I only started talking about this after I noticed a few reasonable and well-written posts modded at -1 Funny. It took me a minute to figure it out, but once I remembered that Funny doesn't give Karma, it seemed downright dirty.
AFAIK, there is a cap to your Karma that cannot be crossed, so anyone, regardless of posting history, is vulnerable to the right troll (or trolls) beating them down to Bad Karma.
You do have a point there, at least in regards to major industrial nations. To be fair though, the difference between going to jail and losing everything you've worked hard for isn't much consolation when it's happened to you.
In third world nations the situation looks more balanced, as you're just as dead when Chiquita decides your life is forfeit as when the neighboring warlord does.
I think we're pretty much on the same page, but with minor differences.
Allowing a Funny mod to boost an individual posts rating, while not adding Karma to the user allows malicious mods to apply a large negative modifier to a poster by someone modding a post Funny followed by a troll's -1 mod. With a few sock puppets or a little troll-coordination you could put some serious hurt on someone's Slashdot Karma. It's not happened to me, but I've seen evidence of it being done (a well-written post at -1 Funny).
For me, that's the major point of contention with not giving a Karmic bonus to Funny. It would be okay if the post itself didn't get a boost or if there were no Funny mod at all, but allowing for artificial inflation in the same system as actual deflation is asking for trouble, IMHO.
I also disagree with your last paragraph, as I think a long standing community SHOULD have some input into the communities infrastructure, even if privately owned. Being that it isn't fair or right to tell an owner how to run his or her site, using it slightly differently than designed (but still with courtesy and care) seems a reasonable compromise. If the activity were actually disruptive I wouldn't feel this way, but I think the situation we're currently discussing is too light to be considered 'disruption'.
Other than that though, I pretty much agree with you.
Re:IMDB was up
on
Jurassic Web
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I met my wife back in '96 on a telnet BBS. shadow.scc(or acc).iit.edu to be specific.
I was getting internet access back then via a hole in the library dial-up information access system. Mostly used for gopher access, some links to other libraries would allow you to escape out to a telnet prompt. From there it was just a matter of knowing where to telnet. BBSs came first, then after I learned the magic of a shell, it wasn't long until I figured out how to implement PPP. By summer '95 I had slackware installed and (thanks to a friend of mine) access at an early-adopter local dial-up ISP. Even though the whole web was "mine" at that point, I retained a special love for shadow, and ended up meeting my wifey there...
This is something I've had to tell many people many times, but I guess I'll continue doing it until it's common knowledge or the policy changes...
Slashdot's Karmic system doesn't give any lasting Karma (beyond that posts score) for Funny moderations, so many times if people see something that's funny enough to earn Karma, and it's posted by someone who's logged in, they'll give it an Informative or Insightful. Try to keep that in mind if you meta-mod.
I really think the policy of not giving Karma for Funny posts is worse then the problem they're trying to fix with it, if only because of the Karmic-Black-Hole that can be created by half the mods modding Funny, why the other half mod Troll or Flamebait. That allows moderation abusers to put a serious dent in a 'good' poster's Karma by way of sockpuppets or outright coordination (there is at least one site devoted to helping organize people to troll slashdot).
But like I said the last time I posted about this, giving a funny post an Informative rating is a hack, an UGLY hack at that, but it's the best option available to the community due to a (bad, IMHO) decision from the slashdot admins.
You can't honestly believe that this experience is limited to governments and that corporations are somehow immune. This is, of course, a problem with bureaucracies in general, and has nothing to do with the public/private status of said organization.
Your rant is only accurate if policy is to give the golden keys that can shut the city's network down to any manager that asks for it. I HIGHLY doubt that such is the case.
Remember, this guy didn't just build a computer for a person and then not hand the passwords over, he was in charge of a public-owned network. I would be aghast if the city had network policies that gave root access to anyone who thought that they needed it, and especially those who were so cocky about it as to ask in a room full of people who SHOULDN'T have it in any case.
In short, manager != owner. Without a copy of SF network policy here, your declaration of him being totally wrong is pure baseless speculation.
If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.
It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.
It's not a very good razor though, and it cuts inaccurately on a consistent basis. Seriously, everybody (I mean EVERYBODY) over the age of, say, 6, has pretended that something they did on purpose is an "accident". Hell, there was even a Nintendo commercial running recently with a guy dumping salsa on a girl by "accident" (to which the guy adds, "no it wasn't").
