Wikipedia addressed the problem by making a JavaScript GUI editor to hide the markup. IMHO the problem with that approach is that it solves the wrong problem. The problem isn't that the markup is to difficult (although learning more then the basics is), it's that people just don't care to put any effort into understanding it and would rather complain that it's 'to hard'. The solution shouldn't focus on teaching people markup. It should either remove the markup and only allow a GUI, making the encoding inaccessible like document editors do, or use the effort required to understand markup as a barrier to entry.
Overbearing employers are nothing new; this is just HR prying into applicants lives with 'on the internet' appended. Whether it's drug tests, credit checks, IQ exams or 3-day multi-person interviews, some companies will push the boundaries and the people will have to push back, sometimes with politics and laws.
Imagine if an employer said they want to inspect your home and interview your family. If the job involves a top secret clearance maybe that's OK but not for 99% of jobs. And here's my point: nobody would agree to having their home inspected and HR wouldn't even think to ask. It's only because social networking is new that anyone even wonders if might be reasonable.
Since the beginning of the web (I started developing websites around the beginning of 95) I have been ever careful of what I put out... The key is to make it look "real", but not enough to make you look bad.
I've filtered myself too, as I'm sure most of Slashdot has, but we should really focus on fighting for everyones rights. No matter how well we may protect ourselves we all have to live with societies attitudes. As technical folk we have the best chance of setting the norms for life on the internet.
Tried it in Firefox, didn't seem to work; must need Chrome. Tried it in Chrome, didn't seem to work; remembered WebGL is disabled because the Linux ATI driver is blacklisted. Restart Chrome with google-chrome --ignore-gpu-blacklist but it still doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's a puzzle and I just don't get it; I'll check the comments on slashdot.
This is what the web felt like 10 years ago. Maybe it's my fault for not realizing I had to sign in, but there isn't anything on the page to indicate that, and I don't use Google+ anyways.
Next time someone starts talking about holding programmers legally liable, remember how police officers ruined peoples lives because they were "just too lazy to perform the test."
Also, we all knew that Test Driven Development was going to cause crashes.
Spot on. If Microsoft was making this change, from allowing PayPal, et al. to ONLY allowing their payment service, there wouldn't be anyone defending them.
The exclusion of women meant that what we now call "big government" proposals had less support automatically (this has been proven...
Cite your sources. Remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I also disagree that women voting leads to big government, but your calling for extraordinary evidence is wrong. Discussions should not be stifled every time someone states an unpopular claim.
Thanks, and can I ask why RHEL6 rather then Fedora? I would like to be familiar with RHEL professionally, but I was under the impression it wasn't used as a desktop (I'm a dev.)
As for switching distros, I'd just say that it's more about a culture of decisions and attitude I don't like. Debian is great; I just want to work with something new.
All you have to do it look at the makeup of the UN's Human Rights Council to realize it would be worse.
Worse then Guantanamo Bay Cuba? America is justified in claiming moral leadership on free speech, but that doesn't mean the UN would be bad. The UN certainly wouldn't be blinded by Hollywood. Also (I linked this above too): U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right
Plus China and Russia are pushing for this. As bad is ICE is, they're rank amateurs at blocking the net compared to the Chinese.
They already block the Internet in their own countries, with no international discussion or mediation. We shouldn't only worry about free countries becoming more restrictive, but also about getting restrictive countries to open up. China and the US should do more then just business.
At least I can complain to my own government and vote out politicians. Where do I go to complain against the UNs policies?
So the U.N. is unresponsive but that the US Federal Government is not? Maybe you'd like your state or city government to administer DNS, since they'll be more responsive to your complaints?
The FBI & ICE taking down websites might be OK with Americans, but it's not with the United Nations. Don't be so sure that what you'd get with the U.N. would be worse.
Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer... they're crimes against liberty.
The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.
Using liberty to define hate crimes depends on the actions of the victim, rather then the intent of the criminal only. But many hate crimes don't involve any actions by the victim, e.g. hanging a black man for being black.
