I just have to wonder if it would have been any different if the Republican AG had intentionally gassed over a dozen children to death in a compound. Would he/her and his troops walk free? Somehow I dont think so.
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
**Referring to the sheriff and the police chief, Burger told the Review, "Both men stated at different times during the meeting that - based on their conversations with Governor Ashcroft - the governor said he would 'look the other way' specifically regarding the [Missouri] Supreme Court's ruling and asset seizures going to education.**
No, I want to see some proof. Not one guy saying "he said she said". Sorry.. I dont buy that. When the "he said she said" was coming out over the last batch of elected crooks, we got "OH! that's anecdotal! No proof!" we got "Ohh.. you are just mean.. there is no *proof*.. those guys are just lying to make them look bad".
I see no reason not to apply the same judgement to this sudden revelation.
I am not a "Zealot", but I also dont believe that *ANYONE* in washington.. from bush down to the lowliest aide, doenst have *something* in their closet. What strikes me as humorous is that the guy threatening to filibuster against him DROWNED someone, and is now bitching about morals.
*sigh*
As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not* to rule on that, and let it be decided by the state.. a noble thing, AFAIC.
This was almost a shameless theft by the Gore camp.. but the good guys won on this one.
Maeryk
Re:I disagree with this one bit:
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
**You should be just as paranoid about taking what they say as facts **
Excellent point! And, on a related note, just because they post a link that backs up their belief, does not make it carved in stone.
The thing is, however, that *usually* you can track someone's posting history.. go look at the author.. then look up permutations of that name, and you can have a good idea of the validity of their claim.
Public scrutiny exists here just as anywhere.. and if someone with a nick *very* close to someone elses has posted two posts, whereas the other has hundreds, and karma of 40, it should be a clue as to what is going on there.
maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
**Ashcroft is the topic. Will he be nominated for Attorney General in spite of breaking the law because of his personal views? Another hypocritical lier, just like the president-select.
**
Ashcroft is a man who believes in his convictions. APparently that is not acceptable to the people currently involved in thwarting him. There is *absolutely* no reason he should not be placed in that office.
How can you say "president select"? or are you one of the people who still hasnt realized that Bush was elected fully within the laws of the US and within the laws of the state of Florida? Wake up, smell the big oil.. the man was legally elected, and we will now come out of the 8 year nightmare that was clinton.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how can you hold Ashcroft on a moral pinion, when Clinton just A) pardoned everyone involved in whitewater and his fund-raising scandals, and b) pleaded guilty to perjury and took a plea bargain of 5 year loss of law liscence and 25K fine when did so?
Please.. dont be a hypocrite yourself.. I never said Ashcroft *didnt* do it, I said that compared to the quantity of scandal following Clinton, this is *nothing* and no reason to keep him from assuming the office.
**"I believe," he writes, "that the same wonderfully verbose document, partly written in California libraries, could have led agents to Ted Kaczynski even without David Kaczynski's invaluable assistance." ***
Yeah.. read it again.. "could have" is not the same as "did" and the "even without David's assistance" means that they are acknowledging that that *is* what caught him.
Thats what I said.. he never said *HE* caught him.. he said that language analysis (for wont of a better term) did.. IE his brother recognized his writing style.. which was basically the basis of the review/book anyway.
Maeryk
Re:Typical "expert", claiming fame after the fact
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 2
If you had bothered to read what was actually stated in the article, yes, it was his Brother that turned him in.. and yes, that is how they caught him.. but the author Katz is quoting points out in the article, (and, presumably, deeper in the book) how the man's words gave him away. (a good example being his brother being able to pick him out.)
Read the article again.. and tell me where this guy says he had anything to do with the capture?
He is merely pointing out an example.
Maeryk
Re:This Author is on a National Censor List
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 1
blah blah yadda yadda.. how many cops testified that they were involved in malfeasance at Clintons direct order?
Next?
Maeryk.
(yes its OT.. I know..)
I disagree with this one bit:
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 3
>>There may be a flip-side to Foster's new science. In the wrong hands, it could mean that the kind of free speech and safety sometimes associated with anonymity -- Anonymous Cowards on this site can be obnoxious, but they also pass on valuable information -- could be lost
AC's are usually posting anonymously so they can be obnoxious. In the *rare* (to my eyes) occasion that they pass on something of value, it is a two-sided coin. On one side, it is valuable info, on the other side, it is plausibly false. It is *easy* to spout off when you are "hidden" on the net.
Anyone who thinks that they are "anonymous" on the net is direly mistaken. You can be tracked, and if you are annoying enough to the powers that be, you *will* be tracked.
it continually amazes me, however, that they can track down a cyber-pedophile, or the Una-bomber, but they are powerless to stop mass mailings from ISP]s that specifically dont allow them.
