I suppose that you are looking for each post to be moderated in and of itself. They also have to be moderated in the context. If you don't agree with the *AA, or if you take an unpopular view, then you'll have to write bearing in mind that the issue has probably been discussed here, at least a hundred times. Just repeating an unpopular view will not justify a good moderation, even if you are 100% correct. So, yes, a poorly said popular statement will get better moderations. We can't expect much out of the group, before we stop complaining.
You have been modded up. Does that prove you're wrong?
That being said, have either of you bothered to think that English isn't the first language of all moderators? I just taught somebody who is struggling with figures of speech, I think. She kept writing stuff down from a movie, to show me, so that I could help her, and a lot of it didn't make any sense. I said to her, something like, "Are you sure that you put the words on at the bottom, and then copied it?" [i.e. put on the captions], and she kept saying yes. She looked like an absolute moron, but I didn't say anything. Later on, it dawned on me, that our language is built around the ability to redefine something at a given moment. We just have to replace 1 word with another to create a figure of speech, and if our listeners/readers have been participating in the context, then they'll understand without any problems. She was probably copying text from a character who was making fun of somebody. Perhaps the character was joking around, or criticizing somebody. I wouldn't know because the student never bothered writing down the context like I told her to.
Just in case anybody is wondering, she was wondering about something like, "pudge my arms around your neck". I suspect that in the original context [i.e. a Hugh Grant movie], the character was making a humourous recall to an earlier conflict, and saying that she/he had changed her/his mind.
1 thing I noticed about anti-group-think snobs, is that there is never any compelling proof that the critic fell into group think. It's always a criticism of other people followed up by evidence. Criticisms of group think are a prejudiced way of accusing others.
That being said, from own experiences, I was surprised that San Francisco appeared to flag people so often on Craig's List. Being the gay capital of the world, in my mind, I expected them to be a little more tolerant of things [e.g. high prices], but apparently not.
I suspect that people can reach only a certain level of tolerance. After that, they have to start being prejudiced in other areas. It would be like, having a million tolerance dollars, where you could spend it on 1 issue per person. If you wanted to tolerate 2 gays, then that would be 2 dollars. Maybe you want to tolerate 2 gays, a Hindu, a Muslim, WW II vet, and 3 family members, then that should cost you 8 tolerance dollars. It sure looks like you have a lot of money left, but what do you do about the rest of the world, since you only have 1,000,000 tolerance dollars? Well, if your gay friend is a Hindu, then I suppose that you could tolerate him for 1.5 tolerance dollars, but the idea is that you only have so much, before the next guy is considered an intolerant, stranger to you.
Under the proposed tax system that we are discussing, there would be no tax shelters, if I understand correctly. Having a tax shelter would just create another law, which would make the system more complex.
Just for the record, I'm from Canada, and we do have tax shelters, but I'm pretty sure that we do not have 401(k).
Surrey, BC, is like that, but worse. Often times, only 1 side of the street is allowed to walk, even though both sides are parallel. I hate the fact that the light will change anyways, but we aren't allowed to walk. I tried bringing that up, but he must have thought that I was an idiot.
If there is a moral imperative to help Paul, then what should Paul do to prepare his long term needs? You can't force the problem on to people. Some people can't afford to help at all. Others have other moral obligations. Quit acting as if only rich people and the middle class have enough money to help.
That's a very good idea. I'm sure that there might be privacy issues involved, but the fact is that the tax payer gives up privacy information to get his pay cheque.
That's impressive stuff. While watching the introductory video, I began to wonder if it would be a good idea for even normal people to have it. As I type, I begin to realize that it only "allows" for 38 WPM, so maybe not. It just looks so convenient.
That makes more sense than what I was thinking. I wish that we could have some kind of a tax shelter until we take our money out, or something like that.
I don't want to bombard you with a bazillion questions, but you're posting bazillion times, so I guess that you're fair game.;^P
Regarding investments, when I buy and sell stocks, I think of it as putting money in the bank and withdrawing money from the bank, but you said earlier, that we are supposed to pay taxes on the buying and selling of bonds. If I sell $100 of stock to "Lenny", then who pays taxes, if any at all?
Would you please elaborate on donations, specifically to churches? I agree that churches should pay taxes, but I think that a lot of their money is not really church income. So would I pay a sales tax when giving to the church, and then the church would pay a sales tax to spend it on things like plumbing, pencils, carpet, paper, etc.? I support the last tax payment, but not the first.
