Detectors could be built into your speakers or soundcard. Along with some kilos of explosives, the problem of piracy would simply end with a darwinistic solution.
Kidding, of course! But I don't WANT a new soundca... stop, st.. STOP! NOOOOO!!
Well of course ACs have an effect. Without it, why would anyone post anything as AC, or live for that matter? You can't live without having an effect, and if ACs should never have an effect, they'd all have to be dead/nonexistent. The logics don't add up well. You might as well defend having to wear ID-tags and be recorded wherever you go, abolishing cash because it's anonymous!
Why is it that you think impressions and ideas are somehow dangerous just because you can't establish their origins? Anonymous discussions allows for freedom of prejudice and fear of reprivals. It's an essential "right" in a democratic society that many powerful people want to get away with. Not because they want to protect people, but because they want to stay in power.
You are correct that I'm gossiping here, something I've underscored with my title of the post. This means I might be incorrect at some issues, but you can be incorrect after heavy in-dept analysis too. Ever played chess? People who play fast games learn the game faster and better than those who analyse for hours something they don't truly understand / see patterns _for themselves_ anyways. So it doesn't necessarily mean that AC had any special control over me by his nasty "impressions". I'm not saying he wasn't trolling or something like that though, I only got the words and my experience to judge from.
I didn't even notice I replied to an AC, but I noticed there were some ACes in the discussion. I judge their post on the merits of their words, which when free of goatsex-links, may be pretty reasonable.
In general _I_ have to judge the words people post, nobody should be able to convince me to believe anything just because they're rich, famous and powerful. You have to evaluate every word, especially from so-called trusted sources. If people fail to realize that, they're sheep who has it coming to them until they do.
Basically, the reason there are so much wars and struggle in the world is because people don't stand up for themselves. They think that just picking the right leader to follow will solve all their problems. In this light, I have much respect for people who refuse to play ball with governments and corporations, even when they're wrong.
What credibility does an anonymous poster have? None. None whatsoever. Thus, applying defamation and libel laws to anonymous speech is clearly an overstep by the legal entities.
Your talk about responsibility is without any logical strain of thought at all (sounds like a bad copy from something you heard on TV). If you are granted anonymous speech, how can you have responsibility for what you say? True anonymity should allow you to say whatever you like, but people shouldn't generally believe you. Even if they can track you down, for you're not saying those things in public in -your own person-. I think there should also be the option of filtering out anonymous speech, making it a personal decision to view all the goatsex-links or not.;-)
One thing is to be defamed or slandered by someone famous and credible, quite another by Anonymous. People don't need protection from this, they need to be educated in how to use and understand the internet. Education will free the people, laws like this will repress them into staying clueless AOL lusers.
For those who think that really free speech is harmful, consider how harmful the absence of free speech can be. The libel/slander laws are not that different from being put in prison for political views. Any company may claim huge losses for whatever you say about them in public, and if they're legal entities shouldn't these laws apply to companies too?
"Green has lived without television since 1989, when his then-girlfriend moved out and took her set with her."
Isn't it quite obvious that this sad and lonely guy is suffering from post-traumatic stress from when his ex-girlfriend dumped him, taking his TV with her. Now he thinks he has a life, something meaningful to do everyday. I really pity such abnormal behaviour, we all should do. However, I'm scared too. It's not hard to imagine such freaks at a kindergarten spraying bullets at all the small innocent kids.
- Steeltoe
Uuuuhu, even my brother don't own a television set, so there;-)
I would seriously dislike AOL shoving down an Open Source product down people's throats. Hell, I dislike any shoving down throats. Why should this be positive? People will only learn to slash back at such behaviour and Open Source comes into a bad light.
What makes corporations so much better than governments? They can both fall into exactly the same traps.
What he was trying to explain is that government intervention is not always a bad thing. Not that it's a solution to every problem. Companies only care about $$$, and will never become a solution to every problem either.
Remember, your freedom ends on the liberty of others. Wanna fire a gun? Sure go ahead, but it's not gonna solve anything. Whoever believes that need to take a real good look at themselves.
Shareholders that sell with loss can deduct this on their tax. This deductions is excactly equal to the tax on profits, so how is this "double-taxation"?
Read my reply to the original poster for more info.
