I think they prioritize the critical review because it's harder to manipulate that score. Fans can artificially affect the audience score by organizing to overwhelm normal votes.
Poe's law: Parody of extremist views are indistinguishable from extremist views. In this case are lots of dumb conservatives who actually believe what the GGP wrote, whether the GGP is one or not is probably moot.
When the budget gets sucked up by interest payments, then people will realize what damage he really did, but it will be too late.
Sadly, I don't think they will. By the time the damage comes home to roost, the Republicans will have a new scapegoat and because the liberal media is "totally fake", their prime voters will only hear their stories. It'll be the democrats fault, just like how they tried to blame Obama for the 2008 meltdown that started before he was elected. Any anger at the Republicans will be channelled into a conservative-controlled group like the Tea Party so that it can be redirected at the Democrats and the whole mess can happen again.
As I understand it, the President was given a short list of candidates by the Republican party, and he is supposed to select the best candidate from that list. Pai may be terrible, but you really need to look at the other candidates too. From what I've heard Pai was the best candidate on the list, which should speak volumes about the people who made up the list.
Sad that those in people have you mouthing like a fool. All those multi-millionaire senators care about you and your family's shittie little lives. Really, they do. The parties are different, not bought and paid for by all the billionaires. Dems support the little guy. Sure they do. Someone need a lollipop, cause I hear a sucka.
And yet here's direct evidence that the Democrats are different than the Republicans and here you are ignorantly trolling with the same tired bullshit. We have clear evidence that the Democrats implemented net neutrality and the Republicans are going to abolish it.
But sure they're exactly the same even though they're doing opposite things.
Not really unexpected. Your philosophy is so right and true that anyone who questions it must die... If you ever got your wish, you'd die in the shadow of a mountain of corpses muttering about disloyalty and wrong-thinkers.
I'm suggesting that if the would-be assailant realizes that beating you isn't going to make any difference to their own ends, they wouldn't bother trying to beat you to death in the first place.
I suspect the kind of assailants who would beat you with a wrench are also the kind that wouldn't realize that you really couldn't unlock the phone until after they've beaten you to death.
Meanwhile, the so called "Net Neutrality" is the same thing by another name.
Why are you posting to Slashdot since you clearly know nothing about technology? Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which was a right to respond to criticism on radio. Net neutrality is about forbidding corporations from charging their users more money to reach certain destinations on the internet or to use certain services. Once your data leaves their network, it shouldn't be any of their god damn business where it goes.
I came here to say this. It's the primary logical fallacy of the article, assuming all foreign students are the "best and brightest"; and by extension, saying cutting off foreign students will hurt the US also assumes that domestic US students are not among the best and brightest, which is a subtle insult.
Not at all. The barrier to entry to go a U.S. university for a foreign student is higher, and they have to be better than the average American student to overcome it. The article also notes that the best American Universities when the American "best and brightest" go are the least affected.
It's utterly inane. What we'll be weeding out are the opposite of the best and brightest; those who really are however will be welcomed.
You're not weeding anyone out. They're choosing to not go to your universities because they no longer think it's worth the cost. You can boast about how great it is that the rest of world thinks you're country is getting worse, if you want to.
America is no shining paragon of virtue in my book, but the decline of American influence is a source of worry because the countries that want to claim that influence are so much worse in so many ways than America is.
Do you have any evidence of a correlation between enrolment and cost? Because without a shred of evidence to back it up, it looks like you've got your trousers around your knees, and trying to sell "lemonade".
So your argument is we need to rob other countries blind of their best people?
Are you saying that these students have no say over where they go to school? They're choosing American universities, no one is being stolen. Hell, the U.S. barely tries to woo any of them, and pretty much doesn't try at all since Trump came into office.
And those that return are irreversibly contaminated with our toxic American culture of white supremacy and racism?
Most of American culture isn't about white supremacy and racism. Though that may be hard to believe in the era of Trumpism.
Exporting American culture to the world needs to come to a screeching halt.
I'm curious would you rather it be American culture, Russian culture or Chinese culture? Because those are big three who have eyes on cultural dominance.
