My use of Vista is limited to some quick experience with a collegue's laptop, but it is clear to me that it is pretty rough around the edges. Case in point, plug in a flash drive, copy a (very small) file on, select remove drive, it says the drive is in use. Wait 10 seconds, file still in use. I understand the issues with FAT drives and delayed writes, however XP does not show the same issues for similar sized files.
FAT doesn't support delayed writes like NTFS does, so all writes to a FAT drive are immediate. You can just pull a USB flash drive out and walk away once the little light stops flashing. Selecting "remove drive" is asking Vista to perform an unnecessary step. There is no problem here--- unless you're formatting a flash drive with NTFS, in which case that's your problem.
Even if GM did come out with something rivaling the Prius in fuel economy, I'd be hesitant to return to American brands anyway.
I think the advantage GM would have over Toyota would be the sticker price for the Malibu being $5K less than the Prius. Some people are bottom line people. Other are "buy 'merican! yeehaw!" types. A prius-killer Malibu would sell if it were possible to make--- it just ain't.
Now, why didn't Commodore just put a sensor in there, instead of irritating customers? Cost.
Yes, a sensor would've solved the problem, but you're presenting a false dichotomy. Commodore wanted to cut every penny from the design, so they came up with a clever solution. The head alignment issue was wasn't a "screw the customer" move--- they didn't even know it would happen. The alignment thing didn't happen to every drive, only about one in every half dozen. I used to work for C64 game developer. We had drives that lasted YEARS without alignment issues, and ones that wouldn't hold an alignment for more than a couple months. You never could tell.
If all it took was a $2 piece of metal to get 9 more mpg out of a Malibu, don't you think they'd have done it by now?
No, why would you think they would? What is their motivation to spend money they don't have to?
Even taking your 1541 floppy drive story as you presented it, the comparison is flawed. Commodore wasn't getting their ass handed to them by foreign drive manufacturer whose heads didn't go out of alignment. You think GM wouldn't add a $40 part that makes a Malibu get better gas mileage than a Honda Civic? You're out of your gourd! I mean, Commodore had the excuse of razor thin profit margins limiting their ability to redesign their product. How often do car manufacturers redesign their cars? No, they would jump on a modification like that in a heartbeat. They'd have only marketshare to gain and nothing to lose.
The problem with mpg is that it's inverted in terms of gas saved.... say you changed your driving habits in each vehicle and saved 1 gallon during the commute. That is, you saved about $4.10 in gas per day for each of the three vehicles. In terms of mpg, the mileage change looks like this:
So even though the amount of gas and money saved in each car was exactly the same, at first glance at the mpg figures it looks like the hybrid did 28 times better than the SUV.
There's no inherent bias in MPG vs. l/100km. It's fucking math, man. You're creating a fictional problem where none exists. That hypothetical that illustrates the "problem" is ridiculous. While it's possible one could drive an SUV such that you save 1 gallon on your commute, there's no chance in hell you're going to be able to jack a hybrid up from 50mpg to 100mpg unless "change your driving habits" means "got out and pushed it halfway".
No, XP was only a point release of 2000 (i.e. XP = WinNT 5.1, 2000 = WinNT 5.0). Win2K was the merge point. Anyone who was using NT before that remembers the pain of getting DOS/Win3.1 things to run properly under NT 4 (or 3.51!)
You sure sound like one.
You know... a stuck-up snob.
You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist. Polock's "art" was typical of the stupid abstract expressionist movement--- intentionally devoid of representational content. This is the sort of bullcrap that proves that wealthy New York morons will buy anything if you tell them it's cool. Art with all the representational elements removed can be interesting, but Pollock's crap doesn't even have that. As one artist/critic commented, "[I am] astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and VelÃzquez."
Seriously, look at an example. I think even "wallpaper" is a bit generous. I worked at a hardware store once, and the drop cloth by the paint mixing station was more interesting than that.
what gives you the right to kill someone because you're impatient?
Shut up, tard. By that line of reasoning, you effectively help "kill" someone every time you buy a cheap Chinese sweatshop T-shirt instead of a more expensive non-sweatshop one.
Most of what we do, we do on "autopilot", and our consciousness re-orders the stream of events so that we believe we "decided" to do what we did.
Well, we did decide. We just didn't decide right then. We decided to brake for obstacles back when we learned to drive, then consciously reinforced that reaction. The conscious mind is the "after action analyst". The fact that the conscious mind feels like it and its programmed, autonomous slave sub-minds are one and the same is where the "illusion" comes from. Really, the problem is that people keep trying to separate the "conscious" from the "unconscious". It's all wired together.
