1/ population increased (ok that does not explain * 200 increase). I am curious to know what was english population in 1920 ? It is something like 70M people by now, no ?
2/ firearms simply are easier to grab, beacause their number & price. Everyone knows laws do not enforce anything (see US prohibition & alcoohol biz).
but maybe I am wrong. When you write "20 armes crimes in London" is it "20 firearms" ?
Anyway, you miss the point. By forbidding weapons you make it harder to criminals to find weapons and you greatly limit kids having & using weapons. Usage of firearms in middle of towns are rather limited in europe. I am told it was not in some places in US.
I just wanted to point out that for most of people who claim guns are against dictators, they do not see they can be ruled by dictators or something very close, very for them to see it or even to oppose to it. When Intel wants to put some ID in its chips, that's dictator ship or it will please any dictotorial state. But many people think (not me) that it is a good thing cause it help to protect buz & it helps people not to be stolen their Banking card number (or they think so...)
I want to point out that guns to have freedom is an outdated argument.
We get US cartoons, we get US music, we get US junk food, we get US films, we get US games, we get US net (Internet), so now we have to get US slaughters...;-)
It's a right to carry a weapon to protect yourself, but not to have high level protection of your data by encryption.
Nowadays your main danger is not a dictator takeover, that's an administrative state that goes into Big Brotherhood. You have the right to have a weapon, but not to protect your personnal data against the state. In this information society, that means you are at the mercy of the state. Remind the Decency Act and the tries to put chips that FBI (or others) can decrypt with no problem... Ok these did not pass, but more and more pression are made to force these. How long will it take to transform US into "1984" ?
Therefore, whether people who claim guns is a good right are dumb, or they do not see the real danger. There is no dictators danger in US.
"Let's see now, HOW many times have" you read an history book about other countries than yours ? Not all countries in the world are dictators driven. When you don't know think, please shut up.
And I prefer a country where I can go to school without fearing to be shoot even though though one dictator appears in it once in the century... and stays there for 4 years (World War 2 was last time in western europe).
It's simply a matter of fact that US have more people kill by firearms than any other "democratic" country in the world (in proportion). A few years ago in france a guy got hostages in a primary school (3-4 years old kids). The outcome was he was killed by police when they went in and no hostage had been hit in any case. In US it would have ended into a bloodshed... This is not hyper-hyped stuff, this is only that nowhere else kids have killed tens of scholars taht way...
Give people a car, they'll crash into wall and run over people. Give guns to kids, some will use them on other kids...
This is not insulting or attacking US citizens to say that.
About dictators, having gun will not help anything. For one century, in western Europe there have been only 2 dictators (mussolini & hitler). At that time, many people had rifles (manly farmers). That did not help to get rid of these dictators. This is the same with Molosevich : his people did not throug him. The problem with democracies is that when a dictator appears, he do not enforce his power by submitting every people, he manupilate people so that citizens vote for him. In that case, your guns will not help you. If you believe what your chief says you have no reason to attack him. And for having weapons to protect your country against invaders... Who can attack US ?
No having guns is not a good think. And reasons given are false.
Then I miss Win9x look. I hate MS (because of their marketing behaviour and the lots of bugs they introduce), but I have to confess 2 things :
1/ they're the best at marketing
2/ their interface has a great look, even though it my be unstable (BTW when I switch from console mode with mouse to KDE it often kill X and everything that is working in it... ok the OS is not frozen but I lose everything...)
In fact I very much like w98 interface. Ok I did not try E or WindowMaker yet...
For me the difference between MS-win apps and linux apps is I feel MS-win have generally a more professionnal layout (with reasons...)
ok please do not flame. You geeks can only look at features etc, but that's Linux problem : people who use it are generally geeks looking mainly at features, and they focus less on the look. Ask yourself why IMAC sold so well ? Not because of its features, but because of its look. And as far as I am concerned I prefer MS-win look.
people say "if you change GUI it's hard etc..." The fact is in 96 MS changed completely its GUI from win31 to win95. And later with the integration of IE it changed a bit. And before there was DOS...
