I'm suprised noone mentioned that on DS-9 the Ferengi (sp?) would always talk about the "lobes". "It's all in the lobes". Star Trek can be scary at times.
Also, a question. When people say that someone looks smart, are thery just looking at their lobes?
How about a slashdot poll? How big are your lobes?:-)
The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument?
In and of itself, it's kinda vague.
You mean to say it didn't propose regulation? Whether for it all the way or just playing with the idea, I think it did raise the notion.
Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
This is totally unrelated. There is no parallel at all between on the one hand holding companies responsible for the quality of their products, and on the other hand making them hire homeless people.
I never said there was. I will explain in a moment.
You seem to be saying, "in both cases we're passing a law, so it's the same thing either way."
Not quite, although I see how it can be termed that way.
My point was, that we should not force others to do what we want. Whether taking responsibility or taking action.
I see where you are trying to point a flaw in my argument. I disagree on it being a flaw, as I just explained point, but I could have better argued with a different point. Thank you, I'll have to keep that in mind.
There are, in some states, laws limiting the amount of liability a vendor (a vendor of things in general, not software in particular) can blow off by denying all responsibility in the EULA.
What does existing regulation have to do with this? I just wanted to present, and possibly argue , a point.
Forgive me if I've been listening to what libertarians say rather than what they claim to believe,
Forgive you? About what?!?! And what does Liberatarianism have to do with this at all?
but in practice libertarianism is all about rights and nothing about responsibility.
That is certainly debatible, but way off topic here. How you determine rights or responsibility will vary from person to person.
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Okay, here's where you go so far off the rails that it's not even worth talking to you.
Ah, so why do you waste your time.:-)
There's no way to discuss that remark, because you definition of "socialist" is radically different from the non-libertarian definition.
Hmm.. I am begining to think that you are calling me a Liberatarian. Interesting. I don't know where it came from, but it is interesting how when someone comes up with a radical idea, he is a Liberatarian. Whether I am or not is irrelevant.
I also thought most people agreed on what Socialism was. I meant it here as the first definition in Webster's Online Dictionary .
"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
How do you translate it?
Basically it seems to mean "infidel": "Anybody who doesn't share my rather eccentric view of the world".
Where did I ever call anyone anything? I merely said that I believe regulation is a form of laziness. Is there something else that I said?
Libertarian is reductionistic to the point of bearing a close resemblance to religious faith. If it comes to that, though, I'd sooner argue with a priest about the Trinity. After all, priests are trained to back up their views with logic, and very few of them resort to name-calling.
Name calling? If I offended you, I am sorry. But where did I call anyone a name?
Whenever I point out that a libertarian is relying on faith rather than evidence and logic, they always say, "but libertarianism is all ABOUT logic! I'm logical by definition!" Well, that's poor logic right there, and at any rate, saying "logic logic logic" over and over doesn't make you logical; it makes you repetitive.
I'm left aghast at this last part.
First you mention discussions with Liberatarians(, of which I still have no idea why you brought them up). Second, you argued on a point (i.e. "Well, that's poor logic right there") without backing it up. Third, your last sentence sounds more like a sound byte than anything else.
While your first statements lured me into your reply, I now am beginning to regret that decision. You started off by arguing a point, mentioned something that had no relevance, and then took the high road by saying that I'm not worth arguing with, while you then seem to make nonsensical statements stemming from fervor.
I merely made a comment. A _comment_! A personal opinion. And what do I get for this. First a comment from a user calling me names, and now you with a message full of spite?
Did I do something wrong in posting a comment? Has the first ammendment alrady been repealed? Has Rob restricted his website to only one form of comment?
Well, I actually await you reply, and hope to argue it out. You do seem to have analytical capabilities, and it would be a pleasure -- and an honor -- to do so.
I do ask two favors though. One, please refrain from bringing in examples of what others have done or said, unless it is actually helpful to the main point. And second, please point out if I call anyone a name. I certainly do not mean to offend anyone.
