Society, The Post-Columbine World and The Music Industry The Truth About Lo-Tech Sexbots Hidden Microsoft To Behold Why Do Lurkers Kill? The Music Industry, Hidden Sexbots and Hope
*sigh* You know it's near the end of the term when... Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, if you actually click on those links (presumably 1 first progressing to 9 last) you see this odd 'animation' involving... well... if you're that curious just click on them to look (or type in the numbers in the url field).
I'm still trying to decide what I thought... it was... well... odd and prophetic.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Aren't there already theories on how we might go faster than light? IIRC the main problem with going FTL is the power requirement, not how to go that fast but rather how to generate enough power. IF those theories are correct once we discover a sufficient power source (warp coils?) we should have FTL travel - I know, to many mights and shoulds - sigh.
Erm, the problem isn't just generating enough power, it's generating infinite power.
Of course, the other problem with FTL that people keep forgetting is it'll mean we're travelling backwards in time. Pesky.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
So, it might be possible for one of these gas giants to have a moon that always stays between the planet and the star, keeping it always withen reach of the solar rays. Someone a bit more gifted in mathematics and planetary physics would have to figure that out to see if it would be possible.
Uhh... let's conduct a quick review, here. A moon orbiting a planet would be subject to conservation of angular momentum. Combine that with conservation of energy and you end up with three different types of path for an orbiting body: circular, elliptical, and parabolic (or was it hyperbolic?) (exceeds escape velocity and leaves orbit, never returning). So the moon couldn't always be between the planet and the moon.
But you've made me think of another idea. What if the moon's orbital plane was perpendicular to the vector joining the planet and the star? There would probably be a slight skew (angular deviation from 90 degrees), but other than that... We'd add in a bit of rotation so that we get more even heating effects (as opposed to our moon's light (HOT) side/dark (COLD) side) to keep the water fluid in more than just a narrow band....
What do you think? Feel free to tell me if I, in turn, am also overlooking some basic rule of planetary motion.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think once an accurate geometrical model of The Universe can be discovered, (and, IMO, it will be extremely closely tied to Grand Unification) punching holes in space should be trivial.
I was agreeing with you right until this point. Technically, it'll be trivial in theory. We'd still have to develop the technology to do it. I mean, technically, we know how to create wormholes (place two parallel plates in "empty" space, virtual particle density inside is less than virtual particle density outside, which leads to negative curvature and, voila!). That doesn't mean we have the technology to make these at any practical size or to control them.
Btw, for the curious, my source is Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, the updated 1998 version (it has a whole chapter on wormholes).
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, it doesn't seem like it'll be that romantic. In the article, they quoted the name of one of the planets as: HD 192263. I think part of it has to do with the star it orbits, and another with how far from the star the planet is. *shrug* IANAnAstronomer, so WYSIWYG.:)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
(Then there's the Hawking commentary which holds that if the universe ever condensed toward a singularity, on the way it's position would become uncertain enough to prevent total collapse.. I don't understand his proposed re-expansion
If I remember correctly, if all the mass of the universe were to contract to a single singularity (the Big Crunch), you would get to a point where all the points' positions and velocities would be known. As this is a violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, there would have to be slight variations in position... imagine them all swirling together, tighter and tighter until they just swirl apart again.
I'm trying to picture your proposal, but with the micro-blackholes, wouldn't the emitted radiation just get sucked up by some other micro-blackhole? I mean, if they're that close, they would eventually have to collapse into a single singularity which would lead to a re-expansion, no? Maybe I'm just being romantic when I say it sure would suck if in the end, the universe was simply radiated through a black hole as virtual particles -- talk about entropy.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
This to me has seemed to be the most elegant and probable value of the Omega constant.
If this is valid, then it raises the question, Which iteration of Big Bang -> Big Crunch are we in?
You seem to be slightly confused. If the omega constant = 1, the Universe will expand much faster than the gravitational attraction of its mass can pull it in, and will eventually reach a condition known as "heat death" where it will have effectively zero density.
Imagine you had a finite number of particles (the Universe has a finite ammount of mass/energy) and put them in an infinitely large room. By Newton's third law (entropy increases), these particles will spread further and further apart until they're evenly spread over the room. Since the room approaches infinity, their density approaches zero.
Now then, if the Universe's rate of expansion were lower than the critical rate to avoid recollapse, we might have the oscillating Universe you refer to.
In the course of my research, I have found that the scenario scientist's find most probable is the one where the universe expands just slightly above the critical rate to avoid recollapse, and its expansion has a limit, so the Universe is virtually in a steady state.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
There went my plans send MicroSoft to the other side of the universe quickly by going through the middle... now we'll have to wait a little longer.