In fact the idea of learning curve is stupid. Any incompetent or new user will adapt to a new GUI. MS did it, why not Linux ?
Moreover, at work we haven't finished to move win311 users to winNT4 (win95 interface). And people do not create problems with it. In fact the problem is not GUI, it is the application itself. Give Word running under Linux to people used Word running under w95. It's ok. Give them another word processor and there are problems, and even give them word 97 and problems appear... Users do not modify their working space, or if they have the skill to do so, then they are good enough to cope with anything new.
The learning curve about new GUI is a false problem, of course if you give a one button mouse to a w95 user he may have problems... But I am sure even non skilled users can adapt even Motif & the like WMs.
you walk out the hardware store & get out with no Linux distro, because Linux is in every device ROM and everywhere.
When you'll have no more kernel because kernel is totally integrated with hardware, then that's world domination, because noone can then kick it out...
1) this article does not say many things about why Red Hat selling free software is a fraud. Of course the main argument is obvious. But the article is a bit short to be really valuable.
2) anyway, it seems to me that Michels is only afraid of Linux selling model, since RH begins to be attacked here and there (or at least some people look at it with attention), then it is easier for SCO to attack it. Michels will not attack a smaller / RH competitor... You always attack the bigger... when the bigger is not anymore the most appreciated... like Windows;-)
3) Michels should read the license. Even though it might be considered unethical by some people to sell the free work of others, that's legal given GPL. Therefore Michels' claim has no basement. There is no fraud.
Michels should have think before he talked. Now he appears dumb. That's not good advertisement for him...
who wants to filter not only on scores but on names ?
ok, this is just to write it, since I don't read authers'name, therefore I cannot tell what that guy wrote... The only very name I know is Cmdr's one;-))
did I miss a point ? this is not because I prefer some idea over another that I missed the other;-)
ok I understood the pb with massive filtering (if I did not I would have writen to read to argument of mark which is close to yours)
however, I prefer to be under the tyrany of many rather than being subject to the tyrany of a few
1) besides if I only have 1 tenth of vote for 50 messages in the story, I will choose carefully what I vote for
2) moreover, if the cost increases with current score, it will be harder to reach highest score (read example bellow)
3) last argument : ok some people are immature, but how many are matuire enough ? Im reader/. for a few weeks now, and plenty of comments seemed to be very interesting. Ok a common background is pro-Free Soft or at least a seek of alternative. People who do not share that spirit are very few. However, I am not sure pro-Linuxes are the majority, and even though I am wrong, only a minority of them are immature enough to vote for ideas only.
4) Very last argument:-) I prefer real democracy (one that never existed on earth) over elitist monarchy, because in fact this is not me who choose these moderators who are supposed to be my representatives
ex. : There are 120 messages in the story, it gives me only 2 tenth of votes (0.2 votes). I can vote only 0.1 at a time. If a message has score 1 and I vote 0.1, its score becomes 1.1, it is considered as score 1 by filters If a message has score 1.9 and I vote 0.1, its score becomes 2, it is considered as score 2 by filters But when score goes higher, it becomes more difficult to vote : a message has score 2.9 and I vote 0.1. But that gives not 0.1 but 0.05 to the score, that becomes 1.95, it is considered as score 1 by filters Score -5 to 1 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.1 score Score 1 to 2 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.1 score Score 2 to 3 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.05 score Score 3 to 4 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.03 score Score 4 to 5 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.02 score
therefore you need : 10 votes to reach score 2 from score 1 30 votes to reach score 3 from score 1 60 votes to reach score 4 from score 1 110 votes to reach score 5 from score 1
1) after replying to a msg, is it necessary to display the msg ? It's too late to change it, and I personnally never read it
2) therefore I propose that while sending a reply I may choose between displaying the resulting message, or returning to the message I replied to, or to the top of the story, or even to www.slashdot.org that way you can even reduce the load of the server since I do not have to do Back()
3) another thing... but I forgot it...;-(
4) Ahh ! yes ! even when I filter messages, Is it possible to know how many replies exist in the whole thread ? If I filter score 3 or more & I know there are 100+ score 2 and 500+ score 1 messages in the thread, I may be interested in looking what is inside (but I also want the possibility not to load the whole page, but only the thread at the given temporary score). I mean I filter score 3 messages & I see there are 100+ score 2 messages. Then I click on the button "view thread closer" & I load a new page with only these messages which are one score lower than the current filtering (that is score 2+ messages). Note this does not change my default filtering for other pages...