Well, I have a job, and most people that I know actually enjoy my comments, whether they agree with them or not. I think I can tell that you disagree with my comment, however, you have not really explained why, besides posting a gut reaction to what I have said.
Sir, please do explain, but remember that this, by nature, is a political argument, and thus some opinions may offend some people.
You know, the one written by Plato about a discussion that Socrates had. Wonderful and fantastic ideas. However, when it got right down to deciding how life would be better for the individual, regulating the public was the method.
While this may be a completely political argument, I think that regulation always is. And I'll tell you straight out, I, for one, am against it.
Regulating others so you gain is a very lazy way of getting things done. The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument? Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Enough of that. Now, let us imagine that such a regulatory commision came into place, and had such authority as would be needed. Now a company has some really fantastic software, but does not have the resources to test it properly, or even ensure it, due to how large it is. For example, let us imagine that a start-up company comes out with this radically new operating system, that millions of people are dying to get their hands on. However, due to the complexity of the system, and the lack of a world-wide testing base, the company does not have the funds to back it up. So they decide that due to the demand they'll release it as "not suitable for any purpose" and hopefully fix it as they get reports and a cash flow. Would a regulatory committee be helpful here?
Such a comittee could not have one test for all software to pass. It is a very large industry. In fact, each piece of specialized software would have to have its very own specialized test. So who decides what the test is and what it needs to pass? Will a company be able to distribute beta software? Whose to stop companies from charging for beta software and never making a "final" release?
I think a completely different approach must be taken. That is, if it is you that want this committee then it is you that must form it. And the companies do not have to join unless they want to. Or have something similar Consumer's Reports magazine. Just create a group that will buy and test software for those who care to read the magazine. This way, supply and demand would run the show, not some frustrated individual who wants to force his own ideas upon others.
It can be a bore now and then. However, considering that slashdot readers probably use computers quite a bit, that Microsoft is quite dominant in that arena, and that Microsoft has some very buggy software, I can easily understand this outlet of frustration.
You may want to request that people restain themselves, if you so wish, but given the latter sentence in your remark >>I guess none of you have any other thoughts in your clueless fragile minds then "We hate Microsoft - We fuck Penguins" I would assume that you merely needed an outlet yourself, so it is quite understandable.
As much as I didn't like filtering comments, I did. I even set it to a threshhold of two. I am finding that a very much like it. Since I can always see the other stuff, and it is reported quite well even in replies, it doesn't bother me one bit.
Anyway, I for one hope this keeps getting done, just add features, without removing anything during the process.
Instead of moderating comments, which can be very tricky, maybe you can moderate the users.
Everyone would start at a level of zero, and as comments are moderated, they can go up or down. That way, leaving it at zero will allow you to see everybodies comments. And even if one user has an occasional off-topic comment, it will be over shadowed by the normal ones from that user.
Sure you can have the moderation for each message too. But what if someone would like to read a specific person's comments no matter how off-topic, but otherwise only read on topic posts.
Think of the ebay approach to buyers and sellers. I usually check them out, and read comments before buying. If each sale were looked at separately, instead of a full history, you probably would not get an accurate picture.
And, this would even give reason to user's to have insightful comments. Gives you a good score. I'd love to say "Look at me, I have a score of 500 on slashdot. My public loves me!". True peer review, don't you think?
It might even be the criteria for posting columns. A good commentor is obviously posting what others would like to read.
Finally, letting slashdot user's give the points to the users (other than themselves), which might even help more. (Possibly factoring in the appraiser's points as well, and not allowing anonymous posters to give scores.)
Just my one cent... I'm too cheap to give the other.
Most of the comments so far seem to deal with speed reading, in limiting what you read. There is another approach though.
