The ultimate irony will be if Google wins all of these cases brought against them by libraries and newspapers, and then someone simply comes along and pilfers all of Google's data for it.
What's to stop Yahoo! from simply scraping all the book images and running their own library? Google can't claim copyright foul, has already supported fair use of Internet pages made publicly available, and in general has forwarded a philosophy of "what is presented to the public is free for the taking, repackaging, and selling."
I hope somebody just comes in and rides their coattails for some quick bucks. Then at least we'll be able to see for certain how Google feels about their own practices.
Umm, first off, it appears that you should do some research.
In some states they have a "only 2 years older" rule, but in other states, such as Alaska, Vermont, Minnesota, and Georgia, the age of consent is 16. Period. Once you are 16, you can have sex with whoever you want (who is also at least 16.)
Now in some states, they have laws stating homosexual age of consent is higher. In some states, they have laws which raise the age of consent for people "in persons of authority" over an otherwise consenting minor. And in some states, the age of consent is higher if you're not married.
As for "defending a sexual predator", I believe Mark Foley has got some major issues with his sexuality and himself, but I don't think he's a sexual predator. He didn't actually have sex with any pages that we know of. For all of his poor judgment and lack of self-control, he has somehow managed to avoid major scandal up to this point. So calling him a sexual predator, when he's basically hitting on high school seniors from a power position, isn't all that different from 5th year frat boys hitting on the incoming college freshman (many of whom are under 18.)
My point is not to condone his actions, but to also point out that using terms like "sexual predator" to describe this man is ridiculous and inappropriate. There are plenty of much, much worse sexual deviants out there doing damage on the streets today.
Okay, first, is this actually English? I'm concerned.
Second, he wasn't a Senator, he was a Representative, your allusive alliteration be damned.
Thirdly, ABC News first ran the explicit instant messages that are the heart of the issue. Every other news organization has ran with this nonstop, from CNN to Fox News, the Times, WaPo, and yes, The Daily Show. And all of them have frequently made mention of Foley's support of anti-child predation laws. To suggest no one else is on top of this is ridiculous.
Fourthly, the "little boys" you are talking about were a) 16 years old, which meets the age of consent in a lot of states (but not all), b) obviously engaged in the conversations they were having, and c) not really the subject of all the Internet safety laws being sponsored by Foley.
Now you can argue he abused the power dynamic in the situation, and clearly exhibited poor judgment. But to call him a "sicko" is, at the least, a bit overboard and at most does a great injustice to the victims of real sexually deviant "sickos". Also, the irony of anti-"think of the children" advocates jumping on that bandwagon is not lost on the cynics in all of us.
Finally, to the people who have modded the parent post up: Read the last 6 words of it again, and weep bitter tears at your own ignorance. When we talk about "people don't care about facts", we talk about you.
Any good book on the relativity of truth will tell you that the word "fact" is itself a fiction. It's like lying with statistics. It's not the facts that are important, it's how they are displayed and presented. It's as important what is not shown as what is shown. And that's what the original poster is getting at. Even the most apolitical entity will show bias if one looks for it.
Consider two economic facts: New home sales in America rose by 1.1% in August. New home sales in America rose by 0.9% in September.
Consider the presentation of these two facts:
"More new homes were sold." "Sales of new homes are slowing." "The housing market is in decline." "The housing market is stagnant." "The housing market is growing at a steady rate." "Housing is showing a seasonal decline."
What biases can you discover in these?
Then consider all the assumptions about capitalism, economic rent, urban growth, the arbitrary granularity of "one month" in determining economic output, the use of percentages rather than dollar values (possibly hiding a rise in low-cost housing), the environment, sociological norms, cultural values, and the relevance of monthly new home sales on any future decision you may make in your lifetime.
What about the economics report that ignores this metric altogether, but focuses on the rise in consumer spending instead? What about the report that ignores the rise in spending to focus on this decline in housing? (Is housing even in decline?)