I think it's just something that gets repeated by the malicious in order to gain some modicum of acceptance for their spiteful ways, and parroted by the gullible in order to feel like they haven't been "taken". Most people would rather have some "accident" ruin their plans than to have someone else purposefully ruin them. It's a pride thing.
So can we lay this dog down finally, and put it in it's proper place between "the check is in the mail" and "no sweetheart, I wouldn't do that in your mouth" in the Bullshit Hall of Fame?
Here is a whole bunch of ponies for you to choose from. Your analogy is flawed, and your snide attitude is neither appreciate nor warranted.
Before YOU go off on how that's not a real pony, I'll remind you how hard it is to download the experience of going to a concert and hearing music played live. The best my magical reproduction box can do is an audio-visual simulation of the object or event. But you already knew that. Enjoy whatever pony you chose from the lot.
And I know that some people WOULD make it illegal to copy food, and admitted the possibility in my post. Fuck those people. I think that's sufficient on that point.
And lastly, your dismissal of my idea brings absolutely no information to the table, nor any reasonable starting point for discussion, so what, exactly, was the point of it again?
I won't say it's stealing, but the actions are definitely immoral.
I understand where you're coming from, but to put things in perspective, imagine how hard selling that point will become once universal constructors are produced. I seriously doubt (though it is possible) that you'd argue that food shouldn't be copied to feed starving people, so your line of reasoning would necessitate some sort of list that dictated what items could be copied, and which could not. This is a nasty kludge (read: social hack) in order to prop up a system that is no longer necessary for society at the time.
I can only think of one solution compatible with our current market system, and that is content producers putting their works in escrow upon completion, with some monetary value attached for it's release. For example, a new movie comes out and the ads say "once 250M U.S.D. get deposited to this account, we will release this movie". Arrange a payment scheme where people can put money into a linked escrow account and withdraw it after a certain time frame, since the movie may never actually be released. Problem solved. It may not be the most efficient way to get the movie out, but it creates no artificial scarcity, doesn't restrict cultural participation to the moneyed, and keeps cash going into the pockets of those involved in producing the film. It does have the nasty side effect of removing a need for channel-specialized distributors, but hey, that's how progress works.
Heh, if China has it's Great Firewall, what's the U.S. going to name it's nation-border-firewall? I think the Great Security Blanket would be appropriate myself.
What about plain ole' optical sensors? Some cameras being run through a good photogrammetry/modeling package should provide plenty enough information to avoid problems like blind collisions, or so it seems to me. I would think that modern naval sensors are already combined into a composite 'battlespace map' or something to that effect, but I don't really know. Further, 2D sensory data with known sensor position can be easily integrated into such a map (especially when you're starting with a 3D map with usable reference points), so if this ISN'T being done, I can't fathom why.
Anybody with experience in this area care to point out my folly?
While I generally agree, I'd say that that depends on how well 'sandboxed' the simulation is for (possible) other running simulations, or even the 'bare metal' that existence (consciousness, soul, probability, whatever) runs on. I chose the good ole' segfault in my post for a reason, what if we figure out some way to "peek" at a spatial location that isn't mapped to our space-time? It would suggest that there is another separate space-time congruent to ours, and that there may be ways to interact with it.
I honestly don't know, but thinking outside the box is one of my favorite things to do.:-)
Ahhh, but you CAN steal cars for all your family and friends, if you so wish, and for (practically) free! It's ethically different, and slower than copying a disc... and harder... and the penalty involves something I've seen referred to as "pound-you-in-the-ass-prison", so most people don't take that route. It does remain feasible, however.
I'm sorry, I (as a consumer) am not responsible for how some publisher wants to guard their IP. You say that no DRM isn't an option, but it is, as all free software users know. Just because you've precluded no DRM as an option doesn't mean I have some responsibility to help you protect yourself from me at my expense, to suggest so is silly.
About the "a lot of complaining" I "do", I personally think that people who buy a broken product and don't complain are foolish, and making life harder for all of us by letting scam artists ply their trade in the open.
Now, where's YOUR solution to making DRM locked down games actually WORK as advertised? That seems like a far more reasonable request than what you ask of me, no?
Don't be bullied into thinking an open box cannot be returned. If the product doesn't work, you're entitled to a refund (well, depending on where you live, what I said is true in most slashdotter's countries). Store policy doesn't trump the law, period. If you're sold a defective product, return it for your refund, be insistent, they WILL give in.
