Sad, but all to true nowadays. It seems like ever since America had its little Vietnam "incident" it has been hell-bent on trying to prove its national power by rushing into every "trouble spot" with as many troops and weapons as possible, no matter what the real situation is.
Btw, Brits - yours isn't that much better - sure it is better, no doubt...but....wellll....too many glue-sniffers, etc, so don't get cocky:)
Eh? Glue sniffers? Sure there are glue sniffers at schools around the UK, but there weren't any in my school, and probably not in most. Methinks you are putting your own country in the way of an open mind, but I could be wrong.
Uhhh... where is that document? I don't seem to be able to find it.
Well, I just sort of made that up, but there was something similar in the Karma Whore HOWTO that I read here a long time ago. Dunno where you'd find it though.
It seems that if a troll is defined as anything that goes against the slashdot party line, you really have to define the line too.. Does it let people express pro-Microsoft opinions? or anti-linux opinions. It should, if they are well thought out, and not just "linux sux0rs".
The party line is easily seen by reading the posts in this story and watching two or three people pointing out that IE is quite good and getting flamed for it./. can be so anti-MS it hurts sometimes. For a great view on the party line, read the comments on this story.
A good post is still a good post, whether it's against the party line or not.
Yes, but it'll be a good post at 0 or -1 whilst the party line posts sit at 3, 4 and 5. Since the default viewing threshold is 1, this does seem like a distinct community bias, doesn't it?
Errm, maybe if you're using Win 95/98, but it certainly doesn't under NT or W2K, which are the versions best compared to Linux in this kind of argument.
Netscape 6 PR1's CSS support blows Microsoft's away; in fact, it has the least number of bugs, and was claimed to have the best CSS support of all the browsers in an article right here on Slashdot. So, you're comment that IE's CSS is better than Netscape's "ever was" is just plain wrong.
And we all know that/. is completely unbiased and that everything you read here is 100% true:)
Next on the block: components. IE has them. Mozilla has them. Mozilla's are better. Because I can guarantee you that Mozilla won't crash Gnome or KDE. Mozilla won't crash X. And Mozilla certainly won't crash Linux. IE's track record isn't so stellar.
Eh? Every release of Mozilla I've had so far has crashed on a semi-regular basis on either Linux or Windows. And although IE does crash every so often, it's certainly a lot more stable than Mozilla has been so far. This certainly sounds like FUD to me.
In the meantime you're sleeping in at home, dreaming about the day people stop believing in things you don't give a shit about, you fat faggot fuck.
Noone with a brain could argue Netscape 1-4 did everything great. I wish it would die, I hate it to death. NS 6 is another ballgame completely, cuntface.
You bag of shit.
Who pissed on your parade? Just because you don't like what he said there was no need for that kind of abusive diatribe was there? Okay he came off a little strong and you disagreed, but your otherwise good post was spoiled by the childish flames.
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it?
Why? Because he states opinions which you don't agree with? Personally I think he makes some good arguments, irrespective of whether or not I agree with them.
Meyer doesn't understand "free software"--he carefully points out that his definition of "free" is different from RMS's and the FSF's or Raymond's--then he can say the others are "extremists".
Well, if he understands it well enough to be able to point out the differences between his definition and the FSF's definition then I'd say he understands it. Or are you talking about whether or not he "gets it", which seems to mean a totally different thing.
In spite of Meyer's emphasis on error-trapping and careful software, I found that the article itself refers discussion to a Forum at Software Development Magazine online--but I couldn't find the forum at the link given.
And how does this invalidate his argument at all? This is little better than a personal attack - it says nothing about the points he made either way. Just because he makes a mistake his point about errors in code is wrong?
Most of his arguments are ad hominem--directed to personalities, and not logical arguments directed at philosophical ideas.
Since RMS is the foremost proponent and creator of the whole "free software" philosophy then arguing for or against his views is relevent. After all RMS does put himself foward as the spokesperson for free software. If he doesn't want his views to be criticised then he should step back from the position he has made for himself with the FSF.
His arguments are unbalanced--it is not clear just why he thinks Free Software is important enough to spend so much time in this article discussing it. All he gives are negatives. Okay, "commercial" software is used by many people too--so what?