Interesting idea though, and it helps illuminate some of the issues: homophobes often argue that it's OK to be gay, so long as you don't *do* anything. Misogynists often argue that women are equal to men, but they should 'stay home' because of family/religion/society/tradition.
Why does RapidShare think this will give them cover over piracy? The MAFIAA doesn't care; they're happy to burn down the Internet to protect their business.
The MAFIAA also don't really care about piracy, despite all their noise about it. Their goal is to maintain high prices and the business model that they know and control. Piracy is just a means to manipulate the publics attitude and justify the use of extreme measures by the government. Which for RapidShare means that they can't win unless they become part of the establishment... but Hollywood needs enemies to fight more then allies to share the wealth with.
If paying these fines is a problem, then make sure you don't get hit with them. If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
The most important rule taught, is if you have a lot of money, you can do whatever you want regardless of rules. What a surprise that life lesson comes from a 1%er billionaire.
Oracle should think long and hard about whether it wants to persist on the issue of patent infringement or, for that matter, any infringement at all. Those failed settlement discussions probably look a lot more attractive to Oracle right now.
I think you've hit the heart of it: what can we figure out about another person, and how should we use that information?
New technology is radically changing both of those, but we do have some guides about how to treat others: ad hominem, outing, and stalking. The technological changes are going to force us to develop clearer and more human rules about data-mining and using information. Trying to use property rights as a guide for morality will fail badly, just as using it as a guide for copyright is failing.
If you don't think Target did anything wrong, try imagining scenarios that you do think would be wrong. Personally, the idea of a commercial business revealing pregnancy is disgusting; all the more so because their intent was nothing but profit.
Also, OpenID allows for more then just login -- it's extended for "profile exchange" and more. Ideal for Google, and all large companies, unlike https://browserid.org/ or other schemes.
The intent is to make it easy for all of Phils enemies to harass or inflict harm on Phil. Target or Walmart do not have any hostile intent. They just want to sell you stuff.... it is only annoying, not dangerous.
So when someone goes around telling facts (or lies) about you, it's OK so long as there's no "hostile intent"? That's ridiculous. People "outing" gay people may intend harm, but many times they think it's best for the person and the community. Their intent doesn't make it OK.
Arguing that "it is only annoying, not dangerous" is just a lack of imagination.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying the ads were a personal attack?
Yes. They are targeting people: focusing extraordinary attention on people, using lots of resources, and taking it very seriously. They are attacking people: exposing facts (or reckless speculations) about them, trying to manipulate them, and acting against the peoples best interests for their own reasons. That's why people consider things like ad hominem, outing, and stalking as attacks. You don't have to hit someone with a stick to attack them.
The pregnant teenager was both targeted and attacked. Her father followed the (unwritten) rules against personal attacks by going to the store and complaining.
Don't think 'it wasn't personal' since they did it to a group; that's bullshit. You don't get to target Gay men and then say, oh it's nothing personal guys. The content and context of the advertisements was personal; that was the point of data-mining in the first place. If nobody at the company knows the girls name, it doesn't change what they did to her.
Almost all forums have rules against personal attacks. You'd commonly be banned for posting someone else's "IRL" (in real life) information. Yet here we see corporations doing exactly that for nothing more than profit. Data-mining like this is the beginning of an assault on our right to be "secure in our persons" and enjoy privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
For all the "I don't get it comments", the issue is that people don't understand or like markup languages. This helps people literally see the connection between the markup and the result. This problem was studied and documented extensively by Wikipedia:
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability_and_Experience_Study#What_I_see_Vs._What_I_get
Wikipedia addressed the problem by making a JavaScript GUI editor to hide the markup. IMHO the problem with that approach is that it solves the wrong problem. The problem isn't that the markup is to difficult (although learning more then the basics is), it's that people just don't care to put any effort into understanding it and would rather complain that it's 'to hard'. The solution shouldn't focus on teaching people markup. It should either remove the markup and only allow a GUI, making the encoding inaccessible like document editors do, or use the effort required to understand markup as a barrier to entry.