Anonymity is all well and good, I guess, but typically, I dont pay much attention to what they say. I am willing to stand by my words, as long as the context they were taken from is moved intact as well. (IE: dont take my quotes on GWAR to stand as my quotes on how I feel about female rights in this country. The two are about as diametrically opposed as possible, yet with huge search engines and Deja News out there, it is easy enough for someone to do just that.)
. Do you really believe the Gulf War had *anything* to do with the boom of the 90's.
lemme turn this around.. do you really think it *didnt*? we went nuts on defense spending. That in turn makes its way into the hands of people. Look around.. how many people that you know of are in some way involved in a company that does some sort of defense contracting for the government? War means bigger contracts, at bigger rates.
We also shipped a *lot* of people off to war.. this causes a lot of money to change hands as well.. *(the government has to buy jet fuel and diesel just like we do). It also put a lot more money *into* the economy due to the fact that you suddenly had a *lot* of active soldiers drawing pensions.
Pay attention to some economics.. they cycle in 6 to 8 year rolls. Reagans trickle down economics (which work far better and for a much longer time than just handing money to poor people) are responsible for the growth that began towards the end of Bush's term.. and then Clinton was claiming credit for a week after he was in office.
That growth has been artificially expanded for the last 3 to 4 years.. unchecked spending and growth and a raise in the minimum raise without a raise in anything to compensate it. That doesnt work. Minimum wage goes up, and everything else goes up as well. (or should.. if it doesnt, we have big problems.) The oil/gas crunch of the summer has a lot to do with the sudden slowdown as well.. companies lost a *lot* of money on that one.. and people are beginning to feel it... Economic POLICY takes years.. but a direct hit to money comes much more quickly.
Prices are going to begin to rise.. and then will rise rapidly.. they cant do anything else. And thank this "boom" economy (and government regulation) for the power situation in california as well.
That the net was *this* important to the world economy. Maybe thats because it isnt?
Lets take a few things from this article and look at them.. "the net was a hive of hackers".. I dont remember that? Do you? I suspect revisionist history is at work.
Gaming,once again, John, is not a "culture".. its gaming.
The reason a lot of dot.com's are going down are simple. 1) people are much more comfortable going to a store. Sure..some of us order crap over the internet.. but I find it much easier to find the *price* over the internet, and then go to my local retailer, and say "I can get it for this from them." It usually works, I get the discount price, I can take it home *then* and it doesnt get broken in shipping, or the company that sold it to me doesnt fall down the next day.
Impossible to navigate websites: There are companies that sell stuff on the net that I want.. but I wont patronize them simply because their sites are *STUPID*. Not difficult.. plain outright *stupid*. If these companies arent bright enough to let their web-coders design the page, rather than some highly paid yutz who comes in for a week, draws up an impossible plan, and then gives the afore-mentioned coders a horrible headache making it, (and me one reading it), why should I patronize them?
Basically, the Net is 1% useful stuff and 99% useless fluff.. and until that gets sorted out, I dont think most of these dot.com's are going to make a lot. Sure, a few will rise above, but the majority will suck, and continue to sink.
Thats my consumer dollar at work, folks. Dont blame the "tech industry" for the mistakes of the marketing and delivery people.
Jon.. this is not news, groundbreaking, earthshattering, or even very good writing.
You are, once again, preaching this to those who know better. Most anyone who reads slashdot understands enough about machines to know that its not the hardware that is really the issue.. its our ability to put what we want in the form that a computer can digest.
Yes, that monstrous gigaflop machine they built can model the weather and atmoshperic issues on a global scale.. but it takes human (or in MS case, simian) fingers to write what the computer *needs* to do in order to get the desired results.
Asking "what cant computers do" is like asking "what cant a 9 mm box wrench do". The computer is a tool, nothing more, and you have to know how to use the tool to get any beneficial work from it. Yes, you can use the above mentioned wrench as a hammer or a prybar, but they arent terribly effective as either.. it is much better tightening or loosening a 9mm nut.
THe better question would be "What limitations do programmers have now that keep computers from doing wonderful things". In which case the answer would be: lack of vision, in some cases, lack of information to code into a program, and lack of *need* for all the fantastical things that people seem to expect computers to be able to do.
Slashdot Mirror
**Actually it depends on the standards. People complain when they aren't "picked". This is natural. People also complain when a (in their opinion) useless windbag doesn't have to be picked because he is both the writer and editor of his pieces. **
/. editors choose what to post, and we tell them what we think of their choices so they can serve us better. One part of this arrangement only neccessitates the other, it doesn't eliminate it. **
/. is a hobby by someone that has gotten out of hand, tho not in a bad way, and is now viewed as a RIGHT by some people.
