Out of work sysadmin. Good references. Residing 20 mi N. of Seattle. Willing to work on migration to linux in exchange for transportation, food, and housing for the duration of the migration.
I don't know where I fit into your (unfounded, unsupported, and fully unresearched) estimates, Taco.
But I read the front page of slashdot about 1-3 times a day without logging into this account (aka anonymously// I only login if I want to identify myself -- as in this post -- so you'll know precisely who is slamming you for having lodged your head so securely in your colon).
About 3-5 of a day's postings interest me. Of those posts, my followup "clicking" is split about 50/50 between the articles themselves (in the case where the information interests me -- for which you deserve no credit, financially or otherwise) and the slashdot comments, reloaded once at level 4 (in the case where I want a sense of intelligent community opinion -- also for which you deserve no credit, financially or otherwise).
I will never pay you one red cent out of my own pocket. Ever. OSDN can rot in hell for all I care. Slashdot is one of many sites I use as a convenience. It's popular, yeah. But good? Not really.
If you're ads become intrusive, I'll start surfing in lynx. If you lock out text-only browsers, I'll leave you in a heartbeat, never look back, and likely be a better human being for having done so.
In the meanwhile, since you obviously seem sincere in your intention to financially gouge the members of the flailing, already depressed tech sector, whose interest in your site has made it what it is, I hope it leads you and OSDN into the annals of dot-bomb history as one of the last Net Titans to come crashing down in a night and a day.
The simple fact that you are even considering this is reason enough for me to want to see you fail. But the fact that you are considering it so seriously and sincerely (your lust for money having overtaken your love of involvement), makes me want to see you not only fail, but fail miserably... to have every effort you make to recover backfire and drag you deeper and deeper into the torments of self-doubt and depression... to have your life stripped away from you one tiny piece at a time... to have your entire legacy molded, day after day, into another example of what NOT to do after you become successful... to see you JOIN the rest of the victims of the dotcom bust... living in a homeless shelter... your nubile young new wife having left your sorry ass for some schmuck in the advertising industry.
Soon it will be illegal to have a personal firewall, if it prevents the spooks from spying on you.
Once the spooks learn that free software (gnu/linux, iptables, portsentry, tripwire, etc.) can keep out their fancy, new, legislation-backed, snoopware, they'll be arresting people for hosting distro mirrors.
Will they risk arresting Linus (ala Dmitry Skylarov)? Or will they learn the lesson of public opinion and go after VA/Sourceforge (ala ElcomSoft)?
Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support.
I don't mean to seem excessively cynical, sensationalistic, or "conspiracy theorist"-ic, but...
If, in fact, certain U.S. Gov't agencies and departments are involved, as the article states...
members from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have aided in the drafting of the treaty
...I would venture to say that, without serious intervention from some heroic source, this is just the first step in what is destined to become a "done deal" in one form or other.
U.S. Intelligence Agencies (those renown TLA's we all love to hate, a.k.a. spooks) know better than to ask for precisely what they want. The political wheels carry far too much momentum to attach such a weighty treatise as this one.
My expectation is that, very soon, we will see the actual negotiations begin on this... Meaning: Everyone involved didn't like the draft, but none of them wanted to be the one to say "we won't have anything to do with such a ridiculously proposed treaty", so they all step up to the bargaining table for the "rewrite". Once this occurs, legislation in one form or other will follow (even though it may not, in the end, resemble this "draft").
Point being: The USDOJ and the FBI don't want *this* treaty at all. They just want *any* treaty... on which they can then attach their trademark bureacratic processes... resulting in "the inalienable right" of the US government to legislate internet activity.
In summary: Accept the inevitable (the fact that wheels are in motion on this means it's already done if someone doesn't stop it), or start dumping tea into the harbour.
In some cases anonymous speach is the ONLY way in which some individuals can enjoy their right to free and open expressions of personal opinion.
As I said in my original post, I do not wish to lose the ability to post anonymously. In fact, I've used that ability numerous times, but specifically for non-productive contributions (those times when I want to say "me too" or "fuck CT" without damaging my karma).
I wasn't arguing this point.
My point was "right to speak" does not mean "right to speak anonymously". It never has, it never will. But, the fact that I know this doesn't mean I favor abolishment of anonymous posting, either.
The fact that some people would never participate if they couldn't do so anonymously is probably related, indirectly if not directly, to fear of reprisal (flames). Which sorta brings us back to JK's article, eh?
After reading several dozen posts, I noticed a trend...
Anyone who agreed that there should be further restriction on ACs was immediately countered with the fallacious argument that removal of anonymity also removes free speech.
Since when did "free speech" get extended to mean "anonymous speech"?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I agree with JK about ACs. I'm just saying that the counter-argument about "free" somehow equating to "right to anonymity" is bogus.