Their findings challenge conventional notions of choice
I am seriously sick and tired of this notion coming up every time some study or other points out that your "conscious brain" fires up some amount of time after some other part of the brain has already started taking the action. THis shows a complete and utter failure to understand how our brains work. The conscious mind is in control, it's just not consciously "working the levers" every freakin' second. How would you find time to think about anything of consequence if you had to constantly coordinate everything your body does? "OK, now I'm breathing, now I'm moving my eyes to follow the sentence I'm reading, now I'm moving my hand to adjust the lighting on the book...."--- you'd never have the clock cycles to comprehend the material. No, the brain uses a sort of distributed computing. Your conscious mind instructs the autonomous slave sub-parts how to react to certain stimuli, and expects them to do the dirty work while it thinks of more important things (usually sex). That one study that externally manipulated people's brains to make them choose a certain card, then asked them why they chose it, and people always came up with some justification? It's not a lack of free will there, it's just that the conscious mind is accustomed to its "slaves" only doing things it has previously trained them to do. Of course your conscious analytical mind is going to justify the action somehow. An example: If you decide that the next time you see Joe, you're going to punch him, a scientist monitoring your brain the next time you see Joe will find that your "punching brain" acted before your "conscious brain" did. Does that indicate a lack of free will? You'd have to be an idiot to think so. All it indicates is that your "conscious brain" has a number of programmable sub-units at its disposal.
I was not trolling. Just attempting to make a fair comparison. Theft is theft. Whether the property is tangible or not, it is still property.
You're a fucking idiot. Copyright infringement isn't theft, and "intellectual property" isn't property. This isn't just the opinion of a bunch of commie pinko pirates on slashdot, this is the fucking law as stated in the Constitution and US code. A blanket proclamation by a fucktard like you who can't make the distinction doesn't change that. Honestly, how many fucking times has the difference been explained to you on slashdot?
Ever hear of Tower Records? What happened to them? What happened to most of their big competitors? They've pretty much vanished within the last ten years, didn't they?
Wal-Mart happened to the big record chains. Tower and all those other bastards sold CDs at list price. Tower also expanded over aggressively in the 90's. High-volume, low-margin discount sellers is what killed the record chains, not piracy.
Supreme Court trumps a non-binding PR statement stenciled on the sides of police cars. The fact that they don't show up until after the crime has happened pretty much cements that as factual reality.
That may have been true in the civil war, when you had to "look the enemy in the eye" as it were. Today? Who knows? Especially with the presence of precision artillery and air strikes, it might be all too easy to rationalize away an attack on other Americans (example: classifying the attackers as "terrorists" or "insurgents").
There ain't no such thing as "precision" air strikes and artillery strikes. Furthermore, not being able to see "the whites of our eyes" wouldn't prevent the soldiers launching those attacks from knowing that they're dropping high explosives on the corner of frickin' Main and Elm Street. Ain't no foreigners there, just regular americans, and they'd know it.
As for the parent post, The military takes an oath to uphold and protect the constitution above all other things. Why this seems a little obvious to me, I should say that I don't think members of the military would sit back and watch this happen while following orders to execute it. It is more likely that good portions of the military would side with the civilians.
As a former member of the US armed forces, I can pretty much guarantee that your analysis is spot-on. It's one thing for the FBI to send a few National Guard yahoos to gas some Wacky Waco cultists, but if they tried to send the 101st ABN division into Hometown USA to put people under martial law, easioly half those guys would say "screw that".
No matter how many guns you've got, the US military has more, not to mention the training and tactics to deploy them effectively.
The military could never be effectively employed as a domestic police force. If things got that bad, a goodly portion of the military would come down on the "other side". The armed populace really needs only worry about the police, fbi, etc. They are the only entities trained and indoctrinated with the idea that the people are the "enemy".
if you're a producer, you also have two options when you pull a barrel of oil out of the ground. You can sell it today on the spot market, or you can sell a futures contract for it and store it until the contract comes due. If the futures price is much higher than the spot price, it becomes worthwhile to invest the money to store the oil. Producers already sell largely on the futures market, under the theory that $60 now is worth more than $65 in 3 months, particularly when the $65 might just turn out to be only $55. The thing about being a producer is, you can sell oil futures without storing the oil in tanks by simply selling a contract on the oil you will be pumping in the future. A barrel of oil you haven't pumped yet is free to store for 3 months until you get around to pumping it.