Since the article is about the ethics of free software I think it fair that he devote a lot of space to it:) It wouldn't really be sensible to talk about hot grits or natialie portman would it? And he doesn't really attack the whole open source idea at all, more the way in which its proponents push the idea that commercial software is inherently a bad thing.
The article is about the ethics of free software after all, not the merits of it.
If I were ESR or RMS I would not dignify this article with a response. I don't choose the operating system I use because Linus is a pleasant guy to talk to, nor do I refuse to use Eiffel because Meyer rants about World War II too much.
Why not - if you seem to think this article is such a bad thing then surely they should respond to refute it? After all, not doing so might make people think that he was right...
He suggests that Free BSD and Linux are no good because a few experts looked at the source and found some errors in them. Meyer neglects to state the obvious: those errors can be found and fixed--what about all the errors in commercial software that can neither be found (except by blue screens of death) nor fixed by users?
No he doesn't, he says that free software is not necessarily any better than closed source software. This point is made separately from the issue of whether or not it can be fixed easily, which he talks about later.
So what you are saying is that nobody should bother to write a criticism of something they don't like? The author of this piece has some excellent points to make on both sides of the argument and although he does seem to come down quite hard on RMS and the FSF notion of free software he has reasons which he states quite clearly.
I personally found this a very interesting article with a lot of thought-provoking points. I don't really have much of a stake in free software myself at the moment, and not being biased in one way or the other I found this a worthwhile read about an issue which a lot of/.ers seem to think is already decided.
And you'll be in luck soon - the UCITA will make it illegal to publish anything critical about software, so you won't be forced to listen to all of that negativity any more. Great, huh?
We *DON'T* need them. Just look at KDE 2 with all the office applications.
Which are still behind StarOffice in terms of functionality. And besides, that's the point I'm making - that these free beer applications are fine as long as there are free software alternatives either now or in the future. Choice is always preferable to no choice IMHO.
Do you really think that we should scrap everything unless it conforms to FSF guidelines on what is acceptable?
Why knock a good thing? At the moment Linux needs some decent applications to allow people to do all the basic tasks - word processing, spreadsheets, graphics etc. Whether or not they are open source is currently irrelevent - their presence aids the acceptance of Linux outside of the tech community.
If and when Linux "succeeds" on the desktop and gains enough market share for these products to be sold at a price, this will only be a bad thing if there are no other alternatives to them, and if people can't learn to do without. As long as there are no alternatives at all then they will dominate the market and we'll be forced to buy them, but if there are open sourced, free software alternatives then whether or not they charge will be irrelevent - we'll only pay for an application that is truly worth it.
I know there are people who won't catch on to things like that. But is it really worth trolling them?
Of course it is, I mean if they fall for a statement like that they deserve a bit of a wind up. Notice that a) I didn't feed this troll and b) they still fell for it even with this thread here about how it is a troll. It's obviously not that bad a troll is it?
But I do see that it may be unreasonable for one person to spoil a potential troll through his overdeveloped sanctimoniousitude. Also I am decidedly against metatrolling. Therefore I shall not mark trolls of any kind in the future (even through moderation). Enjoy.
Excellent, after all the true test of a troll is how well it can do unaided - we've all had trolls at 5 before thanks to some deft moderator manipulation:)
It's just I'm reminded of those trolls that take advantage of the fact that/. counts characters instead of lines when determining where it should put the Read the rest of this comment.
Not for long maybe. Read this E-mail I got back from Rob about this very subject. Hopefully it'll be in place soon:)
Re:problem is you guys aren't even trying anymore
on
Acts Of The Apostles
·
· Score: 1
When I first found the 'trolltalk' sid, I thought it was the coolest thing, but after a while, it became kind of redundant. Your troll was ether obvious, or so subtle that it was no different from a normal post.
Well, it was that, and the fact that we were being associated by people sans-clue with all the 'hot grits' posters and stuff. What was really annoying were the people who would do the same thing, over and over again. Like the guy who kept linking to that don knots story over and over again.