I do not wish to lose the ability to post anonymously, but I am not so naive as to presume I have some inalienable right to do so.
This applies not only to Slashdot, but to anywhere I want the right to speak my mind. Free speech has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with identity/anonymity.
Although I've never been an active USENET user, I do have a couple very close friends who are EXTREMELY active. One of them is a USENET administrator (forum sysop, moderator, or whatever) as well as a respected authority on the topic of Spam (especially USENET spam). And I must just say... After reading the FAQ (yes, I read it... unlike many of the folks asking "is this legal?"), I find this whole thing refreshingly invigorating. This is a PERFECT example of self-moderation (read: self-government) of Internet activity. A UDP isn't one guy deciding to do this (like Rob Malda attempting to use Slashdot's main page to "reform" Lucasfilms for failing to release PM on DVD) -- an official UDP announcement (in contrast to individual recommendations) requires concensus among the nana-u admins. Perhaps Slashdot could learn from USENET's well organized approach to self-moderation -- and keep personal agendas out of the main page, and possibly prevent heinously unfair web/email abuses (slashdotting) of the innocent or uninformed. If a site really *deserves* the full force of the Slashdot community, it should come through concensus and organized community response -- not kneejerk sensationalism.
With all the hoopla over PDAs and/or "the search for 7 of 9" (or neural shunts, ala _The Matrix_), why weren't any cool new video devices mentioned? Some goggles? Those cool new reflective prescription lenses?
And, most of all, what about that 3D holographic enhancement stuff for LCD screens derived from the same cheezy plastic stuff they use on Pogs and childrens' bookcovers (you know, the stuff that makes the dinosaur appear on the cover of the Jurassic Park videos) -- that's one of those things that makes you go: Holy Shit, Batman!!!
The stuff that won awards was all definitely interesting, but there was something lacking about its representation of "what we lust after" in the geek community.
Slashdot readers are involved with software, and recognize great abuses of the US Patent system as it has been applied to software. We want the patent system to bereformed. (This means we want software patents to be invalidated and no longer issued. [...])
I may read slashdot. I may even contribute to it by occassionally submitting articles, posting replies, and such. But I resent being lumped into this one single zealotist ideology.
While I certainly feel the patent system needs significant and substantial reform, I don't think it needs reformed so much that it mandates GPL on every piece of code... or such that it fails to pretect novel new concepts (even cheesy GUI widgets whined about in other posts).
Intellectual property is a serious matter which should not be trivialized (lest the truly creative people of the world will... well... stop creating). But the rate of change/development in the software industry does sorta necessitate a certain limit on the duration of patents for novel software ideas in order to prevent market stagnation or absolute monopolization.
On another note, we all worry about huge corporations exploiting their workforce's creativity by patenting every door hinge modification (read "jury rigging") some janitor makes to keep the flies out. Some change needs to occur in this area too.
And lastly, we all worry about the patent and trademark lackeys who allow lamers to apply for and GET trademarks such as John Q. Lamer getting a trademark on the name "Linus Torvalds" or Jane U. Byteme getting a patent on soap suds. Reform certainly has room in these areas.
But let's not get too hasty to slap an across the board characterization of the 'Slashdot ideology or agenda'. Personally, I detest having words put into my mouth.
I read UF with ritualistic regularity. And if there's one thing about it that stands out far and above all others is that Iliad isn't laugh AT anyone (except maybe M$). Rather, he's asking us all to come and laugh WITH him -- oftentimes laughing at ourselves.
It hasn't been all that long ago that A.J. and Miranda had their 6 episode "date". And I found it quite refreshing (adding to the overall humor) that Iliad put the 'day star' as Miranda's words. A female geek fully immersed in the secluded life so characteristic of 'geekdom'.
If you can't laugh at yourself, well... I pity you.
Since when did 'downloadability' become a prerequisite for calling something 'publicly available'?
Why don't you just call Sun and ask for a copy of the test(s)? If they deliver, it's publicly available and you, buddy boy [sic], will be dining on your own words.
I'm guessing the only reason there aren't many replies to your comments stems from two facts.
1) your.sig openly confesses your being under the cerebral chains of big brother bill.
2) your comments, regardless of your disclaiming.sig, reveal the extent of #1 above.
Now... if only there were a way to systematically redirect all Munchkins "directly to hell"...
------------
It doesn't matter who the bully is. No one likes a bully.
Pointing out the inconsistencies of the human spirit does not validate MS's right to bully.
If the slashdot community tends to forgive smaller players for bigger offenses, so what. It's not hypocrisy, it's human nature. If you're in last place (relief pitcher, 2nd team player, benchwarmer, etc.) in the game of life, society will be forgiving of minor (sometimes even major) transgressions.