Now, they might want you to jump through some hoops first, like taking their offer of free tech support, just jump through the (reasonable) hoops and you'll either have a working game or your money back. This has always been my experience (has happened 3 times).
Yes, that's right, lets blame PIRATES for GoW not working. The poor production companies are just protecting themselves by purposefully selling a broken product (if you claim that GoW isn't broken, you forgot to read the title, summary or article) in order to... to what? To make sure that people who don't know how to find a crack (or cracked version) aren't copying the game? A simple CD check could do that. You say it's to keep the honest, honest, but it does not keeping them honest at all, it either teaches them that only cracked games work properly, or you just straight up lose a customer. I personally think the lesson being taught is that honesty is punished, and not worth the effort.
I'm not entirely sure how you can fight against piracy by making sure only pirated copies work as they are supposed to (in the consumer eye). Blaming pirates for game company failures isn't going to win over any supporters. "Your game would work, but we had to cripple it because of pirates" is so weak of an excuse as to be transparently stupid to all but the least mentally capable gamers (and I'm talking REALLY unable to comprehend causality).
Automakers would not put an anti-theft device in a vehicle if said device caused your engine to stop at random times (like when driving) and be unable to be restarted until the auto company did something secret inside the engine compartment. They would not sell it if there were certain driver/automobile combinations that simply did not work (i.e. if the car just plain won't start if the an "incompatible" owner tries to drive it). Furthermore, if they DID install such a foolish device you would hear very few people blaming carjackers for the utter foolishness of the automakers. No one would believe it, and nor should they. It is the very same here.
Well... If our simulation is being monitored (even by an autonomous script) whatever watchdog might take our recent (in terms of the simulation) attempts at quantum mechanical thought and experiments along those lines as 'hacking' the system. Maybe that's what we're SUPPOSED to end up doing, or maybe that's a termination condition (segmentation fault: core dumped)...
Not that I necessarily buy the notion we're living in a simulation (though I think the idea is interesting), I do think there would be real implications if it were so.
Slashdot Mirror
I only started talking about this after I noticed a few reasonable and well-written posts modded at -1 Funny. It took me a minute to figure it out, but once I remembered that Funny doesn't give Karma, it seemed downright dirty.
AFAIK, there is a cap to your Karma that cannot be crossed, so anyone, regardless of posting history, is vulnerable to the right troll (or trolls) beating them down to Bad Karma.
You do have a point there, at least in regards to major industrial nations. To be fair though, the difference between going to jail and losing everything you've worked hard for isn't much consolation when it's happened to you.
In third world nations the situation looks more balanced, as you're just as dead when Chiquita decides your life is forfeit as when the neighboring warlord does.
I think we're pretty much on the same page, but with minor differences.
Allowing a Funny mod to boost an individual posts rating, while not adding Karma to the user allows malicious mods to apply a large negative modifier to a poster by someone modding a post Funny followed by a troll's -1 mod. With a few sock puppets or a little troll-coordination you could put some serious hurt on someone's Slashdot Karma. It's not happened to me, but I've seen evidence of it being done (a well-written post at -1 Funny).
For me, that's the major point of contention with not giving a Karmic bonus to Funny. It would be okay if the post itself didn't get a boost or if there were no Funny mod at all, but allowing for artificial inflation in the same system as actual deflation is asking for trouble, IMHO.
I also disagree with your last paragraph, as I think a long standing community SHOULD have some input into the communities infrastructure, even if privately owned. Being that it isn't fair or right to tell an owner how to run his or her site, using it slightly differently than designed (but still with courtesy and care) seems a reasonable compromise. If the activity were actually disruptive I wouldn't feel this way, but I think the situation we're currently discussing is too light to be considered 'disruption'.
Other than that though, I pretty much agree with you.
I met my wife back in '96 on a telnet BBS. shadow.scc(or acc).iit.edu to be specific.
I was getting internet access back then via a hole in the library dial-up information access system. Mostly used for gopher access, some links to other libraries would allow you to escape out to a telnet prompt. From there it was just a matter of knowing where to telnet. BBSs came first, then after I learned the magic of a shell, it wasn't long until I figured out how to implement PPP. By summer '95 I had slackware installed and (thanks to a friend of mine) access at an early-adopter local dial-up ISP. Even though the whole web was "mine" at that point, I retained a special love for shadow, and ended up meeting my wifey there...
Ahh, nostalgia.
This is something I've had to tell many people many times, but I guess I'll continue doing it until it's common knowledge or the policy changes...