Would you elaborate on your last paragraph, please? If I buy a used couch, and then take apart all the parts, and then sell the good condition stuff [e.g. the frame], then would anybody need to pay taxes? If I did that to a new couch, then would anybody pay taxes? I figure that a new couch would require taxes, but not a used couch. Maybe the new materials on a refurbished couch, but at that point we're starting to get complex.
I looked at all 3 comics. Good job, whoever made them. Having the different coloured shirts and names really clarifies things for people who need a little visual stuff for learning.
That third comic stumped me, because I didn't do the math properly, but now I get it.
I'm glad that this tax concept is getting more attention on Slashdot, because, theoretically speaking, poor people can profit. I'm disappointed that people still argue against it.
I like using the left hand to mouse, because it frees the right hand to use the keyboard, while I point and click. This makes it easier to fill in simple forms. Of course, you could do that vice versa, but at least you have options.
Maybe your videos are different, but I have found with the DVDs from Zip.ca, you can do what you suggested, or press the menu button, or just press the next chapter button. I discovered the latter by accident. I was surprised that I did not get sent to the next ad.
I think that every video is different, and I encourage others to try my suggestions.
No, I meant before grade 7. The article, that I'm thinking of, as crazy as it seems, said that boys could pick it up easily in grade 7, and that they were not really ready for it until then. I know. It sounds crazy. I'm not defending the view. I'm just adding it to the discussion.
As for those who want to do math, I'm very confident in the nerd community's ability to produce a great text book that fits all standards, and that could be licensed to the Creative Commons. I believe that Math is 1 of the few subjects that most people can do via correspondence.
Even learning an instrument is easier these days because of YouTube. Most my music practise is done with a web browser and a PDF viewer [and not while using an actual instrument], and I'm preparing for intermediate-advanced level music that will be played in an actual concert.
Well, changing things after age 14 would still save us some money. I remember being taught quadratic equations after age 14. We don't need those. Exponents don't seem useful. I'm sure that there are more.
I seem to remember reading about how boys don't need to be taught much math until grade 7. If we could cut math out of all those years, and still keep the students well prepared for life, then I'd say that we did a good job.
approach to fighting malaria. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from country to country before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (*) It is defenseless against guys who squash good mosquitoes before they have a chance to reproduce (*) It will stop mosquitoes for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (*) Eaters of mosquitoes will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it (*) The police will not put up with it (*) Requires too much cooperation from environmentalists ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (*) Anyone could anonymously pretend to release good mosquitoes, but actually release infected mosquitoes
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it (*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for diseases and animals (*) Stagnant water in foreign countries (*) Asshats (*) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (*) Public reluctance to accept weird new things (*) Willingness of people to vaccinate mosquitoes (*) Swarms of mosquitoes that refuse to be captured (*) Evolution of malaria (*) Extreme profitability of malaria (*) Technically illiterate politicians (*) Dishonesty on the part of mosquitoes themselves ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (*) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored (*) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (*) Why should we have to trust you? ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) I don't want the government killing my mosquitoes (*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. (*) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! I have nothing against you. I'm just a bad person.
Furthermore, this is what I think about me:
(*) I didn't read the article (*) I probably agree with you, but I wouldn't know, because I just copied and pasted this to make myself feel as if I have heard all the arguments before
I tried turning off the Flash cache and cookies, and it seems to work better. I find it odd that I suddenly got different Flash ads. I'm not complaining, though. I also tried getting rid of the disk cache, which seems to help, also.
Thank you, so much.
1 thing that I noticed is that if I load too many pages with Flash, then a lot of those videos stop working. I have to reload the page, if I want to watch the video again. Anybody know anything about that?
I think that it is a lot like emphasis, in that it slows you down, without confusing you [e.g. foobar]. I think that this is good news. I will start using more fonts to help readers glide over useful but unnecessary material, and then slow them down, when they get to the meatier parts of the text that they came for.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that you are looking for each post to be moderated in and of itself. They also have to be moderated in the context. If you don't agree with the *AA, or if you take an unpopular view, then you'll have to write bearing in mind that the issue has probably been discussed here, at least a hundred times. Just repeating an unpopular view will not justify a good moderation, even if you are 100% correct. So, yes, a poorly said popular statement will get better moderations. We can't expect much out of the group, before we stop complaining.