But, if you're the "king of the hill", don't whine and pout because "everyone's out to get you". That's the way the game is played.
Each and every step up the ladder of success brings with it an additional obligation to refine one's impeccability. The more successful you are, the more closely you will be scrutinized (and rightfully so, in order to prevent the MS's of the world from becoming so powerful that they could dictate when/where I can/must pee, belch, or fart).
Good things and bad things are defined by the overall circumstances (net gain/loss). If MS is criticized for doing something that might have been called 'good' if it were done by another company, this is simply an illustration of a normal human distaste for the way MS does things, coupled with the fact that they're 'king of the hill' and the object of the game is to unseat the king.
If you don't like being part of the 'king of the hill', perhaps you need to look for another job.
At present, I2 is in development, which means it has no standards yet (open or proprietary). The 'in other news' comment at the bottom of that article was a 'free clue' (no purchase necessary, all rights released, can lead to enlightenment when used as directed). Didn't you read the Halloween memo?
I've got news for you.... My mom will probably be using Linux with StarOffice after the next StarOffice release (SO still has some stability issues to correct). She's already expressed (to me) great resentment about MS's tendency to mock the intelligence of average humans by: a) exploiting their lack of tech-savvy at exorbitant off-the-shelf prices, b) putting PR spins into the media to put a friendly facade onto their most viscious (and, I hope, soon to be ruled illegal) activities, and c) now, under MS's newest business tactic, charging for an upgrade to fix the bugs in software that has already been paid for (ref: the planned release of the next Win98).
Moms and dads are smarter than you think. Investors, on the other hand, don't care about the quality of the company they invest in. They only care about making money (the one thing Gates/MS have proven they can do), even at the expense of healthy economic competition.
Your placid, matter-of-fact tone belies nominal intelligence. Yet, some of the details also belie naivete' and shortsightedness.
it would be ignorant to forget that consumers and businesses (client side) rely on microsoft everyday to do what they need to do.
This is changing so fast, it'll all be history before you realize it. Caldera is making rapid inroads to desktop viability of linux. MS is on the wane (their marketers and PR reps are bailing as fast as they can, but the ship is still sinking).
this story is about microsoft contributing money to a project that could use it, not taking it over. Once again, I reiterate. Nowhere in this article (press release) does it say that MS is contributing "money". They're only contributing 'goods and services' with a dollar value applied by MS. If MS offered the same 'goods and services' to the FSF (or some other non-MS-dependent entity), how much do you think the FSF would claim it is worth? I confidently assert that it would probably be in the sub-$1.00 range (if the CDs were rewritable, this value would increase according to the price of CDs).
Giving of 'goods and services' on the part of MS amounts to this..
We'll burn a few hundred 50-cent CD's of our most expensive software and give them to you. And, we'll pay a few of our spies^H^H^H^H^H programmers to work on the project.
Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. This is not a 'contribution' by MS. It's their way of 'bartering for a first class ticket' (i.e, good PR) on the next technology train. If you honestly think they've contributed *anything* at this point (or even made a promise to do so), I'll gladly add you to the aforementioned list.
This is blatant 'embrace and extend' on the part of Microsoft.
Note that they're not donating a single dollar of currency to the project. Much like Benevolent Bill's donation of a billion dollars worth of MS products to schools and libraries a few weeks ago (at $0.50 per CD, it's easy for them to donate a billion dollars worth of $500 software), MS is not about to cut into their cash reserves for anything they don't fully own.
'Microsoft has a tremendous potential to contribute to systems and networking areas of Internet2,' said Ron Johnson, vice president of computing and communications, University of Washington. 'The potential for delivering robust, real-time tele-immersion, tele-medicine and high-quality demand video, television, telephony and multimedia, as well as network-aware and adaptive applications and the 'trust fabric' middleware needed for pervasive electronic business, is no longer just a dream. But to make it real across the desktops of the world it's essential to have Microsoft's research and product development at the table.'
I just added the name 'Ron Johnson' to my list of people apparently owned by MS. Whoever he is, he just started his 15 minutes of fame with a -1 credibility rating, IMO. How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?
King George has been dead a long, long, long time, dude. Americans no longer have British soldiers knocking on their doors.
Ammendments have been added and repealed to/from the US Constitution numerous times to maintian the overall appropriateness of the document. The first 10 amendments were named 'The Bill of Rights' out of literary flamboyance on the part of Thomas Jefferson, not out of some perceived ethical universality. In truth they're simply the first 10 (of dozens to follow) amendments.
Counterquery: Why are there no weekly massacres in my home where there have never been any firearms?
I'm not arguing either side of this issue. Rather, I'm simply pointing out issues of rationality/irrationality.