That's why I said what I said about inventories: It all makes sense if inventories are going up, because that means that the futures market is affecting the present market by causing suppliers to hoard and reduce the supply. Producers don't "hoard" by building inventory, they do it by reducing production. And middlemen won't hoard unless, as you've said, the cost of hoarding is less than the projected profit. The problem with your fixation on lack of rising inventory (hoarding) is that the margin isn't enough to support tankage expenses. So long as the spot price plus storage cost exceeds the future price, there will not be any hoarding. There is a narrow margin in spot vs. future pricing where the price will continue to rise, yet not rise fast enough to make sitting on the oil profitable.
Futures traders can really only drive up the price of the futures, and if they do so, the oil consumers will simply stop buying those futures and start dealing in the short term market. Which is what has happened. The spot market oil the consumers(refiners) are buying is now the "futures" oil from several months ago that has passed through the hands of one or more speculators. The heavy activity in the futures market by speculators has driven the refiners to the spot market, which has pushed the spot market to "keep up" with the futures market. There is such demand in the futures market that producers shift "down" to the spot market is having no real effect on the futures price. All it's doing is making more room in the middle for additional people to get their fingers in the pie. If there wasn't this huge pile of investment money shifting away from the stock market and real estate market to the commodities market, the refiners following the cheaper price would cause the futures price to decline. So long as the speculation is convinced that oil is going to continue to go up, it will continue to go up until demand drops or supply increases.
The only alternative is if the spot market tightens up because sellers are only selling on the more profitable futures market--something that could definitely happen, but it would be accompanied by an increase in inventories or a decrease in oilfield output.
the price in the other market should stay relatively low unless somebody is hoarding the oil so it never makes it into the second market. You seem to be under the impression that the only way to drive up the price on the spot market is to reduce the supply through hoarding. Oil refiners buy the oil no matter what the price is because the market is essentially inelastic. If they were buying X amount at $70/bbl, they're not going to suddenly going to say "screwit, we're only buying (X/2) at $140/bbl". They buy it at whatever the best price is, and charge the end user accordingly. Oil flows through the system at the same rate as always--- there are just more dollars fighting over the middleman position, driving up the price.
I can't say that I'm keeping track of oil inventories too closely, but I haven't heard anything about any such growth. If the only thing that's changed is the quantity of investment money chasing after a relatively fixed amount of oil production, why would inventory increase? So long as the increased cost can be pushed onto end users and the end users maintain their consumption levels, where would the extra oil to stockpile come from? The oil is just going through the hands of more middlemen, essentially.
If you're a speculator, you likely have no interest in taking delivery of any oil. You'd rather offload that contract to somebody who will actually use the oil. At that point, the price is determined by what oil consumers are actually willing to pay for the oil. If the market is all speculation, odds are pretty good that you'd lose your shirt in that transaction.
Except that oil consumption by refiners is largely inelastic. They can't just flip speculators the bird and tell them to take delivery of the oil themselves, because the price on the futures market is actually higher. The oil refiners, who used to buy mostly from the long end of the futures market, are being increasingly driven towards the spot market, pushing the spot price high enough to fuel further speculation on the futures side. Repeat until demand drops or supply increases enough to bring the future price back below the spot price.
I'm not sure what Krugman is getting on about with comparing the futures market to betting. He's right when he says placing a bet doesn't affect supply and demand, but the market isn't just betting. Buying futures actually reduces the market availability of those futures in the face of hordes of other investors looking to turn a quick buck after a ruinous downturn in the real estate market. $10mil chasing 100K barrels of oil will very shortly drive the price up to $100. 3 months later, when it sells for $11mil, it then becomes $11mil chasing 100K barrels of oil. Even if the original speculator decides to take profits and bow out, there are three more speculators watching, waiting for their turn to make 10%. This won't stop until either A) demand drops enough, or B) supply rises enough to push the spot market below the original futures price. This will ruin a few large investors and spook the futures market, dropping it back down below the spot price, where it "normally" lives.
by what mechanism is speculation actually affecting the actual delivery price? I am certainly no expert, but as I have heard it explained, the speculation is driving high prices by increasing speculation. Ever-increasing numbers of investors are flooding the commodities markets, driving up the futures prices above the spot price. Actual oil users are therefore buying on the spot market, at the cheaper price, rather than buying for delivery later. As the contracts come due, the spot price rises because the market is inelastic--- the refiners need the oil. The normal limiter of the spot price is a drop in the futures price--- but demand, in the form of speculators, is pushing it ever higher. For every 10 barrels of oil, there are 12 barrels worth of buy orders. Higher prices aren't pushing investors away With ever-rising profits on the futures market, more and more money is being pumped into it, continuously driving up the price. It's a pyramid scheme, essentially, but with so much money being thrown at it that the price is on a long uphill climb.
