Slashdot's karma system works fine for Slashdot, but wouldn't work at all for Wikipedia.
PP was refuting GPP's implication that no moderation/karma system worked by pointing out that Slashdot's works alright. PP wasn't implying that Slashdot's system would work for Wikipedia--simply that there are some systems which do work, so we needn't abandon all hope before starting.
It's easy to be heroic when you have nothing to lose. It's like instead of rescuing the princess from a fire-breathing dragon, Jimmy is rescuing her from a field mouse.
Why is everybody framing the question in terms of Google's profits?
The matter is not what Wikimedia isn't motivated by (profits), but what it is motivated by and founded on. It's about freedom of information. Honestly, I would expect more from the Slashdot community, the majority of whom are behaving in this thread like Google's (and China's) apologists.
This "I'd rather have some information than none" bullshit is coming from the same people who blast away at Microsoft's slippery-slope EULAs.
The neverending search for profit should not be seen an excuse for for-profit corporations, but instead as what is wrong with them.
The organization I work for banks at a non-profit cooperative credit union, and the service they provide is absolutely astounding. I shop at local business that are owned by the people who operate them (not franchises; these are intellectually autonomous, too), and they know me by name and ask me for input on their products and services.
Jimmy Wales is doing the same thing for the internet, and I have the utmost respect for that. Google has decent services, but once enough people have gotten to Gmail, they've stopped asking for user input and appear to have stalled development.
Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me.
Yeah, well at least you *get* to vote. The rest of the world has to sit and watch (and cry) as Americans choose who will constitute the next iteration of the most powerful government in the world.
Before it wasn't hot enough because it was too small. But if we make a bigger, even more expensive one, I'm sure it will be better. Just like road congestion.
I cancelled my MBNA MasterCard when I got a letter from them saying--in no uncertain terms or small print--that they were going to start sharing their customer lists with third party advertisers.
Luckily, my balance was at $0. I feel angry on behalf of those who couldn't just cancel the card like I did.
DollarRevenue is paying people to create exploits. Shut down DollarRevenue and similar places, and the financial incentive for creating botnets will dry up.
What are you, an RIAA lawyer?
Just because Dollar Revenue has some illegal and/or malfeasant uses, doesn't meant that the company and its customers should be deprived of the legal applications that the service provides.
Just like how P2P software has many legitimate uses, even though it is used a LOT for copyright infringement. The differences are subtle, but the analogy is strong.
If anything, we/.ers should be (if begrudgingly) supporting Dollar Sense, to revert the precedents set in the field of P2P.
Schools built today need to suit the needs of today, and tomorrow, and the day after.
EPCOT was neat in its day because it proposed one alternative of "the future"; but a school of the future still needs to work in five, ten, and twenty years.
We can't be telling our kids, "this is what people twenty years ago thought a classroom ten years ago would look like." Stick with the basics, and if advancements come, let them come naturally and sustainably, not through one-time capital investments.
Exactly! The cat's out of the bag... we know that they are CAPABLE of a 3-day turnaround. That line about having to wait for testing and blah, blah, blah was totally bogus, apparently.
As much as I hate microsoft, I have to disagree. However, IANAP (programmer), so you can take this with a grain of salt:
With most security fixes, the programmer would want to retain the user's experience, but prevent unauthorized users from doing things they're not supposed to do, but through a glitch they can.
With this security fix, the programmer doesn't have to retain the same level of experience for the user, and in fact wants to *reduce* the program's functionality for the user, by keeping the user from being able to eschew DRM.
It seems to me that this type of security fix would be a lot easier to implement than the former.
It doesn't matter if the pulp is from new trees or from recycled paper or card.
The fact is that a lot of (a) energy, (b) chemicals, and (c) clean water to produce and/or recycle paper, not to mention the energy required in distribution and recovery.
Paper is one of the things that we're consistently okay at recycling, but as PP implies, after a while the fibres just break down, and you can't recycle it any more.
Reduce and Reuse are the first two "R"s for a reason.
Finally, contracts that aren't worth the paper they're written on.
1. Get signatures on contract
2. Let the rest of the text fade
3. Print contract again, with new terms
4. Permanent photocopy of new contract
5. PROFIT
You wouldn't need to make a "permanent" photocopy of the new contract; you'd just have to print it with standard ink (as opposed to using the UV-sensitive photochromic "ink" on this special paper). If regular ink disappeared, too, then the signature would disappear along with the original contract!