Okay.. now, we ALL know, from reading the editorial pages, that people who agree usually dont pick up pen and paper, but people who DO disagree write vociferously against what they disagree with. Taking the standard response to a Katz column, of @300 posts, you can hack at LEAST half of them off as A.C. crap, first posts, and outright flames, so that leaves us with @150 posts.. now.. out of that 150.. what, probably 25% are dupes or the same person responding back.. so you figure slightly over 100 posts are ACTUAL people posting ACTUAL comments.
Now.. I have a hard time believing that the ENTIRE slashdot community is represented by those 100 posts, nor that ALL of them disagree with katz. (certainly over 50%.. but not all).
So.. here we find out, that due to what is almost certainly a minority opinion, (katz sucks) he should not get posted at all, or someone (rob, nate, someone) should be forced to edit his writing?
I disagree.. I think Katz has a right to say what he wants, freely and unedited.
I saw someone say "why he continues to write longwindedly in a medium that requires brevity".. I disagree heartily. I suspect if you dont want to actually READ the entire piece, you shouldnt be reading.. wait.. that sounds too harsh.. lets just say if you want New York Daily News style headlines with no substance, READ the Daily News.. I would rather read the comparatively verbose Wall Stree Journal and LEARN the facts, not just a 30 second blurb on the news.
**And, yes, the
"serve us better"? "serve" insinuates a paid relationship.. now.. i see people whining about the single add I see at the top of Slashdot.. it has never bothered me.. but the fact that some people expect to be "served" by something they put 0 dollars into, and, basically, 0 work into, seems ludicrous to me.
Im more than happy to skip articles I dont want to read, and dont feel the need to read them, knowing I dont like the subject matter, then post stating the obvious, that I dont like the subject matter.
I would rather spend my time, energy, and bandwidth reading and supporting things I like.
Maeryk
I gotta say.. I have more respect for Katz than I did before.
/. to pick and choose our stories for us. What strikes me as funny is the number of people who WANT the editors to censor Katz, to the point of removing him entirely, yet complain bitterly when their post gets moderated down, or when an article they submit does not make it on the page. *tsk tsk* Guess it depends on whose bull is getting gored.
My take is: this dude is just voicing his opinion, as you, or I do on a daily basis. I find myself speaking to my knowledgeless co-workers about topics they dont understand, and he does the same, granted to a wider audience. THe difference, I suspect, is that HE gets published, while WE do not. sure.. his message wont hit EVERYONE square on, but it does make me think about things, even if I dont necessarily agree 100%.
As far as the avenue goes.. hey.. its a free country, you are not FORCED to read something.. and I still think its up to the people who run
As for the "religion" portion.. RIGHT ON JOHN! YOu hit it SQUARELY on the head IMHO.. a LOT of people band together under the flag of "Xianity" who dont belong there, which is why I choose to call myself pagan.. I dont follow the catholic church, or the baptist, etc etc, I follow the bible, as best I can. But taking ANY dogmatic approach decided by some dude in a pointy white hat in Rome and decreeing it as the final word of god seems silly, stupid, and kind of ridiculous to me, so YES.. keep the "church" *(read organization, NOT read "morals") OUT of technology, school, and etc. Any time you PRESCRIBE a faith, you exclude.. give people the right to make moral decisions based on the laws and stop brow beating them, and the world WILL be a better place.
Anyway, keep up the good work, Katz.. I, for one, actually LIKE you pieces.
Maeryk
First off let me say this:
/. thank god).
the JOB of a journalist, IMHO, is to make you think. IF your idea of thinking is a gut reaction to "I hate you" then great, if it means looking deeper into what someone said to find flaws, or find backing, then even BETTER
everytime something from Katz comes up, we get a gazillion posts saying nothing more than "I hate katz I hate katz".. fine.. dont read it then, and PLEASE dont consider yourself forced to give us your opinion.. after all.. *(most)* of the flames are people saying "katz's opinion is wrong" when in fact the same ruler could be layed against the poster.. *YOUR* opinion is wrong to ME.. so if you have nothing to add, please go post about Natalie somewhere else, okay? PLEASE?
Now.. onto the article.. Im not sure what this bodes for the net.. (do we REALLY want that many people suddenly dumped on it? *sigh*) But I think this is a GOOD thing in the long term. IF you are all worried about Ford finding something illegal on your machine, umm, well, dont d/l illegal stuff.. that's pretty cut and dried. Anyone who would accept this sort of thing without it VERY clearly spelled out in writing what is acceptable terms of use, and what is not needs to have their head examined, I suspect.