To be overly fair, international students may become illegal immigrants if they don't leave after their education is complete. We know most illegal immigration actually comes from people overstaying their visas. And tighter border security tends to increase the rates of illegal immigration rather than decrease because it discourages people from travelling back to country of origin and they therefore have one fewer reason (and reminder) to renew their papers.
Trump proposed an immigration system that let people in based on merit. Democrats called him racist.
To be fair, Trump's idea of merit included "what country you were born in" and "what religion you believe in". The Democrats are right, Trump is racist, but Trump's immigration plan seemed more unconstitutional and xenophobic than racist.
Earth is going to survive. Once all the humans are dead, everything will gradually return to normal. Humans are arrogant to think they can kill the planet. They can kill themselves and perhaps all life on it but they can't kill the planet.
I'm sure that we could if we really wanted to. Of course, how hard we have to work the kill the planet depends on what you mean by killing it. Killing off all life on the planet? Not too hard, actually. All we need to do is trigger a run-away greenhouse effect that turns the planet into a new Venus. Some people are worried that we're already on the path to doing that. Of course, if you mean destroying the planet by reducing it to an asteroid field (like say the Death Star did) that's quite a bit more challenging. I'm still sure we could do it, but we'd have to do it deliberately and methodically. Maybe weakening the mantle strategically and then using a gigatonnes of nuclear explosions to rip the Earth's core open? I'm not sure that's the best approach but I'm sure it could be done.
I choose to believe that science is not a democracy.
The scientific method is not democratic, but perhaps unfortunately, the acknowledgement and cataloguing of scientific knowledge appears to be. I suppose that's why replication is important. Scientific experiments and even the scientific method are fallible. People can draw the wrong conclusions from experiments. They can design experiments that don't work well, and they can get fluke results. So we need to be able to verify what facts are true, and refine the models that we use to explain the facts in the face of new evidence. However, that's a process that is inherently democratic as it deals with our shared understanding of the universe and the way it works. Of course, it's also a meritocracy, as well, since while everyone could vote on whether a scientific fact is true (and often do, see anti-vaxxers and climate change denial, for example), the scientific community respects the carefully reasoned and explained presentation of facts by experts who have a publication record. And when multiple respected experts agree that a particular fact is true, it becomes accepted as part of the body of knowledge of science. Of course, it is always important to remember that those accepted truth are not sacrosanct. They are not the anointed words of holy men. They can and will be challenged, and occasionally those challenges will overturn an old model or improve upon it. But it is human nature to resist change, so those attempts may be met with undue scepticism, but the application of the scientific method should ultimately reveal the truth.
According to this article, that's not true. The original research apparently didn't do a good job of identifying conservatives or liberals. More recent research finds that political affiliation has no impact on the amount of giving, but rather it impacts the type of giving. Conservatives are more likely to donate to churches and liberals are more likely to donate to secular charities. In the end, that reduces the impact of a lot of conservative charitable giving because around 75% of church donations used to maintain the church. On the other hand, secular charities should be spending 75% or more of the raised funds on the actual charitable work.
There are some excellent stories centered around liberal/socialist/not clear plots to force birth control of some kind on people. Usually it's a disease of some kind that renders 95% of people sterile. Of course there's usually a twist that the right "kind" of people are excluded.
Ferret
It's funny, the clearest example that I can remember of that was written by a Tea Party activist author. Strangely enough in his version all the liberals are bombed from space, and (almost) all the non-whites are killed by a genetically engineered plague that also turns white women blond and into unthinking and insatiable nymphomaniacs. Of course, in his fantasy world, the destruction of all the world's cities, the murder of three quarters of the earth population and turning women into uncontrollable rutting animals triggers the biggest economic boom in history, because apparently the earth only needs rural white conservative men.
I actually wish that was the worst thing about that novel, but the main character was also an unbearable Mary Sue (Gary Stu) and the author became bored halfway through the novel's climactic battle (which wasn't very climatic anyway, because of the Mary Sue) and basically finished with "and then they killed the other half of the alien fleet". Sigh.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they prioritize the critical review because it's harder to manipulate that score. Fans can artificially affect the audience score by organizing to overwhelm normal votes.
Poe's law: Parody of extremist views are indistinguishable from extremist views. In this case are lots of dumb conservatives who actually believe what the GGP wrote, whether the GGP is one or not is probably moot.