You have been modded up. Does that prove you're wrong?
That being said, have either of you bothered to think that English isn't the first language of all moderators? I just taught somebody who is struggling with figures of speech, I think. She kept writing stuff down from a movie, to show me, so that I could help her, and a lot of it didn't make any sense. I said to her, something like, "Are you sure that you put the words on at the bottom, and then copied it?" [i.e. put on the captions], and she kept saying yes. She looked like an absolute moron, but I didn't say anything. Later on, it dawned on me, that our language is built around the ability to redefine something at a given moment. We just have to replace 1 word with another to create a figure of speech, and if our listeners/readers have been participating in the context, then they'll understand without any problems. She was probably copying text from a character who was making fun of somebody. Perhaps the character was joking around, or criticizing somebody. I wouldn't know because the student never bothered writing down the context like I told her to.
Just in case anybody is wondering, she was wondering about something like, "pudge my arms around your neck". I suspect that in the original context [i.e. a Hugh Grant movie], the character was making a humourous recall to an earlier conflict, and saying that she/he had changed her/his mind.
1 thing I noticed about anti-group-think snobs, is that there is never any compelling proof that the critic fell into group think. It's always a criticism of other people followed up by evidence. Criticisms of group think are a prejudiced way of accusing others.
That being said, from own experiences, I was surprised that San Francisco appeared to flag people so often on Craig's List. Being the gay capital of the world, in my mind, I expected them to be a little more tolerant of things [e.g. high prices], but apparently not.
I suspect that people can reach only a certain level of tolerance. After that, they have to start being prejudiced in other areas. It would be like, having a million tolerance dollars, where you could spend it on 1 issue per person. If you wanted to tolerate 2 gays, then that would be 2 dollars. Maybe you want to tolerate 2 gays, a Hindu, a Muslim, WW II vet, and 3 family members, then that should cost you 8 tolerance dollars. It sure looks like you have a lot of money left, but what do you do about the rest of the world, since you only have 1,000,000 tolerance dollars? Well, if your gay friend is a Hindu, then I suppose that you could tolerate him for 1.5 tolerance dollars, but the idea is that you only have so much, before the next guy is considered an intolerant, stranger to you.
Under the proposed tax system that we are discussing, there would be no tax shelters, if I understand correctly. Having a tax shelter would just create another law, which would make the system more complex.
Just for the record, I'm from Canada, and we do have tax shelters, but I'm pretty sure that we do not have 401(k).
Surrey, BC, is like that, but worse. Often times, only 1 side of the street is allowed to walk, even though both sides are parallel. I hate the fact that the light will change anyways, but we aren't allowed to walk. I tried bringing that up, but he must have thought that I was an idiot.
If there is a moral imperative to help Paul, then what should Paul do to prepare his long term needs? You can't force the problem on to people. Some people can't afford to help at all. Others have other moral obligations. Quit acting as if only rich people and the middle class have enough money to help.
That's a very good idea. I'm sure that there might be privacy issues involved, but the fact is that the tax payer gives up privacy information to get his pay cheque.
That's impressive stuff. While watching the introductory video, I began to wonder if it would be a good idea for even normal people to have it. As I type, I begin to realize that it only "allows" for 38 WPM, so maybe not. It just looks so convenient.
Thanks for sharing.
That makes more sense than what I was thinking. I wish that we could have some kind of a tax shelter until we take our money out, or something like that.
Yeah, I hear you about how much of a liar he his. I hate him for what he did to BC Rail. He makes the NDP look good.
I never thought of the taxes in the way that you describe. It's interesting.
I don't want to bombard you with a bazillion questions, but you're posting bazillion times, so I guess that you're fair game. ;^P
Regarding investments, when I buy and sell stocks, I think of it as putting money in the bank and withdrawing money from the bank, but you said earlier, that we are supposed to pay taxes on the buying and selling of bonds. If I sell $100 of stock to "Lenny", then who pays taxes, if any at all?
Would you please elaborate on donations, specifically to churches? I agree that churches should pay taxes, but I think that a lot of their money is not really church income. So would I pay a sales tax when giving to the church, and then the church would pay a sales tax to spend it on things like plumbing, pencils, carpet, paper, etc.? I support the last tax payment, but not the first.
