> Maybe if he hadn't sprinkled the word GPL around > so lightly he wouldn't has gotten himself into > this mess... but the fact is, once you've GPL'ed > something, it will always be... you can't revoke > access to the source.... and blah blah blah...
Ahhh your right....but your wrong.
He is the author. He is the person that applies the licence. He is not bound by it. He is perfectly free to release future versions as he wishes. If I offer him some some of money to get an exclusive licence so that I don't have to release my changes?
guess what...its perfectly legal.
However you are right...for other reasons. It is GPLd. That means that on the ALREADY DISTRIBUTED copies, he can't take away the licence. He can't stifle ongoing development of that code. So thus it WILL be forever GPLd.
The point is, yea he has been slow about it. Big deal. Hell, I know what its like to slack. I have waited months and months to release new versions of software when it was just a little change, noone bugged me saying "You must release now"
There is no clause in the GPL that says that the Author agrees to make any changes he makes and uses immediatly available to everyone without delay.
> Linus releases whole kernels faster than rob can > get a source release out... And he handles 15 > megs of source rather than 0.3's 65k....
> No... Slashdot and Andover are just about on the > same plane as LinuxOne, so far as business > legitamacy goes. And as far as holding up the > opensource ideals? forget it...
Oh get off it already.
You need to realize something, its his code. His main concern is this site and keeping it running, if that wasn't the case, the code wouldn't even exist in the first place.
When you run a high profile site like slashdot, running the site takes alot of time. That means making bug fixes "on the fly", reading emails (which musrt take alot of time), sifting through stories, etc...maybe you don't always have time for working on the code tarball
Slashdot is in the buisness of posting news and fostering discussion, NOT releasing software. That part is extra...its the gravey.
You have no RIGHT to his softare code. Now, if he was in the buisness of writting software, and released software to be run, THEN I would argue that you do have a right to see the code (not a legally recognized one but...in my eyes a right none the less), however this is not the case.
> What if I want to make sure my child is not > being abused? What if I have a neighbor who > threatens me constantly? > What if I have someone who comes into my office > going through my desk or deleting/changing > files on my computer?
Just to note on that last case...
When I was a Technician at a certain research hospital, I saw a case of this. There was an area where there were experimental alsheimers drugs in a certain office. Because of this it was a locked area, only people with keys could get in off hours.
I was called several times about computyer problems on several differnt workstations where the machines apeard to have been brutalized in the night. On 2 ocasions someone had physically ruined a floppy drive (looked like with a screw driver) and on another someone deleted all of the files on someones hard drive (no backups of course) comprising YEARS of research.
There was NO doubt that all this was malicous. IMHO they should have installed some hidden cameras to catch the perpetrator in the act. Unfortunaly they never did (at least not while I worked there...I left for greener pa$ture$ shortly after these incidents)
How about for a simple idea... just put a meter on each article...bunch of radio buttons to "Rate How muh you liked this article".
The idea not being as much of use in moderation of articles but just for yourselves to gauge what the community likes to see. More of a simple feedback mechanism than anything else.
2) Source Code: Most websites don't release their code...hell I love that your even trying to do it. Its a great idea. If some people don't like that you take too long doing it, that is their problem uite litterally. I think people need to realize that they have no "right" to see your code. (if you were in the buisness of writting and distributing software, I could see an argument for a right of the users to see the code, I would even argue in favor of it, but your not)
3) I would like to see the ability for a person, within reasonable amount of time, to moderate down their own posts without penalty. That way if a person realizes after they post that something is offtopic, they can go and moderate themselves down.
Perhaps once something is marked offtopic..have all replies to it autmatically marked offtopic unless moderated up (without penalty to the repliers). that way they can still discuss without bothering others too much.
3) I like the idea of forums where people can take offtopic discussion and discuss it outside of the article. Perhaps have a way for an author of a message to "replace" his own posts into one of these forums to get it out of the way of others.
4) Private messages
great idea and could foster longer discussions. Personally, I check users.pl daily to see if any replies to my messages were posted, so that I can continue discussion. However after the article is a day or two old, it is highly rare to see a new reply. (happend recently though)
Could be coupled with idea of mine #3. If a poster "re-places" his post, it could be initally "copied" (or "linked") into the forum...then all repliers sent a message that would lalow them to do the same to their replies...if all (or most) say ok...then have the whole thread moved over and removed from the original articles posts (maybe a simple pointer added)
It makes perfect sense to me. They want to use CVS internally for themselves to make quick changes etc, and at the same time distribute the code to the masses.
You can still contribute code...just email it to them. Then they will decide.
Slashdot is not just a piece of softare. it is an entire suite all together. They are releasing the source so that others can benefit, not necissarily because they want help with it.
> Imagine a law like that being passed in the > [US,Canada,Europe,Australia,YourCountry]... > imagine the law requires Windows
Um you mean there isn't?
So you are saying that a person working at any government office has complete discretionary control over what OS they run? military too?
You are missing something. This is INTERNAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. It ONLY applies to government offices. It is the basic equivalent of the head of The DMV saying "We are dumping windows and moving to linux on all our servers and workstations" except on a larger scale.
This has no effect on personal workstations or private companies (bizzare...private companies in a "Communist COuntry"? what kind of communists do they claim to be?)
> First off, it's nice to see a government making > better use of its resources by not paying for > software that can be had for free.
Definitly true....finiancially and otherwise:)
> On the downside, China is going to have problems > developing an "entrepeneur economy" if the > government dictates technology.
Sounds like your saying "They will have trouble becoming capitalist"? um...have they ever stated that they wish to move their econonmy in that direction? (I am asking, I truely am unaware if they have)
I thought they were pseudo-communist (I really have trouble calling them communist. I know they claim to be communist, but so did the USSR)
Also, to adress your argument more directly, this is only in government offices. Certainly in government offices (or any other large organization) it is necissary to standardize some things. You really do not want the Ministry of Love doing all of their memos and things in Microsoft Word and the Ministry of Truth using TeX on Linux. It adds extra complexity. It means the miniluv people need to know how to read or print out TeX documents (how many windows users even know that MS Word isn't the be all and end all of text processing?) and the minitrue people need to know how to read word Documents.
