Why are you working with row numbers instead of ORDER BY and comparisons to a sortable key?
Why not? Lets say that I want the second page of 10 results from a query. If I told you that the query results were sorted by tablefoo.date, what query would you use to get results 10-20?
using basic SQL and you only need to pull a couple records at a time.
Please, tell us how to pull "a couple records at a time" using only basic SQL.
I use postgres's "SELECT.... LIMIT x OFFSET y;" everyday. I used to use mysql back when they used "LIMIT y, x", though now they're supporting LIMIT/OFFSET for "compatibility with postgres".
Oracle basically appears to be "create a cursor, move the cursor forward y rows, then read x rows". Or you can use the SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY somefield) AS rownum... WHERE rownum>y AND rownum<=x+y... on recent versions. Without the OVER (ORDER BY...), Oracle would basically select x unsorted rows in the WHERE clause and sort only those x rows.
Microsoft SQL server has a SELECT TOP x... command, but no "offset". Googling, it looks like it takes several nested queries to pull that off, and then only if you're lucky. The MSDN site declares that the "official way" is to keep track of the last result from the previous set and do a SELECT TOP x... WHERE sortedidfield>previousresult which requires that the sorted field be UNIQUE, or else you might miss some if they didn't all fit on one page in the first place.
you could put in a block in your paycard to prevent yourself from
Well now, thats different.
Anyways, I think this is a good idea provided that the parents understand this isn't a magic bullet. It allows the parents to extend their control over their children while they're in the care of the school without forcing the entire school to submit to the few loudmouthed parents at the PTA meetings.
Now if only parents could go online and decide whether little Timmy or Tammy will learn about creationism or evolution that day...
OK, as someone else pointed out before, the strict anti-DRM provisions are gone, but really, when has the GPL ever been pro-DRM? If you wrote a music player that could read a DRMed file and it was licensed under the GPL (why? Perhaps because the company that wrote it decided to save $500 and use some GPLed audio code instead of hiring an intern to write their own, then was forced to open the code while screaming and crying about "viral licenses" and "unfair competition".) then anyone could take that code and do whatever they wanted with it, including 1) make it play non-DRMed files 2) make it play DRMed files that you didnt own 3) make it play DRMed files to an mp3 encoder instead of a speaker 4) make it decrypt the file without re-encoding it and so on.
The only dorks involved in this issue are the ones who couldn't be bothered to read the license and simply assumed they could reuse whatever code they could find, and are frankly lucky they're not getting sued for millions of dollars for reusing microsoft code they got off the internet.
Has it ever occurred to you that the founding fathers might be wrong
Then we declare the "Great Experiment" a failure, change the name, and start over.
Yes, I am advocating the federal government becomes a mostly hands-off treaty organization holding nearly no power over member states.
Of course, what's funny is that if you read the constitution and try not to believe that every little thing possible is crammed into the interstate commerce clause, then that's pretty much what the founding fathers intended in the first place. Maybe the experiment isn't quite over yet;)
How much data can you transfer on your "unlimited" internet account before your account is throttled or suspended for "excessive" or "unreasonable" usage? Can you find that number in your contract? Can you call the ISP and ask for that number? How can I compare ISPs and "vote with my wallet" when they won't tell me everything I need to know about their service so that I can select one that meets my needs?
If the companies open pandora's box and begin to unleash that darkness and destruction on the internet, how do I find the ISPs where I can get access to the sites I want? Do you think Comcast is going to put in their marketing material "Google! Now only 25% as fast as everyone else!" Will SmallTownDialup tell me that they actually just resell ATT so they're stuck with whatever ATT decides? No? Then all the companies are doing is competing on who tells the best lies.
Of course, someone like Dada21 would claim that this would allow a new market to form for "Consumer Reports"esque companies that you can pay to cut through all the bullshit for you, complete with companies forming to rate those companies. Personally, I'd prefer to demand that the companies not lie to me, but even if I became king of the world and told the companies who's boss, how would I know they're not lying when they tell me they aren't lying? I guess until we get some kind of corporate lie detector, we'll have to settle for the better liar.