if you give every registered account (no more moderators) only a few votes per story (% of the number of messages ? only a small number per day ?... ) People will not increase by one , but by tenth of points. Meanning 10 people must vote upward for the message to win one rank.
that way you are sure : 1) AC will not unbalance the whole system 2) what can be done by one can be undone by many, so that the overall score stands for not the judgement of a few, but the judgement of many 3) you have a really democratic behaviour 4) you are sure there is no abuse, and therefore noone to be penalised
if you give a voting pool that refreshes when people vote upward, they will vote upward for many replies, just to have votes (human nature is greedy).
however the voting pool by itself is a fine idea, but give a number of votes that is dependant on the overall number of messages in the story, that way : 1) moderators are not short of votes (since more messages means more points) 2) moderators will not vote upward just to get more votes
Besides I think bad to reduce votes when you vote downward. Cops' wages are not reduced when they arrest bad people, so do not reduce moderators votes when they moderate bad articles.
when you are AC you only are anonymous towards other readers, on the net, noone (but crackers & other out laws) is really anonymous & untraceable.
in fact you think that signing AC means noone can bother you. Can you bother me ? ok, if you break into/. you can find who I really am, but only a few can really do that, and these can also trace you back, even mitnicks has been traced back... so forget the AC protection, it really does not exists
in my country we say you cannot have "the butter & the money of the butter", which means you cannot have all privileges
I consider if you want to be AC, that means you are not ready to totally defend your opinion in front of others, so yes, it is some kind of an under valued idea. I do not say it is less interesting that other ideas, but I do not see why you could have the priviledge to hide your opinion into the mass *and* have to priviledge to trace moderation.
By the way, I consider 400 moderators is wrong, and I would prefer that everybody could vote (no moderation at all).
about anonymousity : when you are AC you only are anonymous towards other readers, on the net, noone (but crackers & other out laws) is really anonymous & untraceable. in fact you
that way there is not elite, there is no rush after points everyone is equal to others & the massive number of people can over balance misuse a few can do
eventually you will not have more threads with high scores (that should not) with that system than in the elitist-moderators system and the difference is you are sure there is no ego (and no one fired because he talled he is moderator), and you are sure high scores are really appreciated by plenty of people
that's democracy;-)
maby we'll have some place in the virtual world were we can have democracy... since it does not exist in real world (driven by elites)
and if you suppress registered accounts to only have ACow, you have the first communist virtual community;-)
(only kidding about communism, not about democracy by mass voting...)
however, I would suggest that only moderated messages from registered accounts would be traceabled. Why not every moderation act ? because I think that when you read every day/. and when you participate, for free, you are given some trust. Then you must show some trust in return, and register.
since there is no fee, since there is no criteria of selection upon registration, it is only *your* choice to register or not, therefore, it is fair that if you want anonymity, then you get less rights than others
It would be interesting to give your own message (when you write it) a base score lower that the standard own.
For instance, you reply some funny thing, but you know it will not be very appreciated by the more serious people, or you do not want to be over flamed, then you can say your message is not that interesting...
Slashdot Mirror
1/ population increased (ok that does not explain * 200 increase). I am curious to know what was english population in 1920 ? It is something like 70M people by now, no ?
2/ firearms simply are easier to grab, beacause their number & price. Everyone knows laws do not enforce anything (see US prohibition & alcoohol biz).
but maybe I am wrong. When you write "20 armes crimes in London" is it "20 firearms" ?