Actually, you could try to send them through a wormhole... the gravitational changes of trying to send MS through would cause the wormhole to collapse. Nobody is quite sure what would happen then, just that it wouldn't be good.:)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Hmmm... could you post some textevd for this? Some links would be really nice.
I ask, because I just recently did a 10 minute oral report on the origin of the universe and the nature of space-time, and my partner and I based our report heavily on Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, the 1998 reprint, and it didn't mention anything about the Doppler effect being discontinuous, nor this new method of sound wave detection. He did mention he was working on a theory where the big bang discontinuity didn't exist because it was continuous in complex time, or something along those lines.
To reiterate, sources please?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
People, they are not saying the universe is flat in 3D, but 4D. We know by scientific observation that the Universe is not flat in three dimensions. Witness stars being in every direction of the sky. The Milky Way just tells us our galaxy is a relatively flat, spiral one.
When scientists talk about a flat, spherical, or saddle-shaped universe, they are talking about space-time, a four dimensional construct. Most scientists believe the universe is closed in three dimensions, (meaning no edge to sail off of, even if we could sail faster than the edge expands, a totally different matter), but whether it is closed or open in four dimensions is another matter altogether.
I hope that cleared things up.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
The Bermuda company was owned by some private stock holders of UPS. This is a problem because since they own a major stake in UPS and the Bermuda company it amounts to being self-insured.
Not only does this lead to UPS being self-insured again, but wouldn't it also be a conflict of interest?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I worked once for a company which was a member of the DMA. We were told to talk about that membership quite openly, as the DMA is supposedly an association which imposes and enforces certain rules upon its members. So, when I got e-spam for products I was curious in and wanted to know more about, I checked out the web site and then asked some detailed questions. I asked if they were members of the DMA. I asked if there were any common side effects associated with their product. I asked a few other things as well. I was polite and interested in tone. Funnily enough, I received no response. My only conclusions are that they are not members of the DMA and there were side effects, and they didn't want to admit it.
What I'm saying is, the DMA isn't in charge of all the e-spam going on in the States or Canada. There are many companies which start up on their own whose first step is to purchase name lists and spam away, hoping for the aforementioned magical 2% response. Talking with the DMA will not take care of (IMOSHO) much of the problem at all.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Oh, that was precious! Thank you for bringing a huge grin into my day! hee hee hee *chortle snort*
This would be done with terrible characterization, so would have no reason to be read except by die-hard fans who absolutely need to know what happens to their favourite characters.
We can't forget, of course, that while he's gone, poor Han's trying to deal with all these fake Chewies, half of which have amnesia, the other half don't recognize Han because they don't know who Chewie really is... Boba Fett's twin brother!
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think the whole thing is disgusting. People usually do stuff like this because it was done to them. Instead of giving them the psychological help they need, they're thrown in prison and abused more.
There is a big myth-conception that child-molestors are just sick people who, given the right counseling, can recover. This is not supported by the figures. IIRC, approx 90 percent of child molestors relapse upon release from prison -- even if they did have psychiatric help. Molesting children is completely a power issue. It's actually a very low percentage of child molestors who are just 'passing the love along' (ie, were molested themselves, in turn). Yes, prison will not help with these power issues, but rather exacerbate them, leaving the molestor (if he gets out alive) needing even more to verify to him/herself they are still in power over somebody... hence more kiddies. Sure, they're supposed to inform the proper authorities of where they plan to move and make sure they're not near an area with a high child density (much less a playground), but the simple fact is, they don't. They claim it ruins their life, people don't want them living near them, and so on. Think about it. Within two weeks, they know all the nearby parks as well as the regulars at each one. I find that scary.
Maybe I'm a bit more callous than your average joe because I grew up in a country where the death sentence (as well as other punitary mutilations) are carried out quite often: Saudi Arabia. Let me say the crime rate there is amazingly low, though there are definitely drawbacks to their system which keep me from completely endorsing their punitary system.
Where is the "correction"? Where is the therapy that will reform the criminal into an ordinary person who will be of some use to themselves and to society?
I'm no fluffy bunny, but I'll tell you it is there. It's not the best, it's not available for everybody, and it doesn't always work, but for the handful of success stories we have I am unwilling to throw it all out the window. It is not successful with child molestors, though, and until then I am of the view they should be killed as they're not worth the tax money to keep them warm, fed and alive until they die of 'natural causes'.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Rob, you're prolly gonna be unhappy with me for this suggestion, because I know it adds higher degrees of complexity, but here goes:
I find the Unfair/Neutral/Fair options to be quite limited, not to mention misleading. As another poster has already pointed out, are we M2'ing the value the moderator awarded or the category they modified the post by?