I know what "acceptable use" at my company constitutes, so Im just very careful about where I go (so far, no flack about
But this is good.. it brings computers into the home, it gives us Linux junkies a chance to bring over more millions to the dark side.. and it gives a LOT of small children access to something they critically NEED in this day and age.. a computer, so they can LEARN how to use one. NOt the 'net' as much as just the box itself.. all the training in the world wont help you if you are alien to the equipment.
Just my ton of comment.
Maeryk
*Linux addresses some of these issues, but that was not intentional. It just happens to be free.*
Unless I am misunderstanding your intent here, I heartily disagree.. Linux was written by Linus because he didnt want to/couldnt afford to/pay for a full distro of a commercial Unix. He DECIDED to keep it free to give others in his position the same benefit he gave himself.
That sound to me very much like Intent.. it IS the OS for the masses, if the masses just want to learn a bit to use it.
Now.. as far as "intent" meaning it can run on cheap boxen anyone can get at a thrift store these days, that was more of an accident, or a lack of real forward momentum in the Linux Movement. (a combination, I would say, as Linux tends to progress linearly, whereas WIndows Stair-steps upwards to new hardware every release or two, Linux takes them into account, but remains an option for everthing previous).
Maeryk
**What is boils down to (in example) was that he was asking you to take my unescorted 12 year-old child into a movie...with no interaction with or approval from me...the child's parent. As a parent, I am aware that the world itself will influence my child in ways that I could never hope to control. The best that I can do is to inform and educate them responsibly and hope for the best. But to see someone outright telling the general public to remove my right to so much as make that attempt to guide my child is ludicrous to me. **
I recall reading that article, and I dont EVER recall him saying "12 year old child".. I suspect he was using his article with the assumption that anyone who would actually DO it would have SOME form of basic judgement that would translate to "if your neighbors 16 year old wants to see it that is one thing, but a 9 year old is a different story".. or at least, that was MY take on the article. One of the things about Katz that I like is many different people get many different impressions of what he meant, which is kind of kewl, IMHO.
So.. I can see your point, but I did not think he meant 12 year olds, I thought he meant children who are close enough to the age of majority to make decisions for themselves, especially regarding a cartoon.
maeryk
**He's not a gasbag, he is, ironicaly, speaking about something which most of this crowd have no interest in: social movements. Let's face it, most geeks are interested in our machines and whatever directly affects that, not large viewpoints about all the massive changes to society which our behaviour is influencing. **
And I would submit that a lot of the people who complain about him being long-winded and rambling grew up in the age of 30 second sound bites and cover blurbs on pulp books being more important than the actual CONTENT of the work.
I grew up reading Science Fiction of the type of Heinlein, Asimov, etc.. VERY wordy authors.. but I learned in that that READING the entire thing did much to enhance the ENJOYMENT of the thing. Just like a Cliff Notes will let you pass the test, you cannot claim you KNOW "The Scarlet Letter" until you have actually READ it.
Another point: I think you are right on the nose.. the first time Katz claims that "Geeks are against the dehumanization of the working class by the demagoguist huge corporations through the use of suits and job titles" or some close thought to that, some dude who is a communist devil worshiping homosexual with three feet decides HE has just been insulted because he doesnt fit (one) of those ideas, and just has to flame to preserve his good name.
I think you are right.. may geeks treat life like they treat slashdot.. check off the boxes about what you want to read, ignore the rest of the world, whether or not it matters, and then bitch yea and mightily when you even SEE reference to something that you didnt check off.. (see all the people whining that they saw a piece on Katz.. I for one could care LESS about BSD, but if I see a piece I dont want to read, hey, I dont read it, I dont get my panties in a knot because the blurb appeared on SlashDot.)
I mean, Slashdot is FREE.. it is put up by someone else, it is a PRIVELEGE to people, NOT a right, so quit whining.. if you dont wanna read it, skip the blurb and dont click "read more".. also humorous to me is the number of people who seem to feel that their opinion is great, but are afraid to express it anywhere but under A/C.. *sigh*
The First Amendment, unfortunately, does not come with an instruction manual.