So you were put off by terminology? I don't really care that most/.ers call spam trolls, and I don't really do it for anyone else's gratification, although the inchfan is a way of sharing the fruits of your labours with the other trolls:) I'm not really bothered if people know I troll, after all it's just a variation on the game that/. is anyway...
I also decided I was spending way to much of my time on slashdot...
There's no way at all I can argue with that sentiment:)
One: "Fucked up" can also imply making a mistake as well as unforseen consequences - gnarhplager's usage was correct. Two: you're being way too pedantic over this, of course so am I but who cares:)
Unfortunately all the lameness filter has done has encouraged them to spam more to get around it, which they've figured out how to do already. Bit of a waste of time really:)
Don't get me wrong - there are some great episodes in the later series, but it's the fact that they're getting few and far between that's the sign of a decline. And there have been some shows which seem to reuse themes from earlier shows as well.
Well, thanks to the/. crew for finally getting round to telling us what happened - so much for all the whiners who insist that CmdrTaco et al. are involved in some massive conspiracy to keep us in the dark about "important issues":)
Any possibility on finding out more about the origin of the DDoS? I'm not really sure of the feasibility of doing anything myself.
The X-Files was a great series when it came out, and lasted well for what it was, but no show should be pushed beyond its shelf life. There always comes a time when it's obvious that a show should stop, but it seems like Fox is so desparate to make money from it that they're going to keep pushing it, even though one of the two main characters is practically pulling out.
No, it's time for the X-Files to bow out gracefully. Eight seasons is too many - even Star Trek only ever lasts for seven.
The fact is that probably every country in the world keeps some kind of database about the people who live in it, either through police files, electoral rolls or census information. Of course, most countries wouldn't admit it if they can get away with it, but I seriously doubt there are any that don't have them.
I remember reading somewhere that over 15 million people here in the UK have police files on them. These include anyone who has ever been picked up by the police, anyone who is a member of a "subversive" organisation, privacy and free speech advocates and generally anyone who isn't a complete Middle England, Daily Mail reading, 2.4 children kind of person.
I bet the percentage of/. readers with files on them is definitely greater than the 35% average:)
don't feel pain (which probably isn't an emotion, BTW)...
No I think the whole pleasure/pain thing is a far more instinctive reward/punishment system related to the fight/flight/fuck reactions of an organism. You certainly don't need to be anywhere close to sapient to experiance them.
The primary emotions -- anger, sadness, happiness, loneliness, boredom, fear, etc -- all have important cognitive roles that AI's would very likely need to function.
It's not often I hear this view, but it's one I agree with. I have a sneaking suspicion that an artificial intelligence will have a lot more human characteristics than we'd expect from a "mere machine". There are valid reasons for our emotions and we would be a lot less functional without them. I think that their analogues in AI will arise spontaneously with sapience, and separating one from the other will be impossible.
A bit late really for that troll, but I may trot out this argument again. I need to work something about Mach's principle into it as well in order to make is sound more believable... But thanks for the praise:)
Our analysis reveals an interesting picture (Figure 9) of the web's macroscopic structure. Most (over 90%) of the approximately 203 million nodes in our crawl form a single connected component if hyperlinks are treated as undirected edges. This connected web breaks naturally into four pieces. The first piece is a central core, all of whose pages can reach one another along directed hyperlinks -- this "giant strongly connected component" (SCC) is at the heart of the web.
In graph theory, a strongly connected component is a set of mutually reachable equivalence classes of vertices in a graph - i.e a group in which every vertice is reachable from each other.
What's interesting is that the four groups mentioned in this article are all approximately the same size, with the SCC group being only slightly larger than the others, which are:
IN - Pages that link to SCC but aren't linked from the SCC back.
OUT - Pages that are linked to from the SCC but don't link back to it e.g. corporate websites with only internal links.
TENDRILS - Sites totally unconnected to the SCC in either direction.
So what they're saying is that really only about a quarter of the internet is the core that is strongly connected to the rest of it. Which is interesting in itself, because I'd have thought it was a lot higher.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! Excellent post, I think you managed to get half of /. into it :)
Hey, it's the dreaded WKiernan, scourge of trolls :) How did anyone not notice this was a troll? Still, if 80md can get away with it, so can I...
