Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Voting Solutions to Release Voting Software under Open License
Voting Solutions, LLC, in association with The Center for Voting and
Democracy (CVD), has
announced plans to release ChoicePlus Pro under an open source license
and development agreement.
(Log in to post comments)
Voting Solutions to Release Voting Software under Open License Posted Nov 3, 2003 22:25 UTC (Mon) by suckmebitch (guest, #16361) [Link] Linux spells doom for SunLonghorn spells doom for Linux Longhorn spells doom for Apple
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 3, 2003 23:29 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] We have a crapflooder here. A comment in the Secirity section of the last Weekly Edition quotes this story:
It depresses me to think that any open medium can be so easily undermined by people with no scruples, no sense of responsibility and no idea of the damage they are doingI pay money to read the site, and I expect to read well written stories with ontopic comments. If I was OK with stupid comments like "first post", I'd be reading Slashdot for free. The definition of security changes. Telnet was considered secure before the arrival of network sniffers. Now only protocols that never send passwords in plain text are considered secure. In the similar vein, message boards that allowed crapflooders were OK just a few years ago. Now, when the net is full of spammers and just plain idiots, such software should be considered insecure. Not having protection against unwanted comments is almost as bad as a hole that allows random people use your systems for DoS attacks or simply take money from your accounts. There should be a way to stop persistent garbage coming from irresponsible posters, or this site will be ruined and abandoned by its subscribers.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 3, 2003 23:48 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Trust me, I'm concerned about this. I'm not quite sure of how to deal with it, however. We really don't want to get into the business of reviewing, approving, and censoring comments. If the problem gets worse (and such problems always seem to get worse) we may have to consider that approach, though. Suggestions are welcome...
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 0:07 UTC (Tue) by DaleQ (subscriber, #4004) [Link] If the problem persists, one option is to only allow subscribers to post comments. It may boost subscriptions. :-)If a subscriber posts such flotsam and they fail to heed warnings to stop, "unsubscribe" them.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 0:28 UTC (Tue) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link] This isn't a bad idea. If the benefit of commenting is tied to a subscription, it raises the bar on who can - and if there's a simple 'three strikes' rule (or similar), it's possible for people who have paid for a subscription to lose their posting ability. That means that real value (meaning the ability to comment on posts) is lost for someone doing this sort of thing.It may be completely fair to call commenting a benefit of subscription.
only allow comments by paid subscribers Posted Nov 4, 2003 0:28 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] I second this.If non-paying readers want to comment, they can do what they do for any other serious news periodical: write a letter to the editor, for which they know that editors may be selective about what they print. This way, you'll hopefully get more subscribers, higher-quality comments, and more letters to the editor to boot.
only allow comments by paid subscribers Posted Nov 4, 2003 1:37 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] How about a nominal one time fee for registering?
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 9:32 UTC (Tue) by minichaz (guest, #630) [Link] I agree. Only allow paying subscribers to post comments or you're just going to turn into another Slashdot where the good stuff is drowned out by the crap. The sooner the better too.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 17:24 UTC (Tue) by oconnorcjo (guest, #2605) [Link] It does not surprise me that several posts have mentioned Slashdot since it is the most popular and successful bulletin/news site on the web, but what I do find odd is that people here are holding up Slashdot as an example of a failure instead of as a success. I never see "first post" or "linux/windoze sux/rulz" on Slashdot because I only read at +3 which is full of mostly quality posts. The idea of only having paid subscribers be able to post is fine with me but a moderating system would good as well.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 12:24 UTC (Tue) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] I also agree that the commenting ability should be a part of the paid subscription. However, there is another, less radical solution. In the account prefs, add to the "Comment listing format:" radio (or a separate checkbox) "Show only subscribers' comments".
