It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing).. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.
And this sentiment exactly is how these companies/countries can justify anti-piracy measures. It becomes, "Look, look, they're pirating this, we have to lock down our material more to make it stop."
I'm not sure if it's a vicious cycle, or just a circlejerk. But it's definitely one of the two.
I'm in the same boat as you - I buy it, and then either rip it or download it, just to appease my conscience. I purchased a DRM free game about a week ago - the download folder contained an.exe file. I was actually hesitant to move the file. Do you know how long it's been since I've seen a file that was easily portable, and contained every piece of the game? That's F***ed up.
Yeah, it's pretty neat, but it's totally underground right now so you probably wouldn't like it. I mean I liked it before it was cool. But you probably wouldn't.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So, one has to assume that a drone is being quartered in your home without your consent, AC? Want a tip on how to defeat it? Watch the Terminator movies. They are probably the most informative, and action-filled set of documentary movies (I assume documentary, time-travel and all) that you will ever see.
But it's "evolving" far faster than it has in the last half century (I know from experience, I was ten a half century ago). "Troll" is from the internet age, it's not nearly old enough to change meaning.
The issue that I have with your claim is that it is currently the internet age. It was not the internet age a half-century ago. How quickly did information pass from person to person 50 years ago? Was that faster than 150 years ago? 1,000 years ago? I firmly believe that Moore's law (without the less expensive part. . . ), in today's world inherently applies to languages. The more we connect, the faster they move. Because of how quickly we communicate today, fads change overnight, slang translates to other languages instantly, and words can change meaning almost in the blink of an eye.
And I specifically cited wikipedia because of the fact that it is an evolutionary database. When the meaning of "troll" actually does change, that change will be reflected in wikipedia. But as you see, it hasn't.
I assumed that this is exactly why you chose that database, I just thought that I could try to make my own point with it. The larger point, though, is that media/reference can't keep up with culture. It was true when your reference was a 5000 page book that sat on a stand in the local library; it was true when encarta had their handy cd's; it's true now, even though we can edit it on the fly. It will always be true, because updating reference is an additional step that many people don't think about, and the ones that do aren't necessarily at the forefront of popular culture.
What my argument is, is that claiming that using the popular definition of a word is ignorance, and therefore invalid is equal to claiming that scientific theories can never be changed (as a side note, there are concrete examples of this: see evolution, plate tectonics, ummm, pretty much anything else new). Established thought (in any discipline, culture, group or science) exists for two purposes: (a) to provide a baseline for those just entering the field; and (b) to be the baseline for change.
If no one can remember what a companies TLD is, it will just drive more traffic to Google, as the masses will just search for the company name, then click the first link that pops up.
Maybe this is a conspiracy to increase ad revenue for search giants. . . . . .
It's not ignorance; it's evolution. For example - did you know that a 'nice person' was originally intended to mean 'someone who is ignorant'?
The only languages that are unchanging (or changed by ignorance if you prefer) are dead languages - Latin, Sanskrit, etc. As there are many, many, many speakers of the English language, I am sorry to say that it is not dead, yet.
You do also realize that languages like English form because of the bastardization of other languages, correct? Why do so many of our words have roots from different languages? Because we took them, we used them, we changed them, we evolved.
Wikipedia? Really? That is the definition of an evolutionary database - it constantly changes.
And if you are trolling me, congratulations, you got me.
You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
I, for one, believe in a little gray area. I know that it's difficult to figure into the equation, but context is important. There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct? Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
In the case of facts (wiki-leaks and the like), anonymity is a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. vital to the conversation. In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
The problem is that in this world of 'it has to be this or that', context is rarely taken into consideration. Maybe context isn't the right word; I think that common sense and rationality are better words for what I mean.
Because enough people have enough influence/because enough people know how to play stupid, we have 0-tolerance laws, or, we have laws up on the plate like this one. What blows my mind is that someone can be so stupid as to honestly believe that anonymity is always evil, or that anonymity is never evil.