Maeryk
**Where is the oppression in a 12 year-old not being allowed to enter a rated R film without his parents? This is IMPORTANT?? Come off it. How valid is the opinion of a man who would advise you to expose children to things that their young minds may not be prepared to comprehend? How valid are the thoughts of a man that would have us go to such ridiculous extremes for so little...for nothing at all. **
The opression? the opression, in my mind, comes from the fact that the MPAA rating system SUCKS, that its okay to have people blown to hell in a film, but a naked arse or a bad word is not. HUH???? I think that parents should be required to accompany ANYONE under the age of 18 to ALL movies.. maybe then their kids wouldnt be in the parking lot breaking the antenna off my car, or setting fire to my cat. But seriously: why does a movie get an NC:17, or R rating for the FAKE portrayal of something they can see on The evening news (real, and usually just as graphic) or on the Soap Operas (fake, but graphic none-theless) or on NYPD Blue? Its the PARENTS decision, and the difference between an INFORMED decision and a FORCED decision is quite large indeed.
If I remember correctly, the movie in question was SP BLU.. and that was not a movie I would take my 7 year old to see, *nor is the series something I allow him to watch* however, I dont think there was ANYTHING in there that I wouldnt let him experience at 15, 16, etc.. I dont think we can keep children sheltered until they turn 18 and then go "Okay.. here ya go.. now you can vote, go kill in the army, see movies, FINALLY see a naked breast on Film, and BTW, you are now totally responsible for your entire life, and please dont kill anyone learning how to exercise that responsibility".
Just my take on this.
maeryk
***The 'outsider' stereotype that katz presents of geeks, is IMHO total BULL. I've always considered myself a computer geek, a Star Trek geek, a RPG geek, later a MTG geek, and general all-around techno-geek. My friends also shared my interests. However, none of us were alienated outsiders in High School. I was an athlete, a thespian, a class clown. In no way did I, or do I fit the stereotypes, and I don't believe that Katz should be perpetuating them.***
/. regularly and understand what you read, and DONT do it just to flame and get your name on a webpage, you fall into at least enough of the category of "geek" that you can call yourself one. But dont let anyone call YOU one if you dont FEEL like one.
Right.. YOU didnt. but I did. and a lot of people I know did (suffer in school that is) and some of them didnt.. one of the geekiest guys I know has a wonderful outlook, a warm personality, and fits in wonderefully with the real world (or would, if it werent for the shaved head, huge tattoos, and the leg braces from the MS.. ) but he chooses to eschew that so he can be a programmer/net admin at a small local ISP. He wouldnt be HIM if he wore a suit, had a Pierce Brosnan cut, and didnt scream profanity at random just to watch people jump.
One must remember, not ALL geeks will fit ALL the profile points Katz gave, some will fit most, some will fit few, and a few will fit NONE of them.. there HAS to be a geek in the world that had it ALL up until a traumatic car accident at 23 forced him into the world of the net, etc etc etc.. and I didnt see that mentioned anywhere.
Not all hippies had long hair and smoked pot either, but a group classification, by its very nature, has to take the stats exhibited by the majority, and, unfortunately, miss the minority.
I would assume, that if you read
Maeryk
Im not sure what take to take on this, so I will start here:
Im a little uncomfortable with the assertion that ALL geeks are tecnologically advanced.. with computers, anyway.. I mean, wouldnt someone who loves to work on cars and make them all they can be fall into the same category? Im not sure.
High school alienation.. wow.. theres a new one.. by that definition, most of the people I know would be a "geek".. yet I have several friends whom I have to set up Quake for who then CALL themselves geeks cause they play quake. I dont THINK so tim.
I suspect the definition lies in a mass subset of what he said.. I mean, the definitions he gave fit just about anyone, in the long view, hippies, militarists, gays, etc.. and I know geeks who are all of the above.. I dont think a "geek" can be defined by anyone BUT the geek in question. I dont NEED someone telling me Im a geek, but I'll be pissed if someone tells me im NOT when I define myself that way. *(and im not ashamed to do so, as the amount of money I have sent to Copyleft will attest.)*
I just think the "geek" culture are the ones who make the most SENSE (you know? logic?) in the world right now. WHat the HELL does it matter how long my hair is, whether or not I wear wingtips or sneakers, or denim or Armani, if I DO MY JOB WELL AND MAKE MONEY FOR THE SYSTEM? The assumption that EVERYONE in an office must wear a suit is outdated, ridiculous, and just plain silly.. make the people who have contact with the outside world wear them, let those of us who wander around dirty and climb under desks and behind machines in labs to repair them wear clothes that are DESIGNED to get dirty.
I like Katz, and I dont think he is "cashing in on geeks" anymore than Gibson did, or Star Trek does every time they open a new movie, Im not unhappy that hes written a book about it. I mean face it folks, if you dont like it, dont read it, and if you can do BETTER DO IT!
just my several bucks worth of opinion.