Re:Positively fantastic news
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
Er, because that's the point of the original article?
Where does it say that companies will charge patients less for insulin now? All I see is that it will cost less to make insulin.
don't feel the slightest need to have mommy or daddy keeping track of my financial affairs to make sure I don't hurt myself.
Oh no, if they charge more than another brand of insulin they won't get you as a customer. I'm sure they're so sad. There's plenty of little Timmys and Janes whose mommies will buy anything to make them better.
Even so, all they have to do is charge the exact same price as everyone else and pocket their huge profits. I doubt they'll charge more than anyone else for the reason that people like you do exist. What are you going to do when your weeks of research tell you that they're all the same? Compare the production costs and say "oh my god these people are making money! I'll have to choose a different one!" or just accept it when the doctor tells you this is the latest and greatest drug?
Your tirade about the abdication of responsibility in modern America is very nice, but it still doesn't change the fact that the price the consumer pays for insulin is not controlled by the cost of production, and will not drop just because of a drop in the cost of production.
Re:Positively fantastic news
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
the cheaper new version
I don't understand why people continue to insist that there will be a cheaper new version. The price of a prescription drug has no bearing on its market at all. The market is established by prescription only. There is almost no reason for the company to charge less for the insulin. Now, I'll give you the HMO bit, the largest HMOs probably do have the clout to force the price of the insulin down should they try to charge the current market rates for this "cheap" insulin, but I'm sure the contracts they negotiate will only affect the patients on those HMOs, and full price will continue to be charged to everyone else.
being evil and corrupt and in the pay of big pharma
Next time you see your doctor, walk in and ask the doctor what insurance you have. Chances are unless you're on medicaid or medicare, he or she will have to dig through all the papers in the chart to find where the receptionist photocopied your card and shoved it in there. They probably couldn't tell you whether a given service was or was not covered by your insurance unless its something esoteric nobody covers. Most doctors figure that the billing and money aspects are not their concern. That's what they hire receptionists and billing staff for, after all. This isn't really about corruption, the pharma rep can just come in and tell the doctor that this new insulin is the newest development in the fight against diabetes and it's safer than pig insulin, and he'll most likely prescribe it because it's newest and "therefore best", no kickbacks needed.
Sure, if they try to charge more than existing insulins, then a patient who knows that alternatives exist might mention it to the doctor, who will almost certainly recite the pharma rep's litany of why their drug is better as justification for having selected that drug in the first place.
Re:Positively fantastic news
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
No one is going to change suppliers from the established companies to the new company unless they have a reason, and the only possible reason this new company can give them -- since the product is identical -- is a lower price.
Huh? Nobody goes out and just buys a drug for the hell of it, not legally anyway. Doctors prescribe drug X to a patient. Lots of doctors don't even care what X costs to the patient, maybe it's the only drug that will do, or maybe they just assume the patient has insurance that will cover it. Therefore people buy drug X, not because it was cheaper, but because thats what the doctor prescribed to them, and if they don't get it, they die.
Now, clearly there must be some reason for the doctor to prescribe drug X when there are already alternatives, right? That's where the multibillion dollar marketing campaigns come in. Drug companies spend many times more convincing doctors to prescribe their drugs than developing them in the first place, anything from giant boxes of free samples, to catered lunches for the entire staff, and whatever other trinkets.
No, if safflower insulin wants to sell for ten times the price of other brands of insulin, all they have to do is convince the doctors, not the patients, though they could get bonus points for showing that it's safer than pig insulin or the current engineered bacteria that produce it.
Re:Positively fantastic news
on
Growing Insulin
·
· Score: 1
a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
You mean in 16 years when the patent expires and anyone can do it, right?