Sad, but all to true nowadays. It seems like ever since America had its little Vietnam "incident" it has been hell-bent on trying to prove its national power by rushing into every "trouble spot" with as many troops and weapons as possible, no matter what the real situation is.
Btw, Brits - yours isn't that much better - sure it is better, no doubt...but....wellll....too many glue-sniffers, etc, so don't get cocky :)
Eh? Glue sniffers? Sure there are glue sniffers at schools around the UK, but there weren't any in my school, and probably not in most. Methinks you are putting your own country in the way of an open mind, but I could be wrong.
Uhhh... where is that document? I don't seem to be able to find it.
Well, I just sort of made that up, but there was something similar in the Karma Whore HOWTO that I read here a long time ago. Dunno where you'd find it though.
It seems that if a troll is defined as anything that goes against the slashdot party line, you really have to define the line too.. Does it let people express pro-Microsoft opinions? or anti-linux opinions. It should, if they are well thought out, and not just "linux sux0rs".
The party line is easily seen by reading the posts in this story and watching two or three people pointing out that IE is quite good and getting flamed for it. /. can be so anti-MS it hurts sometimes. For a great view on the party line, read the comments on this story.
A good post is still a good post, whether it's against the party line or not.
Yes, but it'll be a good post at 0 or -1 whilst the party line posts sit at 3, 4 and 5. Since the default viewing threshold is 1, this does seem like a distinct community bias, doesn't it?
Errm, maybe if you're using Win 95/98, but it certainly doesn't under NT or W2K, which are the versions best compared to Linux in this kind of argument.
Netscape 6 PR1's CSS support blows Microsoft's away; in fact, it has the least number of bugs, and was claimed to have the best CSS support of all the browsers in an article right here on Slashdot. So, you're comment that IE's CSS is better than Netscape's "ever was" is just plain wrong.
And we all know that /. is completely unbiased and that everything you read here is 100% true :)
Next on the block: components. IE has them. Mozilla has them. Mozilla's are better. Because I can guarantee you that Mozilla won't crash Gnome or KDE. Mozilla won't crash X. And Mozilla certainly won't crash Linux. IE's track record isn't so stellar.
Eh? Every release of Mozilla I've had so far has crashed on a semi-regular basis on either Linux or Windows. And although IE does crash every so often, it's certainly a lot more stable than Mozilla has been so far. This certainly sounds like FUD to me.
In the meantime you're sleeping in at home, dreaming about the day people stop believing in things you don't give a shit about, you fat faggot fuck.
Noone with a brain could argue Netscape 1-4 did everything great. I wish it would die, I hate it to death. NS 6 is another ballgame completely, cuntface.
You bag of shit.
Who pissed on your parade? Just because you don't like what he said there was no need for that kind of abusive diatribe was there? Okay he came off a little strong and you disagreed, but your otherwise good post was spoiled by the childish flames.
Sorry, but according to the /. Guide to Moderation you do qualify as a troll:
So as you can see, it was definitely a troll :)
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it?
Why? Because he states opinions which you don't agree with? Personally I think he makes some good arguments, irrespective of whether or not I agree with them.
Meyer doesn't understand "free software"--he carefully points out that his definition of "free" is different from RMS's and the FSF's or Raymond's--then he can say the others are "extremists".
Well, if he understands it well enough to be able to point out the differences between his definition and the FSF's definition then I'd say he understands it. Or are you talking about whether or not he "gets it", which seems to mean a totally different thing.
In spite of Meyer's emphasis on error-trapping and careful software, I found that the article itself refers discussion to a Forum at Software Development Magazine online--but I couldn't find the forum at the link given.
And how does this invalidate his argument at all? This is little better than a personal attack - it says nothing about the points he made either way. Just because he makes a mistake his point about errors in code is wrong?
Most of his arguments are ad hominem--directed to personalities, and not logical arguments directed at philosophical ideas.