The theory is that at some point, investors won't be able to afford it beyond a certain price, and the futures price will collapse, returning the market to normal.
"Is ol' Odysseus gonna have to smack a bitch???" He certainly bitch-slapped some folks, that's for sure. I swear, the final battle in his home has any modern action flick beat by a mile. Disguised as a beggar, he shoots the arrow through the axe rings, and all the jackass suitors are, like, "WTF?"... Then he stands up so they can see the breastplate under his rags, and says "Yo bitches, I'm Odysseus, this is MY crib, and you been eatin' MY munchies, and doin' MY ladies! Now all y'all gonna die!" and the dudes, like, freak out and try to run away, but he's LOCKED ALL THE DOORS, so they're all trapped in the room with the baddest-ass motherfucker to survive the Trojan war, and he's got ARROWS for ALL of them!
Yeah, I will relax when I don't get messages with down mods on old articles, and I do months old, not days old.
Dunno who's modding you down, but you can rest assured it's not "maxume". His posts have a base score of 1, which indicates his karma is low. You don't get mod points until you qualify for the "+1 good karma" modifier to your posts, like we do.
Personally, I think ex post facto mod bombers are doing the best thing possible with their mod points: wasting them on a thread that no one is going to look at much anymore, trying to hurt the karma of someone who posts enough [insightful|interesting] stuff that it doesn't matter. Seriously, two "+5, insightful" posts gets you 6 karma points, totally blowing away their measly -5 mod bombing.
That's not how mod points work. You get mod points when you have high karma. You get high karma by saying things mods find worthy of being modded up. If you're posting at a score of 1, then your karma is mediocre. If you really do post as much as you say you do, then you don't say anything of consequence, or you say enough truly stupid things to cancel out the insightful ones.
Heh. "Troll" for you, and "Flamebait" for the GP poster. Christians apparently have no sense of humor around the fact that they get their lessons on ethics and morality from a 2000 year old book of ridiculous mythology.
Slashdot Mirror
My use of Vista is limited to some quick experience with a collegue's laptop, but it is clear to me that it is pretty rough around the edges. Case in point, plug in a flash drive, copy a (very small) file on, select remove drive, it says the drive is in use. Wait 10 seconds, file still in use. I understand the issues with FAT drives and delayed writes, however XP does not show the same issues for similar sized files.
FAT doesn't support delayed writes like NTFS does, so all writes to a FAT drive are immediate. You can just pull a USB flash drive out and walk away once the little light stops flashing. Selecting "remove drive" is asking Vista to perform an unnecessary step. There is no problem here--- unless you're formatting a flash drive with NTFS, in which case that's your problem.
Even if GM did come out with something rivaling the Prius in fuel economy, I'd be hesitant to return to American brands anyway.
I think the advantage GM would have over Toyota would be the sticker price for the Malibu being $5K less than the Prius. Some people are bottom line people. Other are "buy 'merican! yeehaw!" types. A prius-killer Malibu would sell if it were possible to make--- it just ain't.
Now, why didn't Commodore just put a sensor in there, instead of irritating customers? Cost.
Yes, a sensor would've solved the problem, but you're presenting a false dichotomy. Commodore wanted to cut every penny from the design, so they came up with a clever solution. The head alignment issue was wasn't a "screw the customer" move--- they didn't even know it would happen. The alignment thing didn't happen to every drive, only about one in every half dozen. I used to work for C64 game developer. We had drives that lasted YEARS without alignment issues, and ones that wouldn't hold an alignment for more than a couple months. You never could tell.
If all it took was a $2 piece of metal to get 9 more mpg out of a Malibu, don't you think they'd have done it by now?
No, why would you think they would? What is their motivation to spend money they don't have to?
Even taking your 1541 floppy drive story as you presented it, the comparison is flawed. Commodore wasn't getting their ass handed to them by foreign drive manufacturer whose heads didn't go out of alignment. You think GM wouldn't add a $40 part that makes a Malibu get better gas mileage than a Honda Civic? You're out of your gourd! I mean, Commodore had the excuse of razor thin profit margins limiting their ability to redesign their product. How often do car manufacturers redesign their cars? No, they would jump on a modification like that in a heartbeat. They'd have only marketshare to gain and nothing to lose.