Maeryk
This is a fallacious argument. There are a lot *more ways to pirate a movie than to burn it do a DVD. Now it's possible to rip a DVD to your HD and do the translation to VCD/MPEG1 from there (rather than doing the decoding via the original DVD which has some heat issues.) Look at the number of people running around with little hard-ons because they managed to DL the crappy Star Wars mpeg. Or those who were l33t and got a copy of the Matrix. Woo. *
Yes.. but I can do that without software of the kind they are discussing.. I can just throw it in my DVD player at home, and rip it to a VHS tape via vcr.. or pipe it into the BTTV card in my machine and encode the incoming stream as mpg.
The point of DVD's is not ONLY the digital media, its the fact that they put all those nifty little things in there with them (see The Wall DVD or The Matrix DVD) that you dont get with the VHS or the cheap little mpg copy. I suspect THAT is what the BIg Brothers companys are worried about, not about people ripping it to their harddrive.. WHICH, by the way, is STILL not illegal to do.. its just illegal to do with anything not produced by a very select few companies who are in bed with the MPAA.. the very same people who wont stand up to the ratings system and put out what we want to see.. they wont stand up to a review board of 10 nameless people who rate tapes on a medievel system, yet they will take on one guy in a foreign country who wrote some code.. curious.
Maeryk
Hmmm. He's a troll. You however are just a hypocritical dick.
This coming from anonymous coward?
I would like to know how Im just a hyporcritical dick?
Please.. at least have the guts to sign a name to your post if you are going to insult people like that.
Maeryk
Okay.. neat thing about Heinlein is you can read his adult stuff (Friday, Time Enough for Love, etc) while your niece? read his younger audience stuff (Have space suit will travel, podkayne of mars, The Star Beast).. and then there are some that you can BOTH read, together, like Troopers, etc.
Now.. on to what I consider a MUST HAVE list for any self respecting science fiction librarist:
Heinlien.. pick a few threads you like and follow them.. or dont. *grin* but you should have SOME heinlein.
Asimov.. not just Foundation series, Robots Series.. read some of his anthologies too.. he had a knack for putting together some REAL good authors you would otherwise not have heard of.
A.E.Van Vogt (rest his soul) anything you can find by him.
E.E Doc Smith: the Lensmen.. foundation for some of the best space opera stories ever written.
Spider Robinson: do you have a sense of humor? she does.
Robert Howard for the more fantasy oriented, the L. Sprague DeCamp Conan novels are pretty good, Robert Adams..
I think one of the main problems today is there are VERY few "Science Fiction" authors left.. the dude who writes the Ender books and Greg Bear come to mind, but the rest of em all write Fantasy, and the only thing new I can find in science fiction at Waldenbooks is "STar Trek:TNG".. I think this is a problem.. we need to get this genre back, and NOT just for those of us who eat sleep and live IASFM and ANALOG....
THanks for your time.
Maeryk
**I suppose one of the best uses of this technique would be to properly determine the originator of your sig quote.**
I, as I assume you, used to think this was a Voltaire quote. Someone here pointed me to the fact that it was *not* Voltaire, but was Tallentyre who said it. I went and looked it up on the one quote database, and it said "usually attributed to Voltaire, but not appearing anywhere in his repertoire, actually said by Tallentyre".
So nyahh.
*grin*
Maeryk
**No, I want to see some proof. Hmm... Did you understand this little demonstrations? **
No, Frankly, I dont. It is one thing to accept uncoroborated evidence as fact, and yet another to doubt something that was duly testified to in court and investigated. You can be an idiot if you wish, and say "they are just as valid", but, well, the fool is you.
**As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not*
to allow the State of Florida to finish do its count, thereby selecting Bush. The Supreme Court even said they made a mistake to stop the counts, but that because of their mistake it was too late so Bush would have to do. ***
can I distort your myopic world view for a moment?
1) the recount (the FIRST) recount was mandated by Florida state law. The second, third, ad nauseum were mandated only by Gores crack team of lawyers, to force the issue.
2) By the laws of the state of Florida, and the laws of the US, (electoral college) Bush won the election. All the civil rights lawsuits in the world wont help.
3) Gores claims (and clintons, as well) of "every vote a counted one" rang with hypocrisy even as they said them, as there were many other counties in Florida that were just as close, yet on Gore's side, which were *not* recounted, or even mentioned.
4) Gored DNC president RESIGNED because of this issue! Gore got *just* close enough to being a ridiculous whining little child over this entire thing, that Rendell was *removed* from his position when he stated it was time for Gore to give it up, it was Bush's game!
How can you, in good conscience, follow that and *still* claim the wrong man got in? you can have objections to bush, or be for Gore, but you cannot claim that the election was the cause..
