The real question, of course, is "how much additional acreage is necessary per person to sustain this mass of humanity?"
Well, if everyone is living comfortably in Texas, why not turn over a good chunk of the now-unpopulated earth to agribusiness? Oh, wait, I guess that means someone will have to live out on the farms to maintain all that machinery...:P
Clicked-through? OK, guess which browser is represented by the red slice?
Excuse my attempt to poke fun at the generosity of "the industry's most accurate source of data on global Internet user trends". Bring up the front page to their site to see the graphic in context. I found it slightly amusing.
Also excuse my (poor) attempts to disguise this "me, too" post as something else. As others have already mentioned, the numbers do vary from one context to another, there is no one, solid (or as you put it, real) browser breakdown to which we can point, and a lot of the numbers taken as authoritive are based on a lot of false premises or applied to cases far beyond those from which the statistics were taken.
Both shops must become ISO9XXX certified, and all developers brought to SEI level 5 immediately.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but the average nerd-in-training, when challenged to respond to this remark, would likely add (rather cautiously):
...and set phasers on stun?
Maybe it's just me, but I found the abrupt nature of the parent comment fall-over funny, though it seems to have been meant seriously. On the other hand, I'm the one who hurriedly checked google to determine whether the preferred phrasing is "phasers on stun" or "phasers to stun" -- only to find that both "on" and "to" excluded from searches.
.tv belongs to the nation of Tuvalu, which sold the domain administration rights to DotTV a while back -- this is not one of the "new" ICANN-approved TLDs.
Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).
"In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election."
Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.
Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.
The article's supposed to be a semi-real-time coverage of the election, so I think it makes sense to have periodical updates.
But at the cost of disrupting pre-existing threads of discussion?
[Y]ou probably know already that once articles fill up at around 200 posts, pretty much nothing gets read or moderated up.
Well, things do get read, though I can only assume that the *what* getting read is likely just a small subset of posts already colored by moderator bias. As for "moderator fatigue", I think it begins to appear far in advance of 200 posts:)
I think this was done to encourage more reading and posting of opinions [...]
If only we are all on our best behavior, but I think it also tends to encourage the reposting of topics and arguments previously beaten to death in the prior article: "Hey, no one is paying attention to me here, I'll just jigger the wording a bit and repost over here..."
I really think that sticking to the earlier (implicit) gameplan of an article on election eve and another following would have allowed greater continuity of discussion and breathing room for contributed analyses to settle.
I understand your point, but when members of the election night "thread" turn out be be *chunks* (in terms of cross-article relations), I don't think it wholly serves the purposes of a discussion forum. Although election results may ebb and flow in a manner than can be chunked, the larger discussions of those results don't.
Perhaps if each separate update were purposed or focused on a particular element or dimension of the ongoing elections (thereby giving moderators a little more assistance in determining what is and what isn't "off-topic"), I could buy it. Actually, that might have introduced a bit too much order to the Slashdot shuffle:)
Define "too many" -- it was around 500 when the second article appeared, which is nowhere near where other threads peter out. Does that mean that Katz should get to repost once his articles hit ~500 responses?
There is already one discussion underway about the election(actively, I might add), and Taco posts another article about the same election?
I can imagine doing this sort of thing if the candidates had been swapped out mid-election for bench replacements, but what does splitting one topic into a series of articles accomplish? More first posts to go around? An open signal for moderators to give up on the earlier article and migrate over to this one? What?
"When the election is final, we'll post one more story [...]" sounds reasonable until one realizes it might mean we'll periodically receive a new "national election" article every three hours or so until things are "done".
Can someone explain why it was necessary to open a new article when everything mentioned here could have been appended as a correction or update to the original?
Ok I would have normally let this slide but after seeing posts 2 time I think I have a ligitimate right to comment.
Jeez, don't take this persnally, but lighten up yourself -- it was meant as a joke. It's bad enough I was (errantly, imho) marked a troll within seconds. Although I guess your response justifies that tagging somewhat.
Slashdot is not just about news, I would say that it isn't even about news primarily... To mangle a Clintonesque phrase, "It's the community, stupid!"
I don't think my (perhaps less than stellar) attempt at humor is going to slow down the lumbering process of news repurposing here at Slashdot.
I *do* think that I should have placed a stupid emoticon at the end of my original post to avoid becoming a target for reactionary moderation and counter-trolling.
How insipidly vacuous can you get? And this was rated as insightful. How sad.
I'll second *this* opinion of yours, and in force... not just insightful, but insightful(x3)... egad. Vacuous and targeted at the wrong audience -- it's not like Congress reads Slashdot or anything:)
Yet another bit of plaintive wailing written out in choppy sentences. I can maybe understand one person marking it insightful, but the snowball effect is jarring.