Anyway, you miss the point. By forbidding weapons you make it harder to criminals to find weapons and you greatly limit kids having & using weapons. Usage of firearms in middle of towns are rather limited in europe. I am told it was not in some places in US.
kids killed in US
;-)
kids killed in Ireland
Lots of Irish in US
The cause & the effect are known...
Irish are the real responsible !
ok I'am just kidding
I just wanted to point out that for most of people who claim guns are against dictators, they do not see they can be ruled by dictators or something very close, very for them to see it or even to oppose to it. When Intel wants to put some ID in its chips, that's dictator ship or it will please any dictotorial state. But many people think (not me) that it is a good thing cause it help to protect buz & it helps people not to be stolen their Banking card number (or they think so...)
I want to point out that guns to have freedom is an outdated argument.
I just wanted to point out th
We get US cartoons, ;-)
we get US music,
we get US junk food,
we get US films,
we get US games,
we get US net (Internet),
so now we have to get US slaughters...
what's next ?
It's a right to carry a weapon to protect yourself, but not to have high level protection of your data by encryption.
Nowadays your main danger is not a dictator takeover, that's an administrative state that goes into Big Brotherhood. You have the right to have a weapon, but not to protect your personnal data against the state. In this information society, that means you are at the mercy of the state.
Remind the Decency Act and the tries to put chips that FBI (or others) can decrypt with no problem... Ok these did not pass, but more and more pression are made to force these. How long will it take to transform US into "1984" ?
Therefore, whether people who claim guns is a good right are dumb, or they do not see the real danger. There is no dictators danger in US.
"Let's see now, HOW many times have" you read an history book about other countries than yours ? Not all countries in the world are dictators driven. When you don't know think, please shut up.
And I prefer a country where I can go to school without fearing to be shoot even though though one dictator appears in it once in the century... and stays there for 4 years (World War 2 was last time in western europe).
It's simply a matter of fact that US have more people kill by firearms than any other "democratic" country in the world (in proportion). A few years ago in france a guy got hostages in a primary school (3-4 years old kids). The outcome was he was killed by police when they went in and no hostage had been hit in any case. In US it would have ended into a bloodshed... This is not hyper-hyped stuff, this is only that nowhere else kids have killed tens of scholars taht way...
Give people a car, they'll crash into wall and run over people. Give guns to kids, some will use them on other kids...
This is not insulting or attacking US citizens to say that.
About dictators, having gun will not help anything. For one century, in western Europe there have been only 2 dictators (mussolini & hitler). At that time, many people had rifles (manly farmers). That did not help to get rid of these dictators. This is the same with Molosevich : his people did not throug him. The problem with democracies is that when a dictator appears, he do not enforce his power by submitting every people, he manupilate people so that citizens vote for him. In that case, your guns will not help you. If you believe what your chief says you have no reason to attack him. And for having weapons to protect your country against invaders... Who can attack US ?
No having guns is not a good think. And reasons given are false.
Then I miss Win9x look.
I hate MS (because of their marketing behaviour and the lots of bugs they introduce), but I have to confess 2 things :
1/ they're the best at marketing
2/ their interface has a great look, even though it my be unstable (BTW when I switch from console mode with mouse to KDE it often kill X and everything that is working in it... ok the OS is not frozen but I lose everything...)
In fact I very much like w98 interface. Ok I did not try E or WindowMaker yet...
For me the difference between MS-win apps and linux apps is I feel MS-win have generally a more professionnal layout (with reasons...)
ok please do not flame. You geeks can only look at features etc, but that's Linux problem : people who use it are generally geeks looking mainly at features, and they focus less on the look. Ask yourself why IMAC sold so well ? Not because of its features, but because of its look.
And as far as I am concerned I prefer MS-win look.
people say "if you change GUI it's hard etc..." The fact is in 96 MS changed completely its GUI from win31 to win95. And later with the integration of IE it changed a bit. And before there was DOS...