Black and White thinkers have no place in productive society, and IMO are the folks who cause 99.9% of our problems.
I agree with you. In the small towns near where I live (populations of ~ 650, 140, 40, 20), we have a local newspaper. This paper has a relatively lively comments section related to the print stories. The comments are always hijacked by someone who has a personal vendetta against the schools.
It could be an article about how the sidewalks in the park have to be replaced, or about how the Johnson's have taken a 5 generation picture (both actual examples), and the same Anonymous poster leads the discussion with something about how the school board and teachers are bastards, and that the mayor of the largest of the four towns is out to destroy the world, etc. etc.
In this instance, you have to remove the anonymity, because it kills any and all rational discourse. - A quote from the discussions on an article related to longer hours for a church secretary and daycare staff (again, small towns, not a lot going on):
-----Loughla: Well, it's great that Sara will be there most of the day now, that means we don't have to rush to pick our kids up from daycare anymore. -----Anonymous: Yeah, well if the school board would get off its fat ass and make the teachers work we wouldnt have this porblem [sic]. -----Loughla: Okay, then, not sure how that applies in July. -----Anonymous: Fuck off socialist.
I would argue that you are both correct - yes, the classical (that being a relative term. . ..) definition of troll is what you have stated, AC, but hessian points to the current and popular definition of 'troll'.
As the English language is a fluid language, the American version especially, we really only have rules that are based on current, popular usage.
For example, define 'cool' -- I can think of two ways off-hand, both are correct.
So, while you may not want 'troll' to be defined as an unpopular opinion, that's where we are today.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. While I was working on my thesis, I hated my PhD for making me his indentured servant. BUT, the lessons I learned under that man were invaluable. If you want to see what a Master's with no supervision looks like, you only have to look at the degree mills that already exist - in my area the big one is William Woods. If you want the degree, you can get it. Their selling point is that it takes 18 months; not rigor, not value, just that it takes 18 months.
While I would love to see an online option for advanced degrees, it is a very fine line to walk between $100 for a good degree, with valuable experience, and thanks for your $100, now put paper in your printer to receive diploma.
The purpose of higher ed is not to hold your hand like a kindergartner anyway, its to teach you how to teach yourself. Look at the environment you'll be in when you graduate.
And yet, in my brick and mortar school, when we encourage individual learning, peer mentoring and peer leadership, we are accused by students/parents of not doing our jobs. People want to be handheld today. They've been taught that someone will be there to help them, and they've been taught it for the last 50 years. Oh, and in today's society, when you don't get your way, do you know what the first course of action is? Threaten a lawsuit - granted, I only have my own experience and it is anecdotal evidence at best.
Sometimes I envy the guy that doesn't speak English. At least he can tune out the Bullshit.
Panflation is an interesting theory - one that there is more truth to than I would like to think about. I also employ people, or rather used to, before I got my soul back.
What I find most interesting about panflation, though, is that it is directly related to the baby-boomer lesson of 'you're special, there's never been anyone like you' that we've been force fed for the last 50 years or so. It starts with participation trophies in youth sports. It is highlighted by inflated grades, and the relative inability to hold a student back in today's educational system. I say relative inability, because this is how it goes: The school says, 'this child isn't learning anything - s/he needs to be held back,' which causes the parents to squawk 'NOPE,' while flailing their arms. Why? Because all of the research states that holding students back isn't effective (in minority and students in poverty), is over applied (in minority and students in poverty), and has alternatives that are as simple as increased parent participation (for minority and students in poverty) and even as simple as better classroom management practices! You hear that? It's not your fault!!! It never was!!! What's the issue here? -----The people who are reading this research are generally White, Suburban, Middle- to Upper-Middle Class folks. NOT the folks living in poverty, or minority groups that it is intended for.
What we are seeing with grade inflation at brick and mortar universities is the end result of two facts: (a) no one wants to be the bad guy anymore, so no one fails, and (b) we have been fed, for 50 years or so, that if we don't agree with a decision, we can FIGHT THE POWER, and DESERVE to get our way; and if we can't get our way, just call Mommy and Daddy, so they can threaten the school with lawsuits or some other bullshit.