I once read a book, well part of it, and it spoke about how we read slower than we comprehend. When your eye sees a word, it fixates on it, and then you read the next word. Fixating on each word slows you down a lot. Then there's the point that you can see a lot more then what you are centered on. It's a matter of not shifting your eyes, but forcing yourself to see what's around you. And, then there's the reading it in your head. Since you can see faster than you can read, reading it in your head only slows you down.
The book had excersises, and they needed to be done religously. I don't know if it works though; I never made it past the beginning.
I don't remember the name of the book either. I got it from the liberary a while ago.
First. Thanx Rob. This is really cool! You just became my homepage. (As in the browser's first page, not "my" home page.:-))
1) Changing the order of the boxes.
2) Possibly putting some under the stories when the side links make it go down to far. That is, that the stories have a lot of white space under it, because the boxes are the side are still going.
3) Now, if we're gonna be real stupid and put user/pass in the URL, is there at least a way to hide it from the "Location" bar in Netscape?
4) You have the links to the funnies, but how about the possibility of going all the way and being able to put the cartoons themselves here.
Sister came to visit, arriving in evening, bearing gifts from a recent American visit. Sister gave Alan a catapult (note to Americans and Australians: you call this a slingshot: a Y-shaped piece of wood with elastic or rubber band which is used to propel objects at great speed). Sister and Alan tested whether it was true that penguins don't fly.
1) DOS 7 is strange. When botting from a floppy it says "Windows 95". When booting from the hard disk, the 95 logo appears. The bitmap is probably in io.sys.
Even when having the entire Win95 installed, you can change "BootGUI=1" to "BootGUI=0" inside MSDOS.SYS (text file) to only boot to DOS.
2)
a) They pay for the OS anyway. b) They figured you were an idiot. c) They are idiots. d) All of the above.
You choose.:-)
3) That is to be seen. I think it the formula is
$=(P*D)/A^L
$=rebate P=Persistence D=Big Mouth A=Amount of people L=Lawyers
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suprised noone mentioned that on DS-9 the Ferengi (sp?) would always talk about the "lobes". "It's all in the lobes".
:-)
Star Trek can be scary at times.
Also, a question. When people say that someone looks smart, are thery just looking at their lobes?
How about a slashdot poll? How big are your lobes?
The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument?
:-)
In and of itself, it's kinda vague.
You mean to say it didn't propose regulation? Whether for it all the way or just playing with the idea, I think it did raise the notion.
Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
This is totally unrelated. There is no parallel at all between on the one hand holding companies responsible for the quality of their products, and on the other hand making them hire homeless people.
I never said there was. I will explain in a moment.
You seem to be saying, "in both cases we're passing a law, so it's the same thing either way."
Not quite, although I see how it can be termed that way.
My point was, that we should not force others to do what we want. Whether taking responsibility or taking action.
I see where you are trying to point a flaw in my argument. I disagree on it being a flaw, as I just explained point, but I could have better argued with a different point. Thank you, I'll have to keep that in mind.
There are, in some states, laws limiting the amount of liability a vendor (a vendor of things in general, not software in particular) can blow off by denying all responsibility in the EULA.
What does existing regulation have to do with this? I just wanted to present, and possibly argue , a point.
Forgive me if I've been listening to what libertarians say rather than what they claim to believe,
Forgive you? About what?!?! And what does Liberatarianism have to do with this at all?
but in practice libertarianism is all about rights and nothing about responsibility.
That is certainly debatible, but way off topic here. How you determine rights or responsibility will vary from person to person.
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Okay, here's where you go so far off the rails that it's not even worth talking to you.
Ah, so why do you waste your time.
There's no way to discuss that remark, because you definition of "socialist" is radically different from the non-libertarian definition.
Hmm.. I am begining to think that you are calling me a Liberatarian. Interesting. I don't know where it came from, but it is interesting how when someone comes up with a radical idea, he is a Liberatarian. Whether I am or not is irrelevant.
I also thought most people agreed on what Socialism was. I meant it here as the first definition in Webster's Online Dictionary .
"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
How do you translate it?