I remember when I first implemented the RC5DES cow on my home Linux box (AMDK5PR90) and on a mostly idle Win95 workstation at work (Intel P166), and my home Linux box was running circles around the blocks of the Win95 workstation (in fact, a few of my friends were embarrassed by their WinXX Intel PII's for not being all that much better than my Linux AMDK5PR90).
So, it makes me wonder about this test as well... Is it possible for someone to tweak a common-joe-affordable Linux box to outperform a supercharged, out-of-affordability-range NT box? Can someone duplicate the server load from the Mindcraft test on a highly tuned Linux PC and show that Linux can beat NT even when Linux is on a smaller machine?
After reading the article and all of the replies-above-1 (just trying to get a feel for what's been said in replies), I must say... Jon, are your feelings hurt? You're talking about the evils of a 99% readership base, for crying out loud (79,000/80,000).
Noteworthy points: attention economics (with all the sites I frequent on a daily basis, I've pretty much screwed myself out of a normal social life as it is. filtering options are helpful in this regard), filtering dissenting opinions/personalities (I feel sorry for the 1% readership who filter all of Jon's stuff. Personally, I don't use the filters - I don't use any of the user.pl stuff - cookies disabled, I read the default pages and filter by score. The idiots who don't wanna hear a specific *PERSON* damage themselves... and in the process increase my benefits by making me that much more aware than them WITHOUT ME HAVING TO READ ANYTHING EXTRA!! HAHAHA!).
I like having the choices (to use or not to use filters).
And like some of the other commenters, I'm against having someone else filter for me (this may seem counter-intuitive on the surface, since I'm basically allowing the slashdot team select some of my reading materials for me... but I'm not really allowing them to *select* my reading material, rather I'm selecting for myself from the offerings they present).
Netnanny, Cybercop, etc. had a place when it was to keep porn out of the middle school computer lab, but it went too far when it blocked ideas and their authors. The sad part of this is that the blame cannot be properly focused on any one place. Some of the fault belongs to the software makers, some of it belongs to the porn-advocates who deliberately blur the lines between porn and free speech -- 'backdoor bimbos' and 'cum faced coeds' are porn, not free speech. But it seems some of the free speech advocates insist on making a million fictitious 'examples' of the dangers of censorship which ultimately protect sites such as these. And, on the flipside, because sites such as these gain free speech protection (through this commando blur tactic), censorwares then extend their censorship as a countermeasure to include the sites that advocate... and so on and so forth.
I cherish my right to chose what I read/ignore as much as I cherish yours to speak/write. If you're going to flame filtering software (which makes it easier for me to ignore), then you also need to flame spellcheck, grammarcheck, and voice recognition software (which makes it easier for you to write stuff that I might want to ignore).
All in all, Jon's article raised good points. He explored many of the facets and stimulated some thoughtful replies. But, as I've tried to illustrate in my reply, his own point of view (people who filter him with software are evil) permeated.
It came in at 3. Blame the moderators for those extra 2 points.
Actually, I'm doing my best to convince Rob that this autorating nonsense is undooing all of the good that moderating does for slashdot in the first place (while staying nominally on topic).
What just astounds me is that I can't blow my nose without it showing up in Wired.
The media is a heartless beast and the law in the US (and other countries) says that, upon achieving celebrity status, one loses their right to privacy. Just don't do something disgusting like blow your nose on your sleeve (or worse, on Eric's sleeve).
Agreed that this is all quite silly. Next time anything like this happens, I'll do my best to bury it.
I can't help but be a Doubting Thomas here, Bruce. Specifically, the fact that you say 'Next time this happens', indicates that you've still not grasped the key to the situation (i.e., DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN). The only thing I can say at this point that is even remotely relevant (having never held true celebrity status) is this: As high-visibility members of this community, you, Eric, and others have an obligation (or at least 'should feel one') to conduct yourselves in a manner which sets a higher standard for others to emulate. -- The mundane members of this community must wear the reputation that its celebrity icons create.
If I were your mother or your 2nd grade schoolteacher, I'd say "You two should be ashamed of yourselves. I want you to shake hands and apologize to each other immediately." -- Alas, adult lives don't seem so easily remedied.
This while bombs were falling in Europe.
No one ever accused the media or a government of having good taste.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise:
Out of work sysadmin.
Good references.
Residing 20 mi N. of Seattle.
Willing to work on migration to linux in exchange for transportation, food, and housing for the duration of the migration.
nemonospam@elsemunospam.netnospam (remove nospam)
I don't know where I fit into your (unfounded, unsupported, and fully unresearched) estimates, Taco.
// I only login if I want to identify myself -- as in this post -- so you'll know precisely who is slamming you for having lodged your head so securely in your colon).