Well, *I* know that when somebody opposes XYZ's position on the grounds that XYZ are full of "blatant lies" and that "truthful information" is just a click away, over here, just take the red pill kthxbye, THEN I become suspicious of both parties' position and motives.
If all other factors were equal, yes. But the cable companies running these ads will directly profit if the net neutrality act isn't passed.
Those who are in favour of the NNA are generally so because it protects diverse interests (i.e. not just big "tube" companies), free and open dissemination of ideas, and opportunity.
we went to war with the British to get rid of feudalistic control over the American colonies
Actually, the U.S. went to war with the British because the British were at the top of the ladder, but were overseas. After U.S. independence, society didn't reorganize--the ladder is still the same, just with the top rung cut off.
As I recall from my high school science courses (and which is supported by anecdotal experience...and wikipedia), about 95% of the energy output of an incandescent bulb is heat, and only 5% is light.
Ironic as it may be for a Canadian such as myself to complain about air conditioning costs, but if you have a bunch of these going on in hour house, they're putting out a noticable amount of heat. If on top of this you are air conditioning your house (presumably in the summer), then you're paying to cool the air that your light is heating.
CFLs (BTW, CFL in Canada stands for Canadian Football League...please co-opt this acronym) use less energy to produce the same amount of light, so I can only assume that the energy difference is in heat savings. Add to this the savings from not having to re-cool that air, and you are then saving double in the summer.
Quite a clever investment!
- RG>
Re:This is great, but....
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
He is also frequently called on as a commentor on CBC radio (the public broadcaster, which by law can be heard by Canadians anywhere in the country). CBC radio recieves no ads and no coporate sponsorship (unlike PBS), so is generaly balanced on controversial issues.
CBC radio has no ads, true. But CBC-TV has plenty of them, more, I'd say, than PBS, which has far better quality analysis (see pbs.org/frontline).
Just because CBC doesn't (in your world, at least) receive ad money doesn't mean it's completely impartial. For one, it deals with musicians, and I suspect has to deal with their record companies to a degree. Also, it receives most of its funding from the government, and there is always a question of whether it can actually objectively report on the hand that feeds it.
There was a campaign recently advertising CPAC (like Canada's C-SPAN) as being better able to report on government matters [than the CBC, implied the ads], because it is funded entirely by cable companies (well, and the users, after a recent move). However, being a frequent viewer of the Daily Show, I don't see how that fact is supposed to play in their favour.
The only TV I watch now is what I can stream and/or download from the internet.
- RG>
Re:Great idea
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 4, Informative
There is an exception to having to pay this levy.
In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).
So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.
(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)
This looks like a job for the Gates Foundation, or maybe Google. Create some automated translation software, so that ready-made articles (admittedly these will tend to not be about local african topics) can be automatically translated into local indigenous languages. Then, humans will only have to clean up the errors that are inherent in any automated translation system.
Some languages (Latin, German?) would be better to translate from than others which have many ambiguous interpretations (English, Engrish).
It is important to preserve small languages, as language is the medium which directs perspective. If we all spoke the same language, the diversity of perspectives would be much smaller. There's a recent book called "Spoken Here", which talks about efforts to preserve dying languages. In it, he brings up the point of perspective. In some languages, words are classified in relationships that we can't even imagine in the Western world. The significance of these relationships dies out when the languages do.
History tells that no company has ever gained anything but grief in the long run from working with Microsoft. If Mozilla do i hope they dont ever stop watching eachothers backs.
It's entirely a political/image game in which Microsoft has forced Mozilla's hand.
MS plays off the antitrust people by offering to collaborate with Mozilla et al. A small fraction of Microsoft's development resources are spent on this collaboration.
If Mozilla refuses, MS can say that it tried, but nobody wanted to collaborate. This would give MS free rein to continue along their path of antitrust behaviour. Therefore Mozilla *must* collaborate.
The benefits and detriments to each side is a non-issue. MS could be a real jerk about implementing the collaboration, either explicitly, or through red tape. Mozilla may have to spend more resources than planned on Vista development, and Mozilla developers may get lured into moving over to MS.
The important thing is both sides *look like* they're doing what they're supposed to do.
Funny how different jurisdictions set their priorities.