I'm not sure where that came from, but there it is. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I'm just saying that when articles point out whole-life inflation, but refuse to call attention to the underlying problem, I get a bit steamed.
I wish there was an online option for when I went through graduate school. At least then I wouldn't have needed to play monkey-boy for a Faculty Member to pay for it (yes, those words are capitalized; he made that abundantly clear to me).
With as many folks as we have in the US that are very, very, very against abortion, I am interested as to what you believe a screening process would accomplish. The only things that I can see are (a) higher insurance premiums - in which case, this is going to be a hard sell to even the lowest common denominator, (b) to abort the fetus before the issues arise - but GOD made my child be born without arms, so let it be born, or (c) for shits and giggles - and that's just confusing.
So, what would the uses of a mandatory screening process be, without a substantial change in the religious/moral views we currently have?
A bit off-topic, I apologize, but this is one of my main triggers.
I also remember when The Learning Channel had learning shows, instead of reality TV, and when the History Channel had history shows, instead of reality TV(I'm too lazy to find more), and when Animal Planet had animal shows, instead of reality TV, and so on, and so forth, I don't want to get more depressed than I currently am, so I'm not looking anymore up.
It's a sign of the times that we must rely almost solely on PBS for actual, substantial lessons (I do love local PBS, though - they have an awesome local history show every week). It's a sign of the times that we focus more on the people that hunt alligators, or shoot historical weapons, or have family members with odd diseases, instead of the alligators, time period the guns were used, and symptoms/physiology behind the odd diseases. Why? Because we're all precious little snow-flakes, we all have interesting stories, and we all deserve our own television show.
This actually legitimizes taking space out of education.Giving the able student one less dream, or asperation for the future. Government science was hard to get into, but the processes were open for transfer to all other, not just one, company.
NOPE! It just takes the astronaut dream from science majors and gives it to the business majors. I can see it now: Come to THE University of Chicago, where ASTRONAUTS are made!
In the grand scheme of the universe, how long have we been able to notice these things? And, in the grand scheme of the universe, how do we define a lot?
It's all relative, but I'm not an astrophysicist. If there is one in the room, can you please speak up?
Honest Question here - do you really believe that the best way to foster free and open discussion is to severely limit the people that can participate?
Look at my number. It is huge. Yes, I contribute some bullshit every now and then, but I honestly try my best to contribute to this open forum. Why is my number soooo big? Because I chose to lurk first, learn the dynamics and how to do stuff (technical word there), and then post.
It's like this - you want to ride a roller coaster. So, you go to an amusement park. Then you get pissed about waiting in line with the other idiots. What are your options? (a) Build your own rollercoaster; or (b) quit bitching about the line and enjoy the pleasant conversations that do happen, when they happen.
If you are not the owner of a website, who are you to limit, or suggest a limit for that matter, on who can contribute?
Why do I love the internet, and online forums and discussion boards? Because I can hear a...n...y...t...h...i...n...g... on them. If I wanted to have a closed discussion on a topic, I'd go back to yelling at my television. It feels just as good, and is as one-sided as you make it.
In other words, sir or ma'am, I understand that you believe that there were glory days on this site. I'm sure there were. But, limiting who can speak, simply based on how old s/he is comes off as, in my opinion, utter bullshit.
In other words. Learn to ignore the shit. Look for the good. It's there, if you care to be positive. OR, instead of limiting who can post, have a system where you can register your account, but can not contribute until you reach a certain time on the site, or number of articles read paired with time spent reading, or something. I don't know, just quit complaining about it. It's just as annoying as the bullshit posts from user numbers>1,000,000, and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.
And this sentiment exactly is how these companies/countries can justify anti-piracy measures. It becomes, "Look, look, they're pirating this, we have to lock down our material more to make it stop."
I'm not sure if it's a vicious cycle, or just a circlejerk. But it's definitely one of the two.