Stockholders don't make any money nor do they pay any tax for their shares, _before_ they sell out. When they do, they are taxed about 30% (in my country atleast). However, if you sell at a loss this is _just as tax-deductible_ (30%). In effect, you don't lose anything by this tax. It's a tool to to cool the market down with. This way, you cool it down with 30% if it's going up or down. The more the market is going up/down as a whole, the more is taxed/tax-deductible, thus cooled down as a whole. Severe conjunctures are always bad and dangerous to the economy, so I see this as a positive thing.
Taxing only profits on the stockmarket would always be bad, because it is not realized profits before you sell them. And people don't have to _annually_ sell their shares. Most rich people buy shares to avoid being taxed.
HOWEVER, I do agree a much more simple tax/economic-system should be implemented (reading between the lines). The current one is too unfair, too easy to fool, too naive.
Nobody can say wether it's right or wrong, or, everybody can say it. What does this imply? That there are no absolutes. You can judge as much as you like, but judging others is meaningless since you lack the god-like insight to do that properly.
I respect your choice of saying this is right and that is wrong, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you. What would YOU feel if you learned that you were let live by your parents because your tissue matched your sisters? Maybe they really didn't want an extra child, how will they treat you later compared to your sister?
Right and wrong doesn't really exist, only experiences do. We try to understand this by judging, but life is too complex to be put in a box.
Why aren't comments like this moderated up? "Interesting" doesn't mean you actually agree with the person. Do we want a discussion or a choir? Just because someone says something you don't agree with, doesn't mean their post shouldn't be merited.
Personally I think arbitrary licenses are bogus, wether it be on hardware or software. For instance: "You can't use this product with any other product than XXX and YYY-suite from company ZZZ."
What terms you should be allowed to put on your licenses should have definite laws backing them up. Especially on "consumer-wares", where people often have no real choice. It should be a clear distinction between an agreement of license and the actual license on the package. Unsolicited mail should perhaps not be allowed to carry licenses. It's a bit sly to send someone a package they didn't ask for, which when opened, you lose your first-born child to the sender.
If you don't like this patent then attack the rules that made it possible, not Amazon. Amazon are a company persuing their fudiciary responsibilities to their shareholders, and of course they're going to take every avenue possible to increase their revenue streams.
You're halfways correct. As quoted from Nazi germans: "We were just following orders."
Sorry pal, but just because you're inside a bigger system doesn't mean you have to follow its rules. There are no scapegoats, only confused humans unaware of their potential.
"There may be certain business methods worth patenting (or at least keeping secret, if you're so inclined), but "one-click" anything seems too silly for consideration, doesn't it?"
I dunno about you, but keeping one-click shopping secret kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Half-empty has some nifty ideas that I like and a flexible design I adore (is it viewable in lynx too?), and I'm sure the site will have great contents, at least until it really catches on. It also has a nice moderating interface. However, there are issues to be addressed for mass-consumption:
1) When people earn karma by moderating. What is to prevent them to automating this? What quality assurance do you get? None. What you need is a system where people may lose karma by moderating badly too. For example by letting you earn karma when people agree with your moderation (moderate posts/ideas with the same bias). In effect, a meta-moderation system where people can meta-moderate each other automagically. The first to moderate a post, would also be the one to take the biggest risk - getting the most potential gain or loss. Since all the others moderating after that user would in effect meta-moderate all the previous moderators. This would have the effect of new posts getting moderated at once.
However, this would also have a side-effect of putting a cap on how many times a idea/post would be moderated. Since there will be little to gain to moderate an already fully moderated post (one people agree with) - unless someone moderate it unfairly after a while. However, that's one of the benefits of relative moderation (see further down).
This system is also vulnerable to automation, but a robot would have to evaluate a post/idea, something that is much harder to do.
An alternative would be to put a cap on when you get karma for moderation (or use ln). If you already got gazillion karma points, you don't really need karma from moderation. This way, earning karma from moderation would be a poor-mans way out of the gutter, BUT it won't help the quality of moderation one bit without meta-moderation.
2) In Half-empty you must moderate something up, down or stay neutral (relative moderation). This is nice, except you can't see what the current score is. How can you have ANY hope of moderating relatively, when you don't know the base you're moderating from? This design is inherently flawed (but the core idea is just simply great!).
Instead, show the score and if people disagree with it let them moderate. (1) insures that they get meta-moderated.