Don't forget Canada, it's a bit closer than Europe and has a thriving tech sector.
When the budget gets sucked up by interest payments, then people will realize what damage he really did, but it will be too late.
Sadly, I don't think they will. By the time the damage comes home to roost, the Republicans will have a new scapegoat and because the liberal media is "totally fake", their prime voters will only hear their stories. It'll be the democrats fault, just like how they tried to blame Obama for the 2008 meltdown that started before he was elected. Any anger at the Republicans will be channelled into a conservative-controlled group like the Tea Party so that it can be redirected at the Democrats and the whole mess can happen again.
As I understand it, the President was given a short list of candidates by the Republican party, and he is supposed to select the best candidate from that list. Pai may be terrible, but you really need to look at the other candidates too. From what I've heard Pai was the best candidate on the list, which should speak volumes about the people who made up the list.
Sad that those in people have you mouthing like a fool. All those multi-millionaire senators care about you and your family's shittie little lives. Really, they do. The parties are different, not bought and paid for by all the billionaires. Dems support the little guy. Sure they do. Someone need a lollipop, cause I hear a sucka.
And yet here's direct evidence that the Democrats are different than the Republicans and here you are ignorantly trolling with the same tired bullshit. We have clear evidence that the Democrats implemented net neutrality and the Republicans are going to abolish it.
But sure they're exactly the same even though they're doing opposite things.
Not really unexpected. Your philosophy is so right and true that anyone who questions it must die... If you ever got your wish, you'd die in the shadow of a mountain of corpses muttering about disloyalty and wrong-thinkers.
I'm suggesting that if the would-be assailant realizes that beating you isn't going to make any difference to their own ends, they wouldn't bother trying to beat you to death in the first place.
I suspect the kind of assailants who would beat you with a wrench are also the kind that wouldn't realize that you really couldn't unlock the phone until after they've beaten you to death.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
You know, that sounds a bit like Pol Pot's ideology.
We're not looking to make them change. We're looking to put them down once and for all.
That's good to know, after all nothing says civilized people like murdering everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Good point.
Meanwhile, the so called "Net Neutrality" is the same thing by another name.
Why are you posting to Slashdot since you clearly know nothing about technology? Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, which was a right to respond to criticism on radio. Net neutrality is about forbidding corporations from charging their users more money to reach certain destinations on the internet or to use certain services. Once your data leaves their network, it shouldn't be any of their god damn business where it goes.
You're a brainless animal. Literally and truly, you are not a human being.
That's the way to convince people to change, tell them they're "crazy rabid animals", and then rant about your superiority.
I came here to say this. It's the primary logical fallacy of the article, assuming all foreign students are the "best and brightest"; and by extension, saying cutting off foreign students will hurt the US also assumes that domestic US students are not among the best and brightest, which is a subtle insult.
Not at all. The barrier to entry to go a U.S. university for a foreign student is higher, and they have to be better than the average American student to overcome it. The article also notes that the best American Universities when the American "best and brightest" go are the least affected.
It's utterly inane. What we'll be weeding out are the opposite of the best and brightest; those who really are however will be welcomed.
You're not weeding anyone out. They're choosing to not go to your universities because they no longer think it's worth the cost. You can boast about how great it is that the rest of world thinks you're country is getting worse, if you want to.
America is no shining paragon of virtue in my book, but the decline of American influence is a source of worry because the countries that want to claim that influence are so much worse in so many ways than America is.
And apparently it's already under way.
Do you have any evidence of a correlation between enrolment and cost? Because without a shred of evidence to back it up, it looks like you've got your trousers around your knees, and trying to sell "lemonade".
So your argument is we need to rob other countries blind of their best people?
Are you saying that these students have no say over where they go to school? They're choosing American universities, no one is being stolen. Hell, the U.S. barely tries to woo any of them, and pretty much doesn't try at all since Trump came into office.
And those that return are irreversibly contaminated with our toxic American culture of white supremacy and racism?
Most of American culture isn't about white supremacy and racism. Though that may be hard to believe in the era of Trumpism.
Exporting American culture to the world needs to come to a screeching halt.
I'm curious would you rather it be American culture, Russian culture or Chinese culture? Because those are big three who have eyes on cultural dominance.