Most likely they'll charge the exact same as everyone else (ie, at least as much as the insurance companies will pay) and not one cent less. (And people whine that the government distorts the market...)
How about as opposed to a neutral net as it has been for decades before greedy corporations started clawing at each other in the race to be the first to open Pandora's box and screw everything up for the illusion of profit?
Let me go into more detail on why this is a false dichotomy. I'll skip the government side, since we've all already heard about the tubes and the internets, and I'll go with the "free market side":
This is not a market situation. The telecom wants to charge entities that have no relationship whatsoever with the telecom. Since I'm bored with road analogies, I'll try something different: Mastercard. What the telecoms are doing now is like the CEO of Wal-Mart waking up and saying "you know, we are the largest retailer in the world. Millions of dollars pass through our registers every day. Mastercard should be thankful to be part of those millions." then calling up Mastercard's CEO and saying "Look, I know that we've done business the same way for decades, but here's the new rules. Instead of us paying you 2% every time someone swipes a Mastercard, you're going to pay US 2%. If you don't pay, we'll quit taking your card, no skin off our back, but isn't it kind of hard for you to make money if nobody charges anything?"
So what are mastercard's choices here? There is no "market force" between Wal-Mart and Mastercard. Mastercard is not going out and buying cheap shoes and edited DVDs, their cardholders are. Mastercard's choices are pretty limited: say no to Wal-Mart or eat the charge. They can try to mitigate the latter through education "Hey cardholders! K-Mart is awesome!" but once Wal-Mart has opened this can of worms, everything gets worse: customers of Wal-Mart get less choice in payment methods, Wal-Mart loses money from those who only carried a Mastercard and chose to change stores, and Mastercard loses money from those who gave up Mastercard to keep shopping there. "The only winning move is not to play."
But the Wal-Mart CEO retires with a $60M bonus before anyone notices he tried to scuttle the ship.
If this comes to pass in the internet, I think no amount of government intervention will turn back the clock and make everything better, any more than trying to use a tiny bandaid on a sucking wound. Likewise, the "free market" will not work it out, since there is nothing to work out with the actual market participants. BellSouth et al won't tell their customers that the sites they visit are being charged by the telco, and even if they did, most customers wouldn't care.
I've previously advocated and continue to advocate the education tack: If BellSouth wants to degrade google if they don't pay up, google should put up a page advising users to switch ISPs ("14 Results for ISP in...";) or their network performane to google will suffer. Sure, some people will just switch to Yahoo or some other site, and other people will switch ISPs (if they're lucky and there is a local ISP that isn't simply reselling a BellSouth/ATT/etc connection). Likewise, if ISPs want to charge iTMS or Amazon, then they should post a prominent page indicating that ATT has a surcharge to all purchases on the site, and post a line on their invoice with an "ATT Charge" and ATT's support number if they have any questions.
A self-maintained database of prior art that will actually hold up in court (proof of claimed dates, etc) is extremely difficult and it's actually easier to just patent something.
Not to mention the fact that by the time you're sitting around in court trying to prove this, the meter has begun to run on the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to defend yourself from a patent in court.
Definately far better to have the patent in your hand than holding decades of prior art.
it would not affect you or anyone you will ever know
So what you're saying is that if I'm investigated for paying $6500 to that evil jihadist organization known as Mastercard (aside: this predates all the right wing boohoohoo over the NYT coverage of "bank-tapping". Who needs "terrorist-loving" liberals when the Republicans' government is fully capable of blowing its own foot off?) that it doesn't "affect me" to have my payments frozen? It doesn't "affect me" to have the Men in Black come around my office and ask my boss how I'm doing and whether he knows what I'm doing in my free time? It doesn't "affect anyone I will ever know" to have the process repeated with everyone I've called or my relatives?
I don't have any confidence in your statement. At all.
The government still requires some sort of evenence to begin an investigation.
Sorry, couldn't hear you over my Hoover. Could you repeat that again? Sounded like you said something about idealism and flying rainbows.