3) Base everything on a mathematical and statistical model. Figure out all the rules and what side-effects you want and don't want. Create equations that'll solve it _statistically_. Don't rely on hard rules like maximum caps or any hard numbers.
4) Let users be able to group themselves, ie, you may join one or more group. The moderation you see is from the group you're viewing/filtering through. This way Windowz users and Machophiles may group themselves, have their own pages etc. A possible complex solution would be to view things through many group-filters (so a group may meta-moderate what they believe is right or wrong is certain circumstances).
The skin of a fingertip is not representative for all the surface of the human body. Sure, there are some spots that are more responsive;), but all in all not so.
Where did you get 500 Hz from, it "sounds" enormously high (we can't see/notice more than 70-80 Hz). Also, the human brain does not account for deformed bodies. It learns coordination from experience. A drastically simpler way in the computational sense. To create specialized robots, we should learn from this.
I thought the issue for typical applications (like games) was _latency_. RDRAM has significant latency compared to SDRAM that only gets worse when you put more RAM into your system.
A few applications needs alot of RAM being moved, but for more responsive applications latency will be more important.
Yes, RDRAM is propbably more efficient for some uses, ie big matrix calculations. But not for typical desktop use.
Nobody with a rational thought in their puny heads would buy these 1.138745 GHz CPUs and Pentium-4's (5-4). Not in business, not in the home. You pay ALOT for something that'll be half the price (for the home market) next year. Not to mention how many bugs and fixes you'll get pushed on. Strangely as it seems, the most buggy shit seems to be most expensive and also the least decreasing in price over time. We live in funny times..
Oh, THEY're happy. They're happy they get media attention. WE're stupid to let us bother with such nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Detectors could be built into your speakers or soundcard. Along with some kilos of explosives, the problem of piracy would simply end with a darwinistic solution.
Kidding, of course! But I don't WANT a new soundca... stop, st.. STOP! NOOOOO!!
"No more MP3s for you lad.."
- Steeltoe
I support EFF too, I even got me a T-shirt for it :-)
- Steeltoe
Well of course ACs have an effect. Without it, why would anyone post anything as AC, or live for that matter? You can't live without having an effect, and if ACs should never have an effect, they'd all have to be dead/nonexistent. The logics don't add up well. You might as well defend having to wear ID-tags and be recorded wherever you go, abolishing cash because it's anonymous!
Why is it that you think impressions and ideas are somehow dangerous just because you can't establish their origins? Anonymous discussions allows for freedom of prejudice and fear of reprivals. It's an essential "right" in a democratic society that many powerful people want to get away with. Not because they want to protect people, but because they want to stay in power.
You are correct that I'm gossiping here, something I've underscored with my title of the post. This means I might be incorrect at some issues, but you can be incorrect after heavy in-dept analysis too. Ever played chess? People who play fast games learn the game faster and better than those who analyse for hours something they don't truly understand / see patterns _for themselves_ anyways. So it doesn't necessarily mean that AC had any special control over me by his nasty "impressions". I'm not saying he wasn't trolling or something like that though, I only got the words and my experience to judge from.
I didn't even notice I replied to an AC, but I noticed there were some ACes in the discussion. I judge their post on the merits of their words, which when free of goatsex-links, may be pretty reasonable.
In general _I_ have to judge the words people post, nobody should be able to convince me to believe anything just because they're rich, famous and powerful. You have to evaluate every word, especially from so-called trusted sources. If people fail to realize that, they're sheep who has it coming to them until they do.
Basically, the reason there are so much wars and struggle in the world is because people don't stand up for themselves. They think that just picking the right leader to follow will solve all their problems. In this light, I have much respect for people who refuse to play ball with governments and corporations, even when they're wrong.
The only right leader is yourself.
- Steeltoe
What credibility does an anonymous poster have? None. None whatsoever. Thus, applying defamation and libel laws to anonymous speech is clearly an overstep by the legal entities.
;-)
Your talk about responsibility is without any logical strain of thought at all (sounds like a bad copy from something you heard on TV). If you are granted anonymous speech, how can you have responsibility for what you say? True anonymity should allow you to say whatever you like, but people shouldn't generally believe you. Even if they can track you down, for you're not saying those things in public in -your own person-. I think there should also be the option of filtering out anonymous speech, making it a personal decision to view all the goatsex-links or not.