When I was approached by an insurance scam artist, I wanted to alert the authorities, for the benefit of the people who are stupid enough to fall for their "if you pay us $200, you'll make more money back but we won't tell you how or if it works until you pay us" scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
PP was refuting GPP's implication that no moderation/karma system worked by pointing out that Slashdot's works alright. PP wasn't implying that Slashdot's system would work for Wikipedia--simply that there are some systems which do work, so we needn't abandon all hope before starting.
- RG>
I think that if it were that easy to get rid of Microsoft, someone would have done it already.
- RG>
Why is everybody framing the question in terms of Google's profits?
The matter is not what Wikimedia isn't motivated by (profits), but what it is motivated by and founded on. It's about freedom of information. Honestly, I would expect more from the Slashdot community, the majority of whom are behaving in this thread like Google's (and China's) apologists.
This "I'd rather have some information than none" bullshit is coming from the same people who blast away at Microsoft's slippery-slope EULAs.
The neverending search for profit should not be seen an excuse for for-profit corporations, but instead as what is wrong with them.
The organization I work for banks at a non-profit cooperative credit union, and the service they provide is absolutely astounding. I shop at local business that are owned by the people who operate them (not franchises; these are intellectually autonomous, too), and they know me by name and ask me for input on their products and services.
Jimmy Wales is doing the same thing for the internet, and I have the utmost respect for that. Google has decent services, but once enough people have gotten to Gmail, they've stopped asking for user input and appear to have stalled development.
- RG>
Yeah, well at least you *get* to vote. The rest of the world has to sit and watch (and cry) as Americans choose who will constitute the next iteration of the most powerful government in the world.
- RG>
Jesus. This is the first time I've heard of it, but it does in fact look pretty crazy.
I mean, the "related links" even has a link to Roland's blog!
- RG>
Of course it will work.
Before it wasn't hot enough because it was too small. But if we make a bigger, even more expensive one, I'm sure it will be better. Just like road congestion.
- RG>
I find it quite appropriate that on a story about blogs, all of the comments are below my viewing threshold.
- RG>
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be associated with someone whose signature is a deceptive slashdot logout link.
- RG>
I cancelled my MBNA MasterCard when I got a letter from them saying--in no uncertain terms or small print--that they were going to start sharing their customer lists with third party advertisers.
Luckily, my balance was at $0. I feel angry on behalf of those who couldn't just cancel the card like I did.
- RG>
What are you, an RIAA lawyer?
Just because Dollar Revenue has some illegal and/or malfeasant uses, doesn't meant that the company and its customers should be deprived of the legal applications that the service provides.
Just like how P2P software has many legitimate uses, even though it is used a LOT for copyright infringement. The differences are subtle, but the analogy is strong.
If anything, we
- RG>
I think it's another bungle.
Schools built today need to suit the needs of today, and tomorrow, and the day after.
EPCOT was neat in its day because it proposed one alternative of "the future"; but a school of the future still needs to work in five, ten, and twenty years.
We can't be telling our kids, "this is what people twenty years ago thought a classroom ten years ago would look like." Stick with the basics, and if advancements come, let them come naturally and sustainably, not through one-time capital investments.
- RG>
As much as I hate microsoft, I have to disagree. However, IANAP (programmer), so you can take this with a grain of salt:
With most security fixes, the programmer would want to retain the user's experience, but prevent unauthorized users from doing things they're not supposed to do, but through a glitch they can.
With this security fix, the programmer doesn't have to retain the same level of experience for the user, and in fact wants to *reduce* the program's functionality for the user, by keeping the user from being able to eschew DRM.
It seems to me that this type of security fix would be a lot easier to implement than the former.
- RG>
It doesn't matter if the pulp is from new trees or from recycled paper or card.
The fact is that a lot of (a) energy, (b) chemicals, and (c) clean water to produce and/or recycle paper, not to mention the energy required in distribution and recovery.
Paper is one of the things that we're consistently okay at recycling, but as PP implies, after a while the fibres just break down, and you can't recycle it any more.
Reduce and Reuse are the first two "R"s for a reason.
- RG>
You wouldn't need to make a "permanent" photocopy of the new contract; you'd just have to print it with standard ink (as opposed to using the UV-sensitive photochromic "ink" on this special paper). If regular ink disappeared, too, then the signature would disappear along with the original contract!
