The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.
In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.
Please, tell me what actual harm comes from an anonymous picture ending up on the internet that is worse than what comes from being embarrased in front of all of your adolescent peers.
I don't know, what's worse, being embarassed in front of 10 people or 10 million? Remeber that "Star Wars Kid" with the light saber video?
Keep in mind that you probably never find out that the picture is on the internet, and nobody who sees it knows that it's you.
I don't see how that's even close to a safe assumption.
So I looked back over the thread. What I'm saying is that since the potential for harm is so much greater now with tiny cameras everywhere and the ease with which you can spread images on the internet, I agree with whatever camps have decided to ban cameras and cameraphones. Obviously MySpace isn't responsible for what people post on it.
a harmless prank is peeking into the girls shower at camp. 'really nasty' is taking pix of girls showering at camp and posting them on the internet. I assume you can see the difference.
well, one is larceny and one is grand-grand-grand larceny, and the punishments scale accordingly. My point isn't that one is stealing and one isn't, my point is the punishments fluctuate dramatically with scale.
Stealing a candy bar and stealing 4 million dollars have the same effect (albeit on a different scale), therefore they should have the same punishment.
There's a big difference between "100 mailboxes around town" and "global availability." Not to mention that the 100 mailboxes idea represents orders of magnitude more work. Pretending that these things are equivalent is disingenuous.
Watch your kids when they are on the internet, or don't cry if your kid gets abducted from posting their exact address, the way the walk home, and their phone number on the internet!
Sure. What I'm concerned about is someone sneaking into the girls locker room, taking photos with their digital camera and spreading them all over the internet. Technology has changed what used to be a harmless prank into something potentially really nasty.
Why do parents always have to blame someone or something else for mistakes they could have prevented.
I'd like you to explain how I could be reasonably expected prevent something like this, assuming I wasn't the parent of one of the hypothetical kids who took the hypothetical pictures.
I worked in an Aeron chair 8-10 hours a day for 8 years. No back pain. I changed jobs and now have a generic office chair. Back pain. Draw your own conclusions.
this is exactly what I thought. And it's exactly why I still don't trust most internet 'news' sources, which have simply become simple relays for what others have said. Editors have a more important job than simply hitting the 'post' button. Unfortunately, it's a largely thankless job, so most people don't have much interest in doing it.
It sucked for a whole bunch of reasons. The chief problem was an overabundance of agents like clippy who wouldn't leave you the fuck alone. Making the interface more desktop-like was pretty far down on the 'reasons Bob sucked' list.
That canadafreepress article was just sad. Point me at an article in Nature or SciAm and we can talk. Point me at "Canada's Number One Source For Alternative News" and I'm just gonna giggle about it.
It's a very simplistic rendition of it. We obviously want to maintain the climate as-is, the other two options are simply asking by which mechanism we'd rather see our disasters manifest themselves in: ice or water.
Since we have no idea how the climate in general works, probably our best bet on that front is to not dump shittons of CO2 into the air.
No matter where you come down on what's really going on, I think rational people can agree than when confronted with an unknown dynamic system upon which the well-being of your children depend, it generally isn't such a great idea to introduce as many changes to the system as you can. Which is exactly what we're doing now.
Last time I looked (although I've largely checked out of this debate), no one - including Bush - was questioning that it's getting warmer. The debate (?) is now shifted to what exactly is causing it. plz correct if wrong, kthx.
my experience with linux users from the internet, local LUG and work would indicate that most linux users are in fact people who only use mice to point at the term window they want. YMMV.
a question to ask yourself would be "should we adapt to the machine or should the machine adapt to us?"
given the cost of transistors these days, I'm happy to use half the machines speed simply mimicking something I'm used to, such as manipulating physical objects.
Sure. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the article. Unless it's your assertion that anything outside the incredibly narrow windowing concept we've had for the last 20 years is "omg msbob lol."
Linux users are quite a bit more likely to embrace change than Windows users.
Right. That's why the article is tagged "useless" and "stupid" and 85% of the comments are of the form "This is worthless because of X" or "Where is the keyboard?" or "I just need a bash shell, dammit."
I actually think it's really, really interesting. Clearly it's still in the research phase, but I think it's great work. Of concern to me is that they've given (apparently) no thought to displaying filenames or other file metadata and are relying on thumbnails exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
In the same way that I am sympathetic to the animal rights movement yet think PETA is counterproductive, I am sympathetic to the Open Source movement yet think Stallman is, generally, overshrill for his/our own good. The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me.