No single entity can hope to glean all the facts on an issue, and there are no doubt conflicting reports about the current state of the economy, diplomacy, the arts, health care, etc. at any given moment. To suggest that with all the facts on the table one can come to a rock-solid conclusion - that somehow interpretation of facts is devoid of bias - is not just wrong, but preposterous.
The predominant problem with any movie ratings system is not the number of stars or the granularity of the rating.
The major problem is, simply put, movies are not treated as a disposable commodity.
I worked at a radio station for several years, and one of my jobs was to review CDs for library status. Listening to an entire CD takes anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes - simply impossible. So, you resort to fast-forwarding, previewing, and generally getting a feel for an album. Quickly you separate the wheat from the chaff (and conversely, quickly dump the worst works without a second glance.)
But then what happened? You evolve into an even more nuanced shorthand. Poorly Photoshopped covers became a quick excuse to pop a CD in, listen to 15 seconds of generic (but not awful) prog metal or power pop, eject it and trash it without a second thought. Albums on your favorite labels were given equally short treatment, then placed in the most coveted "Hot Trax" section. Only the things in the unknown middle received any kind of discerning analysis.
We could no doubt do the same with movies. In fact, any movie rating system I would implement would do the same:
A small screen would pop up. Then I'd show you 5 minutes of the movie, in 10 30 second clips. Perhaps these clips would be "pre-clipped" by a staff. It doesn't matter, really. The point is you essentially get to see what the movie is about, in terms of look and feel, acting, pacing, etc in enough to rate it.
Underneath the screen would be the "vitals" of the movie: year made, genre, director, production company, chief stars, maybe a brief plot synopsis. This would prep you for what you're about to watch. In addition, it would show you how you've rated similar things: so if you really liked this director or company, you'd know.
This is a win-win for everyone. You get to preview the actual movie, instead of just reading recommendations. It's free advertising for the movie companies (maybe even let them pick the clips - but no trailers, we want actual movie footage, not psychologically manipulating fluff.) And it turns you into a movie connisseur much more quickly. You'll evolve a shorthand. I like this director, give it a 5 star (or whatever) and move on to the next movie. You can start judging a movie in 30 seconds, and be more right than wrong.
And yeah, you might miss your favorite film through a bit of oversight or callousness. But it's not likely - most people err on the side of caution when reviewing things, so you'll only trash the trashiest things without hesitation. The best films (for you) will shine quickly, and the rest - well, the unknown middle is a wide playing field indeed.
Well, if you think about it objectively, you find that genre is a terrible way to recommend movies. Consider:
Movie A is an artful horror film (we'll even give it a bonus point for originality.) Movie B is a low budget straight to video rehash of Movie A.
What are the differences between the two?
A) Budget / production values. B) Production company. C) Actors. D) Crew, particularly director / writer / producer. E) Originality of script. (This is kind of subjective, but surely a remake of a movie is less original than the original.)
These are good criteria for picking out films. It's up for you (and every other user) to tell you what the values of these mean.
Genre is terrible for choosing a movie; it is much better suited for discriminating out other movies. Someone can filter out all romantic comedies, fine. But saying all romantic comedies are alike because they are romantic comedies is wrongheaded.
Three piece suits are for garish dandies? Are you kidding? Is this what we've come to?
A sharp 3 piece suit is THE menswear. There is no substitute. Not to mention if you spent a couple hundred books, you wouldn't have to worry about them being uncomfortable.
If it was good enough for Cary Grant, it's good enough for me.
Why do people insist on treating the producer / consumer relationship as a one-way street?
"Since when are we required to acquiesce to the wishes of the corporate world just for the privelege of purchasing and using their products?"
That's called the free market, buddy. Don't like Company X's practice, either go find Company Y or start Company Z. Otherwise, they can do as they please, and you can either play by their rules or go home.
Also, I love how you sarcastically use the word privilege, when in fact you're demanding the unfettered use of an optional service provided to you by someone with no obligation to do so, without suffering any costs whatsoever. Sounds like someone has been staring into the abyss...
So who exactly is the guy in charge of programming all of the fake-looking programs for Hollywood? How do you get that job?