I don't agree that this is all there was to the separation of church and state. The separation protects the church as much as it does the state... remember that many of these people came from a country whose king destroyed an entire religion just to get a divorce. Nowadays, I suspect that a lot of Christians who backed the "religious" right now are beginning to discover that old adage about lying down with the dogs.
1) Developing intelligence to interdict terrorist acts.
You know, I'm in the wrong job. I should be selling magic terrorist-detecting crystals to the government. I'd make billions, and if anyone questions whether or not they work, I can just scream "terrorist sympathizer" and the Bush sheeple will rush in to save me.
I bet the anti-ACLUies will be all over this. For about 30 minutes, then they'll go back to talking about how businesses have the right to control their employee's lives off the clock, and universities can ban their students from using certain websites.
You are right, the added complexity is itself a weakness both in terms of policy and actually implementing the thing. It could easily be done just like all the other mods are now, though I think for the entire change to be worthwhile, at a minimum it should not be cancelled by a reply so that the user can both flag a post as incorrect and explain why it is incorrect. (I still like my full, complex idea though)
As far as "where do we stop", the answer is really "we go as far as we need to". With the addition of backslash, the tag would assist the editor in selecting posts that are at least not wrong enough that a moderator could tell. Of course, perhaps in pratice it will be abused too much (what does the editor do if everyone's Wrong?), or the people who know the post is wrong are not the ones who have mod points, but the only way to know what happens in practice would be to try and see. As for mod categories in the future, maybe if they start standup.slashdot.org, we can add a "-1, Not Laughing" mod to be used there;)
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you working with row numbers instead of ORDER BY and comparisons to a sortable key?
Why not? Lets say that I want the second page of 10 results from a query. If I told you that the query results were sorted by tablefoo.date, what query would you use to get results 10-20?
using basic SQL and you only need to pull a couple records at a time.
.... LIMIT x OFFSET y;" everyday. I used to use mysql back when they used "LIMIT y, x", though now they're supporting LIMIT/OFFSET for "compatibility with postgres".
... WHERE rownum>y AND rownum<=x+y ... on recent versions. Without the OVER (ORDER BY...), Oracle would basically select x unsorted rows in the WHERE clause and sort only those x rows.
... command, but no "offset". Googling, it looks like it takes several nested queries to pull that off, and then only if you're lucky. The MSDN site declares that the "official way" is to keep track of the last result from the previous set and do a SELECT TOP x ... WHERE sortedidfield>previousresult which requires that the sorted field be UNIQUE, or else you might miss some if they didn't all fit on one page in the first place.
Please, tell us how to pull "a couple records at a time" using only basic SQL.
I use postgres's "SELECT
Oracle basically appears to be "create a cursor, move the cursor forward y rows, then read x rows". Or you can use the SELECT ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY somefield) AS rownum
Microsoft SQL server has a SELECT TOP x
Surely shear-thickening?
maybe they plan on making bulletproof pantyhose?
How about in your
--
Sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy.
so... what are the qualifications you're looking for?
you could put in a block in your paycard to prevent yourself from
Well now, thats different.
Anyways, I think this is a good idea provided that the parents understand this isn't a magic bullet. It allows the parents to extend their control over their children while they're in the care of the school without forcing the entire school to submit to the few loudmouthed parents at the PTA meetings.
Now if only parents could go online and decide whether little Timmy or Tammy will learn about creationism or evolution that day...
Well, the "public" doesn't get up and work on it, they contract this the works out to the lowest bidder.
You do the math.
A paycheck is all the appreciation that I expect.
If the worth of your life is a paycheck, then I'm sure you're pleased with yourself, and I'm happy for you.
Personally, I believe that I shouldn't have to negotiate with HR for "perks" like "treat me like the human I am".
I'm fairly certain that that cupcake is supposed to be the ZoneAlarm traffic meter from the systray.