In fact the idea of learning curve is stupid. Any incompetent or new user will adapt to a new GUI. MS did it, why not Linux ?
Moreover, at work we haven't finished to move win311 users to winNT4 (win95 interface). And people do not create problems with it.
In fact the problem is not GUI, it is the application itself. Give Word running under Linux to people used Word running under w95. It's ok. Give them another word processor and there are problems, and even give them word 97 and problems appear... Users do not modify their working space, or if they have the skill to do so, then they are good enough to cope with anything new.
The learning curve about new GUI is a false problem, of course if you give a one button mouse to a w95 user he may have problems... But I am sure even non skilled users can adapt even Motif & the like WMs.
you walk out the hardware store & get out with no Linux distro, because Linux is in every device ROM and everywhere.
When you'll have no more kernel because kernel is totally integrated with hardware, then that's world domination, because noone can then kick it out...
1) this article does not say many things about why Red Hat selling free software is a fraud. Of course the main argument is obvious. But the article is a bit short to be really valuable.
;-)
2) anyway, it seems to me that Michels is only afraid of Linux selling model, since RH begins to be attacked here and there (or at least some people look at it with attention), then it is easier for SCO to attack it. Michels will not attack a smaller / RH competitor... You always attack the bigger... when the bigger is not anymore the most appreciated... like Windows
3) Michels should read the license. Even though it might be considered unethical by some people to sell the free work of others, that's legal given GPL. Therefore Michels' claim has no basement. There is no fraud.
Michels should have think before he talked. Now he appears dumb. That's not good advertisement for him...
who wants to filter not only on scores but on names ?
;-))
ok, this is just to write it, since I don't read authers'name, therefore I cannot tell what that guy wrote... The only very name I know is Cmdr's one
did I miss a point ? this is not because I prefer some idea over another that I missed the other ;-)
/. for a few weeks now, and plenty of comments seemed to be very interesting. Ok a common background is pro-Free Soft or at least a seek of alternative. People who do not share that spirit are very few. However, I am not sure pro-Linuxes are the majority, and even though I am wrong, only a minority of them are immature enough to vote for ideas only.
:-) I prefer real democracy (one that never existed on earth) over elitist monarchy, because in fact this is not me who choose these moderators who are supposed to be my representatives
ok I understood the pb with massive filtering (if I did not I would have writen to read to argument of mark which is close to yours)
however, I prefer to be under the tyrany of many rather than being subject to the tyrany of a few
1) besides if I only have 1 tenth of vote for 50 messages in the story, I will choose carefully what I vote for
2) moreover, if the cost increases with current score, it will be harder to reach highest score (read example bellow)
3) last argument : ok some people are immature, but how many are matuire enough ? Im reader
4) Very last argument
ex. : There are 120 messages in the story, it gives me only 2 tenth of votes (0.2 votes). I can vote only 0.1 at a time.
If a message has score 1 and I vote 0.1, its score becomes 1.1, it is considered as score 1 by filters
If a message has score 1.9 and I vote 0.1, its score becomes 2, it is considered as score 2 by filters
But when score goes higher, it becomes more difficult to vote : a message has score 2.9 and I vote 0.1. But that gives not 0.1 but 0.05 to the score, that becomes 1.95, it is considered as score 1 by filters
Score -5 to 1 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.1 score
Score 1 to 2 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.1 score
Score 2 to 3 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.05 score
Score 3 to 4 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.03 score
Score 4 to 5 : 0.1 vote gives + 0.02 score
therefore you need :
10 votes to reach score 2 from score 1
30 votes to reach score 3 from score 1
60 votes to reach score 4 from score 1
110 votes to reach score 5 from score 1
of course that's just an example...
read the "Neato!" thread & what I proposed & what Mark Evans replied
His point is not totally false, the question is what dictature/tyrany do we want ?