I mean, generally those things actually do seem to involve some sort of programming, even if only of the cheap GUI "click a button, get a new screen" variety. But a lot of times you can see that the fake search results they've found do "match" the query.
Or like on CSI, whenever they're doing database searches, or facial recognition, or DNA sequencing, the programs are obviously fake, but someone had to actually make that program "filter out" bad results somehow. That's some pretty involved Flash at the very least.
Does Hollywood have a big repository of fake software out there? Are there developers / companies that get paid to do this? Can I get that job?
Criticizing Bush is anti-American? Who really believes this? Congresscritters every day get up and criticize Bush. So do a lot of people on the street. It's no big deal; it happens a lot, and nobody's getting thrown in jail for it, or torn a new one by the media.
When you spout ridiculous things like this, you lessen the value of true statements you surround it with, like the NSA upping the wiretapping industry.
Why would a student not want to contribute to a system for-profit system that helps to ensure high academic standards?
I fixed the question. Much easier to answer now. Turnitin.com is an amalgam of middleman salesmanship, piggybacking, content cannibalism, and copyright infringement. And it makes a pretty penny at it.
If I don't get my piece of the pie, I want to opt out. Plain and simple.
Everybody here is knocking him for missing out on the social aspect of college.
The flipside is, he's done with the academic part of college, but he's only 18. He could live on a friend's couch for 2 years and still be ahead of most people.
I mean, it's not like once you get your diploma, you're forced to forfeit all inklings of a social life - even in a college setting. Now he may choose to reject all of this, too, but that's not the same as saying by graduating at 18 he's missed the boat for partying, socializing, and in general getting the "Other Education" that college offers.
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3) Robert E. Lee
4) Thomas Edison
5) Nathaniel Hawthorne
6) Herman Melville
7) T.S. Eliot
8) James Naismith
9) Teddy Roosevelt
10) Frederick Douglass
Ten Famous left-handed Americans
1) Dick Van Dyke
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton
4) Larry Bird
5) Barry Bonds
6) Ted Williams
7) Oprah Winfrey
8) Jimi Hendrix
9) David Letterman
10) Bill Gates
Ten Famous Americans who didn't use their given name
1) Muhammad Ali
2) Woody Allen
3) Malcolm X
4) Truman Capote
5) Bob Dylan
6) Hulk Hogan
7) Larry King
8) Chuck Norris
9) Sugar Ray Robinson
10) Roy Rogers
Ten Famous left-handed Americans born in the 1800s
1) Henry Ford 2) Helen Keller 3) Herbert Hoover 4) James A. Garfield 5) Ty Cobb 6) George Eastman 7) Emily Dickinson 8) Eugene O'Neill 9) Clarence Darrow 10) John Wesley Hardin
Ten famous Americans born in the 1800s who didn't use their given name
1) Ulysses S Grant 2) JP Morgan 3) Billy the Kid 4) Buster Keaton 5) Fred Astaire 6) Stonewall Jackson 7) Cy Young 8) Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. 9) Jim Thorpe 10) Groucho Marx
"What stops your boss from telling hom to vote a vertain way and bring in your receipt to prove it?"
It's illegal in a few states for employers to discriminate based on political affiliation. And if this started happening on any scale whatsoever, the other states would make it illegal, too. There are too many bright people on both sides of the political spectrum for a company to continually discriminate against certain viewpoints and maintain a successful business. There's a great book, "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida, which addresses how states that are insensitive to gays in their laws are losing a huge market of good employees to gay-friendly states (such as California, Florida, and Oregon) for essentially a non-work-related issue. Its ultimate conclusion is that it's not in a state's interest to let morals govern business acumen, because it creates a vacuum that other states have plenty of capacity to fill.
Ultimately this just means when Sony drops the PS3 to $400 in the spring, the difference in the upgrade will be just that much more dented.
Literally every dollar below the PS3's "real" price (and not their mad-rush Christmas season profit margin to offset the losses of a price drop) is going to affect the long-term sales of both of these products (the Xbox 360, too.)
Funny how much of a difference $50 can make in the world.