Overbearing employers are nothing new; this is just HR prying into applicants lives with 'on the internet' appended. Whether it's drug tests, credit checks, IQ exams or 3-day multi-person interviews, some companies will push the boundaries and the people will have to push back, sometimes with politics and laws.
Imagine if an employer said they want to inspect your home and interview your family. If the job involves a top secret clearance maybe that's OK but not for 99% of jobs. And here's my point: nobody would agree to having their home inspected and HR wouldn't even think to ask. It's only because social networking is new that anyone even wonders if might be reasonable.
Since the beginning of the web (I started developing websites around the beginning of 95) I have been ever careful of what I put out... The key is to make it look "real", but not enough to make you look bad.
I've filtered myself too, as I'm sure most of Slashdot has, but we should really focus on fighting for everyones rights. No matter how well we may protect ourselves we all have to live with societies attitudes. As technical folk we have the best chance of setting the norms for life on the internet.
Self reply.... FlashBlock was my problem. I'm going for coffee.
Tried it in Firefox, didn't seem to work; must need Chrome. Tried it in Chrome, didn't seem to work; remembered WebGL is disabled because the Linux ATI driver is blacklisted. Restart Chrome with google-chrome --ignore-gpu-blacklist but it still doesn't seem to work. Maybe it's a puzzle and I just don't get it; I'll check the comments on slashdot.
This is what the web felt like 10 years ago. Maybe it's my fault for not realizing I had to sign in, but there isn't anything on the page to indicate that, and I don't use Google+ anyways.
If Google can't compete with MySpace they're FINISHED!!!!1!!
Next time someone starts talking about holding programmers legally liable, remember how police officers ruined peoples lives because they were "just too lazy to perform the test."
Also, we all knew that Test Driven Development was going to cause crashes.
Spot on. If Microsoft was making this change, from allowing PayPal, et al. to ONLY allowing their payment service, there wouldn't be anyone defending them.
The exclusion of women meant that what we now call "big government" proposals had less support automatically (this has been proven...
Cite your sources. Remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I also disagree that women voting leads to big government, but your calling for extraordinary evidence is wrong. Discussions should not be stifled every time someone states an unpopular claim.
Thanks, and can I ask why RHEL6 rather then Fedora? I would like to be familiar with RHEL professionally, but I was under the impression it wasn't used as a desktop (I'm a dev.)
As for switching distros, I'd just say that it's more about a culture of decisions and attitude I don't like. Debian is great; I just want to work with something new.
10.10 updates will expire when 12.04 is released, and I'll finally be forced to use Gnome3 or switch distros. I'm thinking Arch or Fedora with XFCE.
All you have to do it look at the makeup of the UN's Human Rights Council to realize it would be worse.
Worse then Guantanamo Bay Cuba? America is justified in claiming moral leadership on free speech, but that doesn't mean the UN would be bad. The UN certainly wouldn't be blinded by Hollywood. Also (I linked this above too): U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right
Plus China and Russia are pushing for this. As bad is ICE is, they're rank amateurs at blocking the net compared to the Chinese.
They already block the Internet in their own countries, with no international discussion or mediation. We shouldn't only worry about free countries becoming more restrictive, but also about getting restrictive countries to open up. China and the US should do more then just business.
I don't think the UN would consider PIPA or SOPA. See: U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right
At least I can complain to my own government and vote out politicians. Where do I go to complain against the UNs policies?
So the U.N. is unresponsive but that the US Federal Government is not? Maybe you'd like your state or city government to administer DNS, since they'll be more responsive to your complaints?
The FBI & ICE taking down websites might be OK with Americans, but it's not with the United Nations. Don't be so sure that what you'd get with the U.N. would be worse.
"Cloud" is today's "Snake oil"
No, SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) is todays snake oil. "Cloud" is just an amalgamation of business models that haven't been sorted out yet.
Actually, "hate crime" is a serious misnomer ... they're crimes against liberty.