Would you elaborate on your last paragraph, please? If I buy a used couch, and then take apart all the parts, and then sell the good condition stuff [e.g. the frame], then would anybody need to pay taxes? If I did that to a new couch, then would anybody pay taxes? I figure that a new couch would require taxes, but not a used couch. Maybe the new materials on a refurbished couch, but at that point we're starting to get complex.
That is good news. If don't mind me asking, which province?
I looked at all 3 comics. Good job, whoever made them. Having the different coloured shirts and names really clarifies things for people who need a little visual stuff for learning.
That third comic stumped me, because I didn't do the math properly, but now I get it.
I'm glad that this tax concept is getting more attention on Slashdot, because, theoretically speaking, poor people can profit. I'm disappointed that people still argue against it.
I like using the left hand to mouse, because it frees the right hand to use the keyboard, while I point and click. This makes it easier to fill in simple forms. Of course, you could do that vice versa, but at least you have options.
Maybe your videos are different, but I have found with the DVDs from Zip.ca, you can do what you suggested, or press the menu button, or just press the next chapter button. I discovered the latter by accident. I was surprised that I did not get sent to the next ad.
I think that every video is different, and I encourage others to try my suggestions.
Thanks for sharing. That's impressive stuff.
What do you mean? You disagree?
No, I meant before grade 7. The article, that I'm thinking of, as crazy as it seems, said that boys could pick it up easily in grade 7, and that they were not really ready for it until then. I know. It sounds crazy. I'm not defending the view. I'm just adding it to the discussion.
As for those who want to do math, I'm very confident in the nerd community's ability to produce a great text book that fits all standards, and that could be licensed to the Creative Commons. I believe that Math is 1 of the few subjects that most people can do via correspondence.
Even learning an instrument is easier these days because of YouTube. Most my music practise is done with a web browser and a PDF viewer [and not while using an actual instrument], and I'm preparing for intermediate-advanced level music that will be played in an actual concert.
Well, changing things after age 14 would still save us some money. I remember being taught quadratic equations after age 14. We don't need those. Exponents don't seem useful. I'm sure that there are more.
I seem to remember reading about how boys don't need to be taught much math until grade 7. If we could cut math out of all those years, and still keep the students well prepared for life, then I'd say that we did a good job.
I don't understand how these mosquitoes compete. Aren't there enough food sources for all of them?
Your post advocates a
(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting malaria. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from country to country before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(*) It is defenseless against guys who squash good mosquitoes before they have a chance to reproduce
(*) It will stop mosquitoes for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(*) Eaters of mosquitoes will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(*) The police will not put up with it
(*) Requires too much cooperation from environmentalists
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(*) Anyone could anonymously pretend to release good mosquitoes, but actually release infected mosquitoes
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(*) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for diseases and animals
(*) Stagnant water in foreign countries
(*) Asshats
(*) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(*) Public reluctance to accept weird new things
(*) Willingness of people to vaccinate mosquitoes
(*) Swarms of mosquitoes that refuse to be captured
(*) Evolution of malaria
(*) Extreme profitability of malaria
(*) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Dishonesty on the part of mosquitoes themselves
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(*) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(*) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(*) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(*) Why should we have to trust you?
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government killing my mosquitoes
(*) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(*) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
(*) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down! I have nothing against you. I'm just a bad person.
Furthermore, this is what I think about me:
(*) I didn't read the article
(*) I probably agree with you, but I wouldn't know, because I just copied and pasted this to make myself feel as if I have heard all the arguments before
Also, who's going to believe you at the next round of job interviews, when you say, "He fired me because my car was messy?".
Actually, he does control his games. There some hack that I heard of that lets you control the game. You have to press the start button.
I tried turning off the Flash cache and cookies, and it seems to work better. I find it odd that I suddenly got different Flash ads. I'm not complaining, though. I also tried getting rid of the disk cache, which seems to help, also.
Thank you, so much.
1 thing that I noticed is that if I load too many pages with Flash, then a lot of those videos stop working. I have to reload the page, if I want to watch the video again. Anybody know anything about that?
I think that it is a lot like emphasis, in that it slows you down, without confusing you [e.g. foo bar]. I think that this is good news. I will start using more fonts to help readers glide over useful but unnecessary material, and then slow them down, when they get to the meatier parts of the text that they came for.