All of your points are okay, but also really wishy-washy. "First of all the meta moderator could agree with the moderator." - In the long run, this flattens out, and people who consistently overstep the bounds of good moderation will get dinged eventually.
Also, the Wikipedia system proposes to "karmify" content, not people. So there's no fear of personal retribution or fear of censorship, because the worst that can happen is the thing you write gets dinged, and not your person / digital identity.
And finally, the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you've "seen" people get modded down for having a contrarian viewpoint does not mean that as a statistical whole a karma system favors groupthink, censorship, or what have you. As a general rule, the posts that *I* see marked as 4s and 5s are very insightful, or funny, or informative indeed. By themselves they usually engender the whole crux of the discussion - which makes me suspect the moderators are doing their job very well indeed.
But more to the point, this argument gets tired because I have not seen any statistical evidence that moderators or metamoderators are unconsciously engineering groupthink at Slashdot. Of course people moderate according to their biass - they are encouraged to, half of the moderating options are subjective criteria (not to mention the ubiquitous "Underrated"/"Overrated"). And all it takes is one metamoderator to disagree with you to undo not only your moderation, but your moderating rights. I expect most moderators take their position seriously enough not to take a chance at losing their privileges for being scurrilous.
Basically you want the difference between +1000 / - 999, + 45/ -44, and + 1 / - 0. That's pretty easy, just figure out (VotesUp + 1) * (VotesDown + 1), determine the percentile a particular Vu * Vd falls under in the whole system, and come up with a 10 point "intensity" scale to cover for it.
So 1001 * 1000 = 1,001,000. So that's like a "10" on the intensometer.
46 * 45 = 2070. Maybe a "4" on the intensometer.
2 * 1 = 2. That's a "0" on the intensometer.
Now you know which is the more intensely debated karma. Tweak as necessary.
You're thinking too specificially! Social networking is not a fad, it's a new *paradigm* in which fads can exist, and one that did not exist to any appreciable degree 10 years ago. Fads may die, but paradigms (and even the sub-paradigms in which fads thrive and die) do not.
Britney Spears? A fad. Teenybopper music? NOT a fad. Music as status symbol? A paradigm.
Pimp My Ride? A fad. Shows aimed at embracing youth lifestyles? NOT a fad. Shows for people about people? A paradigm.
iPod? Yes, a fad. Portable content technology? NOT a fad. Technology as tool of convenience? A paradigm.
MySpace? Sure, probably a fad. Social Networking? Well... you can probably guess. The Internet as social construct? A paradigm.
That's what we're talking about. Sure, the specific "fads" of your 18-24 years are gone. And even some of the paradigms have gone away (letter writing shifted to email, tailored suits shifted to sweatshop silk screens, etc) but you're on the wrong level when you discuss social networking as a fad. I mean, just think of those words devoid of context.
What are the exact legal laws for ownership of a particular piece of content, such as a book, CD, or DVD?
If I buy a CD, can my wife make a copy? If my son-in-law buys a CD, can I make a copy? If two people each contribute $5 to buy a $10 DVD, can they make a copy? If 100 people each contribue a dime to buy a $10 DVD, can they all gather together and watch it? Can a corporation own a DVD? Can they make the DVD or DVD content viewable on a secure intranet for all employees of the corporation? Can they make it downloadable?
Are there any specific cases or laws relating to this? How many people can own a CD? Is it limited to one person? One household? Also if you could address any possible permutations or exceptions I may have missed, that would be great.
Slashdot Mirror
The ultimate irony will be if Google wins all of these cases brought against them by libraries and newspapers, and then someone simply comes along and pilfers all of Google's data for it.
What's to stop Yahoo! from simply scraping all the book images and running their own library? Google can't claim copyright foul, has already supported fair use of Internet pages made publicly available, and in general has forwarded a philosophy of "what is presented to the public is free for the taking, repackaging, and selling."
I hope somebody just comes in and rides their coattails for some quick bucks. Then at least we'll be able to see for certain how Google feels about their own practices.
Yeah, that's the reason. He wasn't, you know, engaging in topical humor.