Slashdot's Karmic system doesn't give any lasting Karma (beyond that posts score) for Funny moderations, so many times if people see something that's funny enough to earn Karma, and it's posted by someone who's logged in, they'll give it an Informative or Insightful. Try to keep that in mind if you meta-mod.
I really think the policy of not giving Karma for Funny posts is worse then the problem they're trying to fix with it, if only because of the Karmic-Black-Hole that can be created by half the mods modding Funny, why the other half mod Troll or Flamebait. That allows moderation abusers to put a serious dent in a 'good' poster's Karma by way of sockpuppets or outright coordination (there is at least one site devoted to helping organize people to troll slashdot).
But like I said the last time I posted about this, giving a funny post an Informative rating is a hack, an UGLY hack at that, but it's the best option available to the community due to a (bad, IMHO) decision from the slashdot admins.
You can't honestly believe that this experience is limited to governments and that corporations are somehow immune. This is, of course, a problem with bureaucracies in general, and has nothing to do with the public/private status of said organization.
Your rant is only accurate if policy is to give the golden keys that can shut the city's network down to any manager that asks for it. I HIGHLY doubt that such is the case.
Remember, this guy didn't just build a computer for a person and then not hand the passwords over, he was in charge of a public-owned network. I would be aghast if the city had network policies that gave root access to anyone who thought that they needed it, and especially those who were so cocky about it as to ask in a room full of people who SHOULDN'T have it in any case.
In short, manager != owner. Without a copy of SF network policy here, your declaration of him being totally wrong is pure baseless speculation.
If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.
It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.
It's not a very good razor though, and it cuts inaccurately on a consistent basis. Seriously, everybody (I mean EVERYBODY) over the age of, say, 6, has pretended that something they did on purpose is an "accident". Hell, there was even a Nintendo commercial running recently with a guy dumping salsa on a girl by "accident" (to which the guy adds, "no it wasn't").
I think it's just something that gets repeated by the malicious in order to gain some modicum of acceptance for their spiteful ways, and parroted by the gullible in order to feel like they haven't been "taken". Most people would rather have some "accident" ruin their plans than to have someone else purposefully ruin them. It's a pride thing.
So can we lay this dog down finally, and put it in it's proper place between "the check is in the mail" and "no sweetheart, I wouldn't do that in your mouth" in the Bullshit Hall of Fame?
The same place we get it to make all those bright LEDs with the sapphire substrate?
I understand there's some land out near Waco Texas that's free, and it even has a building that might serve your purposes... some fire damage though.
*psssst* Look up "meta"...
Thanks for the info. I remembered hearing that it had been done on a small scale, but I couldn't remember who.
I think it could work on a larger scale as well, but since it's never been tried there's no way to tell for sure.
Here is a whole bunch of ponies for you to choose from. Your analogy is flawed, and your snide attitude is neither appreciate nor warranted.
Before YOU go off on how that's not a real pony, I'll remind you how hard it is to download the experience of going to a concert and hearing music played live. The best my magical reproduction box can do is an audio-visual simulation of the object or event. But you already knew that. Enjoy whatever pony you chose from the lot.
And I know that some people WOULD make it illegal to copy food, and admitted the possibility in my post. Fuck those people. I think that's sufficient on that point.
And lastly, your dismissal of my idea brings absolutely no information to the table, nor any reasonable starting point for discussion, so what, exactly, was the point of it again?
I won't say it's stealing, but the actions are definitely immoral.
I understand where you're coming from, but to put things in perspective, imagine how hard selling that point will become once universal constructors are produced. I seriously doubt (though it is possible) that you'd argue that food shouldn't be copied to feed starving people, so your line of reasoning would necessitate some sort of list that dictated what items could be copied, and which could not. This is a nasty kludge (read: social hack) in order to prop up a system that is no longer necessary for society at the time.
I can only think of one solution compatible with our current market system, and that is content producers putting their works in escrow upon completion, with some monetary value attached for it's release. For example, a new movie comes out and the ads say "once 250M U.S.D. get deposited to this account, we will release this movie". Arrange a payment scheme where people can put money into a linked escrow account and withdraw it after a certain time frame, since the movie may never actually be released. Problem solved. It may not be the most efficient way to get the movie out, but it creates no artificial scarcity, doesn't restrict cultural participation to the moneyed, and keeps cash going into the pockets of those involved in producing the film. It does have the nasty side effect of removing a need for channel-specialized distributors, but hey, that's how progress works.