I'm in the same boat as you - I buy it, and then either rip it or download it, just to appease my conscience. I purchased a DRM free game about a week ago - the download folder contained an .exe file. I was actually hesitant to move the file. Do you know how long it's been since I've seen a file that was easily portable, and contained every piece of the game? That's F***ed up.
Yeah, it's pretty neat, but it's totally underground right now so you probably wouldn't like it. I mean I liked it before it was cool. But you probably wouldn't.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So, one has to assume that a drone is being quartered in your home without your consent, AC? Want a tip on how to defeat it? Watch the Terminator movies. They are probably the most informative, and action-filled set of documentary movies (I assume documentary, time-travel and all) that you will ever see.
God I hope you're joking. If you are not, welcome to the internet; wondrous sights await you!
21 and facing decades in a US jail where the other criminals are mean?
I feel like there's a saying for this sort of thing. Something about crime and punishment.
Holy sweet baby jesus, that never crossed my mind.
My employer is FFFF.UUUU.CCCC.KKKK.EEEE.DDDD.
But it's "evolving" far faster than it has in the last half century (I know from experience, I was ten a half century ago). "Troll" is from the internet age, it's not nearly old enough to change meaning.
The issue that I have with your claim is that it is currently the internet age. It was not the internet age a half-century ago. How quickly did information pass from person to person 50 years ago? Was that faster than 150 years ago? 1,000 years ago? I firmly believe that Moore's law (without the less expensive part. . . ), in today's world inherently applies to languages. The more we connect, the faster they move. Because of how quickly we communicate today, fads change overnight, slang translates to other languages instantly, and words can change meaning almost in the blink of an eye.
And I specifically cited wikipedia because of the fact that it is an evolutionary database. When the meaning of "troll" actually does change, that change will be reflected in wikipedia. But as you see, it hasn't.
I assumed that this is exactly why you chose that database, I just thought that I could try to make my own point with it. The larger point, though, is that media/reference can't keep up with culture. It was true when your reference was a 5000 page book that sat on a stand in the local library; it was true when encarta had their handy cd's; it's true now, even though we can edit it on the fly. It will always be true, because updating reference is an additional step that many people don't think about, and the ones that do aren't necessarily at the forefront of popular culture.
What my argument is, is that claiming that using the popular definition of a word is ignorance, and therefore invalid is equal to claiming that scientific theories can never be changed (as a side note, there are concrete examples of this: see evolution, plate tectonics, ummm, pretty much anything else new). Established thought (in any discipline, culture, group or science) exists for two purposes: (a) to provide a baseline for those just entering the field; and (b) to be the baseline for change.
If no one can remember what a companies TLD is, it will just drive more traffic to Google, as the masses will just search for the company name, then click the first link that pops up.
Maybe this is a conspiracy to increase ad revenue for search giants. . . . . .
It's not ignorance; it's evolution. For example - did you know that a 'nice person' was originally intended to mean 'someone who is ignorant'?
The only languages that are unchanging (or changed by ignorance if you prefer) are dead languages - Latin, Sanskrit, etc. As there are many, many, many speakers of the English language, I am sorry to say that it is not dead, yet.
You do also realize that languages like English form because of the bastardization of other languages, correct? Why do so many of our words have roots from different languages? Because we took them, we used them, we changed them, we evolved.
Wikipedia? Really? That is the definition of an evolutionary database - it constantly changes.
And if you are trolling me, congratulations, you got me.
You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
I, for one, believe in a little gray area. I know that it's difficult to figure into the equation, but context is important. There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct? Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
In the case of facts (wiki-leaks and the like), anonymity is a.b.s.o.l.u.t.e.l.y. vital to the conversation. In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
I know - slippery slope and all, but again
Common Sense
The problem is that in this world of 'it has to be this or that', context is rarely taken into consideration. Maybe context isn't the right word; I think that common sense and rationality are better words for what I mean.
Because enough people have enough influence/because enough people know how to play stupid, we have 0-tolerance laws, or, we have laws up on the plate like this one. What blows my mind is that someone can be so stupid as to honestly believe that anonymity is always evil, or that anonymity is never evil.