Isn't it easier to just standardize on one system from the outset?
While I am probably responding to flamebait, you do bring up something I found interesting. A few years back there was some national murrmers because a radio talk show host was advocating that if the ATF/FBI or such raid your house, you should shoot for the face, because that is where they are least armored.
That made me think. Certainly, if you happen to be holding a gun when they break the door down, your best bet probably is to use it, since they will defend themselves by opening fire as soon as they see it (in that situation there is no time to think and discuss...just act)
In truth...even if you don't have it already in your hands...there have been several people shot by police and killed over reaching for a phone or some other silliness, so perhaps fighting back might at least give you a "fighting chance".
Personally, I see no problem with it morally. If a person breaks into someone elses house, the people living there have every right in my eyes to defend their home. (note: this isn't a legal or constitutional argument...just my personal moral beliefs)
On the other hand...the police usually send more then enough people. Those who fire back tend to have a VERY LOW survival rate. So from a practical standpoint, its about the stupidest thing you can do (unless you have enough guns and ammo to take out a whole shitload in less time then they can call in for more backup)
> You see, if America was a pure democracy (mob > rule), I doubt that technology would be an issue > at all, because it would all belong to the > landowners. > (they werte the only ones that originally > allowed to vote. And you bet that they would not > let one iota of control slip from their hands if > they could.
Well I said democracy not...well I don't know what to call that but its not democracy.
besides...who said there would be land owners? Personally I would favor a system without class divisions and large land ownership. If the means of production is in the hands of the workers, then that problem tends to not exist.
> Yeah. Confiscating little electronic spy > devices built to look like smoke detectors is > exactly the same thing as tearing babies in > half, forcing slave labor and exterminating > people because of their religion.
Never said it was the same. However, the "Just doing my job" mentality is exaxtly what lead to those autrocities happening. It is frightening what people are capable of when they are willing to set their own morality asside because a "higher power" is telling them "just do it". Afterall...they arn't responsible...they were just carring out an order.
> But the law isn't wrong in this case.
A statement of your belief. I differ on this point. I think it *IS* wrong.
> Maybe you think that devices which allow people > to spy on each other ought to be legal
They are legal. Police forces use such devices in investigations. How about "Undercover reporters" who hide cameras on their bodies to catch people in the act of ripping consumers off? Why shouldn't *I* be able to have one too?
> but I know I don't want *my* employer putting a > spy camera over my desk
Well then perhaps you don't want them taping and listening to all of your phone calls on your desk phone? Perfectly legal you know. They don't even have to tell you. Oh...and reading your email thats on their servers? well..its a work adress...sorry no privacy is assumed.
> You can't tell me that a camera built to look > like a wall clock is for "hobbyists".
Which, AFAIK is NOT what they are selling. They sell small kits and cameras. You could buy one and build it into a phone or clock, however thats not how they are sold. You could just as easily (well not just as easily since it requires knowledge of electronics) build this camera onto a small robot or RC car - I guess that would make you a real criminal huh?
Actually...godwins law only states that as the length of a discussion increases, the probablity of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi Partys actions aproaches one.
Usually a person has lost all semblance of usefull argument at this point...however thats mnot always true.
> The "feds" were perfectly within their right to > act the way that they did
I happen to disagree. Just because the law says they were right, doesn't mean that they are right
> I'm tired, DAMN tired, of people blaming the > feds for doing their job... enforcing the law
Yes... Its not my fault. I just did what the law said. They stationed me at Auchwitz and I just did what I was suposed to do.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong to enforce the law.
> I can't speak for customs officials, but I > know for damn sure that every raid an FBI or DEA > agent takes part in, no matter how "safe" it > appears on the outside, can end in bloody > disaster. Leave 'em alone, and let them do their > jobs. But yeah, the laws are a bit too broad, > and should probably be looked into...
Yes This I agree with. ANY raid can end in disaster. Take the raide where an elderly woman answered the door of police. They stuck guns in her face and told her to step back.
She screamed "Don't shoot me"...and her husband, hearing this, ran out of the bedroom with his revolver. He died because he thought his wifes life was in danger and came to help her.
No drugs were found at their estate. All on the word of a paid informant.
I dunno about anyone else...but I am once again truely disgusted by this. It never ceases to shock me what this government will do to its people.
Of course, being a person who reads drug decriminilization mailing lists, I have heard about worst than this, many times over.
At least electronics manafacturers do not have police in military gear raiding their houses and fireing at anyone who moves too fast. (case a coupla years back police raided a house and killed him - no drugs were found)
check out: http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/victims.html for a nice list (the one I am refering to is on that page named: Pedro Oregon Navarro
> Really, this is a good thing. If we had a true > democracy, it would be basically mob rule.
So your argument is that having a system which is set up in a way that it litterally breeds corrupt officals and all but garauntees no voice to those who arn't "Playing Ball" is better than "Mob Rule".
The more I look at it, the more I see that large governments do not work. All they do is screw over the people. I don't think any government should ever be any larger than can be conducted in a town hall. Local government should be the ONLY government.
The problem I see is that our entire society is set up to encourage cheating and corruption. The more I have looked at it, the more I personally have come to the conclusion that as long as stanbdard of living is decoupled from work, this will not change.
Why work and do the right thing, reitre and live out your years comfortably, when you can be corrupt, and own yachts and have nicer cars then everyone else?
hmmm have I started to rant? I think ill stop here.
> You probably understand only the post-modernist > definition of justice, which is "fairness".
hmm well I dunno about that. I supose that depends on how you view the law. As a person who rejects the notion of Law being right, and feels that the law itself can and very often is wrong, I carry a differnt view of justice.
Your definition of justice is a legalist one. It was definitly in favor for a long time. Personally I am glad that it has fallen out of favor a bit...as I am just about the opposite of a legalist.
I admit, I don't understand the law. Beyond the fact that I disagree with the basic premise of government and law...thats a complete side issue. The problem that this touches is that an average citizen can not possibly have a solid understanding of law.
When I was in high school, there was an entire library shelf, it was occupied by several volumes of book, spanning the whole shelf. It was called "Massachuessetts General Laws". Just the states own general laws.
How can anyone who has not gone to school and studied law for a few years, and practiced in the feild expect to understand law?