Clearly he's bought the stereotype that Congressmen are pedos.
(Insightful? C'mon, mods. Try a little harder.)
(PS Do you know what the word "stereotype" means?)
Umm, first off, it appears that you should do some research.
In some states they have a "only 2 years older" rule, but in other states, such as Alaska, Vermont, Minnesota, and Georgia, the age of consent is 16. Period. Once you are 16, you can have sex with whoever you want (who is also at least 16.)
Now in some states, they have laws stating homosexual age of consent is higher.
In some states, they have laws which raise the age of consent for people "in persons of authority" over an otherwise consenting minor.
And in some states, the age of consent is higher if you're not married.
As for "defending a sexual predator", I believe Mark Foley has got some major issues with his sexuality and himself, but I don't think he's a sexual predator. He didn't actually have sex with any pages that we know of. For all of his poor judgment and lack of self-control, he has somehow managed to avoid major scandal up to this point. So calling him a sexual predator, when he's basically hitting on high school seniors from a power position, isn't all that different from 5th year frat boys hitting on the incoming college freshman (many of whom are under 18.)
My point is not to condone his actions, but to also point out that using terms like "sexual predator" to describe this man is ridiculous and inappropriate. There are plenty of much, much worse sexual deviants out there doing damage on the streets today.
Okay, first, is this actually English? I'm concerned.
Second, he wasn't a Senator, he was a Representative, your allusive alliteration be damned.
Thirdly, ABC News first ran the explicit instant messages that are the heart of the issue. Every other news organization has ran with this nonstop, from CNN to Fox News, the Times, WaPo, and yes, The Daily Show. And all of them have frequently made mention of Foley's support of anti-child predation laws. To suggest no one else is on top of this is ridiculous.
Fourthly, the "little boys" you are talking about were a) 16 years old, which meets the age of consent in a lot of states (but not all), b) obviously engaged in the conversations they were having, and c) not really the subject of all the Internet safety laws being sponsored by Foley.
Now you can argue he abused the power dynamic in the situation, and clearly exhibited poor judgment. But to call him a "sicko" is, at the least, a bit overboard and at most does a great injustice to the victims of real sexually deviant "sickos". Also, the irony of anti-"think of the children" advocates jumping on that bandwagon is not lost on the cynics in all of us.
Finally, to the people who have modded the parent post up: Read the last 6 words of it again, and weep bitter tears at your own ignorance. When we talk about "people don't care about facts", we talk about you.
Any good book on the relativity of truth will tell you that the word "fact" is itself a fiction. It's like lying with statistics. It's not the facts that are important, it's how they are displayed and presented. It's as important what is not shown as what is shown. And that's what the original poster is getting at. Even the most apolitical entity will show bias if one looks for it.
Consider two economic facts: New home sales in America rose by 1.1% in August. New home sales in America rose by 0.9% in September.
Consider the presentation of these two facts:
"More new homes were sold."
"Sales of new homes are slowing."
"The housing market is in decline."
"The housing market is stagnant."
"The housing market is growing at a steady rate."
"Housing is showing a seasonal decline."
What biases can you discover in these?
Then consider all the assumptions about capitalism, economic rent, urban growth, the arbitrary granularity of "one month" in determining economic output, the use of percentages rather than dollar values (possibly hiding a rise in low-cost housing), the environment, sociological norms, cultural values, and the relevance of monthly new home sales on any future decision you may make in your lifetime.
What about the economics report that ignores this metric altogether, but focuses on the rise in consumer spending instead? What about the report that ignores the rise in spending to focus on this decline in housing? (Is housing even in decline?)
No single entity can hope to glean all the facts on an issue, and there are no doubt conflicting reports about the current state of the economy, diplomacy, the arts, health care, etc. at any given moment. To suggest that with all the facts on the table one can come to a rock-solid conclusion - that somehow interpretation of facts is devoid of bias - is not just wrong, but preposterous.
"Invisible Unmanned Aircraft."
Seriously - you didn't even RTFT.
Are you kidding? Our founding fathers would be horrified at the current group that calls themselves liberals, too.