Since RMS is the foremost proponent and creator of the whole "free software" philosophy then arguing for or against his views is relevent. After all RMS does put himself foward as the spokesperson for free software. If he doesn't want his views to be criticised then he should step back from the position he has made for himself with the FSF.
His arguments are unbalanced--it is not clear just why he thinks Free Software is important enough to spend so much time in this article discussing it. All he gives are negatives. Okay, "commercial" software is used by many people too--so what?
Since the article is about the ethics of free software I think it fair that he devote a lot of space to it :) It wouldn't really be sensible to talk about hot grits or natialie portman would it? And he doesn't really attack the whole open source idea at all, more the way in which its proponents push the idea that commercial software is inherently a bad thing.
The article is about the ethics of free software after all, not the merits of it.
If I were ESR or RMS I would not dignify this article with a response. I don't choose the operating system I use because Linus is a pleasant guy to talk to, nor do I refuse to use Eiffel because Meyer rants about World War II too much.
Why not - if you seem to think this article is such a bad thing then surely they should respond to refute it? After all, not doing so might make people think that he was right...
He suggests that Free BSD and Linux are no good because a few experts looked at the source and found some errors in them. Meyer neglects to state the obvious: those errors can be found and fixed--what about all the errors in commercial software that can neither be found (except by blue screens of death) nor fixed by users?
No he doesn't, he says that free software is not necessarily any better than closed source software. This point is made separately from the issue of whether or not it can be fixed easily, which he talks about later.
So what you are saying is that nobody should bother to write a criticism of something they don't like? The author of this piece has some excellent points to make on both sides of the argument and although he does seem to come down quite hard on RMS and the FSF notion of free software he has reasons which he states quite clearly.
I personally found this a very interesting article with a lot of thought-provoking points. I don't really have much of a stake in free software myself at the moment, and not being biased in one way or the other I found this a worthwhile read about an issue which a lot of /.ers seem to think is already decided.
And you'll be in luck soon - the UCITA will make it illegal to publish anything critical about software, so you won't be forced to listen to all of that negativity any more. Great, huh?
We *DON'T* need them. Just look at KDE 2 with all the office applications.
Which are still behind StarOffice in terms of functionality. And besides, that's the point I'm making - that these free beer applications are fine as long as there are free software alternatives either now or in the future. Choice is always preferable to no choice IMHO.
Do you really think that we should scrap everything unless it conforms to FSF guidelines on what is acceptable?
Why knock a good thing? At the moment Linux needs some decent applications to allow people to do all the basic tasks - word processing, spreadsheets, graphics etc. Whether or not they are open source is currently irrelevent - their presence aids the acceptance of Linux outside of the tech community.
If and when Linux "succeeds" on the desktop and gains enough market share for these products to be sold at a price, this will only be a bad thing if there are no other alternatives to them, and if people can't learn to do without. As long as there are no alternatives at all then they will dominate the market and we'll be forced to buy them, but if there are open sourced, free software alternatives then whether or not they charge will be irrelevent - we'll only pay for an application that is truly worth it.
I know there are people who won't catch on to things like that. But is it really worth trolling them?
Of course it is, I mean if they fall for a statement like that they deserve a bit of a wind up. Notice that a) I didn't feed this troll and b) they still fell for it even with this thread here about how it is a troll. It's obviously not that bad a troll is it?
But I do see that it may be unreasonable for one person to spoil a potential troll through his overdeveloped sanctimoniousitude. Also I am decidedly against metatrolling. Therefore I shall not mark trolls of any kind in the future (even through moderation). Enjoy.
Excellent, after all the true test of a troll is how well it can do unaided - we've all had trolls at 5 before thanks to some deft moderator manipulation :)
It's just I'm reminded of those trolls that take advantage of the fact that /. counts characters instead of lines when determining where it should put the Read the rest of this comment.
Not for long maybe. Read this E-mail I got back from Rob about this very subject. Hopefully it'll be in place soon :)
When I first found the 'trolltalk' sid, I thought it was the coolest thing, but after a while, it became kind of redundant. Your troll was ether obvious, or so subtle that it was no different from a normal post.