Heh, if China has it's Great Firewall, what's the U.S. going to name it's nation-border-firewall? I think the Great Security Blanket would be appropriate myself.
What about plain ole' optical sensors? Some cameras being run through a good photogrammetry/modeling package should provide plenty enough information to avoid problems like blind collisions, or so it seems to me. I would think that modern naval sensors are already combined into a composite 'battlespace map' or something to that effect, but I don't really know. Further, 2D sensory data with known sensor position can be easily integrated into such a map (especially when you're starting with a 3D map with usable reference points), so if this ISN'T being done, I can't fathom why.
Anybody with experience in this area care to point out my folly?
While I generally agree, I'd say that that depends on how well 'sandboxed' the simulation is for (possible) other running simulations, or even the 'bare metal' that existence (consciousness, soul, probability, whatever) runs on. I chose the good ole' segfault in my post for a reason, what if we figure out some way to "peek" at a spatial location that isn't mapped to our space-time? It would suggest that there is another separate space-time congruent to ours, and that there may be ways to interact with it.
I honestly don't know, but thinking outside the box is one of my favorite things to do. :-)
Ahhh, but you CAN steal cars for all your family and friends, if you so wish, and for (practically) free! It's ethically different, and slower than copying a disc... and harder... and the penalty involves something I've seen referred to as "pound-you-in-the-ass-prison", so most people don't take that route. It does remain feasible, however.
I'm sorry, I (as a consumer) am not responsible for how some publisher wants to guard their IP. You say that no DRM isn't an option, but it is, as all free software users know. Just because you've precluded no DRM as an option doesn't mean I have some responsibility to help you protect yourself from me at my expense, to suggest so is silly.
About the "a lot of complaining" I "do", I personally think that people who buy a broken product and don't complain are foolish, and making life harder for all of us by letting scam artists ply their trade in the open.
Now, where's YOUR solution to making DRM locked down games actually WORK as advertised? That seems like a far more reasonable request than what you ask of me, no?
*sigh*
Ask for the manager, mention merchantability laws, and be firm. You WILL get your money back.
Don't be bullied into thinking an open box cannot be returned. If the product doesn't work, you're entitled to a refund (well, depending on where you live, what I said is true in most slashdotter's countries). Store policy doesn't trump the law, period. If you're sold a defective product, return it for your refund, be insistent, they WILL give in.
Now, they might want you to jump through some hoops first, like taking their offer of free tech support, just jump through the (reasonable) hoops and you'll either have a working game or your money back. This has always been my experience (has happened 3 times).
Yes, that's right, lets blame PIRATES for GoW not working. The poor production companies are just protecting themselves by purposefully selling a broken product (if you claim that GoW isn't broken, you forgot to read the title, summary or article) in order to... to what? To make sure that people who don't know how to find a crack (or cracked version) aren't copying the game? A simple CD check could do that. You say it's to keep the honest, honest, but it does not keeping them honest at all, it either teaches them that only cracked games work properly, or you just straight up lose a customer. I personally think the lesson being taught is that honesty is punished, and not worth the effort.
I'm not entirely sure how you can fight against piracy by making sure only pirated copies work as they are supposed to (in the consumer eye). Blaming pirates for game company failures isn't going to win over any supporters. "Your game would work, but we had to cripple it because of pirates" is so weak of an excuse as to be transparently stupid to all but the least mentally capable gamers (and I'm talking REALLY unable to comprehend causality).
Automakers would not put an anti-theft device in a vehicle if said device caused your engine to stop at random times (like when driving) and be unable to be restarted until the auto company did something secret inside the engine compartment. They would not sell it if there were certain driver/automobile combinations that simply did not work (i.e. if the car just plain won't start if the an "incompatible" owner tries to drive it). Furthermore, if they DID install such a foolish device you would hear very few people blaming carjackers for the utter foolishness of the automakers. No one would believe it, and nor should they. It is the very same here.
Errr, sorry iNaya. The way this is threaded, I mistook your post as saying something different. My bad!
Well... If our simulation is being monitored (even by an autonomous script) whatever watchdog might take our recent (in terms of the simulation) attempts at quantum mechanical thought and experiments along those lines as 'hacking' the system. Maybe that's what we're SUPPOSED to end up doing, or maybe that's a termination condition (segmentation fault: core dumped)...
Not that I necessarily buy the notion we're living in a simulation (though I think the idea is interesting), I do think there would be real implications if it were so.