OK, as someone else pointed out before, the strict anti-DRM provisions are gone, but really, when has the GPL ever been pro-DRM? If you wrote a music player that could read a DRMed file and it was licensed under the GPL (why? Perhaps because the company that wrote it decided to save $500 and use some GPLed audio code instead of hiring an intern to write their own, then was forced to open the code while screaming and crying about "viral licenses" and "unfair competition".) then anyone could take that code and do whatever they wanted with it, including
1) make it play non-DRMed files
2) make it play DRMed files that you didnt own
3) make it play DRMed files to an mp3 encoder instead of a speaker
4) make it decrypt the file without re-encoding it
and so on.
The only dorks involved in this issue are the ones who couldn't be bothered to read the license and simply assumed they could reuse whatever code they could find, and are frankly lucky they're not getting sued for millions of dollars for reusing microsoft code they got off the internet.
Has it ever occurred to you that the founding fathers might be wrong
;)
Then we declare the "Great Experiment" a failure, change the name, and start over.
Yes, I am advocating the federal government becomes a mostly hands-off treaty organization holding nearly no power over member states.
Of course, what's funny is that if you read the constitution and try not to believe that every little thing possible is crammed into the interstate commerce clause, then that's pretty much what the founding fathers intended in the first place. Maybe the experiment isn't quite over yet
How much data can you transfer on your "unlimited" internet account before your account is throttled or suspended for "excessive" or "unreasonable" usage? Can you find that number in your contract? Can you call the ISP and ask for that number? How can I compare ISPs and "vote with my wallet" when they won't tell me everything I need to know about their service so that I can select one that meets my needs?
If the companies open pandora's box and begin to unleash that darkness and destruction on the internet, how do I find the ISPs where I can get access to the sites I want? Do you think Comcast is going to put in their marketing material "Google! Now only 25% as fast as everyone else!" Will SmallTownDialup tell me that they actually just resell ATT so they're stuck with whatever ATT decides? No? Then all the companies are doing is competing on who tells the best lies.
Of course, someone like Dada21 would claim that this would allow a new market to form for "Consumer Reports"esque companies that you can pay to cut through all the bullshit for you, complete with companies forming to rate those companies. Personally, I'd prefer to demand that the companies not lie to me, but even if I became king of the world and told the companies who's boss, how would I know they're not lying when they tell me they aren't lying? I guess until we get some kind of corporate lie detector, we'll have to settle for the better liar.
Er, because that's the point of the original article?
Where does it say that companies will charge patients less for insulin now? All I see is that it will cost less to make insulin.
don't feel the slightest need to have mommy or daddy keeping track of my financial affairs to make sure I don't hurt myself.
Oh no, if they charge more than another brand of insulin they won't get you as a customer. I'm sure they're so sad. There's plenty of little Timmys and Janes whose mommies will buy anything to make them better.
Even so, all they have to do is charge the exact same price as everyone else and pocket their huge profits. I doubt they'll charge more than anyone else for the reason that people like you do exist. What are you going to do when your weeks of research tell you that they're all the same? Compare the production costs and say "oh my god these people are making money! I'll have to choose a different one!" or just accept it when the doctor tells you this is the latest and greatest drug?
Your tirade about the abdication of responsibility in modern America is very nice, but it still doesn't change the fact that the price the consumer pays for insulin is not controlled by the cost of production, and will not drop just because of a drop in the cost of production.
the cheaper new version
I don't understand why people continue to insist that there will be a cheaper new version. The price of a prescription drug has no bearing on its market at all. The market is established by prescription only. There is almost no reason for the company to charge less for the insulin. Now, I'll give you the HMO bit, the largest HMOs probably do have the clout to force the price of the insulin down should they try to charge the current market rates for this "cheap" insulin, but I'm sure the contracts they negotiate will only affect the patients on those HMOs, and full price will continue to be charged to everyone else.