Eh, what? A truly good troll should be either so subtle that it appears like a normal post or really obvious a la 80md's recent masterpiece. Either way as long as it generates outrage it's all good.
Well, it was that, and the fact that we were being associated by people sans-clue with all the 'hot grits' posters and stuff. What was really annoying were the people who would do the same thing, over and over again. Like the guy who kept linking to that don knots story over and over again.
So you were put off by terminology? I don't really care that most /.ers call spam trolls, and I don't really do it for anyone else's gratification, although the inchfan is a way of sharing the fruits of your labours with the other trolls :) I'm not really bothered if people know I troll, after all it's just a variation on the game that /. is anyway...
I also decided I was spending way to much of my time on slashdot...
There's no way at all I can argue with that sentiment :)
One: "Fucked up" can also imply making a mistake as well as unforseen consequences - gnarhplager's usage was correct. Two: you're being way too pedantic over this, of course so am I but who cares :)
Unfortunately all the lameness filter has done has encouraged them to spam more to get around it, which they've figured out how to do already. Bit of a waste of time really :)
Don't get me wrong - there are some great episodes in the later series, but it's the fact that they're getting few and far between that's the sign of a decline. And there have been some shows which seem to reuse themes from earlier shows as well.
Well, thanks to the /. crew for finally getting round to telling us what happened - so much for all the whiners who insist that CmdrTaco et al. are involved in some massive conspiracy to keep us in the dark about "important issues" :)
Any possibility on finding out more about the origin of the DDoS? I'm not really sure of the feasibility of doing anything myself.
The X-Files was a great series when it came out, and lasted well for what it was, but no show should be pushed beyond its shelf life. There always comes a time when it's obvious that a show should stop, but it seems like Fox is so desparate to make money from it that they're going to keep pushing it, even though one of the two main characters is practically pulling out.
No, it's time for the X-Files to bow out gracefully. Eight seasons is too many - even Star Trek only ever lasts for seven.
The fact is that probably every country in the world keeps some kind of database about the people who live in it, either through police files, electoral rolls or census information. Of course, most countries wouldn't admit it if they can get away with it, but I seriously doubt there are any that don't have them.
I remember reading somewhere that over 15 million people here in the UK have police files on them. These include anyone who has ever been picked up by the police, anyone who is a member of a "subversive" organisation, privacy and free speech advocates and generally anyone who isn't a complete Middle England, Daily Mail reading, 2.4 children kind of person.
I bet the percentage of /. readers with files on them is definitely greater than the 35% average :)
don't feel pain (which probably isn't an emotion, BTW)...
No I think the whole pleasure/pain thing is a far more instinctive reward/punishment system related to the fight/flight/fuck reactions of an organism. You certainly don't need to be anywhere close to sapient to experiance them.
The primary emotions -- anger, sadness, happiness, loneliness, boredom, fear, etc -- all have important cognitive roles that AI's would very likely need to function.
It's not often I hear this view, but it's one I agree with. I have a sneaking suspicion that an artificial intelligence will have a lot more human characteristics than we'd expect from a "mere machine". There are valid reasons for our emotions and we would be a lot less functional without them. I think that their analogues in AI will arise spontaneously with sapience, and separating one from the other will be impossible.
A bit late really for that troll, but I may trot out this argument again. I need to work something about Mach's principle into it as well in order to make is sound more believable... But thanks for the praise :)
Our analysis reveals an interesting picture (Figure 9) of the web's macroscopic structure. Most (over 90%) of the approximately 203 million nodes in our crawl form a single connected component if hyperlinks are treated as undirected edges. This connected web breaks naturally into four pieces. The first piece is a central core, all of whose pages can reach one another along directed hyperlinks -- this "giant strongly connected component" (SCC) is at the heart of the web.
In graph theory, a strongly connected component is a set of mutually reachable equivalence classes of vertices in a graph - i.e a group in which every vertice is reachable from each other.
What's interesting is that the four groups mentioned in this article are all approximately the same size, with the SCC group being only slightly larger than the others, which are:
So what they're saying is that really only about a quarter of the internet is the core that is strongly connected to the rest of it. Which is interesting in itself, because I'd have thought it was a lot higher.