Homosexual marriage?
Equality of the races?
Women voting?
Women working?
All the sex and violence in the media?
They may not have been fundies, but they were still proper gentlemen of the 18th century.
The predominant problem with any movie ratings system is not the number of stars or the granularity of the rating.
The major problem is, simply put, movies are not treated as a disposable commodity.
I worked at a radio station for several years, and one of my jobs was to review CDs for library status. Listening to an entire CD takes anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes - simply impossible. So, you resort to fast-forwarding, previewing, and generally getting a feel for an album. Quickly you separate the wheat from the chaff (and conversely, quickly dump the worst works without a second glance.)
But then what happened? You evolve into an even more nuanced shorthand. Poorly Photoshopped covers became a quick excuse to pop a CD in, listen to 15 seconds of generic (but not awful) prog metal or power pop, eject it and trash it without a second thought. Albums on your favorite labels were given equally short treatment, then placed in the most coveted "Hot Trax" section. Only the things in the unknown middle received any kind of discerning analysis.
We could no doubt do the same with movies. In fact, any movie rating system I would implement would do the same:
A small screen would pop up. Then I'd show you 5 minutes of the movie, in 10 30 second clips. Perhaps these clips would be "pre-clipped" by a staff. It doesn't matter, really. The point is you essentially get to see what the movie is about, in terms of look and feel, acting, pacing, etc in enough to rate it.
Underneath the screen would be the "vitals" of the movie: year made, genre, director, production company, chief stars, maybe a brief plot synopsis. This would prep you for what you're about to watch. In addition, it would show you how you've rated similar things: so if you really liked this director or company, you'd know.
This is a win-win for everyone. You get to preview the actual movie, instead of just reading recommendations. It's free advertising for the movie companies (maybe even let them pick the clips - but no trailers, we want actual movie footage, not psychologically manipulating fluff.) And it turns you into a movie connisseur much more quickly. You'll evolve a shorthand. I like this director, give it a 5 star (or whatever) and move on to the next movie. You can start judging a movie in 30 seconds, and be more right than wrong.
And yeah, you might miss your favorite film through a bit of oversight or callousness. But it's not likely - most people err on the side of caution when reviewing things, so you'll only trash the trashiest things without hesitation. The best films (for you) will shine quickly, and the rest - well, the unknown middle is a wide playing field indeed.
Well, if you think about it objectively, you find that genre is a terrible way to recommend movies. Consider:
Movie A is an artful horror film (we'll even give it a bonus point for originality.) Movie B is a low budget straight to video rehash of Movie A.
What are the differences between the two?
A) Budget / production values.
B) Production company.
C) Actors.
D) Crew, particularly director / writer / producer.
E) Originality of script. (This is kind of subjective, but surely a remake of a movie is less original than the original.)
These are good criteria for picking out films. It's up for you (and every other user) to tell you what the values of these mean.
Genre is terrible for choosing a movie; it is much better suited for discriminating out other movies. Someone can filter out all romantic comedies, fine. But saying all romantic comedies are alike because they are romantic comedies is wrongheaded.
I booked this to my del.icio.us on February 8, 2005, and it's just now hitting Slashdot front pages? I'm not that far ahead of the curve, I promise.
Three piece suits are for garish dandies? Are you kidding? Is this what we've come to?
A sharp 3 piece suit is THE menswear. There is no substitute. Not to mention if you spent a couple hundred books, you wouldn't have to worry about them being uncomfortable.
If it was good enough for Cary Grant, it's good enough for me.
Why do people insist on treating the producer / consumer relationship as a one-way street?
...
"Since when are we required to acquiesce to the wishes of the corporate world just for the privelege of purchasing and using their products?"
That's called the free market, buddy. Don't like Company X's practice, either go find Company Y or start Company Z. Otherwise, they can do as they please, and you can either play by their rules or go home.
Also, I love how you sarcastically use the word privilege, when in fact you're demanding the unfettered use of an optional service provided to you by someone with no obligation to do so, without suffering any costs whatsoever. Sounds like someone has been staring into the abyss
I already proposed this earlier this year: Let's buy Sony.