Couple this with the idea that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I see a real problem. We are expected to know the law, and abide by it, however there is more "Law" on the books then the average person has any hope of reading.
Of course, I personally don't think laws are even needed. I try to offer what I think the law means when I can and the issue comes up... but personally...I do my thing and live my life. If the law says what I want to do is illegal, then I break the law. It doesn't matter to me. They are the laws of a government that I didn't set up, and I don't participate in. They are not my laws, they are the laws forced upon me.
> I mean, laughing at people that are trying to > learn how to use linux, or windows, or any other >\OS or computer related topic is wrong.
No...telling other people that what they think is funny is wrong, is wrong.
If someone finds it funny and laughs, then it *IS* by definition funny. It is never wrong to laugh. Life is too short to take seriously.
Besides...very few of the comics of userfriendly have been tech support calls. its mostly internal humor about the interactions between co-workers. (I can't comment on the other strip) However, the Tech Support calls are some of the funniest.
> we should help them so the group of people will > grow.
Sure, newbies who are totally clueless yet desire to learn should be helped. However, that doesn't make their mistakes less funny. Hell half the time I laugh at a newbies mistake, it isn't because they are stupid, but that I find it humerous because _I_ made the same mistake when I was in their shoes.
I know this is a late post.... but I saw Dark City again this weekend, and it has refreshed my veiw. While the two stories share similarieis, they are vastly different.
In the Matrix, neo is rescued from the "False Reality" and only travels into it to gather information and communicate with others. In Dark City, there is no "Virtual reality".
In Dark City, Everything IS taking place in reality, what the inhabitants don't know is that the City that they live in is actually a laboratory, controlled by their unseen captors.
The "Powers" that the hero gains are "Real" and exist in the real world.When "john" learns to "tune" he aquires this ability "for real" he can change the world around him, not just some virtual world.
Dark city has no organized band of renegades fighting against the "powers that be", as in the matrix. John is alone, and trapped, the only person who is outside is the double crossing sell out doctor.
> I think Jim Carrey is perhaps one of the most > over hyped "actors" of the nineties. Not only is > he a BAD actor, but he is not very funny.
Well I have to agree that he is WAY over-hyped. However, I can't say that he is a bad actor.
So far it seems that in every movie I have seen him in, he basically plays the same character. All of them have basically been wild comedies of one sort or another that feature his brand of humor.
Basically, the roles he has been in so far have been way too shallow to gauge any sort of acting ability. Put Cary in a lead role in Hamlet and see him act, then I will tell you if he is a bad actor or not.
I have yet to see this Man On the Moon movie, I have a feeling this role may be the first one of his that is deep enough to truely get an idea of his abilities. (deep enough in that Andy Kaufman had a completely differnt personality than Cary does) .
> OK if football is so stupid and you're so smart > pick next weeks winners and post them here!
I don't think its that simple. I don't know about some people but, I just can't stand sitting around watching someone else play a game.
I like to be doing something, participating. Games that _I_ also enjoy playing I can stand watching but...only for a very short time.
As I never played football, I have no love for the game. I have no desire to watch it. It is very boreing to me. All I see is a bunch of sweatty men running after a ball.
Of course...to each their own. Most people aren't in to writting perl code or listening to indian classical music, or admiring statues of Shiva or taking quantities of mind altering substances and sitting admireing plants.
I think football is pretty stupid. You probably think at least one, if not more, of my ways of spending my time is stupid. such is life.
I just wish you sports watching people would stop refering to your teams as "We". When I was on the wrestling team in High school, I said "We Won" or "We Lost". When I was not on the team...I never said it. Why? Cuz "We" was not part of the team. "We" sat around and watched THEM win.
Thats really my main peve with sports. That and well... I hate it when they put on some game and cancel the TV show I WANT TO WATCH (I only watch a very fw hours of TV a week...so the shows I do watch are ones I truely enjoy) because some game went into overtime and they just HAVE to show the whole thing, or due to some other thing the game goes 30 mins over time.
That truely pisses me off. When TV shows are too long to fit in their time slot...they get "To be continued..." when sports go over time...showes get canceld or bumped to inconvinent times (or worst..."already in progress").
> The most clear evidence for me is the way his > articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's > as if there was no thought of how to make the > writing more concise, which would help > illustrate his point to the reader much > more effectively.
Which is one of the reasons I like katz. However...I like it because _I_ ramble on once Igat on a subject. I don't know if katz is like me or not, but I have no concept of how to recognize how to make things more concise. I just naturally ramble. Its how my thought processes work.
I supose its why I tend to draw discussions off topic, because my mind tends to wander and draw connections from one thing to another. I enjoy conversations that do the same, it fits well in with my line of thinking.
I realize now, that if one were to look back at all of my posts and discussions, I tend to harp on back to my own pet peves and interests. At the time it seems perfectly natural, its only in hindsight that its noticable.
> he just turns the story around 180 degrees and > stereotypes the players from his perspective. I > doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that > he's doing this
Stereotyping is very hard to avoid. It is, IMHO, a product of the way humans naturally organize information. It is very easy to stereotype without realizing you are doing it. In fact it is often hard to have a meaningful discsussion (esp a discussion about things relating to society and people) without some small level of stereotyping.
However stereotypes do often hold at least some nugget of truth in them. Afterall, they are based on patterns that people experiance (the human mind is a very good pattern matcher)
let me take an example from my experiance:
I was once visiting a cousin of mine way out in "Hicksville". We met up with a friend of his who goes by the name "Zep". It was decided that we would all go out for a drive to get some beer.
When we pulled up to the liquer store, zep saw some black fellows in the store. He made some remark about niggers to us, then he went inside to get the beer.
On the way back, he expounded on his ideas about "Niggers" and he made a statement that was really quite interesting, almost insightful (playing on my own stereotype I have the urge to qualify that by saying "for a redneck"). He said:
"I don't dislike blacks in general. Hell I have had some black friends. One on one they are fine. However when they are in groups, they change. their whole attitude towards you changes when they are with other blacks. Thats when they are niggers"
It touches upon something interesting. People in groups act differntly. People in groups of others who are percieved as in some way "alike" tend to act differntly towards others who are not alike in that way.