- RG>
If all other factors were equal, yes. But the cable companies running these ads will directly profit if the net neutrality act isn't passed.
Those who are in favour of the NNA are generally so because it protects diverse interests (i.e. not just big "tube" companies), free and open dissemination of ideas, and opportunity.
- RG>
Actually, the U.S. went to war with the British because the British were at the top of the ladder, but were overseas. After U.S. independence, society didn't reorganize--the ladder is still the same, just with the top rung cut off.
- RG>
As I recall from my high school science courses (and which is supported by anecdotal experience...and wikipedia), about 95% of the energy output of an incandescent bulb is heat, and only 5% is light.
Ironic as it may be for a Canadian such as myself to complain about air conditioning costs, but if you have a bunch of these going on in hour house, they're putting out a noticable amount of heat. If on top of this you are air conditioning your house (presumably in the summer), then you're paying to cool the air that your light is heating.
CFLs (BTW, CFL in Canada stands for Canadian Football League...please co-opt this acronym) use less energy to produce the same amount of light, so I can only assume that the energy difference is in heat savings. Add to this the savings from not having to re-cool that air, and you are then saving double in the summer.
Quite a clever investment!
- RG>
CBC radio has no ads, true. But CBC-TV has plenty of them, more, I'd say, than PBS, which has far better quality analysis (see pbs.org/frontline).
Just because CBC doesn't (in your world, at least) receive ad money doesn't mean it's completely impartial. For one, it deals with musicians, and I suspect has to deal with their record companies to a degree. Also, it receives most of its funding from the government, and there is always a question of whether it can actually objectively report on the hand that feeds it.
There was a campaign recently advertising CPAC (like Canada's C-SPAN) as being better able to report on government matters [than the CBC, implied the ads], because it is funded entirely by cable companies (well, and the users, after a recent move). However, being a frequent viewer of the Daily Show, I don't see how that fact is supposed to play in their favour.
The only TV I watch now is what I can stream and/or download from the internet.
- RG>
There is an exception to having to pay this levy.
In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).
So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.
(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)
Source: www.cpcc.ca
- RG>
This looks like a job for the Gates Foundation, or maybe Google. Create some automated translation software, so that ready-made articles (admittedly these will tend to not be about local african topics) can be automatically translated into local indigenous languages. Then, humans will only have to clean up the errors that are inherent in any automated translation system.
Some languages (Latin, German?) would be better to translate from than others which have many ambiguous interpretations (English, Engrish).
It is important to preserve small languages, as language is the medium which directs perspective. If we all spoke the same language, the diversity of perspectives would be much smaller. There's a recent book called "Spoken Here", which talks about efforts to preserve dying languages. In it, he brings up the point of perspective. In some languages, words are classified in relationships that we can't even imagine in the Western world. The significance of these relationships dies out when the languages do.
- RG>
So does this now give Oregon the title of Idaho's West Bank?
- RG>
...are you saying that IT workers are allowed to eat lunches?
That changes everything...
- RG>
Some yutz of a mod labeled PP by article submitter as "offtopic".
I was also curious why there was no link to the site, and PetManimal provides background.
(The fact remains, it's a pretty weak site, and Lyons Partnership is really grabbing at straws).
- RG>
It's entirely a political/image game in which Microsoft has forced Mozilla's hand.
MS plays off the antitrust people by offering to collaborate with Mozilla et al. A small fraction of Microsoft's development resources are spent on this collaboration.
If Mozilla refuses, MS can say that it tried, but nobody wanted to collaborate. This would give MS free rein to continue along their path of antitrust behaviour. Therefore Mozilla *must* collaborate.
The benefits and detriments to each side is a non-issue. MS could be a real jerk about implementing the collaboration, either explicitly, or through red tape. Mozilla may have to spend more resources than planned on Vista development, and Mozilla developers may get lured into moving over to MS.
The important thing is both sides *look like* they're doing what they're supposed to do.
- RG>
Funny how different jurisdictions set their priorities.
When I was approached by an insurance scam artist, I wanted to alert the authorities, for the benefit of the people who are stupid enough to fall for their "if you pay us $200, you'll make more money back but we won't tell you how or if it works until you pay us" scheme.
Unfortunately, a search of the Ottawa Police website for "fraud" returned no results.
Clearly, the police have no interest in this and other forms of white-collar crime.
- RG>