Then we can make our own gaming console / digital camera / MP3 player / laptop / movies / music / DVD player / HDTV.
So who exactly is the guy in charge of programming all of the fake-looking programs for Hollywood? How do you get that job?
I mean, generally those things actually do seem to involve some sort of programming, even if only of the cheap GUI "click a button, get a new screen" variety. But a lot of times you can see that the fake search results they've found do "match" the query.
Or like on CSI, whenever they're doing database searches, or facial recognition, or DNA sequencing, the programs are obviously fake, but someone had to actually make that program "filter out" bad results somehow. That's some pretty involved Flash at the very least.
Does Hollywood have a big repository of fake software out there? Are there developers / companies that get paid to do this? Can I get that job?
Criticizing Bush is anti-American? Who really believes this? Congresscritters every day get up and criticize Bush. So do a lot of people on the street. It's no big deal; it happens a lot, and nobody's getting thrown in jail for it, or torn a new one by the media.
When you spout ridiculous things like this, you lessen the value of true statements you surround it with, like the NSA upping the wiretapping industry.
Seriously, a little gut check now and then.
I fixed the question. Much easier to answer now. Turnitin.com is an amalgam of middleman salesmanship, piggybacking, content cannibalism, and copyright infringement. And it makes a pretty penny at it.
If I don't get my piece of the pie, I want to opt out. Plain and simple.
Everybody here is knocking him for missing out on the social aspect of college.
The flipside is, he's done with the academic part of college, but he's only 18. He could live on a friend's couch for 2 years and still be ahead of most people.
I mean, it's not like once you get your diploma, you're forced to forfeit all inklings of a social life - even in a college setting. Now he may choose to reject all of this, too, but that's not the same as saying by graduating at 18 he's missed the boat for partying, socializing, and in general getting the "Other Education" that college offers.
Actually, James Van Allen was launching rockets from balloons waaaaay back in 1952. They were called Roccoons.
Compare:
Ten Famous Americans born in the 1800s
1) Abraham Lincoln
2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
3) Robert E. Lee
4) Thomas Edison
5) Nathaniel Hawthorne
6) Herman Melville
7) T.S. Eliot
8) James Naismith
9) Teddy Roosevelt
10) Frederick Douglass
Ten Famous left-handed Americans
1) Dick Van Dyke
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton
4) Larry Bird
5) Barry Bonds
6) Ted Williams
7) Oprah Winfrey
8) Jimi Hendrix
9) David Letterman
10) Bill Gates
Ten Famous Americans who didn't use their given name
1) Muhammad Ali
2) Woody Allen
3) Malcolm X
4) Truman Capote
5) Bob Dylan
6) Hulk Hogan
7) Larry King
8) Chuck Norris
9) Sugar Ray Robinson
10) Roy Rogers
Ten Famous left-handed Americans born in the 1800s
1) Henry Ford
2) Helen Keller
3) Herbert Hoover
4) James A. Garfield
5) Ty Cobb
6) George Eastman
7) Emily Dickinson
8) Eugene O'Neill
9) Clarence Darrow
10) John Wesley Hardin
Ten famous Americans born in the 1800s who didn't use their given name
1) Ulysses S Grant
2) JP Morgan
3) Billy the Kid
4) Buster Keaton
5) Fred Astaire
6) Stonewall Jackson
7) Cy Young
8) Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.
9) Jim Thorpe
10) Groucho Marx
Ten
"What stops your boss from telling hom to vote a vertain way and bring in your receipt to prove it?"
It's illegal in a few states for employers to discriminate based on political affiliation. And if this started happening on any scale whatsoever, the other states would make it illegal, too. There are too many bright people on both sides of the political spectrum for a company to continually discriminate against certain viewpoints and maintain a successful business. There's a great book, "The Rise of the Creative Class" by Richard Florida, which addresses how states that are insensitive to gays in their laws are losing a huge market of good employees to gay-friendly states (such as California, Florida, and Oregon) for essentially a non-work-related issue. Its ultimate conclusion is that it's not in a state's interest to let morals govern business acumen, because it creates a vacuum that other states have plenty of capacity to fill.