being evil and corrupt and in the pay of big pharma
Next time you see your doctor, walk in and ask the doctor what insurance you have. Chances are unless you're on medicaid or medicare, he or she will have to dig through all the papers in the chart to find where the receptionist photocopied your card and shoved it in there. They probably couldn't tell you whether a given service was or was not covered by your insurance unless its something esoteric nobody covers. Most doctors figure that the billing and money aspects are not their concern. That's what they hire receptionists and billing staff for, after all. This isn't really about corruption, the pharma rep can just come in and tell the doctor that this new insulin is the newest development in the fight against diabetes and it's safer than pig insulin, and he'll most likely prescribe it because it's newest and "therefore best", no kickbacks needed.
Sure, if they try to charge more than existing insulins, then a patient who knows that alternatives exist might mention it to the doctor, who will almost certainly recite the pharma rep's litany of why their drug is better as justification for having selected that drug in the first place.
No one is going to change suppliers from the established companies to the new company unless they have a reason, and the only possible reason this new company can give them -- since the product is identical -- is a lower price.
Huh? Nobody goes out and just buys a drug for the hell of it, not legally anyway. Doctors prescribe drug X to a patient. Lots of doctors don't even care what X costs to the patient, maybe it's the only drug that will do, or maybe they just assume the patient has insurance that will cover it. Therefore people buy drug X, not because it was cheaper, but because thats what the doctor prescribed to them, and if they don't get it, they die.
Now, clearly there must be some reason for the doctor to prescribe drug X when there are already alternatives, right? That's where the multibillion dollar marketing campaigns come in. Drug companies spend many times more convincing doctors to prescribe their drugs than developing them in the first place, anything from giant boxes of free samples, to catered lunches for the entire staff, and whatever other trinkets.
No, if safflower insulin wants to sell for ten times the price of other brands of insulin, all they have to do is convince the doctors, not the patients, though they could get bonus points for showing that it's safer than pig insulin or the current engineered bacteria that produce it.
a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
You mean in 16 years when the patent expires and anyone can do it, right?
Most likely they'll charge the exact same as everyone else (ie, at least as much as the insurance companies will pay) and not one cent less. (And people whine that the government distorts the market...)
How about as opposed to a neutral net as it has been for decades before greedy corporations started clawing at each other in the race to be the first to open Pandora's box and screw everything up for the illusion of profit?
Let me go into more detail on why this is a false dichotomy. I'll skip the government side, since we've all already heard about the tubes and the internets, and I'll go with the "free market side":
..." ;) or their network performane to google will suffer. Sure, some people will just switch to Yahoo or some other site, and other people will switch ISPs (if they're lucky and there is a local ISP that isn't simply reselling a BellSouth/ATT/etc connection). Likewise, if ISPs want to charge iTMS or Amazon, then they should post a prominent page indicating that ATT has a surcharge to all purchases on the site, and post a line on their invoice with an "ATT Charge" and ATT's support number if they have any questions.
This is not a market situation. The telecom wants to charge entities that have no relationship whatsoever with the telecom. Since I'm bored with road analogies, I'll try something different: Mastercard. What the telecoms are doing now is like the CEO of Wal-Mart waking up and saying "you know, we are the largest retailer in the world. Millions of dollars pass through our registers every day. Mastercard should be thankful to be part of those millions." then calling up Mastercard's CEO and saying "Look, I know that we've done business the same way for decades, but here's the new rules. Instead of us paying you 2% every time someone swipes a Mastercard, you're going to pay US 2%. If you don't pay, we'll quit taking your card, no skin off our back, but isn't it kind of hard for you to make money if nobody charges anything?"
So what are mastercard's choices here? There is no "market force" between Wal-Mart and Mastercard. Mastercard is not going out and buying cheap shoes and edited DVDs, their cardholders are. Mastercard's choices are pretty limited: say no to Wal-Mart or eat the charge. They can try to mitigate the latter through education "Hey cardholders! K-Mart is awesome!" but once Wal-Mart has opened this can of worms, everything gets worse: customers of Wal-Mart get less choice in payment methods, Wal-Mart loses money from those who only carried a Mastercard and chose to change stores, and Mastercard loses money from those who gave up Mastercard to keep shopping there. "The only winning move is not to play."