Basically it seems to mean "infidel": "Anybody who doesn't share my rather eccentric view of the world".
Where did I ever call anyone anything? I merely said that I believe regulation is a form of laziness. Is there something else that I said?
Libertarian is reductionistic to the point of bearing a close resemblance to religious faith. If it comes to that, though, I'd sooner argue with a priest about the Trinity. After all, priests are trained to back up their views with logic, and very few of them resort to name-calling.
Name calling? If I offended you, I am sorry. But where did I call anyone a name?
Whenever I point out that a libertarian is relying on faith rather than evidence and logic, they always say, "but libertarianism is all ABOUT logic! I'm logical by definition!" Well, that's poor logic right there, and at any rate, saying "logic logic logic" over and over doesn't make you logical; it makes you repetitive.
I'm left aghast at this last part.
First you mention discussions with Liberatarians(, of which I still have no idea why you brought them up). Second, you argued on a point (i.e. "Well, that's poor logic right there") without backing it up. Third, your last sentence sounds more like a sound byte than anything else.
While your first statements lured me into your reply, I now am beginning to regret that decision. You started off by arguing a point, mentioned something that had no relevance, and then took the high road by saying that I'm not worth arguing with, while you then seem to make nonsensical statements stemming from fervor.
I merely made a comment. A _comment_! A personal opinion. And what do I get for this. First a comment from a user calling me names, and now you with a message full of spite?
Did I do something wrong in posting a comment? Has the first ammendment alrady been repealed? Has Rob restricted his website to only one form of comment?
Well, I actually await you reply, and hope to argue it out. You do seem to have analytical capabilities, and it would be a pleasure -- and an honor -- to do so.
I do ask two favors though. One, please refrain from bringing in examples of what others have done or said, unless it is actually helpful to the main point. And second, please point out if I call anyone a name. I certainly do not mean to offend anyone.
Well, I have a job, and most people that I know actually enjoy my comments, whether they agree with them or not. I think I can tell that you disagree with my comment, however, you have not really explained why, besides posting a gut reaction to what I have said.
Sir, please do explain, but remember that this, by nature, is a political argument, and thus some opinions may offend some people.
While this may be a completely political argument, I think that regulation always is. And I'll tell you straight out, I, for one, am against it.
Regulating others so you gain is a very lazy way of getting things done. The point of the article was that by regulating the industries, we will gain. Is this really a good argument? Why don't we force all companies to hire at least one homeless person a year. That would be a wonderful idea too. A small price for them, and it will help society at large. Great idea, right?
You cannot start forcing others to do what you want. That's a socialist agenda in a free society. A contradiction to itself.
Enough of that. Now, let us imagine that such a regulatory commision came into place, and had such authority as would be needed. Now a company has some really fantastic software, but does not have the resources to test it properly, or even ensure it, due to how large it is. For example, let us imagine that a start-up company comes out with this radically new operating system, that millions of people are dying to get their hands on. However, due to the complexity of the system, and the lack of a world-wide testing base, the company does not have the funds to back it up. So they decide that due to the demand they'll release it as "not suitable for any purpose" and hopefully fix it as they get reports and a cash flow. Would a regulatory committee be helpful here?
Such a comittee could not have one test for all software to pass. It is a very large industry. In fact, each piece of specialized software would have to have its very own specialized test. So who decides what the test is and what it needs to pass? Will a company be able to distribute beta software? Whose to stop companies from charging for beta software and never making a "final" release?
I think a completely different approach must be taken. That is, if it is you that want this committee then it is you that must form it. And the companies do not have to join unless they want to. Or have something similar Consumer's Reports magazine. Just create a group that will buy and test software for those who care to read the magazine. This way, supply and demand would run the show, not some frustrated individual who wants to force his own ideas upon others.
It can be a bore now and then. However, considering that slashdot readers probably use computers quite a bit, that Microsoft is quite dominant in that arena, and that Microsoft has some very buggy software, I can easily understand this outlet of frustration.