Ultimately this just means when Sony drops the PS3 to $400 in the spring, the difference in the upgrade will be just that much more dented.
Literally every dollar below the PS3's "real" price (and not their mad-rush Christmas season profit margin to offset the losses of a price drop) is going to affect the long-term sales of both of these products (the Xbox 360, too.)
Funny how much of a difference $50 can make in the world.
All of your points are okay, but also really wishy-washy. "First of all the meta moderator could agree with the moderator." - In the long run, this flattens out, and people who consistently overstep the bounds of good moderation will get dinged eventually.
Also, the Wikipedia system proposes to "karmify" content, not people. So there's no fear of personal retribution or fear of censorship, because the worst that can happen is the thing you write gets dinged, and not your person / digital identity.
And finally, the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you've "seen" people get modded down for having a contrarian viewpoint does not mean that as a statistical whole a karma system favors groupthink, censorship, or what have you. As a general rule, the posts that *I* see marked as 4s and 5s are very insightful, or funny, or informative indeed. By themselves they usually engender the whole crux of the discussion - which makes me suspect the moderators are doing their job very well indeed.
But more to the point, this argument gets tired because I have not seen any statistical evidence that moderators or metamoderators are unconsciously engineering groupthink at Slashdot. Of course people moderate according to their biass - they are encouraged to, half of the moderating options are subjective criteria (not to mention the ubiquitous "Underrated"/"Overrated"). And all it takes is one metamoderator to disagree with you to undo not only your moderation, but your moderating rights. I expect most moderators take their position seriously enough not to take a chance at losing their privileges for being scurrilous.
Basically you want the difference between +1000 / - 999, + 45/ -44, and + 1 / - 0. That's pretty easy, just figure out (VotesUp + 1) * (VotesDown + 1), determine the percentile a particular Vu * Vd falls under in the whole system, and come up with a 10 point "intensity" scale to cover for it.
So 1001 * 1000 = 1,001,000. So that's like a "10" on the intensometer.
46 * 45 = 2070. Maybe a "4" on the intensometer.
2 * 1 = 2. That's a "0" on the intensometer.
Now you know which is the more intensely debated karma. Tweak as necessary.
You're thinking too specificially! Social networking is not a fad, it's a new *paradigm* in which fads can exist, and one that did not exist to any appreciable degree 10 years ago. Fads may die, but paradigms (and even the sub-paradigms in which fads thrive and die) do not.
... you can probably guess. The Internet as social construct? A paradigm.
Britney Spears? A fad. Teenybopper music? NOT a fad. Music as status symbol? A paradigm.
Pimp My Ride? A fad. Shows aimed at embracing youth lifestyles? NOT a fad. Shows for people about people? A paradigm.
iPod? Yes, a fad. Portable content technology? NOT a fad. Technology as tool of convenience? A paradigm.
MySpace? Sure, probably a fad. Social Networking? Well
That's what we're talking about. Sure, the specific "fads" of your 18-24 years are gone. And even some of the paradigms have gone away (letter writing shifted to email, tailored suits shifted to sweatshop silk screens, etc) but you're on the wrong level when you discuss social networking as a fad. I mean, just think of those words devoid of context.
Social.
Networking.
Those concepts are as old as civilization itself.
NOT a fad.
What are the exact legal laws for ownership of a particular piece of content, such as a book, CD, or DVD?
If I buy a CD, can my wife make a copy? If my son-in-law buys a CD, can I make a copy?
If two people each contribute $5 to buy a $10 DVD, can they make a copy?
If 100 people each contribue a dime to buy a $10 DVD, can they all gather together and watch it?
Can a corporation own a DVD? Can they make the DVD or DVD content viewable on a secure intranet for all employees of the corporation? Can they make it downloadable?
Are there any specific cases or laws relating to this? How many people can own a CD? Is it limited to one person? One household? Also if you could address any possible permutations or exceptions I may have missed, that would be great.