1) after replying to a msg, is it necessary to display the msg ? It's too late to change it, and I personnally never read it
;-(
2) therefore I propose that while sending a reply I may choose between displaying the resulting message, or returning to the message I replied to, or to the top of the story, or even to www.slashdot.org
that way you can even reduce the load of the server since I do not have to do Back()
3) another thing... but I forgot it...
4) Ahh ! yes ! even when I filter messages, Is it possible to know how many replies exist in the whole thread ? If I filter score 3 or more & I know there are 100+ score 2 and 500+ score 1 messages in the thread, I may be interested in looking what is inside (but I also want the possibility not to load the whole page, but only the thread at the given temporary score). I mean I filter score 3 messages & I see there are 100+ score 2 messages. Then I click on the button "view thread closer" & I load a new page with only these messages which are one score lower than the current filtering (that is score 2+ messages). Note this does not change my default filtering for other pages...
Was that clear ?
should be filtered...
please some moderator reduce the score of my test msg : -1score
;-)
and you reader try to read filter it
if you give every registered account (no more moderators) only a few votes per story (% of the number of messages ? only a small number per day ? ... )
People will not increase by one , but by tenth of points. Meanning 10 people must vote upward for the message to win one rank.
that way you are sure :
1) AC will not unbalance the whole system
2) what can be done by one can be undone by many, so that the overall score stands for not the judgement of a few, but the judgement of many
3) you have a really democratic behaviour
4) you are sure there is no abuse, and therefore noone to be penalised
if you give a voting pool that refreshes when people vote upward, they will vote upward for many replies, just to have votes (human nature is greedy).
however the voting pool by itself is a fine idea, but give a number of votes that is dependant on the overall number of messages in the story, that way :
1) moderators are not short of votes (since more messages means more points)
2) moderators will not vote upward just to get more votes
Besides I think bad to reduce votes when you vote downward. Cops' wages are not reduced when they arrest bad people, so do not reduce moderators votes when they moderate bad articles.
when you are AC you only are anonymous towards other readers, on the net, noone (but crackers & other out laws) is really anonymous & untraceable.
/. you can find who I really am, but only a few can really do that, and these can also trace you back, even mitnicks has been traced back... so forget the AC protection, it really does not exists
in fact you think that signing AC means noone can bother you. Can you bother me ? ok, if you break into
in my country we say you cannot have "the butter & the money of the butter", which means you cannot have all privileges
I consider if you want to be AC, that means you are not ready to totally defend your opinion in front of others, so yes, it is some kind of an under valued idea. I do not say it is less interesting that other ideas, but I do not see why you could have the priviledge to hide your opinion into the mass *and* have to priviledge to trace moderation.
By the way, I consider 400 moderators is wrong, and I would prefer that everybody could vote (no moderation at all).
about anonymousity : when you are AC you only are anonymous towards other readers, on the net, noone (but crackers & other out laws) is really anonymous & untraceable.
in fact you
that way there is not elite, there is no rush after points
;-)
;-)
everyone is equal to others & the massive number of people can over balance misuse a few can do
eventually you will not have more threads with high scores (that should not) with that system than in the elitist-moderators system
and the difference is you are sure there is no ego (and no one fired because he talled he is moderator), and you are sure high scores are really appreciated by plenty of people
that's democracy
maby we'll have some place in the virtual world were we can have democracy... since it does not exist in real world (driven by elites)
and if you suppress registered accounts to only have ACow, you have the first communist virtual community
(only kidding about communism, not about democracy by mass voting...)
give power to people
/. and when you participate, for free, you are given some trust. Then you must show some trust in return, and register.
however, I would suggest that only moderated messages from registered accounts would be traceabled. Why not every moderation act ? because I think that when you read every day
since there is no fee, since there is no criteria of selection upon registration, it is only *your* choice to register or not, therefore, it is fair that if you want anonymity, then you get less rights than others
It would be interesting to give your own message (when you write it) a base score lower that the standard own.
For instance, you reply some funny thing, but you know it will not be very appreciated by the more serious people, or you do not want to be over flamed, then you can say your message is not that interesting...
that's the unix "nice" command