One thing is to be defamed or slandered by someone famous and credible, quite another by Anonymous. People don't need protection from this, they need to be educated in how to use and understand the internet. Education will free the people, laws like this will repress them into staying clueless AOL lusers.
For those who think that really free speech is harmful, consider how harmful the absence of free speech can be. The libel/slander laws are not that different from being put in prison for political views. Any company may claim huge losses for whatever you say about them in public, and if they're legal entities shouldn't these laws apply to companies too?
- Steeltoe
Isn't it quite obvious that this sad and lonely guy is suffering from post-traumatic stress from when his ex-girlfriend dumped him, taking his TV with her. Now he thinks he has a life, something meaningful to do everyday. I really pity such abnormal behaviour, we all should do. However, I'm scared too. It's not hard to imagine such freaks at a kindergarten spraying bullets at all the small innocent kids.
- Steeltoe
Uuuuhu, even my brother don't own a television set, so there ;-)
I would seriously dislike AOL shoving down an Open Source product down people's throats. Hell, I dislike any shoving down throats. Why should this be positive? People will only learn to slash back at such behaviour and Open Source comes into a bad light.
- Steeltoe
What makes corporations so much better than governments? They can both fall into exactly the same traps.
What he was trying to explain is that government intervention is not always a bad thing. Not that it's a solution to every problem. Companies only care about $$$, and will never become a solution to every problem either.
Remember, your freedom ends on the liberty of others. Wanna fire a gun? Sure go ahead, but it's not gonna solve anything. Whoever believes that need to take a real good look at themselves.
- Steeltoe
Shareholders that sell with loss can deduct this on their tax. This deductions is excactly equal to the tax on profits, so how is this "double-taxation"?
Read my reply to the original poster for more info.
- Steeltoe
Know what you talk about before you speak. Read my followup to the original poster.
Feelings? What's wrong with yours?
- Steeltoe
Stockholders don't make any money nor do they pay any tax for their shares, _before_ they sell out. When they do, they are taxed about 30% (in my country atleast). However, if you sell at a loss this is _just as tax-deductible_ (30%). In effect, you don't lose anything by this tax. It's a tool to to cool the market down with. This way, you cool it down with 30% if it's going up or down. The more the market is going up/down as a whole, the more is taxed/tax-deductible, thus cooled down as a whole. Severe conjunctures are always bad and dangerous to the economy, so I see this as a positive thing.
Taxing only profits on the stockmarket would always be bad, because it is not realized profits before you sell them. And people don't have to _annually_ sell their shares. Most rich people buy shares to avoid being taxed.
HOWEVER, I do agree a much more simple tax/economic-system should be implemented (reading between the lines). The current one is too unfair, too easy to fool, too naive.
- Steeltoe
- Steeltoe
- Steeltoe
Nobody can say wether it's right or wrong, or, everybody can say it. What does this imply? That there are no absolutes. You can judge as much as you like, but judging others is meaningless since you lack the god-like insight to do that properly.
I respect your choice of saying this is right and that is wrong, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you. What would YOU feel if you learned that you were let live by your parents because your tissue matched your sisters? Maybe they really didn't want an extra child, how will they treat you later compared to your sister?
Right and wrong doesn't really exist, only experiences do. We try to understand this by judging, but life is too complex to be put in a box.
- Steeltoe
Patent laws were made to make people open up their inventions to the world. It would make no sense to allow a closed invention to be prior art.
- Steeltoe
A law is not just a law, it's an attempt at a solution to a well-known problem.
Personally I think arbitrary licenses are bogus, wether it be on hardware or software. For instance: "You can't use this product with any other product than XXX and YYY-suite from company ZZZ."
What terms you should be allowed to put on your licenses should have definite laws backing them up. Especially on "consumer-wares", where people often have no real choice. It should be a clear distinction between an agreement of license and the actual license on the package. Unsolicited mail should perhaps not be allowed to carry licenses. It's a bit sly to send someone a package they didn't ask for, which when opened, you lose your first-born child to the sender.
- Steeltoe
"Following Patent Law != MURDERING 6,000,000 PEOPLE."
If you cannot compare unequal objects, why even compare at all?
- Steeltoe
You're halfways correct. As quoted from Nazi germans: "We were just following orders."