I don't know, what's worse, being embarassed in front of 10 people or 10 million? Remeber that "Star Wars Kid" with the light saber video?
I don't see how that's even close to a safe assumption.
So I looked back over the thread. What I'm saying is that since the potential for harm is so much greater now with tiny cameras everywhere and the ease with which you can spread images on the internet, I agree with whatever camps have decided to ban cameras and cameraphones. Obviously MySpace isn't responsible for what people post on it.
a harmless prank is peeking into the girls shower at camp. 'really nasty' is taking pix of girls showering at camp and posting them on the internet. I assume you can see the difference.
I guess at this point I really don't have any idea what you're talking about or what you're driving at.
well, one is larceny and one is grand-grand-grand larceny, and the punishments scale accordingly. My point isn't that one is stealing and one isn't, my point is the punishments fluctuate dramatically with scale.
Stealing a candy bar and stealing 4 million dollars have the same effect (albeit on a different scale), therefore they should have the same punishment.
Honestly, wtf.
There's a big difference between "100 mailboxes around town" and "global availability." Not to mention that the 100 mailboxes idea represents orders of magnitude more work. Pretending that these things are equivalent is disingenuous.
The girl in the photo on the first page is H-A-W-T HOT!
Sure. What I'm concerned about is someone sneaking into the girls locker room, taking photos with their digital camera and spreading them all over the internet. Technology has changed what used to be a harmless prank into something potentially really nasty.
I'd like you to explain how I could be reasonably expected prevent something like this, assuming I wasn't the parent of one of the hypothetical kids who took the hypothetical pictures.
Yes, we should be watching the children 24-7 and never let them make mistakes. That's a sure way to raise kids that are smart and self-reliant.
I worked in an Aeron chair 8-10 hours a day for 8 years. No back pain. I changed jobs and now have a generic office chair. Back pain. Draw your own conclusions.
That is, fundamentally, the entire reason we started building machines in the first place.
Why? Why make humans work when we have machines that can do the work for them? Who is serving who in this instance?this is exactly what I thought. And it's exactly why I still don't trust most internet 'news' sources, which have simply become simple relays for what others have said. Editors have a more important job than simply hitting the 'post' button. Unfortunately, it's a largely thankless job, so most people don't have much interest in doing it.
no, bob was an attempt to make a computer interface more room-like:
S %20Bob%20v1-00/bobhome1.gif
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/M
It sucked for a whole bunch of reasons. The chief problem was an overabundance of agents like clippy who wouldn't leave you the fuck alone. Making the interface more desktop-like was pretty far down on the 'reasons Bob sucked' list.
That canadafreepress article was just sad. Point me at an article in Nature or SciAm and we can talk. Point me at "Canada's Number One Source For Alternative News" and I'm just gonna giggle about it.
Since we have no idea how the climate in general works, probably our best bet on that front is to not dump shittons of CO2 into the air.
No matter where you come down on what's really going on, I think rational people can agree than when confronted with an unknown dynamic system upon which the well-being of your children depend, it generally isn't such a great idea to introduce as many changes to the system as you can. Which is exactly what we're doing now.
Top Ten Good Things About Global Warming (from memory, plz excuse any fuckups)
Last time I looked (although I've largely checked out of this debate), no one - including Bush - was questioning that it's getting warmer. The debate (?) is now shifted to what exactly is causing it. plz correct if wrong, kthx.
my experience with linux users from the internet, local LUG and work would indicate that most linux users are in fact people who only use mice to point at the term window they want. YMMV.
given the cost of transistors these days, I'm happy to use half the machines speed simply mimicking something I'm used to, such as manipulating physical objects.
Sure. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the article. Unless it's your assertion that anything outside the incredibly narrow windowing concept we've had for the last 20 years is "omg msbob lol."
WE CAST THEE OUT!
Right. That's why the article is tagged "useless" and "stupid" and 85% of the comments are of the form "This is worthless because of X" or "Where is the keyboard?" or "I just need a bash shell, dammit."
I actually think it's really, really interesting. Clearly it's still in the research phase, but I think it's great work. Of concern to me is that they've given (apparently) no thought to displaying filenames or other file metadata and are relying on thumbnails exclusively.