Talking down to (absent) officials of both political parties as though their behaviors are but expressions of childish instincts, thinking that our elected representatives need only be chided to put things right again, not considering for a moment that there was no single reason for the Presidential investigation (to lift one example), but rather, many...
Given such a broken electoral system, I see nothing morally wrong with voting tactically.
The system is "broken" only from the perspective of one unaccepting of the electoral college -- you may disagree with the system as currently configured, but it works as designed (more or less).
I find it amazing that so many people fault the electoral college on the basis of a "what if" that has happened only once (iirc) in American history. Should such concern be so great, people ought to push more strenuously for Constitutional reform through or around Congress to eliminate the electoral college.
[A] judge ordered the polls be kept open past the normal end of voting because so many people were lined up waiting to vote [...] I'm very impressed so many people cared and got out to vote.
Showing up only to wait in line and waiting that line out long enough to vote are two different things. I would think that the latter is a more reliable indicator of voters' dedication to the "democratic process":)
Yes, so they could make lots of money. Instead, the made no money...actually negative money. Saying NEtscape won is like saying Xerox won because PARC got everyone using GUIs.
Read the original post again. Do you know what makes a "Pyhrric [sic] victory" Pyrrhic?
Pretty cool bit of gear; the fact that the company is reluctant to quote prices is suggestive that it is likely pretty expensive...
Read the FAQ -
"Pricing starts at $695 for the diskless configuration and models with internal drive start at $995 for the 20 GB drive (see the Products page for a complete listing)."
Always the idiot, I of meant to do two things: (1) correctly refer to the good gentleman in question as St. Augustine; and (2) disable the +1 posting bonus -- why isn't that thing disabled by default???
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if everyone is living comfortably in Texas, why not turn over a good chunk of the now-unpopulated earth to agribusiness? Oh, wait, I guess that means someone will have to live out on the farms to maintain all that machinery... :P
Here:
Wednesday, 12 October 1994, midnight -- at the base of the entire web document.
I hate to say it, but wtf?
Redundant?
For pointing out a funny thread?
Sometimes it never pays to draw attention to those more deserving... :)
LOL. Where are my moderator points when I really need them.
Maybe next time I'll remember to provide the right link (bet you didn't know there were four t's in statmarket.com)...
Oh, well. If it happens regularly to the editors of SlashDot, it can happen to even the best of us, right?
It's hard to emulate someone extending his or her arms to either side in a subject line, but anyway...
I find it funny, but statmarket.com is nice enough to represent the browser breakdown with this graphic.
Clicked-through? OK, guess which browser is represented by the red slice?
Excuse my attempt to poke fun at the generosity of "the industry's most accurate source of data on global Internet user trends". Bring up the front page to their site to see the graphic in context. I found it slightly amusing.
Also excuse my (poor) attempts to disguise this "me, too" post as something else. As others have already mentioned, the numbers do vary from one context to another, there is no one, solid (or as you put it, real) browser breakdown to which we can point, and a lot of the numbers taken as authoritive are based on a lot of false premises or applied to cases far beyond those from which the statistics were taken.
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but the average nerd-in-training, when challenged to respond to this remark, would likely add (rather cautiously):
Maybe it's just me, but I found the abrupt nature of the parent comment fall-over funny, though it seems to have been meant seriously. On the other hand, I'm the one who hurriedly checked google to determine whether the preferred phrasing is "phasers on stun" or "phasers to stun" -- only to find that both "on" and "to" excluded from searches.
It's ok to point and laugh at me now.
Slashdot didn't miss anything.
.tv belongs to the nation of Tuvalu, which sold the domain administration rights to DotTV a while back -- this is not one of the "new" ICANN-approved TLDs.
Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).
It's not like they wouldn't pick a winner in the above scenario:
Or, read the relevant federal commentary at NARA's electoral college site.
Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.
Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.
Well, from the numbers you posted, *neither* candidate has attained a majority confidence vote from the American populace, clear or otherwise.
The 49%/48% split is still holding (according to cnn.com).
*THAT* is what *I* would call *BAD*.
Pragmatic. Nice.
I'd probably agree with you if I were back at home, but I haven't made it there yet.
The only thing good about work lately is the T-1.
But at the cost of disrupting pre-existing threads of discussion?
Well, things do get read, though I can only assume that the *what* getting read is likely just a small subset of posts already colored by moderator bias. As for "moderator fatigue", I think it begins to appear far in advance of 200 posts :)
If only we are all on our best behavior, but I think it also tends to encourage the reposting of topics and arguments previously beaten to death in the prior article: "Hey, no one is paying attention to me here, I'll just jigger the wording a bit and repost over here..."