But I read the front page of slashdot about 1-3 times a day without logging into this account (aka anonymously
About 3-5 of a day's postings interest me. Of those posts, my followup "clicking" is split about 50/50 between the articles themselves (in the case where the information interests me -- for which you deserve no credit, financially or otherwise) and the slashdot comments, reloaded once at level 4 (in the case where I want a sense of intelligent community opinion -- also for which you deserve no credit, financially or otherwise).
I will never pay you one red cent out of my own pocket. Ever. OSDN can rot in hell for all I care. Slashdot is one of many sites I use as a convenience. It's popular, yeah. But good? Not really.
If you're ads become intrusive, I'll start surfing in lynx. If you lock out text-only browsers, I'll leave you in a heartbeat, never look back, and likely be a better human being for having done so.
In the meanwhile, since you obviously seem sincere in your intention to financially gouge the members of the flailing, already depressed tech sector, whose interest in your site has made it what it is, I hope it leads you and OSDN into the annals of dot-bomb history as one of the last Net Titans to come crashing down in a night and a day.
The simple fact that you are even considering this is reason enough for me to want to see you fail. But the fact that you are considering it so seriously and sincerely (your lust for money having overtaken your love of involvement), makes me want to see you not only fail, but fail miserably... to have every effort you make to recover backfire and drag you deeper and deeper into the torments of self-doubt and depression... to have your life stripped away from you one tiny piece at a time... to have your entire legacy molded, day after day, into another example of what NOT to do after you become successful... to see you JOIN the rest of the victims of the dotcom bust... living in a homeless shelter... your nubile young new wife having left your sorry ass for some schmuck in the advertising industry.
Eat me, you greedy fuck.
Soon it will be illegal to have a personal firewall, if it prevents the spooks from spying on you.
Once the spooks learn that free software (gnu/linux, iptables, portsentry, tripwire, etc.) can keep out their fancy, new, legislation-backed, snoopware, they'll be arresting people for hosting distro mirrors.
Will they risk arresting Linus (ala Dmitry Skylarov)? Or will they learn the lesson of public opinion and go after VA/Sourceforge (ala ElcomSoft)?
Just a little food for the conspiracy theorist.
Just do an end-run around the problem and get what you want without public support.
...I would venture to say that, without serious intervention from some heroic source, this is just the first step in what is destined to become a "done deal" in one form or other.
I don't mean to seem excessively cynical, sensationalistic, or "conspiracy theorist"-ic, but...
If, in fact, certain U.S. Gov't agencies and departments are involved, as the article states...
members from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have aided in the drafting of the treaty
U.S. Intelligence Agencies (those renown TLA's we all love to hate, a.k.a. spooks) know better than to ask for precisely what they want. The political wheels carry far too much momentum to attach such a weighty treatise as this one.
My expectation is that, very soon, we will see the actual negotiations begin on this... Meaning: Everyone involved didn't like the draft, but none of them wanted to be the one to say "we won't have anything to do with such a ridiculously proposed treaty", so they all step up to the bargaining table for the "rewrite". Once this occurs, legislation in one form or other will follow (even though it may not, in the end, resemble this "draft").
Point being: The USDOJ and the FBI don't want *this* treaty at all. They just want *any* treaty... on which they can then attach their trademark bureacratic processes... resulting in "the inalienable right" of the US government to legislate internet activity.
In summary: Accept the inevitable (the fact that wheels are in motion on this means it's already done if someone doesn't stop it), or start dumping tea into the harbour.
~~~~~~~~
In some cases anonymous speach is the ONLY way in which some individuals can enjoy their right to free and open expressions of personal opinion.
As I said in my original post, I do not wish to lose the ability to post anonymously. In fact, I've used that ability numerous times, but specifically for non-productive contributions (those times when I want to say "me too" or "fuck CT" without damaging my karma).
I wasn't arguing this point.
My point was "right to speak" does not mean "right to speak anonymously". It never has, it never will. But, the fact that I know this doesn't mean I favor abolishment of anonymous posting, either.
The fact that some people would never participate if they couldn't do so anonymously is probably related, indirectly if not directly, to fear of reprisal (flames). Which sorta brings us back to JK's article, eh?
After reading several dozen posts, I noticed a trend...
Anyone who agreed that there should be further restriction on ACs was immediately countered with the fallacious argument that removal of anonymity also removes free speech.
Since when did "free speech" get extended to mean "anonymous speech"?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I agree with JK about ACs. I'm just saying that the counter-argument about "free" somehow equating to "right to anonymity" is bogus.
I do not wish to lose the ability to post anonymously, but I am not so naive as to presume I have some inalienable right to do so.
This applies not only to Slashdot, but to anywhere I want the right to speak my mind. Free speech has nothing, what-so-ever, to do with identity/anonymity.