People naturally take on differnt personality characteristics in differnt situations. As such many stereotypes do have some validity to them. They are basically an exxageration (sometimes slight, sometimes great) of an observed pattern.
In a way it seems that stereotypes are self-perpetuating, as people are products of society in many ways, and as such act in the ways they feel they are expected or suposed to act.
In any case I just mean to show that just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean it is useless. However, yes, it is good to be aware when we are using them and that we should not expect any individual from a group to act wholly like the stereotype.
Mr Katz impresses me as a bit of an intellectual (which is what I think of myself as). He likes to be differnt and stir things up. Try new things.
I think (of course I can't speak for him) his intention was to keep it short and simple. Rather than spew out all of his thoughts and commentary to just broach the subject and see where the discussion goes.
It is a bit lazy...but it apears to me to be more of an experiment (I think thats what he hinted at by saying "Open Source Reviewing" perhaps he really meant "Community Reviewing").
Its definitly an interesting idea IMHO
> (I'm not even going to mention that these movies > have little, if anything to do with/.)
Ya know...I see this allot.
Hell, im a geek, I admit it (hell im proud of it). I love science and computers and all that...but its nice to see something else in the mix.
I find that Katz and other "Offtopic" articles keep things interesting. They generate some lively dicsussion, and I think thats good and healthy.
>> The scenereo was specifically of a drug that >> was fraudulently marketed.
>..as are crack, cocaine, and other narcotics.
Well its a nitpick but cocaine (which is what crack actually is) is NOT a narcotic. Neither is marijuana, or methamphetamine. The only street drug that fits the label of narcotic is heroin. Basically opiates are the major class of narcotic. Cocaine is more of a stimulent.
> There'll always be people out to make a quick > buck by not disclosing all of the truth, or > outright lying. I was pointing out that, despite > laws forbidding this, drug dealers are still > out on the streets selling drugs to people that > may or may not know the risks. Should we be > placing the blame on the users, the dealers, the > manufacturers? A combination of both? Or is > there no blame at all?
Well yes. People will "lie to make a buck". Its nothing new. If anything I would blame the capitalist system which ENCOURAGES dishonesty.
However, have you thought even once that if these drugs were legal, perhaps things might be differnt?
Think simple economics. There IS a demand for these drugs in the country. Since they exist, that means there is a market. Prohibition makes production illegal, and thus more dangerous. Supply goes down. What happens next? Yes. Price goes up. Since cost of manafacture is the same, that also means profit goes up with price.
Prohibition FUELS the black market. Now who runs the black market? Organized crime of one sort or another. Remember Al Capone? He never would have been more than a two bit thug if it wasn't for prohibition.
Now if its legal...you can require quality manafacturing. Illegal labs can't compete with Proctor and Gamble. Then the legal "dealers" are subject to fraud regulations. They can be required to disclose the truth. Black Markets are truely free markets, capitalism at its worst.
Now what I really mean to ask. You favor this FDA regulating prescriptions and all. I have said I am dead set against it, because I am against the Controlled Substances Act alltogether and want to see the whole system done away with. (so obviously I am against extending it at the federal level)
Do you think, that if a person takes a drug that a doctor has not said is ok, that men with guns should forcibly enter his home and drag him away?
That is the necissary part of control. Do you believe that when I go home and load up my pipe and take a few hits of sweet mary jane, that police should break my door down and drag me away to jail? (which would prevent me from going to work and cause me to lose my job etc) How about when I eat a sugar cube or two (ie use LSD for the drug naive)? Perhaps when I crack open my bottle of GHB when I have a bout of insomnia?
DO I deserve to have my door broken down and to be dragged away and jailed for these horrible crimes? GHB is not only illegal in this state, but I am self-medicating without talking to a doctor (of course I am open with my docotor about all of these things, however he doesn't recomend them... course he has never expressed disaproval either)
The system that you are arguing in favor of, even in favor of extending the power of, says that I DO deserve to be dragged away and put in jail. Never mind that I am a programmer. Never mind that I am an otherwise normal, productive member of society. According to the system that you espouse, I deserve to be locked away as a dangerous criminal.
Now to be reasonable. I am all in favor of the prescription system, as long as it leaves people like myself a way to go around it. As long as capitalism is in place, I realise that we can't trust coompanies to act responsibly in the marketing of drugs. I am all for regulation. However, internet sales?
Internet sales are much harder than walking to the drug store. It takes days for them to arrive. That knocks most idiots right out of the picture. Hell I would even go further. Don't allow pill sales, but allow anything to be bought by a chemical supplier USP grade powder. I am competent in meauring my own dose with a scale.
You can stop idiots without restricting those who are determined and know what they are doing. Its a much better solution if you ask me.
Of course, all these regulations can be done away with once you institute a socialist system that doesn't reward lieing.
Slashdot Mirror
> Maybe if he hadn't sprinkled the word GPL around
> so lightly he wouldn't has gotten himself into
> this mess... but the fact is, once you've GPL'ed
> something, it will always be... you can't revoke
> access to the source.... and blah blah blah...
Ahhh your right....but your wrong.
He is the author. He is the person that applies
the licence. He is not bound by it. He is
perfectly free to release future versions as
he wishes. If I offer him some some of money
to get an exclusive licence so that I don't have
to release my changes?
guess what...its perfectly legal.
However you are right...for other reasons. It is
GPLd. That means that on the ALREADY DISTRIBUTED
copies, he can't take away the licence. He can't
stifle ongoing development of that code. So thus
it WILL be forever GPLd.
The point is, yea he has been slow about it.
Big deal. Hell, I know what its like to slack.
I have waited months and months to release new
versions of software when it was just a little
change, noone bugged me saying "You must
release now"
There is no clause in the GPL that says that
the Author agrees to make any changes he makes
and uses immediatly available to everyone
without delay.
> Linus releases whole kernels faster than rob can
> get a source release out... And he handles 15
> megs of source rather than 0.3's 65k....
> No... Slashdot and Andover are just about on the
> same plane as LinuxOne, so far as business
> legitamacy goes. And as far as holding up the
> opensource ideals? forget it...
Oh get off it already.