I honestly believe that the biggest fear about Ashcroft is that he wont be a presidential ass-kisser like Reno was, and that he may actually have some sort of spine, ulike Reno. Course, with a republican regime, no-one will be able to do anything without it being under the microscope. I just have to wonder if it would have been any different if the Republican AG had intentionally gassed over a dozen children to death in a compound. Would he/her and his troops walk free? Somehow I dont think so.
Maeryk
**Referring to the sheriff and the police chief, Burger told the Review, "Both men stated at different times during the meeting that - based on their conversations with Governor Ashcroft - the governor said he would 'look the other way' specifically regarding the [Missouri] Supreme Court's ruling and asset seizures going to education.**
No, I want to see some proof. Not one guy saying "he said she said". Sorry.. I dont buy that. When the "he said she said" was coming out over the last batch of elected crooks, we got "OH! that's anecdotal! No proof!" we got "Ohh.. you are just mean.. there is no *proof*.. those guys are just lying to make them look bad".
I see no reason not to apply the same judgement to this sudden revelation.
I am not a "Zealot", but I also dont believe that *ANYONE* in washington.. from bush down to the lowliest aide, doenst have *something* in their closet. What strikes me as humorous is that the guy threatening to filibuster against him DROWNED someone, and is now bitching about morals.
*sigh*
As for the election being decided by the Supreme Court.. nah.. they specifically ruled *not* to rule on that, and let it be decided by the state.. a noble thing, AFAIC.
This was almost a shameless theft by the Gore camp.. but the good guys won on this one.
Maeryk
**You should be just as paranoid about taking what they say as facts **
Excellent point! And, on a related note, just because they post a link that backs up their belief, does not make it carved in stone.
The thing is, however, that *usually* you can track someone's posting history.. go look at the author.. then look up permutations of that name, and you can have a good idea of the validity of their claim.
Public scrutiny exists here just as anywhere.. and if someone with a nick *very* close to someone elses has posted two posts, whereas the other has hundreds, and karma of 40, it should be a clue as to what is going on there.
maeryk
**Ashcroft is the topic. Will he be nominated for Attorney General in spite of breaking the law because of his personal views? Another hypocritical lier, just like the president-select.
**
Ashcroft is a man who believes in his convictions. APparently that is not acceptable to the people currently involved in thwarting him. There is *absolutely* no reason he should not be placed in that office.
How can you say "president select"? or are you one of the people who still hasnt realized that Bush was elected fully within the laws of the US and within the laws of the state of Florida? Wake up, smell the big oil.. the man was legally elected, and we will now come out of the 8 year nightmare that was clinton.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how can you hold Ashcroft on a moral pinion, when Clinton just A) pardoned everyone involved in whitewater and his fund-raising scandals, and b) pleaded guilty to perjury and took a plea bargain of 5 year loss of law liscence and 25K fine when did so?
Please.. dont be a hypocrite yourself.. I never said Ashcroft *didnt* do it, I said that compared to the quantity of scandal following Clinton, this is *nothing* and no reason to keep him from assuming the office.
Maeryk
**"I believe," he writes, "that the same wonderfully verbose document, partly written in California libraries, could have led agents to Ted Kaczynski even without David Kaczynski's invaluable assistance." ***
Yeah.. read it again.. "could have" is not the same as "did" and the "even without David's assistance" means that they are acknowledging that that *is* what caught him.
Thats what I said.. he never said *HE* caught him.. he said that language analysis (for wont of a better term) did.. IE his brother recognized his writing style.. which was basically the basis of the review/book anyway.
Maeryk
If you had bothered to read what was actually stated in the article, yes, it was his Brother that turned him in.. and yes, that is how they caught him.. but the author Katz is quoting points out in the article, (and, presumably, deeper in the book) how the man's words gave him away. (a good example being his brother being able to pick him out.)
Read the article again.. and tell me where this guy says he had anything to do with the capture?
He is merely pointing out an example.
Maeryk
blah blah yadda yadda.. how many cops testified that they were involved in malfeasance at Clintons direct order?
Next?
Maeryk.
(yes its OT.. I know..)
>>There may be a flip-side to Foster's new science. In the wrong hands, it could mean that the kind of free speech and safety sometimes associated with anonymity -- Anonymous Cowards on this site can be obnoxious, but they also pass on valuable information -- could be lost
AC's are usually posting anonymously so they can be obnoxious. In the *rare* (to my eyes) occasion that they pass on something of value, it is a two-sided coin. On one side, it is valuable info, on the other side, it is plausibly false. It is *easy* to spout off when you are "hidden" on the net.
Anyone who thinks that they are "anonymous" on the net is direly mistaken. You can be tracked, and if you are annoying enough to the powers that be, you *will* be tracked.
it continually amazes me, however, that they can track down a cyber-pedophile, or the Una-bomber, but they are powerless to stop mass mailings from ISP]s that specifically dont allow them.