Although I've never been an active USENET user, I do have a couple very close friends who are EXTREMELY active. One of them is a USENET administrator (forum sysop, moderator, or whatever) as well as a respected authority on the topic of Spam (especially USENET spam). And I must just say... After reading the FAQ (yes, I read it... unlike many of the folks asking "is this legal?"), I find this whole thing refreshingly invigorating. This is a PERFECT example of self-moderation (read: self-government) of Internet activity. A UDP isn't one guy deciding to do this (like Rob Malda attempting to use Slashdot's main page to "reform" Lucasfilms for failing to release PM on DVD) -- an official UDP announcement (in contrast to individual recommendations) requires concensus among the nana-u admins. Perhaps Slashdot could learn from USENET's well organized approach to self-moderation -- and keep personal agendas out of the main page, and possibly prevent heinously unfair web/email abuses (slashdotting) of the innocent or uninformed. If a site really *deserves* the full force of the Slashdot community, it should come through concensus and organized community response -- not kneejerk sensationalism.
Go USENET.
With all the hoopla over PDAs and/or "the search for 7 of 9" (or neural shunts, ala _The Matrix_), why weren't any cool new video devices mentioned? Some goggles? Those cool new reflective prescription lenses?
And, most of all, what about that 3D holographic enhancement stuff for LCD screens derived from the same cheezy plastic stuff they use on Pogs and childrens' bookcovers (you know, the stuff that makes the dinosaur appear on the cover of the Jurassic Park videos) -- that's one of those things that makes you go: Holy Shit, Batman!!!
The stuff that won awards was all definitely interesting, but there was something lacking about its representation of "what we lust after" in the geek community.
Slashdot readers are involved with software, and recognize great abuses of the US Patent system as it has been applied to software. We want the patent system to bereformed. (This means we want software patents to be invalidated and no longer issued. [...])
I may read slashdot. I may even contribute to it by occassionally submitting articles, posting replies, and such. But I resent being lumped into this one single zealotist ideology.
While I certainly feel the patent system needs significant and substantial reform, I don't think it needs reformed so much that it mandates GPL on every piece of code... or such that it fails to pretect novel new concepts (even cheesy GUI widgets whined about in other posts).
Intellectual property is a serious matter which should not be trivialized (lest the truly creative people of the world will... well... stop creating). But the rate of change/development in the software industry does sorta necessitate a certain limit on the duration of patents for novel software ideas in order to prevent market stagnation or absolute monopolization.
On another note, we all worry about huge corporations exploiting their workforce's creativity by patenting every door hinge modification (read "jury rigging") some janitor makes to keep the flies out. Some change needs to occur in this area too.
And lastly, we all worry about the patent and trademark lackeys who allow lamers to apply for and GET trademarks such as John Q. Lamer getting a trademark on the name "Linus Torvalds" or Jane U. Byteme getting a patent on soap suds. Reform certainly has room in these areas.
But let's not get too hasty to slap an across the board characterization of the 'Slashdot ideology or agenda'. Personally, I detest having words put into my mouth.
Come laugh with me.
I read UF with ritualistic regularity. And if there's one thing about it that stands out far and above all others is that Iliad isn't laugh AT anyone (except maybe M$). Rather, he's asking us all to come and laugh WITH him -- oftentimes laughing at ourselves.
It hasn't been all that long ago that A.J. and Miranda had their 6 episode "date". And I found it quite refreshing (adding to the overall humor) that Iliad put the 'day star' as Miranda's words. A female geek fully immersed in the secluded life so characteristic of 'geekdom'.
If you can't laugh at yourself, well... I pity you.
Hey there, buddy boy [sic]
Since when did 'downloadability' become a prerequisite for calling something 'publicly available'?
Why don't you just call Sun and ask for a copy of the test(s)? If they deliver, it's publicly available and you, buddy boy [sic], will be dining on your own words.
I'm guessing the only reason there aren't many replies to your comments stems from two facts.
.sig openly confesses your being under the cerebral chains of big brother bill.
.sig, reveal the extent of #1 above.
1) your
2) your comments, regardless of your disclaiming
Now... if only there were a way to systematically redirect all Munchkins "directly to hell"...
------------
It doesn't matter who the bully is. No one likes a bully.
Pointing out the inconsistencies of the human spirit does not validate MS's right to bully.
If the slashdot community tends to forgive smaller players for bigger offenses, so what. It's not hypocrisy, it's human nature. If you're in last place (relief pitcher, 2nd team player, benchwarmer, etc.) in the game of life, society will be forgiving of minor (sometimes even major) transgressions.
But, if you're the "king of the hill", don't whine and pout because "everyone's out to get you". That's the way the game is played.