But the Wal-Mart CEO retires with a $60M bonus before anyone notices he tried to scuttle the ship.
If this comes to pass in the internet, I think no amount of government intervention will turn back the clock and make everything better, any more than trying to use a tiny bandaid on a sucking wound. Likewise, the "free market" will not work it out, since there is nothing to work out with the actual market participants. BellSouth et al won't tell their customers that the sites they visit are being charged by the telco, and even if they did, most customers wouldn't care.
I've previously advocated and continue to advocate the education tack: If BellSouth wants to degrade google if they don't pay up, google should put up a page advising users to switch ISPs ("14 Results for ISP in
Where do you stand?
I'm standing on your false dichotomy, hope the boot in your face doesn't hurt too bad.
A self-maintained database of prior art that will actually hold up in court (proof of claimed dates, etc) is extremely difficult and it's actually easier to just patent something.
Not to mention the fact that by the time you're sitting around in court trying to prove this, the meter has begun to run on the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to defend yourself from a patent in court.
Definately far better to have the patent in your hand than holding decades of prior art.
it would not affect you or anyone you will ever know
So what you're saying is that if I'm investigated for paying $6500 to that evil jihadist organization known as Mastercard (aside: this predates all the right wing boohoohoo over the NYT coverage of "bank-tapping". Who needs "terrorist-loving" liberals when the Republicans' government is fully capable of blowing its own foot off?) that it doesn't "affect me" to have my payments frozen? It doesn't "affect me" to have the Men in Black come around my office and ask my boss how I'm doing and whether he knows what I'm doing in my free time? It doesn't "affect anyone I will ever know" to have the process repeated with everyone I've called or my relatives?
I don't have any confidence in your statement. At all.
The government still requires some sort of evenence to begin an investigation.
Sorry, couldn't hear you over my Hoover. Could you repeat that again? Sounded like you said something about idealism and flying rainbows.
I agree that the cross thing is petty.
I don't agree that this is all there was to the separation of church and state. The separation protects the church as much as it does the state... remember that many of these people came from a country whose king destroyed an entire religion just to get a divorce. Nowadays, I suspect that a lot of Christians who backed the "religious" right now are beginning to discover that old adage about lying down with the dogs.
1) Developing intelligence to interdict terrorist acts.
You know, I'm in the wrong job. I should be selling magic terrorist-detecting crystals to the government. I'd make billions, and if anyone questions whether or not they work, I can just scream "terrorist sympathizer" and the Bush sheeple will rush in to save me.
I bet the anti-ACLUies will be all over this. For about 30 minutes, then they'll go back to talking about how businesses have the right to control their employee's lives off the clock, and universities can ban their students from using certain websites.
Hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
||- Correction: No, he's right and I can prove it (-1, Wrong) by baz
Whoops that last example there I screwed up. This particular post would have gone to (-1, Flamebait) after the Wrong was cancelled.
You are right, the added complexity is itself a weakness both in terms of policy and actually implementing the thing. It could easily be done just like all the other mods are now, though I think for the entire change to be worthwhile, at a minimum it should not be cancelled by a reply so that the user can both flag a post as incorrect and explain why it is incorrect. (I still like my full, complex idea though)
;)
As far as "where do we stop", the answer is really "we go as far as we need to". With the addition of backslash, the tag would assist the editor in selecting posts that are at least not wrong enough that a moderator could tell. Of course, perhaps in pratice it will be abused too much (what does the editor do if everyone's Wrong?), or the people who know the post is wrong are not the ones who have mod points, but the only way to know what happens in practice would be to try and see. As for mod categories in the future, maybe if they start standup.slashdot.org, we can add a "-1, Not Laughing" mod to be used there