Anonymity is all well and good, I guess, but typically, I dont pay much attention to what they say. I am willing to stand by my words, as long as the context they were taken from is moved intact as well. (IE: dont take my quotes on GWAR to stand as my quotes on how I feel about female rights in this country. The two are about as diametrically opposed as possible, yet with huge search engines and Deja News out there, it is easy enough for someone to do just that.)
Maeryk
Nice cycle:
74-82 = 8 years
82-90 = 8 years
90-01 = 11 years
whoops... maybe there IS a little more to it you simplistic fool
Try taking a decent economics or banking course.. then you will understand, you poor mislead media follower.
maeryk
. Do you really believe the Gulf War had *anything* to do with the boom of the 90's.
lemme turn this around.. do you really think it *didnt*? we went nuts on defense spending. That in turn makes its way into the hands of people. Look around.. how many people that you know of are in some way involved in a company that does some sort of defense contracting for the government? War means bigger contracts, at bigger rates.
We also shipped a *lot* of people off to war.. this causes a lot of money to change hands as well.. *(the government has to buy jet fuel and diesel just like we do). It also put a lot more money *into* the economy due to the fact that you suddenly had a *lot* of active soldiers drawing pensions.
Pay attention to some economics.. they cycle in 6 to 8 year rolls. Reagans trickle down economics (which work far better and for a much longer time than just handing money to poor people) are responsible for the growth that began towards the end of Bush's term.. and then Clinton was claiming credit for a week after he was in office.
That growth has been artificially expanded for the last 3 to 4 years.. unchecked spending and growth and a raise in the minimum raise without a raise in anything to compensate it. That doesnt work. Minimum wage goes up, and everything else goes up as well. (or should.. if it doesnt, we have big problems.) The oil/gas crunch of the summer has a lot to do with the sudden slowdown as well.. companies lost a *lot* of money on that one.. and people are beginning to feel it... Economic POLICY takes years.. but a direct hit to money comes much more quickly.
Prices are going to begin to rise.. and then will rise rapidly.. they cant do anything else. And thank this "boom" economy (and government regulation) for the power situation in california as well.
Maeryk
That the net was *this* important to the world economy. Maybe thats because it isnt?
Lets take a few things from this article and look at them.. "the net was a hive of hackers".. I dont remember that? Do you? I suspect revisionist history is at work.
Gaming,once again, John, is not a "culture".. its gaming.
The reason a lot of dot.com's are going down are simple. 1) people are much more comfortable going to a store. Sure..some of us order crap over the internet.. but I find it much easier to find the *price* over the internet, and then go to my local retailer, and say "I can get it for this from them." It usually works, I get the discount price, I can take it home *then* and it doesnt get broken in shipping, or the company that sold it to me doesnt fall down the next day.
Impossible to navigate websites: There are companies that sell stuff on the net that I want.. but I wont patronize them simply because their sites are *STUPID*. Not difficult.. plain outright *stupid*. If these companies arent bright enough to let their web-coders design the page, rather than some highly paid yutz who comes in for a week, draws up an impossible plan, and then gives the afore-mentioned coders a horrible headache making it, (and me one reading it), why should I patronize them?
Basically, the Net is 1% useful stuff and 99% useless fluff.. and until that gets sorted out, I dont think most of these dot.com's are going to make a lot. Sure, a few will rise above, but the majority will suck, and continue to sink.
Thats my consumer dollar at work, folks. Dont blame the "tech industry" for the mistakes of the marketing and delivery people.
Maeryk
Jon.. this is not news, groundbreaking, earthshattering, or even very good writing.
You are, once again, preaching this to those who know better. Most anyone who reads slashdot understands enough about machines to know that its not the hardware that is really the issue.. its our ability to put what we want in the form that a computer can digest.
Yes, that monstrous gigaflop machine they built can model the weather and atmoshperic issues on a global scale.. but it takes human (or in MS case, simian) fingers to write what the computer *needs* to do in order to get the desired results.
Asking "what cant computers do" is like asking "what cant a 9 mm box wrench do". The computer is a tool, nothing more, and you have to know how to use the tool to get any beneficial work from it. Yes, you can use the above mentioned wrench as a hammer or a prybar, but they arent terribly effective as either.. it is much better tightening or loosening a 9mm nut.
THe better question would be "What limitations do programmers have now that keep computers from doing wonderful things". In which case the answer would be: lack of vision, in some cases, lack of information to code into a program, and lack of *need* for all the fantastical things that people seem to expect computers to be able to do.
Maeryk