You need to realize something, its his code. His
main concern is this site and keeping it running,
if that wasn't the case, the code wouldn't even
exist in the first place.
When you run a high profile site like slashdot,
running the site takes alot of time. That means
making bug fixes "on the fly", reading emails
(which musrt take alot of time), sifting through
stories, etc...maybe you don't always have time
for working on the code tarball
Slashdot is in the buisness of posting news and
fostering discussion, NOT releasing software.
That part is extra...its the gravey.
You have no RIGHT to his softare code. Now, if he
was in the buisness of writting software, and
released software to be run, THEN I would argue
that you do have a right to see the code (not
a legally recognized one but...in my eyes a right
none the less), however this is not the case.
> What if I want to make sure my child is not
> being abused? What if I have a neighbor who
> threatens me constantly?
> What if I have someone who comes into my office
> going through my desk or deleting/changing
> files on my computer?
Just to note on that last case...
When I was a Technician at a certain research
hospital, I saw a case of this. There was an area
where there were experimental alsheimers drugs
in a certain office. Because of this it was a
locked area, only people with keys could get
in off hours.
I was called several times about computyer
problems on several differnt workstations
where the machines apeard to have been brutalized
in the night. On 2 ocasions someone had physically
ruined a floppy drive (looked like with a screw
driver) and on another someone deleted all of the
files on someones hard drive (no backups of
course) comprising YEARS of research.
There was NO doubt that all this was malicous.
IMHO they should have installed some hidden
cameras to catch the perpetrator in the act.
Unfortunaly they never did (at least not while
I worked there...I left for greener pa$ture$
shortly after these incidents)
1) Rateing Articles:
How about for a simple idea... just put a meter
on each article...bunch of radio buttons to
"Rate How muh you liked this article".
The idea not being as much of use in moderation
of articles but just for yourselves to gauge
what the community likes to see. More of a
simple feedback mechanism than anything else.
2) Source Code:
Most websites don't release their code...hell I
love that your even trying to do it. Its a
great idea. If some people don't like that you
take too long doing it, that is their problem
uite litterally. I think people need to realize
that they have no "right" to see your code.
(if you were in the buisness of writting and
distributing software, I could see an argument for
a right of the users to see the code, I would
even argue in favor of it, but your not)
3) I would like to see the ability for a person,
within reasonable amount of time, to moderate
down their own posts without penalty. That way
if a person realizes after they post that
something is offtopic, they can go and moderate
themselves down.
Perhaps once something is marked offtopic..have
all replies to it autmatically marked offtopic
unless moderated up (without penalty to the
repliers). that way they can still discuss
without bothering others too much.
3) I like the idea of forums where people can
take offtopic discussion and discuss it outside
of the article. Perhaps have a way for an author
of a message to "replace" his own posts into
one of these forums to get it out of the way
of others.
4) Private messages
great idea and could foster longer discussions.
Personally, I check users.pl daily to see if any
replies to my messages were posted, so that I
can continue discussion. However after the
article is a day or two old, it is highly
rare to see a new reply. (happend recently
though)
Could be coupled with idea of mine #3. If a
poster "re-places" his post, it could be initally
"copied" (or "linked") into the forum...then
all repliers sent a message that would lalow them
to do the same to their replies...if all (or most)
say ok...then have the whole thread moved over
and removed from the original articles posts
(maybe a simple pointer added)
thats it...comments?
-Steve
It makes perfect sense to me. They want to use
CVS internally for themselves to make quick
changes etc, and at the same time distribute the
code to the masses.
You can still contribute code...just email it
to them. Then they will decide.
Slashdot is not just a piece of softare. it is
an entire suite all together. They are releasing
the source so that others can benefit, not
necissarily because they want help with it.
> Imagine a law like that being passed in the
> [US,Canada,Europe,Australia,YourCountry]...
> imagine the law requires Windows
Um you mean there isn't?
So you are saying that a person working at any
government office has complete discretionary
control over what OS they run? military too?
You are missing something. This is INTERNAL
GOVERNMENT POLICY. It ONLY applies to
government offices. It is the basic equivalent
of the head of The DMV saying "We are dumping
windows and moving to linux on all our servers
and workstations" except on a larger scale.
This has no effect on personal workstations or
private companies (bizzare...private companies
in a "Communist COuntry"? what kind of communists
do they claim to be?)
-Steve
> First off, it's nice to see a government making
:)
> better use of its resources by not paying for
> software that can be had for free.
Definitly true....finiancially and
otherwise
> On the downside, China is going to have problems
> developing an "entrepeneur economy" if the
> government dictates technology.
Sounds like your saying "They will have trouble
becoming capitalist"?
um...have they ever stated that they wish to
move their econonmy in that direction? (I am
asking, I truely am unaware if they have)
I thought they were pseudo-communist (I really
have trouble calling them communist. I know they
claim to be communist, but so did the USSR)
Also, to adress your argument more directly,
this is only in government offices. Certainly in
government offices (or any other large
organization) it is necissary to standardize some
things. You really do not want the Ministry of
Love doing all of their memos and things in
Microsoft Word and the Ministry of Truth using
TeX on Linux. It adds extra complexity. It means
the miniluv people need to know how to read
or print out TeX documents (how many windows
users even know that MS Word isn't the be all and
end all of text processing?) and the minitrue
people need to know how to read word Documents.
Isn't it easier to just standardize on one
system from the outset?
While I am probably responding to flamebait, you
do bring up something I found interesting. A few
years back there was some national murrmers
because a radio talk show host was advocating that
if the ATF/FBI or such raid your house, you should
shoot for the face, because that is where they
are least armored.
That made me think. Certainly, if you happen to
be holding a gun when they break the door
down, your best bet probably is to use it, since
they will defend themselves by opening fire
as soon as they see it (in that situation there
is no time to think and discuss...just act)
In truth...even if you don't have it already
in your hands...there have been several people
shot by police and killed over reaching for a
phone or some other silliness, so perhaps
fighting back might at least give you a
"fighting chance".
Personally, I see no problem with it morally.