The intention isn't just to hurt the man you hate, but to strike fear into anyone who doesn't live the way you think they should.
Using liberty to define hate crimes depends on the actions of the victim, rather then the intent of the criminal only. But many hate crimes don't involve any actions by the victim, e.g. hanging a black man for being black.
Interesting idea though, and it helps illuminate some of the issues: homophobes often argue that it's OK to be gay, so long as you don't *do* anything. Misogynists often argue that women are equal to men, but they should 'stay home' because of family/religion/society/tradition.
Why does RapidShare think this will give them cover over piracy? The MAFIAA doesn't care; they're happy to burn down the Internet to protect their business.
The MAFIAA also don't really care about piracy, despite all their noise about it. Their goal is to maintain high prices and the business model that they know and control. Piracy is just a means to manipulate the publics attitude and justify the use of extreme measures by the government. Which for RapidShare means that they can't win unless they become part of the establishment ... but Hollywood needs enemies to fight more then allies to share the wealth with.
If paying these fines is a problem, then make sure you don't get hit with them.
If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
The most important rule taught, is if you have a lot of money, you can do whatever you want regardless of rules. What a surprise that life lesson comes from a 1%er billionaire.
Telling the truth makes haters of the mods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRDxDvz0bd4&t=99s
Nobody cares about the money. Can Android be stopped because of this?
Groklaw's latest: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120220133911859
Oracle should think long and hard about whether it wants to persist on the issue of patent infringement or, for that matter, any infringement at all. Those failed settlement discussions probably look a lot more attractive to Oracle right now.
I kept waiting for the baby eating, but it never happened.
Are you suggesting that the author should have copied someone else's work?
I think you've hit the heart of it: what can we figure out about another person, and how should we use that information?
New technology is radically changing both of those, but we do have some guides about how to treat others: ad hominem, outing, and stalking. The technological changes are going to force us to develop clearer and more human rules about data-mining and using information. Trying to use property rights as a guide for morality will fail badly, just as using it as a guide for copyright is failing.
If you don't think Target did anything wrong, try imagining scenarios that you do think would be wrong. Personally, the idea of a commercial business revealing pregnancy is disgusting; all the more so because their intent was nothing but profit.
Also, OpenID allows for more then just login -- it's extended for "profile exchange" and more. Ideal for Google, and all large companies, unlike https://browserid.org/ or other schemes.
The intent is to make it easy for all of Phils enemies to harass or inflict harm on Phil. Target or Walmart do not have any hostile intent. They just want to sell you stuff. ... it is only annoying, not dangerous.
So when someone goes around telling facts (or lies) about you, it's OK so long as there's no "hostile intent"? That's ridiculous. People "outing" gay people may intend harm, but many times they think it's best for the person and the community. Their intent doesn't make it OK.
Arguing that "it is only annoying, not dangerous" is just a lack of imagination.
As another poster said, it boils down to the intent of the person using the tool.
I doubt the pregnant teenager or her father care about the companies intent.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying the ads were a personal attack?
Yes. They are targeting people: focusing extraordinary attention on people, using lots of resources, and taking it very seriously. They are attacking people: exposing facts (or reckless speculations) about them, trying to manipulate them, and acting against the peoples best interests for their own reasons. That's why people consider things like ad hominem, outing, and stalking as attacks. You don't have to hit someone with a stick to attack them.
The pregnant teenager was both targeted and attacked. Her father followed the (unwritten) rules against personal attacks by going to the store and complaining.
Don't think 'it wasn't personal' since they did it to a group; that's bullshit. You don't get to target Gay men and then say, oh it's nothing personal guys. The content and context of the advertisements was personal; that was the point of data-mining in the first place. If nobody at the company knows the girls name, it doesn't change what they did to her.
Almost all forums have rules against personal attacks. You'd commonly be banned for posting someone else's "IRL" (in real life) information. Yet here we see corporations doing exactly that for nothing more than profit. Data-mining like this is the beginning of an assault on our right to be "secure in our persons" and enjoy privacy.