Each and every step up the ladder of success brings with it an additional obligation to refine one's impeccability. The more successful you are, the more closely you will be scrutinized (and rightfully so, in order to prevent the MS's of the world from becoming so powerful that they could dictate when/where I can/must pee, belch, or fart).
Good things and bad things are defined by the overall circumstances (net gain/loss). If MS is criticized for doing something that might have been called 'good' if it were done by another company, this is simply an illustration of a normal human distaste for the way MS does things, coupled with the fact that they're 'king of the hill' and the object of the game is to unseat the king.
If you don't like being part of the 'king of the hill', perhaps you need to look for another job.
Answer me this, how many open standards has MS successfully subjegated over the years? I'm thinking a big fat zero.
Not to mention a whole plethora of 'features' in FrontPage98 that only function when viewed with MSIE, here's this for you to chew on.
At present, I2 is in development, which means it has no standards yet (open or proprietary). The 'in other news' comment at the bottom of that article was a 'free clue' (no purchase necessary, all rights released, can lead to enlightenment when used as directed). Didn't you read the Halloween memo?
I've got news for you.... My mom will probably be using Linux with StarOffice after the next StarOffice release (SO still has some stability issues to correct). She's already expressed (to me) great resentment about MS's tendency to mock the intelligence of average humans by: a) exploiting their lack of tech-savvy at exorbitant off-the-shelf prices, b) putting PR spins into the media to put a friendly facade onto their most viscious (and, I hope, soon to be ruled illegal) activities, and c) now, under MS's newest business tactic, charging for an upgrade to fix the bugs in software that has already been paid for (ref: the planned release of the next Win98).
Moms and dads are smarter than you think. Investors, on the other hand, don't care about the quality of the company they invest in. They only care about making money (the one thing Gates/MS have proven they can do), even at the expense of healthy economic competition.
Still not taking the bait.
Your placid, matter-of-fact tone belies nominal intelligence. Yet, some of the details also belie naivete' and shortsightedness.
it would be ignorant to forget that consumers and businesses (client side) rely on microsoft everyday to do what they need to do.
This is changing so fast, it'll all be history before you realize it. Caldera is making rapid inroads to desktop viability of linux. MS is on the wane (their marketers and PR reps are bailing as fast as they can, but the ship is still sinking).
this story is about microsoft contributing money to a project that could use it, not taking it over.
Once again, I reiterate. Nowhere in this article (press release) does it say that MS is contributing "money". They're only contributing 'goods and services' with a dollar value applied by MS. If MS offered the same 'goods and services' to the FSF (or some other non-MS-dependent entity), how much do you think the FSF would claim it is worth? I confidently assert that it would probably be in the sub-$1.00 range (if the CDs were rewritable, this value would increase according to the price of CDs).
Still not taking the bait.
Giving of 'goods and services' on the part of MS amounts to this..
We'll burn a few hundred 50-cent CD's of our most expensive software and give them to you. And, we'll pay a few of our spies^H^H^H^H^H programmers to work on the project.
Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. This is not a 'contribution' by MS. It's their way of 'bartering for a first class ticket' (i.e, good PR) on the next technology train. If you honestly think they've contributed *anything* at this point (or even made a promise to do so), I'll gladly add you to the aforementioned list.
Thanks, but I'm not taking the bait.
This is blatant 'embrace and extend' on the part of Microsoft.
Note that they're not donating a single dollar of currency to the project. Much like Benevolent Bill's donation of a billion dollars worth of MS products to schools and libraries a few weeks ago (at $0.50 per CD, it's easy for them to donate a billion dollars worth of $500 software), MS is not about to cut into their cash reserves for anything they don't fully own.
'Microsoft has a tremendous potential to contribute to systems and networking areas of Internet2,' said Ron Johnson, vice president of computing and communications, University of Washington. 'The potential for delivering robust, real-time tele-immersion, tele-medicine and high-quality demand video, television, telephony and multimedia, as well as network-aware and adaptive applications and the 'trust fabric' middleware needed for pervasive electronic business, is no longer just a dream. But to make it real across the desktops of the world it's essential to have Microsoft's research and product development at the table.'
I just added the name 'Ron Johnson' to my list of people apparently owned by MS. Whoever he is, he just started his 15 minutes of fame with a -1 credibility rating, IMO. How could anyone truly believe that MS is essential to *anything*?
I want 'reply' to be a text link for the article so I can 'open in new window' and continue reading the existing replies.
Anybody else miss this?
King George has been dead a long, long, long time, dude. Americans no longer have British soldiers knocking on their doors.
Ammendments have been added and repealed to/from the US Constitution numerous times to maintian the overall appropriateness of the document. The first 10 amendments were named 'The Bill of Rights' out of literary flamboyance on the part of Thomas Jefferson, not out of some perceived ethical universality. In truth they're simply the first 10 (of dozens to follow) amendments.