The problem with mpg is that it's inverted in terms of gas saved.... say you changed your driving habits in each vehicle and saved 1 gallon during the commute. That is, you saved about $4.10 in gas per day for each of the three vehicles. In terms of mpg, the mileage change looks like this:
SUV - 12.5 mpg -> 14.3 mpg (1.8 mpg improvement) Sedan - 25 mpg -> 33 mpg (8 mpg improvement) Hybrid - 50 mpg -> 100 mpg (50 mpg improvement)
So even though the amount of gas and money saved in each car was exactly the same, at first glance at the mpg figures it looks like the hybrid did 28 times better than the SUV.
There's no inherent bias in MPG vs. l/100km. It's fucking math, man. You're creating a fictional problem where none exists. That hypothetical that illustrates the "problem" is ridiculous. While it's possible one could drive an SUV such that you save 1 gallon on your commute, there's no chance in hell you're going to be able to jack a hybrid up from 50mpg to 100mpg unless "change your driving habits" means "got out and pushed it halfway".
They merged with XP, not 2000.
No, XP was only a point release of 2000 (i.e. XP = WinNT 5.1, 2000 = WinNT 5.0). Win2K was the merge point. Anyone who was using NT before that remembers the pain of getting DOS/Win3.1 things to run properly under NT 4 (or 3.51!)
Are you an art critic?
You sure sound like one. You know... a stuck-up snob.
You don't have to be an art critic to know that Jackson Pollock's true art form was not painting, but rather convincing people that he was an artist. Polock's "art" was typical of the stupid abstract expressionist movement--- intentionally devoid of representational content. This is the sort of bullcrap that proves that wealthy New York morons will buy anything if you tell them it's cool. Art with all the representational elements removed can be interesting, but Pollock's crap doesn't even have that. As one artist/critic commented, "[I am] astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history alongside Giotto, Titian, and VelÃzquez."
Seriously, look at an example. I think even "wallpaper" is a bit generous. I worked at a hardware store once, and the drop cloth by the paint mixing station was more interesting than that.
what gives you the right to kill someone because you're impatient?
Shut up, tard. By that line of reasoning, you effectively help "kill" someone every time you buy a cheap Chinese sweatshop T-shirt instead of a more expensive non-sweatshop one.
Most of what we do, we do on "autopilot", and our consciousness re-orders the stream of events so that we believe we "decided" to do what we did.
Well, we did decide. We just didn't decide right then. We decided to brake for obstacles back when we learned to drive, then consciously reinforced that reaction. The conscious mind is the "after action analyst". The fact that the conscious mind feels like it and its programmed, autonomous slave sub-minds are one and the same is where the "illusion" comes from. Really, the problem is that people keep trying to separate the "conscious" from the "unconscious". It's all wired together.
Their findings challenge conventional notions of choice
I am seriously sick and tired of this notion coming up every time some study or other points out that your "conscious brain" fires up some amount of time after some other part of the brain has already started taking the action. THis shows a complete and utter failure to understand how our brains work. The conscious mind is in control, it's just not consciously "working the levers" every freakin' second. How would you find time to think about anything of consequence if you had to constantly coordinate everything your body does? "OK, now I'm breathing, now I'm moving my eyes to follow the sentence I'm reading, now I'm moving my hand to adjust the lighting on the book...."--- you'd never have the clock cycles to comprehend the material. No, the brain uses a sort of distributed computing. Your conscious mind instructs the autonomous slave sub-parts how to react to certain stimuli, and expects them to do the dirty work while it thinks of more important things (usually sex). That one study that externally manipulated people's brains to make them choose a certain card, then asked them why they chose it, and people always came up with some justification? It's not a lack of free will there, it's just that the conscious mind is accustomed to its "slaves" only doing things it has previously trained them to do. Of course your conscious analytical mind is going to justify the action somehow.
An example: If you decide that the next time you see Joe, you're going to punch him, a scientist monitoring your brain the next time you see Joe will find that your "punching brain" acted before your "conscious brain" did. Does that indicate a lack of free will? You'd have to be an idiot to think so. All it indicates is that your "conscious brain" has a number of programmable sub-units at its disposal.
I was not trolling. Just attempting to make a fair comparison. Theft is theft. Whether the property is tangible or not, it is still property.