You may want to request that people restain themselves, if you so wish, but given the latter sentence in your remark >>I guess none of you have any other thoughts in your clueless fragile minds then "We hate Microsoft - We fuck Penguins" I would assume that you merely needed an outlet yourself, so it is quite understandable.
As much as I didn't like filtering comments, I did. I even set it to a threshhold of two. I am finding that a very much like it. Since I can always see the other stuff, and it is reported quite well even in replies, it doesn't bother me one bit.
Anyway, I for one hope this keeps getting done, just add features, without removing anything during the process.
That's exactly why I said, that the appraiser's pointage can be factored in.
May be complicated, but it's sound real good.
Instead of moderating comments, which can be very tricky, maybe you can moderate the users.
Everyone would start at a level of zero, and as comments are moderated, they can go up or down. That way, leaving it at zero will allow you to see everybodies comments. And even if one user has an occasional off-topic comment, it will be over shadowed by the normal ones from that user.
Sure you can have the moderation for each message too. But what if someone would like to read a specific person's comments no matter how off-topic, but otherwise only read on topic posts.
Think of the ebay approach to buyers and sellers. I usually check them out, and read comments before buying. If each sale were looked at separately, instead of a full history, you probably would not get an accurate picture.
And, this would even give reason to user's to have insightful comments. Gives you a good score. I'd love to say "Look at me, I have a score of 500 on slashdot. My public loves me!". True peer review, don't you think?
It might even be the criteria for posting columns. A good commentor is obviously posting what others would like to read.
Finally, letting slashdot user's give the points to the users (other than themselves), which might even help more. (Possibly factoring in the appraiser's points as well, and not allowing anonymous posters to give scores.)
Just my one cent... I'm too cheap to give the other.
Most of the comments so far seem to deal with speed reading, in limiting what you read. There is another approach though.
I once read a book, well part of it, and it spoke about how we read slower than we comprehend. When your eye sees a word, it fixates on it, and then you read the next word. Fixating on each word slows you down a lot. Then there's the point that you can see a lot more then what you are centered on. It's a matter of not shifting your eyes, but forcing yourself to see what's around you. And, then there's the reading it in your head. Since you can see faster than you can read, reading it in your head only slows you down.
The book had excersises, and they needed to be done religously. I don't know if it works though; I never made it past the beginning.
I don't remember the name of the book either. I got it from the liberary a while ago.
First. Thanx Rob. This is really cool! You just became my homepage. (As in the browser's first page, not "my" home page. :-))
1) Changing the order of the boxes.
2) Possibly putting some under the stories when the side links make it go down to far. That is, that the stories have a lot of white space under it, because the boxes are the side are still going.
3) Now, if we're gonna be real stupid and put user/pass in the URL, is there at least a way to hide it from the "Location" bar in Netscape?
4) You have the links to the funnies, but how about the possibility of going all the way and being able to put the cartoons themselves here.
Sister came to visit, arriving in evening, bearing gifts from a recent American visit. Sister gave Alan a catapult (note to Americans and Australians: you call this a slingshot: a Y-shaped piece of wood with elastic or rubber band which is used to propel objects at great speed). Sister and Alan tested whether it was true that penguins don't fly.
d iary.html
Penguins fly.
http://roadrunner.swansea.linux.org.uk/~hobbit/
1) DOS 7 is strange. When botting from a floppy it says "Windows 95". When booting from the hard disk, the 95 logo appears. The bitmap is probably in io.sys.
:-)
Even when having the entire Win95 installed, you can change "BootGUI=1" to "BootGUI=0" inside MSDOS.SYS (text file) to only boot to DOS.
2)
a) They pay for the OS anyway.
b) They figured you were an idiot.
c) They are idiots.
d) All of the above.
You choose.
3) That is to be seen. I think it the formula is
$=(P*D)/A^L
$=rebate
P=Persistence
D=Big Mouth
A=Amount of people
L=Lawyers