Counterquery: Why are there no weekly massacres in my home where there have never been any firearms?
I'm not arguing either side of this issue. Rather, I'm simply pointing out issues of rationality/irrationality.
I remember when I first implemented the RC5DES cow on my home Linux box (AMDK5PR90) and on a mostly idle Win95 workstation at work (Intel P166), and my home Linux box was running circles around the blocks of the Win95 workstation (in fact, a few of my friends were embarrassed by their WinXX Intel PII's for not being all that much better than my Linux AMDK5PR90).
So, it makes me wonder about this test as well... Is it possible for someone to tweak a common-joe-affordable Linux box to outperform a supercharged, out-of-affordability-range NT box? Can someone duplicate the server load from the Mindcraft test on a highly tuned Linux PC and show that Linux can beat NT even when Linux is on a smaller machine?
After reading the article and all of the replies-above-1 (just trying to get a feel for what's been said in replies), I must say... Jon, are your feelings hurt? You're talking about the evils of a 99% readership base, for crying out loud (79,000/80,000).
Noteworthy points: attention economics (with all the sites I frequent on a daily basis, I've pretty much screwed myself out of a normal social life as it is. filtering options are helpful in this regard), filtering dissenting opinions/personalities (I feel sorry for the 1% readership who filter all of Jon's stuff. Personally, I don't use the filters - I don't use any of the user.pl stuff - cookies disabled, I read the default pages and filter by score. The idiots who don't wanna hear a specific *PERSON* damage themselves... and in the process increase my benefits by making me that much more aware than them WITHOUT ME HAVING TO READ ANYTHING EXTRA!! HAHAHA!).
I like having the choices (to use or not to use filters).
And like some of the other commenters, I'm against having someone else filter for me (this may seem counter-intuitive on the surface, since I'm basically allowing the slashdot team select some of my reading materials for me... but I'm not really allowing them to *select* my reading material, rather I'm selecting for myself from the offerings they present).
Netnanny, Cybercop, etc. had a place when it was to keep porn out of the middle school computer lab, but it went too far when it blocked ideas and their authors. The sad part of this is that the blame cannot be properly focused on any one place. Some of the fault belongs to the software makers, some of it belongs to the porn-advocates who deliberately blur the lines between porn and free speech -- 'backdoor bimbos' and 'cum faced coeds' are porn, not free speech. But it seems some of the free speech advocates insist on making a million fictitious 'examples' of the dangers of censorship which ultimately protect sites such as these. And, on the flipside, because sites such as these gain free speech protection (through this commando blur tactic), censorwares then extend their censorship as a countermeasure to include the sites that advocate... and so on and so forth.
I cherish my right to chose what I read/ignore as much as I cherish yours to speak/write. If you're going to flame filtering software (which makes it easier for me to ignore), then you also need to flame spellcheck, grammarcheck, and voice recognition software (which makes it easier for you to write stuff that I might want to ignore).
All in all, Jon's article raised good points. He explored many of the facets and stimulated some thoughtful replies. But, as I've tried to illustrate in my reply, his own point of view (people who filter him with software are evil) permeated.
It came in at 3. Blame the moderators for those extra 2 points.
Actually, I'm doing my best to convince Rob that this autorating nonsense is undooing all of the good that moderating does for slashdot in the first place (while staying nominally on topic).
What just astounds me is that I can't blow my nose without it showing up in Wired.
The media is a heartless beast and the law in the US (and other countries) says that, upon achieving celebrity status, one loses their right to privacy. Just don't do something disgusting like blow your nose on your sleeve (or worse, on Eric's sleeve).
Agreed that this is all quite silly. Next time anything like this happens, I'll do my best to bury it.
I can't help but be a Doubting Thomas here, Bruce. Specifically, the fact that you say 'Next time this happens', indicates that you've still not grasped the key to the situation (i.e., DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN). The only thing I can say at this point that is even remotely relevant (having never held true celebrity status) is this: As high-visibility members of this community, you, Eric, and others have an obligation (or at least 'should feel one') to conduct yourselves in a manner which sets a higher standard for others to emulate. -- The mundane members of this community must wear the reputation that its celebrity icons create.
If I were your mother or your 2nd grade schoolteacher, I'd say "You two should be ashamed of yourselves. I want you to shake hands and apologize to each other immediately." -- Alas, adult lives don't seem so easily remedied.
This while bombs were falling in Europe.
No one ever accused the media or a government of having good taste.
Autoscoring is almost as annoying as listening to this.
Anyone ever see the movie "He Said, She Said"?
For never having been married to each other, they sure sound like a pair of bitter divorcees.
I have a brilliant idea. Let's autoscore these two embarrassments really high so we can keep a close eye on their childishness.