If a person breaks into someone elses house, the
people living there have every right in my eyes
to defend their home. (note: this isn't a legal
or constitutional argument...just my personal
moral beliefs)
On the other hand...the police usually send
more then enough people. Those who fire back
tend to have a VERY LOW survival rate. So from
a practical standpoint, its about the stupidest
thing you can do (unless you have enough guns
and ammo to take out a whole shitload in less
time then they can call in for more backup)
> You see, if America was a pure democracy (mob
> rule), I doubt that technology would be an issue
> at all, because it would all belong to the
> landowners.
> (they werte the only ones that originally
> allowed to vote. And you bet that they would not
> let one iota of control slip from their hands if
> they could.
Well I said democracy not...well I don't know
what to call that but its not democracy.
besides...who said there would be land owners?
Personally I would favor a system without class
divisions and large land ownership. If the
means of production is in the hands of the
workers, then that problem tends to not
exist.
> Yeah. Confiscating little electronic spy
> devices built to look like smoke detectors is
> exactly the same thing as tearing babies in
> half, forcing slave labor and exterminating
> people because of their religion.
Never said it was the same. However, the
"Just doing my job" mentality is exaxtly what
lead to those autrocities happening. It is
frightening what people are capable of when they
are willing to set their own morality asside
because a "higher power" is telling them "just
do it". Afterall...they arn't responsible...they
were just carring out an order.
> But the law isn't wrong in this case.
A statement of your belief. I differ on this
point. I think it *IS* wrong.
> Maybe you think that devices which allow people
> to spy on each other ought to be legal
They are legal. Police forces use such devices
in investigations. How about "Undercover
reporters" who hide cameras on their bodies
to catch people in the act of ripping
consumers off? Why shouldn't *I* be able to
have one too?
> but I know I don't want *my* employer putting a
> spy camera over my desk
Well then perhaps you don't want them taping
and listening to all of your phone calls
on your desk phone? Perfectly legal you know.
They don't even have to tell you. Oh...and
reading your email thats on their servers?
well..its a work adress...sorry no privacy is
assumed.
> You can't tell me that a camera built to look
> like a wall clock is for "hobbyists".
Which, AFAIK is NOT what they are selling. They
sell small kits and cameras. You could buy one
and build it into a phone or clock, however
thats not how they are sold. You could just as
easily (well not just as easily since it requires
knowledge of electronics) build this camera onto
a small robot or RC car - I guess that would make
you a real criminal huh?
> Perhaps this is 'For the Children' or 'The War on Drugs'
Which is really...for the children
hmmm I supose its could also be
"To stop terrorists" or
"To stop those red commie bastards"
Actually...godwins law only states that as the
length of a discussion increases, the probablity
of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi Partys
actions aproaches one.
Usually a person has lost all semblance of
usefull argument at this point...however thats
mnot always true.
> The "feds" were perfectly within their right to
> act the way that they did
I happen to disagree. Just because the law says
they were right, doesn't mean that they are right
> I'm tired, DAMN tired, of people blaming the
> feds for doing their job... enforcing the law
Yes...
Its not my fault. I just did what the law said.
They stationed me at Auchwitz and I just did what
I was suposed to do.
im sorry, when the law is wrong, it is wrong
to enforce the law.
> I can't speak for customs officials, but I
> know for damn sure that every raid an FBI or DEA
> agent takes part in, no matter how "safe" it
> appears on the outside, can end in bloody
> disaster. Leave 'em alone, and let them do their
> jobs. But yeah, the laws are a bit too broad,
> and should probably be looked into...
Yes This I agree with. ANY raid can end in
disaster. Take the raide where an elderly
woman answered the door of police. They stuck
guns in her face and told her to step back.
She screamed "Don't shoot me"...and her husband,
hearing this, ran out of the bedroom with his
revolver. He died because he thought his wifes
life was in danger and came to help her.
No drugs were found at their estate. All on the
word of a paid informant.
I dunno about anyone else...but I am once again
truely disgusted by this. It never ceases
to shock me what this government will do to its
people.
Of course, being a person who reads drug
decriminilization mailing lists, I have heard
about worst than this, many times over.
At least electronics manafacturers do not have
police in military gear raiding their houses
and fireing at anyone who moves too fast.
(case a coupla years back police raided a house
and killed him - no drugs were found)
check out:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ynot/victims.html
for a nice list (the one I am refering to is on
that page named: Pedro Oregon Navarro
> Really, this is a good thing. If we had a true
> democracy, it would be basically mob rule.
So your argument is that having a system which
is set up in a way that it litterally breeds
corrupt officals and all but garauntees no
voice to those who arn't "Playing Ball" is better
than "Mob Rule".
The more I look at it, the more I see that large
governments do not work. All they do is screw over
the people. I don't think any government should
ever be any larger than can be conducted in a
town hall. Local government should be the ONLY
government.
The problem I see is that our entire society
is set up to encourage cheating and corruption.
The more I have looked at it, the more I
personally have come to the conclusion that as
long as stanbdard of living is decoupled from
work, this will not change.
Why work and do the right thing, reitre and
live out your years comfortably, when you can
be corrupt, and own yachts and have nicer cars
then everyone else?
hmmm have I started to rant? I think ill stop here.
> Really, this is a good thing. If we had a true
> democracy, it would be basically mob rule.
So your argument is that having a system which
is set up in a way that it litterally breeds
corrupt officals and all but garauntees no
voice to those who arn't "Playing Ball" is better
than "Mob Rule".
The more I look at it, the more I see that large
governments do not work. All they do is screw over
the people. I don't think any government should
ever be any larger than can be conducted in a
town hall. Local government should be the ONLY
government.
The problem I see is that our entire society
is set up to encourage cheating and corruption.
The more I have looked at it, the more I
personally have come to the conclusion that as
long as stanbdard of living is decoupled from
work, this will not change.
Why work and do the right thing, reitre and
live out your years comfortably, when you can
be corrupt, and own yachts and have nicer cars
then everyone else?
hmmm have I started to rant? I think ill stop here.
> You probably understand only the post-modernist
> definition of justice, which is "fairness".
hmm well I dunno about that. I supose that depends
on how you view the law. As a person who rejects
the notion of Law being right, and feels that the
law itself can and very often is wrong, I carry
a differnt view of justice.
Your definition of justice is a legalist one.
It was definitly in favor for a long time.