To be overly fair, international students may become illegal immigrants if they don't leave after their education is complete. We know most illegal immigration actually comes from people overstaying their visas. And tighter border security tends to increase the rates of illegal immigration rather than decrease because it discourages people from travelling back to country of origin and they therefore have one fewer reason (and reminder) to renew their papers.
Trump proposed an immigration system that let people in based on merit. Democrats called him racist.
To be fair, Trump's idea of merit included "what country you were born in" and "what religion you believe in". The Democrats are right, Trump is racist, but Trump's immigration plan seemed more unconstitutional and xenophobic than racist.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the exploding cost of education, it must be all Trump's fault.
So AC.. Are you saying that now that Trump is president, the cost of education is exploding more than it was when Obama was president?
Earth is going to survive. Once all the humans are dead, everything will gradually return to normal. Humans are arrogant to think they can kill the planet. They can kill themselves and perhaps all life on it but they can't kill the planet.
I'm sure that we could if we really wanted to. Of course, how hard we have to work the kill the planet depends on what you mean by killing it. Killing off all life on the planet? Not too hard, actually. All we need to do is trigger a run-away greenhouse effect that turns the planet into a new Venus. Some people are worried that we're already on the path to doing that. Of course, if you mean destroying the planet by reducing it to an asteroid field (like say the Death Star did) that's quite a bit more challenging. I'm still sure we could do it, but we'd have to do it deliberately and methodically. Maybe weakening the mantle strategically and then using a gigatonnes of nuclear explosions to rip the Earth's core open? I'm not sure that's the best approach but I'm sure it could be done.
I choose to believe that science is not a democracy.
The scientific method is not democratic, but perhaps unfortunately, the acknowledgement and cataloguing of scientific knowledge appears to be. I suppose that's why replication is important. Scientific experiments and even the scientific method are fallible. People can draw the wrong conclusions from experiments. They can design experiments that don't work well, and they can get fluke results. So we need to be able to verify what facts are true, and refine the models that we use to explain the facts in the face of new evidence. However, that's a process that is inherently democratic as it deals with our shared understanding of the universe and the way it works. Of course, it's also a meritocracy, as well, since while everyone could vote on whether a scientific fact is true (and often do, see anti-vaxxers and climate change denial, for example), the scientific community respects the carefully reasoned and explained presentation of facts by experts who have a publication record. And when multiple respected experts agree that a particular fact is true, it becomes accepted as part of the body of knowledge of science. Of course, it is always important to remember that those accepted truth are not sacrosanct. They are not the anointed words of holy men. They can and will be challenged, and occasionally those challenges will overturn an old model or improve upon it. But it is human nature to resist change, so those attempts may be met with undue scepticism, but the application of the scientific method should ultimately reveal the truth.
According to this article, that's not true. The original research apparently didn't do a good job of identifying conservatives or liberals. More recent research finds that political affiliation has no impact on the amount of giving, but rather it impacts the type of giving. Conservatives are more likely to donate to churches and liberals are more likely to donate to secular charities. In the end, that reduces the impact of a lot of conservative charitable giving because around 75% of church donations used to maintain the church. On the other hand, secular charities should be spending 75% or more of the raised funds on the actual charitable work.
There are some excellent stories centered around liberal/socialist/not clear plots to force birth control of some kind on people. Usually it's a disease of some kind that renders 95% of people sterile. Of course there's usually a twist that the right "kind" of people are excluded.
Ferret
It's funny, the clearest example that I can remember of that was written by a Tea Party activist author. Strangely enough in his version all the liberals are bombed from space, and (almost) all the non-whites are killed by a genetically engineered plague that also turns white women blond and into unthinking and insatiable nymphomaniacs. Of course, in his fantasy world, the destruction of all the world's cities, the murder of three quarters of the earth population and turning women into uncontrollable rutting animals triggers the biggest economic boom in history, because apparently the earth only needs rural white conservative men.
I actually wish that was the worst thing about that novel, but the main character was also an unbearable Mary Sue (Gary Stu) and the author became bored halfway through the novel's climactic battle (which wasn't very climatic anyway, because of the Mary Sue) and basically finished with "and then they killed the other half of the alien fleet". Sigh.
Not a fan. But it might be up your alley.