Black and White thinkers have no place in productive society, and IMO are the folks who cause 99.9% of our problems.
I agree with you. In the small towns near where I live (populations of ~ 650, 140, 40, 20), we have a local newspaper. This paper has a relatively lively comments section related to the print stories. The comments are always hijacked by someone who has a personal vendetta against the schools.
It could be an article about how the sidewalks in the park have to be replaced, or about how the Johnson's have taken a 5 generation picture (both actual examples), and the same Anonymous poster leads the discussion with something about how the school board and teachers are bastards, and that the mayor of the largest of the four towns is out to destroy the world, etc. etc.
In this instance, you have to remove the anonymity, because it kills any and all rational discourse. - A quote from the discussions on an article related to longer hours for a church secretary and daycare staff (again, small towns, not a lot going on):
-----Loughla: Well, it's great that Sara will be there most of the day now, that means we don't have to rush to pick our kids up from daycare anymore. -----Anonymous: Yeah, well if the school board would get off its fat ass and make the teachers work we wouldnt have this porblem [sic]. -----Loughla: Okay, then, not sure how that applies in July. -----Anonymous: Fuck off socialist.
TA DA!!
As the English language is a fluid language, the American version especially, we really only have rules that are based on current, popular usage.
For example, define 'cool' -- I can think of two ways off-hand, both are correct.
So, while you may not want 'troll' to be defined as an unpopular opinion, that's where we are today.
Because that's what the reporters put on paper?
Doesn't that make you want to throw up?
I agree with you whole-heartedly. While I was working on my thesis, I hated my PhD for making me his indentured servant. BUT, the lessons I learned under that man were invaluable. If you want to see what a Master's with no supervision looks like, you only have to look at the degree mills that already exist - in my area the big one is William Woods. If you want the degree, you can get it. Their selling point is that it takes 18 months; not rigor, not value, just that it takes 18 months.
While I would love to see an online option for advanced degrees, it is a very fine line to walk between $100 for a good degree, with valuable experience, and thanks for your $100, now put paper in your printer to receive diploma.
The purpose of higher ed is not to hold your hand like a kindergartner anyway, its to teach you how to teach yourself. Look at the environment you'll be in when you graduate.
And yet, in my brick and mortar school, when we encourage individual learning, peer mentoring and peer leadership, we are accused by students/parents of not doing our jobs. People want to be handheld today. They've been taught that someone will be there to help them, and they've been taught it for the last 50 years. Oh, and in today's society, when you don't get your way, do you know what the first course of action is? Threaten a lawsuit - granted, I only have my own experience and it is anecdotal evidence at best.
Sometimes I envy the guy that doesn't speak English. At least he can tune out the Bullshit.
Panflation is an interesting theory - one that there is more truth to than I would like to think about. I also employ people, or rather used to, before I got my soul back.
What I find most interesting about panflation, though, is that it is directly related to the baby-boomer lesson of 'you're special, there's never been anyone like you' that we've been force fed for the last 50 years or so. It starts with participation trophies in youth sports. It is highlighted by inflated grades, and the relative inability to hold a student back in today's educational system. I say relative inability, because this is how it goes: The school says, 'this child isn't learning anything - s/he needs to be held back,' which causes the parents to squawk 'NOPE,' while flailing their arms. Why? Because all of the research states that holding students back isn't effective (in minority and students in poverty), is over applied (in minority and students in poverty), and has alternatives that are as simple as increased parent participation (for minority and students in poverty) and even as simple as better classroom management practices! You hear that? It's not your fault!!! It never was!!! What's the issue here? -----The people who are reading this research are generally White, Suburban, Middle- to Upper-Middle Class folks. NOT the folks living in poverty, or minority groups that it is intended for.