Personally I am glad that it has fallen out
of favor a bit...as I am just about the opposite
of a legalist.
I admit, I don't understand the law. Beyond the
fact that I disagree with the basic premise of
government and law...thats a complete side issue.
The problem that this touches is that
an average citizen can not possibly have a solid
understanding of law.
When I was in high school, there was an entire
library shelf, it was occupied by several
volumes of book, spanning the whole shelf. It was
called "Massachuessetts General Laws". Just the
states own general laws.
How can anyone who has not gone to school and
studied law for a few years, and practiced in the
feild expect to understand law?
Couple this with the idea that "Ignorance of the
law is no excuse" and I see a real problem. We
are expected to know the law, and abide by it,
however there is more "Law" on the books then
the average person has any hope of reading.
Of course, I personally don't think laws are
even needed. I try to offer what I think the law
means when I can and the issue comes up...
but personally...I do my thing and live my life.
If the law says what I want to do is illegal, then
I break the law. It doesn't matter to me. They
are the laws of a government that I didn't set up,
and I don't participate in. They are not my laws,
they are the laws forced upon me.
Of course...thats just me.
> I mean, laughing at people that are trying to
> learn how to use linux, or windows, or any other
>\OS or computer related topic is wrong.
No...telling other people that what they think
is funny is wrong, is wrong.
If someone finds it funny and laughs, then it *IS*
by definition funny. It is never wrong to laugh.
Life is too short to take seriously.
Besides...very few of the comics of userfriendly
have been tech support calls. its mostly
internal humor about the interactions between
co-workers. (I can't comment on the other strip)
However, the Tech Support calls are some of the
funniest.
> we should help them so the group of people will
> grow.
Sure, newbies who are totally clueless yet
desire to learn should be helped. However, that
doesn't make their mistakes less funny. Hell
half the time I laugh at a newbies mistake, it
isn't because they are stupid, but that I find
it humerous because _I_ made the same mistake when
I was in their shoes.
I know this is a late post.... but I saw Dark City again this weekend, and it has refreshed my veiw. While the two stories share similarieis, they are vastly different.
In the Matrix, neo is rescued from the "False Reality" and only travels into it to gather information and communicate with others. In Dark City, there is no "Virtual reality".
In Dark City, Everything IS taking place in reality, what the inhabitants don't know is that the City that they live in is actually a laboratory, controlled by their unseen captors.
The "Powers" that the hero gains are "Real" and exist in the real world.When "john" learns to "tune" he aquires this ability "for real" he can change the world around him, not just some virtual world.
Dark city has no organized band of renegades fighting against the "powers that be", as in the matrix. John is alone, and trapped, the only person who is outside is the double crossing sell out doctor.
-Steve
> I think Jim Carrey is perhaps one of the most
> over hyped "actors" of the nineties. Not only is
> he a BAD actor, but he is not very funny.
Well I have to agree that he is WAY over-hyped.
However, I can't say that he is a bad actor.
So far it seems that in every movie I have seen
him in, he basically plays the same character.
All of them have basically been wild comedies
of one sort or another that feature his brand
of humor.
Basically, the roles he has been in so far have
been way too shallow to gauge any sort of acting
ability. Put Cary in a lead role in Hamlet and
see him act, then I will tell you if he is a bad
actor or not.
I have yet to see this Man On the Moon movie,
I have a feeling this role may be the first one
of his that is deep enough to truely get an idea
of his abilities. (deep enough in that Andy
Kaufman had a completely differnt personality than
Cary does) .
> OK if football is so stupid and you're so smart
> pick next weeks winners and post them here!
I don't think its that simple. I don't know about
some people but, I just can't stand sitting around
watching someone else play a game.
I like to be doing something, participating. Games
that _I_ also enjoy playing I can stand watching
but...only for a very short time.
As I never played football, I have no love for the
game. I have no desire to watch it. It is very
boreing to me. All I see is a bunch of sweatty
men running after a ball.
Of course...to each their own. Most people aren't
in to writting perl code or listening to indian
classical music, or admiring statues of Shiva or
taking quantities of mind altering substances and
sitting admireing plants.
I think football is pretty stupid. You probably
think at least one, if not more, of my ways of
spending my time is stupid. such is life.
I just wish you sports watching people would stop
refering to your teams as "We". When I was on the
wrestling team in High school, I said "We Won"
or "We Lost". When I was not on the team...I never
said it. Why? Cuz "We" was not part of the team.
"We" sat around and watched THEM win.
Thats really my main peve with sports. That and
well... I hate it when they put on some game and
cancel the TV show I WANT TO WATCH (I only watch
a very fw hours of TV a week...so the shows I do
watch are ones I truely enjoy) because some game
went into overtime and they just HAVE to show the
whole thing, or due to some other thing the game
goes 30 mins over time.
That truely pisses me off. When TV shows are too
long to fit in their time slot...they get "To be
continued..." when sports go over time...showes
get canceld or bumped to inconvinent times
(or worst..."already in progress").
> The most clear evidence for me is the way his
> articles tend to ramble on and on and on. It's
> as if there was no thought of how to make the
> writing more concise, which would help
> illustrate his point to the reader much
> more effectively.
Which is one of the reasons I like katz.
However...I like it because _I_ ramble on
once Igat on a subject. I don't know if katz is
like me or not, but I have no concept of how to
recognize how to make things more concise.
I just naturally ramble. Its how my thought
processes work.
I supose its why I tend to draw discussions off
topic, because my mind tends to wander and draw
connections from one thing to another. I enjoy
conversations that do the same, it fits well in
with my line of thinking.
I realize now, that if one were to look back at
all of my posts and discussions, I tend to harp
on back to my own pet peves and interests. At the
time it seems perfectly natural, its only in
hindsight that its noticable.
> he just turns the story around 180 degrees and
> stereotypes the players from his perspective. I
> doubt he's dumb, so he's got to realize that
> he's doing this
Stereotyping is very hard to avoid. It is, IMHO,
a product of the way humans naturally organize
information. It is very easy to stereotype without
realizing you are doing it. In fact it is often
hard to have a meaningful discsussion (esp a
discussion about things relating to society and
people) without some small level of stereotyping.