Sorry pal, but just because you're inside a bigger system doesn't mean you have to follow its rules. There are no scapegoats, only confused humans unaware of their potential.
- Steeltoe
"There may be certain business methods worth patenting (or at least keeping secret, if you're so inclined), but "one-click" anything seems too silly for consideration, doesn't it?"
I dunno about you, but keeping one-click shopping secret kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
- Steeltoe
Half-empty has some nifty ideas that I like and a flexible design I adore (is it viewable in lynx too?), and I'm sure the site will have great contents, at least until it really catches on. It also has a nice moderating interface. However, there are issues to be addressed for mass-consumption:
1) When people earn karma by moderating. What is to prevent them to automating this? What quality assurance do you get? None. What you need is a system where people may lose karma by moderating badly too. For example by letting you earn karma when people agree with your moderation (moderate posts/ideas with the same bias). In effect, a meta-moderation system where people can meta-moderate each other automagically. The first to moderate a post, would also be the one to take the biggest risk - getting the most potential gain or loss. Since all the others moderating after that user would in effect meta-moderate all the previous moderators. This would have the effect of new posts getting moderated at once.
However, this would also have a side-effect of putting a cap on how many times a idea/post would be moderated. Since there will be little to gain to moderate an already fully moderated post (one people agree with) - unless someone moderate it unfairly after a while. However, that's one of the benefits of relative moderation (see further down).
This system is also vulnerable to automation, but a robot would have to evaluate a post/idea, something that is much harder to do.
An alternative would be to put a cap on when you get karma for moderation (or use ln). If you already got gazillion karma points, you don't really need karma from moderation. This way, earning karma from moderation would be a poor-mans way out of the gutter, BUT it won't help the quality of moderation one bit without meta-moderation.
2) In Half-empty you must moderate something up, down or stay neutral (relative moderation). This is nice, except you can't see what the current score is. How can you have ANY hope of moderating relatively, when you don't know the base you're moderating from? This design is inherently flawed (but the core idea is just simply great!).
Instead, show the score and if people disagree with it let them moderate. (1) insures that they get meta-moderated.
3) Base everything on a mathematical and statistical model. Figure out all the rules and what side-effects you want and don't want. Create equations that'll solve it _statistically_. Don't rely on hard rules like maximum caps or any hard numbers.
4) Let users be able to group themselves, ie, you may join one or more group. The moderation you see is from the group you're viewing/filtering through. This way Windowz users and Machophiles may group themselves, have their own pages etc. A possible complex solution would be to view things through many group-filters (so a group may meta-moderate what they believe is right or wrong is certain circumstances).
Good luck!
- Steeltoe
The skin of a fingertip is not representative for all the surface of the human body. Sure, there are some spots that are more responsive ;), but all in all not so.
Where did you get 500 Hz from, it "sounds" enormously high (we can't see/notice more than 70-80 Hz). Also, the human brain does not account for deformed bodies. It learns coordination from experience. A drastically simpler way in the computational sense. To create specialized robots, we should learn from this.
- Steeltoe
Complex minds find complex answers.
Umm, after some thinking. A system like the i840 might get lower latency too. I'm not sure, and don't have time to dig into the matter now.
It's EXPENSIVE though...
- Steeltoe
I thought the issue for typical applications (like games) was _latency_. RDRAM has significant latency compared to SDRAM that only gets worse when you put more RAM into your system.
A few applications needs alot of RAM being moved, but for more responsive applications latency will be more important.
Yes, RDRAM is propbably more efficient for some uses, ie big matrix calculations. But not for typical desktop use.
- Steeltoe
Apparently the system makers aren't that happy...
Nobody with a rational thought in their puny heads would buy these 1.138745 GHz CPUs and Pentium-4's (5-4). Not in business, not in the home. You pay ALOT for something that'll be half the price (for the home market) next year. Not to mention how many bugs and fixes you'll get pushed on. Strangely as it seems, the most buggy shit seems to be most expensive and also the least decreasing in price over time. We live in funny times..
Oh, THEY're happy. They're happy they get media attention. WE're stupid to let us bother with such nonsense.
- Steeltoe
NEVER make systems with default passwords. Even a 10-year old could come to this conclusion.
- Steeltoe
You forget we're talking about Intellectual Property here..
Don't you dare step on mine! FREAK! *:-D
- Steeltoe