You're a fucking idiot. Copyright infringement isn't theft, and "intellectual property" isn't property. This isn't just the opinion of a bunch of commie pinko pirates on slashdot, this is the fucking law as stated in the Constitution and US code. A blanket proclamation by a fucktard like you who can't make the distinction doesn't change that. Honestly, how many fucking times has the difference been explained to you on slashdot?
Ever hear of Tower Records? What happened to them? What happened to most of their big competitors? They've pretty much vanished within the last ten years, didn't they?
Wal-Mart happened to the big record chains. Tower and all those other bastards sold CDs at list price. Tower also expanded over aggressively in the 90's. High-volume, low-margin discount sellers is what killed the record chains, not piracy.
"To serve and protect" -- Police motto.
Supreme Court trumps a non-binding PR statement stenciled on the sides of police cars. The fact that they don't show up until after the crime has happened pretty much cements that as factual reality.
That may have been true in the civil war, when you had to "look the enemy in the eye" as it were. Today? Who knows? Especially with the presence of precision artillery and air strikes, it might be all too easy to rationalize away an attack on other Americans (example: classifying the attackers as "terrorists" or "insurgents").
There ain't no such thing as "precision" air strikes and artillery strikes. Furthermore, not being able to see "the whites of our eyes" wouldn't prevent the soldiers launching those attacks from knowing that they're dropping high explosives on the corner of frickin' Main and Elm Street. Ain't no foreigners there, just regular americans, and they'd know it.
You don't have to go back 230 years. 1946 seems long ago enough.
As for the parent post, The military takes an oath to uphold and protect the constitution above all other things. Why this seems a little obvious to me, I should say that I don't think members of the military would sit back and watch this happen while following orders to execute it. It is more likely that good portions of the military would side with the civilians.
As a former member of the US armed forces, I can pretty much guarantee that your analysis is spot-on. It's one thing for the FBI to send a few National Guard yahoos to gas some Wacky Waco cultists, but if they tried to send the 101st ABN division into Hometown USA to put people under martial law, easioly half those guys would say "screw that".
No matter how many guns you've got, the US military has more, not to mention the training and tactics to deploy them effectively.
The military could never be effectively employed as a domestic police force. If things got that bad, a goodly portion of the military would come down on the "other side". The armed populace really needs only worry about the police, fbi, etc. They are the only entities trained and indoctrinated with the idea that the people are the "enemy".
I'm not sure what Krugman is getting on about with comparing the futures market to betting. He's right when he says placing a bet doesn't affect supply and demand, but the market isn't just betting. Buying futures actually reduces the market availability of those futures in the face of hordes of other investors looking to turn a quick buck after a ruinous downturn in the real estate market. $10mil chasing 100K barrels of oil will very shortly drive the price up to $100. 3 months later, when it sells for $11mil, it then becomes $11mil chasing 100K barrels of oil. Even if the original speculator decides to take profits and bow out, there are three more speculators watching, waiting for their turn to make 10%. This won't stop until either A) demand drops enough, or B) supply rises enough to push the spot market below the original futures price. This will ruin a few large investors and spook the futures market, dropping it back down below the spot price, where it "normally" lives.
The theory is that at some point, investors won't be able to afford it beyond a certain price, and the futures price will collapse, returning the market to normal.
Sheer genius.
Yeah, I will relax when I don't get messages with down mods on old articles, and I do months old, not days old.
Dunno who's modding you down, but you can rest assured it's not "maxume". His posts have a base score of 1, which indicates his karma is low. You don't get mod points until you qualify for the "+1 good karma" modifier to your posts, like we do.Personally, I think ex post facto mod bombers are doing the best thing possible with their mod points: wasting them on a thread that no one is going to look at much anymore, trying to hurt the karma of someone who posts enough [insightful|interesting] stuff that it doesn't matter. Seriously, two "+5, insightful" posts gets you 6 karma points, totally blowing away their measly -5 mod bombing.
I comment far too often to get mod points.
That's not how mod points work. You get mod points when you have high karma. You get high karma by saying things mods find worthy of being modded up. If you're posting at a score of 1, then your karma is mediocre. If you really do post as much as you say you do, then you don't say anything of consequence, or you say enough truly stupid things to cancel out the insightful ones.Heh. "Troll" for you, and "Flamebait" for the GP poster. Christians apparently have no sense of humor around the fact that they get their lessons on ethics and morality from a 2000 year old book of ridiculous mythology.