Choice of displaying only subscriber comments Posted Nov 4, 2003 21:08 UTC (Tue) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link] A good idea. I'd prefer it to restricting posting only to subscribers, unless there is a serious increase in the problem. An alternative is moderation by subscribers, which aims only to classify posts as a complete waste of time, such as the one that prompted this discussion. I would prefer such simple moderation to the situation on Slashdot where “karma” becomes an obsession.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 0:09 UTC (Tue) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] I suggest the following:If a person continues to spew flamebait and annoy people, cancel their account. If they have paid for a subscription (which I doubt) refund them. One could say that to qualify for getting the boot, the editors must have recieved a minimum number of complaints (by email) from subscribers. The culprit could maybe be given a warning first ? I subscribe to the Win4Lin users list and jokers like "suckmebitch" are kicked out without pardon! Just my 2 cents,
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 20:57 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] <<If a person continues to spew flamebait and annoy people, cancel their account. If they have paid for a subscription (which I doubt) refund them.>>Problem is with automated comment spammers -- they don't have a conscience and will just sign up as a different username. You can't shame a script.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 2:35 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] I suggest to not change LWN's policy, and simply not respond.Before this thread, the person in question did not receive any feedback on their postings, Personally, I am quite amazed to learn of humans whose life is dreary enough and whose I would not have posted, had this thread not become unexpectedly long. I will not do so
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 3:20 UTC (Tue) by chalsall (guest, #400) [Link] > I suggest to not change LWN's policy, and simply not respond.Not good enough. Because someone always responds -- that's the point of trolling I pay money to read the high quality content that is the LWN articles, and lately, has been the responses to said articles. I do not wish to be distracted by completely irrelevant, and most likely inflammatory, "posts", particularly if said poster has not even suggested their worth by similarly contributing financially. If a subscriber posts such garbage, two warnings and you're out (read: cannot post -- still have access to premium content) -- and with no refund. There are many who wish to divert serious discussion. It should be the goal to make such distraction as difficult as possible -- no value in, or obligation for, "innocent until proven guilty" in such cases.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 13:57 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] When I post comments here, I care only about reaction of intelligent human beings to my post. I refuse to consider the effects of my posts on idiots. In particular, I refuse to consider if I'm encouraging them.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 14:52 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Just in case: I was not attacking you - my remarks on "useless posts" were geared at the first poster. I see the point of your first point, but I don't think one can stop people like smb by reacting in any way. Didn't mean to offend you, though.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 14:51 UTC (Tue) by AAP (guest, #721) [Link] I agree! The one comment was mildly annoying, but it was the 20+ reactions to it that are drowning out any discussion.
OT: we must resist crapflooders Posted Nov 4, 2003 8:22 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] For now at least, I think there's no need to proactively review and approve comments. Just include a "report this" link with each comment posted, and if you get enough complaints for a given user, check it and determine what course of action would be best.
OT: we must resist crapflooders : TrollPasture Posted Nov 4, 2003 9:18 UTC (Tue) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] I do like the way Heise/c't deals with it:they have created a "TrollPasture". unfocused posts and the acompanying thread are moved there. If those posters want to play on they are welcome.
suckmebitch Posted Nov 4, 2003 4:08 UTC (Tue) by penguinwarriors (guest, #11563) [Link] here is a born windows luser... he probably bought stock in Microsoft when it was $150 bucks a share and now cries when he sees it's at only $26 bucks a share now...he just doesn't get it. linux will keep on truckin' and Microsoft will keep spreading FUD until it has no choice but to port to linux. listen up 'suck': there will come a day when there will be more linux users than windows lusers as sure as i know the sun will rise tomorrow. linux spells doom for Sun (and SCO) ;.) linux is my religion, debian is my God.
suckmebitch Posted Nov 4, 2003 9:35 UTC (Tue) by minichaz (guest, #630) [Link] And frankly this is almost as bad as the original post.
Voting Solutions to Release Voting Software under Open License Posted Nov 3, 2003 22:50 UTC (Mon) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] I'm curious - what open source license do they mean? I don't see the code or the license they're using. Not that that's impossible - it's certainly possible to charge a fee for access from their site - but it makes the claim harder to check. Do they really just mean that "source code is available under certain conditions"?
Voting Solutions to Release Voting Software under Open License Posted Nov 4, 2003 0:10 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] You won't find the code because the release hasn't happened yet. This is mentioned in the press release. I did a bit of digging about licensing but only found the press release.I've sent a mail to the Voting Solutions and Center for Voting and Democracy, asking which license they are talking about. If they reply while this story is still on or near the front page, I'll post the response here.
Where's the license??? Posted Nov 3, 2003 23:39 UTC (Mon) by jdell_nv (guest, #9705) [Link] I browsed around there site and didn't see anything resembling a license or a link to download their software.
Hey penguinwarriors Posted Nov 4, 2003 10:58 UTC (Tue) by suckmebitch (guest, #16361) [Link] You dont know who I am. Whether Windows or Linux wins, I win!hahaha
How about a simple timeout? Posted Nov 4, 2003 16:50 UTC (Tue) by vagn (guest, #309) [Link] New accounts have a 2 week prohibition on posting.(Except paid accounts.) Misbehaviour gets the 2 week prohibition reinstated. If the site is being flooded, then turn off posting
|
|
||||||||||||