What we are seeing with grade inflation at brick and mortar universities is the end result of two facts: (a) no one wants to be the bad guy anymore, so no one fails, and (b) we have been fed, for 50 years or so, that if we don't agree with a decision, we can FIGHT THE POWER, and DESERVE to get our way; and if we can't get our way, just call Mommy and Daddy, so they can threaten the school with lawsuits or some other bullshit.
I'm not sure where that came from, but there it is. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, I'm just saying that when articles point out whole-life inflation, but refuse to call attention to the underlying problem, I get a bit steamed.
I wish there was an online option for when I went through graduate school. At least then I wouldn't have needed to play monkey-boy for a Faculty Member to pay for it (yes, those words are capitalized; he made that abundantly clear to me).
And a book, it was called A Brave New World.
With as many folks as we have in the US that are very, very, very against abortion, I am interested as to what you believe a screening process would accomplish. The only things that I can see are (a) higher insurance premiums - in which case, this is going to be a hard sell to even the lowest common denominator, (b) to abort the fetus before the issues arise - but GOD made my child be born without arms, so let it be born, or (c) for shits and giggles - and that's just confusing.
So, what would the uses of a mandatory screening process be, without a substantial change in the religious/moral views we currently have?
So how's that divorce settlement going?
A bit off-topic, I apologize, but this is one of my main triggers.
I also remember when The Learning Channel had learning shows, instead of reality TV, and when the History Channel had history shows, instead of reality TV(I'm too lazy to find more), and when Animal Planet had animal shows, instead of reality TV, and so on, and so forth, I don't want to get more depressed than I currently am, so I'm not looking anymore up.
It's a sign of the times that we must rely almost solely on PBS for actual, substantial lessons (I do love local PBS, though - they have an awesome local history show every week). It's a sign of the times that we focus more on the people that hunt alligators, or shoot historical weapons, or have family members with odd diseases, instead of the alligators, time period the guns were used, and symptoms/physiology behind the odd diseases. Why? Because we're all precious little snow-flakes, we all have interesting stories, and we all deserve our own television show.
Thoughts?
This actually legitimizes taking space out of education.Giving the able student one less dream, or asperation for the future. Government science was hard to get into, but the processes were open for transfer to all other, not just one, company.
NOPE! It just takes the astronaut dream from science majors and gives it to the business majors. I can see it now: Come to THE University of Chicago, where ASTRONAUTS are made!
believe me, we'd notice.
In the grand scheme of the universe, how long have we been able to notice these things? And, in the grand scheme of the universe, how do we define a lot?
It's all relative, but I'm not an astrophysicist. If there is one in the room, can you please speak up?
Honest Question here - do you really believe that the best way to foster free and open discussion is to severely limit the people that can participate?
Look at my number. It is huge. Yes, I contribute some bullshit every now and then, but I honestly try my best to contribute to this open forum. Why is my number soooo big? Because I chose to lurk first, learn the dynamics and how to do stuff (technical word there), and then post.
It's like this - you want to ride a roller coaster. So, you go to an amusement park. Then you get pissed about waiting in line with the other idiots. What are your options? (a) Build your own rollercoaster; or (b) quit bitching about the line and enjoy the pleasant conversations that do happen, when they happen.
If you are not the owner of a website, who are you to limit, or suggest a limit for that matter, on who can contribute?
Why do I love the internet, and online forums and discussion boards? Because I can hear a...n...y...t...h...i...n...g... on them. If I wanted to have a closed discussion on a topic, I'd go back to yelling at my television. It feels just as good, and is as one-sided as you make it.
In other words, sir or ma'am, I understand that you believe that there were glory days on this site. I'm sure there were. But, limiting who can speak, simply based on how old s/he is comes off as, in my opinion, utter bullshit.
In other words. Learn to ignore the shit. Look for the good. It's there, if you care to be positive. OR, instead of limiting who can post, have a system where you can register your account, but can not contribute until you reach a certain time on the site, or number of articles read paired with time spent reading, or something. I don't know, just quit complaining about it. It's just as annoying as the bullshit posts from user numbers>1,000,000, and contributes nothing to the discussion.
But that is all my opinion. Thank you.