I really think that sticking to the earlier (implicit) gameplan of an article on election eve and another following would have allowed greater continuity of discussion and breathing room for contributed analyses to settle.
I understand your point, but when members of the election night "thread" turn out be be *chunks* (in terms of cross-article relations), I don't think it wholly serves the purposes of a discussion forum. Although election results may ebb and flow in a manner than can be chunked, the larger discussions of those results don't.
Perhaps if each separate update were purposed or focused on a particular element or dimension of the ongoing elections (thereby giving moderators a little more assistance in determining what is and what isn't "off-topic"), I could buy it. Actually, that might have introduced a bit too much order to the Slashdot shuffle :)
Nah. It's probably just me.
Define "too many" -- it was around 500 when the second article appeared, which is nowhere near where other threads peter out. Does that mean that Katz should get to repost once his articles hit ~500 responses?
Example carefully chosen to elicit catcalls :)
What the hay?
There is already one discussion underway about the election(actively, I might add), and Taco posts another article about the same election?
I can imagine doing this sort of thing if the candidates had been swapped out mid-election for bench replacements, but what does splitting one topic into a series of articles accomplish? More first posts to go around? An open signal for moderators to give up on the earlier article and migrate over to this one? What?
"When the election is final, we'll post one more story [...]" sounds reasonable until one realizes it might mean we'll periodically receive a new "national election" article every three hours or so until things are "done".
Can someone explain why it was necessary to open a new article when everything mentioned here could have been appended as a correction or update to the original?
Jeez, don't take this persnally, but lighten up yourself -- it was meant as a joke. It's bad enough I was (errantly, imho) marked a troll within seconds. Although I guess your response justifies that tagging somewhat.
Slashdot is not just about news, I would say that it isn't even about news primarily... To mangle a Clintonesque phrase, "It's the community, stupid!"
I don't think my (perhaps less than stellar) attempt at humor is going to slow down the lumbering process of news repurposing here at Slashdot.
I *do* think that I should have placed a stupid emoticon at the end of my original post to avoid becoming a target for reactionary moderation and counter-trolling.
:)
I'll second *this* opinion of yours, and in force ... not just insightful, but insightful(x3) ... egad. Vacuous and targeted at the wrong audience -- it's not like Congress reads Slashdot or anything :)
Yet another bit of plaintive wailing written out in choppy sentences. I can maybe understand one person marking it insightful, but the snowball effect is jarring.
Talking down to (absent) officials of both political parties as though their behaviors are but expressions of childish instincts, thinking that our elected representatives need only be chided to put things right again, not considering for a moment that there was no single reason for the Presidential investigation (to lift one example), but rather, many ...
*sigh* I think I've been second-hand trolled :)
The system is "broken" only from the perspective of one unaccepting of the electoral college -- you may disagree with the system as currently configured, but it works as designed (more or less).
I find it amazing that so many people fault the electoral college on the basis of a "what if" that has happened only once (iirc) in American history. Should such concern be so great, people ought to push more strenuously for Constitutional reform through or around Congress to eliminate the electoral college.
What's everyone waiting for?
Showing up only to wait in line and waiting that line out long enough to vote are two different things. I would think that the latter is a more reliable indicator of voters' dedication to the "democratic process" :)
Read the original post again. Do you know what makes a "Pyhrric [sic] victory" Pyrrhic?
hint
somebody had to respond :)
oh, and slashdot doesn't seem to like that link - the space in the middle of the url is supposed to be %20
Read the FAQ -
"Pricing starts at $695 for the diskless configuration and models with internal drive start at $995 for the 20 GB drive (see the Products page for a complete listing)."
http://www.lansonic.com/faq_3_1_00.htm
Always the idiot, I of meant to do two things: (1) correctly refer to the good gentleman in question as St. Augustine; and (2) disable the +1 posting bonus -- why isn't that thing disabled by default???
Wrong. I believe you mean St. Augustus of Hippo, as discussed in his work, the *Confessions*.
See above -- formatting went goofy, but the link is fine.
Appears to be this:
http://innominate.org/~phillips/tux2/
Two els
Didn't you read this Slashdot article that referenced this list of TLD applications? Look at the list, and notice how many TLDs name.space wishes to claim.
Can't say as I am enthused about a group with aspirations to some 118 TLDs -- I'm all for diversity, but aren't they asking for a bit much?
Neither was this guy.
Regardless, I don't think name.space has disappeared off the map.