However stereotypes do often hold at least some
nugget of truth in them. Afterall, they are based
on patterns that people experiance (the human
mind is a very good pattern matcher)
let me take an example from my experiance:
I was once visiting a cousin of mine way out in
"Hicksville". We met up with a friend of his who
goes by the name "Zep". It was decided that we
would all go out for a drive to get some beer.
When we pulled up to the liquer store, zep saw
some black fellows in the store. He made some
remark about niggers to us, then he went inside to
get the beer.
On the way back, he expounded on his ideas about
"Niggers" and he made a statement that was really
quite interesting, almost insightful (playing on
my own stereotype I have the urge to qualify that
by saying "for a redneck"). He said:
"I don't dislike blacks in general. Hell I have
had some black friends. One on one they are fine.
However when they are in groups, they change.
their whole attitude towards you changes when they
are with other blacks. Thats when they are
niggers"
It touches upon something interesting. People in
groups act differntly. People in groups of others
who are percieved as in some way "alike" tend to
act differntly towards others who are not alike in
that way.
People naturally take on differnt personality
characteristics in differnt situations. As such
many stereotypes do have some validity to them.
They are basically an exxageration (sometimes
slight, sometimes great) of an observed pattern.
In a way it seems that stereotypes are
self-perpetuating, as people are products of
society in many ways, and as such act in the ways
they feel they are expected or suposed to act.
In any case I just mean to show that just because
something is a stereotype doesn't mean it is
useless. However, yes, it is good to be aware
when we are using them and that we should not
expect any individual from a group to act
wholly like the stereotype.
hmmm see...I said I ramble.
-Steve
> Or is Katz just getting lazy?
/.)
Mr Katz impresses me as a bit of an intellectual
(which is what I think of myself as). He likes to
be differnt and stir things up. Try new things.
I think (of course I can't speak for him) his
intention was to keep it short and simple. Rather
than spew out all of his thoughts and commentary
to just broach the subject and see where the
discussion goes.
It is a bit lazy...but it apears to me to be more
of an experiment (I think thats what he hinted
at by saying "Open Source Reviewing" perhaps he
really meant "Community Reviewing").
Its definitly an interesting idea IMHO
> (I'm not even going to mention that these movies
> have little, if anything to do with
Ya know...I see this allot.
Hell, im a geek, I admit it (hell im proud of it).
I love science and computers and all that...but
its nice to see something else in the mix.
I find that Katz and other "Offtopic" articles
keep things interesting. They generate some lively
dicsussion, and I think thats good and healthy.
>> The scenereo was specifically of a drug that
..as are crack, cocaine, and other narcotics.
>> was fraudulently marketed.
>
Well its a nitpick but cocaine (which is what
crack actually is) is NOT a narcotic. Neither
is marijuana, or methamphetamine. The only street
drug that fits the label of narcotic is heroin.
Basically opiates are the major class of narcotic.
Cocaine is more of a stimulent.
> There'll always be people out to make a quick
> buck by not disclosing all of the truth, or
> outright lying. I was pointing out that, despite
> laws forbidding this, drug dealers are still
> out on the streets selling drugs to people that
> may or may not know the risks. Should we be
> placing the blame on the users, the dealers, the
> manufacturers? A combination of both? Or is
> there no blame at all?
Well yes. People will "lie to make a buck". Its
nothing new. If anything I would blame the
capitalist system which ENCOURAGES dishonesty.
However, have you thought even once that if these
drugs were legal, perhaps things might be
differnt?
Think simple economics. There IS a demand for
these drugs in the country. Since they exist, that
means there is a market. Prohibition makes
production illegal, and thus more dangerous.
Supply goes down. What happens next?
Yes. Price goes up. Since cost of manafacture is
the same, that also means profit goes up with
price.
Prohibition FUELS the black market. Now who runs
the black market? Organized crime of one sort or
another. Remember Al Capone? He never would have
been more than a two bit thug if it wasn't for
prohibition.
Now if its legal...you can require quality
manafacturing. Illegal labs can't compete
with Proctor and Gamble. Then the legal "dealers"
are subject to fraud regulations. They can be
required to disclose the truth. Black Markets are
truely free markets, capitalism at its worst.
Now what I really mean to ask. You favor this
FDA regulating prescriptions and all. I have
said I am dead set against it, because I am
against the Controlled Substances Act alltogether
and want to see the whole system done away with.
(so obviously I am against extending it at the
federal level)
Do you think, that if a person takes a drug that
a doctor has not said is ok, that men with guns
should forcibly enter his home and drag him away?
That is the necissary part of control. Do you
believe that when I go home and load up my pipe
and take a few hits of sweet mary jane, that
police should break my door down and drag me
away to jail? (which would prevent me from going
to work and cause me to lose my job etc)
How about when I eat a sugar cube or two (ie use
LSD for the drug naive)? Perhaps when I crack open
my bottle of GHB when I have a bout of insomnia?
DO I deserve to have my door broken down and to be
dragged away and jailed for these horrible crimes?
GHB is not only illegal in this state, but I am
self-medicating without talking to a doctor (of
course I am open with my docotor about all of
these things, however he doesn't recomend them...
course he has never expressed disaproval either)
The system that you are arguing in favor of, even
in favor of extending the power of, says that
I DO deserve to be dragged away and put in jail.
Never mind that I am a programmer. Never mind that
I am an otherwise normal, productive member of
society. According to the system that you espouse,
I deserve to be locked away as a dangerous
criminal.
Now to be reasonable. I am all in favor of the
prescription system, as long as it leaves people
like myself a way to go around it. As long as
capitalism is in place, I realise that we can't
trust coompanies to act responsibly in the
marketing of drugs. I am all for regulation.
However, internet sales?
Internet sales are much harder than walking to
the drug store. It takes days for them to arrive.
That knocks most idiots right out of the picture.
Hell I would even go further. Don't allow pill
sales, but allow anything to be bought by a
chemical supplier USP grade powder. I am competent
in meauring my own dose with a scale.
You can stop idiots without restricting those who
are determined and know what they are doing. Its
a much better solution if you ask me.
Of course, all these regulations can be done away
with once you institute a socialist system that
doesn't reward lieing.