My proposal for a better set of buttons would be: Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Disagree Somewhat - Neutral - Agree Somewhat - Agree - Strongly Agree. These can easily be assigned points from -3 to 3. If each of the decisions are being M2'ed by multiple people, then the average of the feedback would be an appropriate reflection on the moderating decision.
My proposal for differentiating between category and points would be, (sorry) to have a presentation of radio buttons for each aspect. I don't like this solution, so am *very* open to alternate solutions.
So, what do you think?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Ahh, the bubble could have used some bursting. Thanks for the tips, and the books are definitely going onto my reading list. Thanks again! Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
How about stop posting crap about moderation? I could care less about moderation let alone comments, take away comments, Im here for the news, and could give two craps less what someone posts in a comment area, (How ironic, Im expressing my idea IN a comment area). Quit with all this clutter crap and stick to the NEW and FACTS.
Well, Slashdot isn't just a news and facts site. First off, not everything posted in the articles is correct, and often, they raise more questions. The comment forum does exactly what its name implies: adds a community to/.. And often, the questions which are raised by these articles in the comments are also answered (albeit sometimes conflictingly) in that same forum. The comments forum, thus, is also a valuable place for learning more "news and facts".
Of course, adding this societal impact to/. does mean that we get all that comes along with a society. That means nonsense, back-biting, trolling, name-calling, as well as the brilliant contributions mentioned earlier, not to mention interjections of much needed (and appreciated) humour. And that means, unless we want this society to fall into anarchical chaos (which I'm sure some wouldn't mind or would even enjoy), we need to create some form of moderation.
We all who read/. regularly are members of this community, be it occasional or hard-core. Anything affecting this community (in this case, moderation) affects us. Thus,/. moderation is a valid topic for/. news.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Say I read an amazing post and moderate it up to +5, then some bozo comes along and moderates it down to -1 flaimbait.. then someone with m2 points see's -1 on it, thinks that's a bad choice--who gets the m2 karma points?
The way *I'd* implement it, the M2 would be presented with *both* moderation activities and be able to score *both*. Same goes for the second example. Remember, it will most likely be on a sliding scale (say, from -5 to strongly agree) so each of the moderators will get the appropriate response. They'll be accountable only for their actions, not for another's.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Rob, your explanation of meta-moderation was a bit odd. Maybe that's because you've been ceaselessly laboring all labor-day... What do you mean by "A [MetaModerator] gets 10 comments..." - ten chances to moderate another moderator?
Maybe I understood his explanation because I've been coding ceaselessly all Labour day, but here goes my attempt at translation:
"A [MetaModerator] gets 10 comments..."
An M2 logs in and is presented with a page which contains 10 moderated comments (and hopefully the article which they're commenting on) as well as further descriptors explaining what type of action was performed on them. The M2 then decides whether each decision was a good one, a neutral one, a silly, or even bad/spiteful/baseless/you-name-it one, and so indicates through some form provided for that purpose which is most likely right after the comment.
The program then attaches these decisions to a description of the moderators' behaviours. If you get a lot of good decision marks, your Moderation Karma increases. If you get a bunch of bad decision marks, it decreases, and you will eventually lose the ability to moderate if I understand correctly.
Hope that explained it, and Rob, I hope that's pretty much on the mark:)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Scott Adam's theory that the other 98% of our brains are taken up with penguins :)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I don't know where they came up with ProLiant though
Well, as a wild guess, I'd say it's a combination of either progressive or proactive and reliant.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Society, The Post-Columbine World and The Music Industry
The Truth About Lo-Tech Sexbots
Hidden Microsoft To Behold
Why Do Lurkers Kill?
The Music Industry, Hidden Sexbots and Hope
*sigh* You know it's near the end of the term when...
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, if you actually click on those links (presumably 1 first progressing to 9 last) you see this odd 'animation' involving... well... if you're that curious just click on them to look (or type in the numbers in the url field).
I'm still trying to decide what I thought... it was... well... odd and prophetic.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Aren't there already theories on how we might go faster than light? IIRC the main problem with going FTL is the power requirement, not how to go that fast but rather how to generate enough power. IF those theories are correct once we discover a sufficient power source (warp coils?) we should have FTL travel - I know, to many mights and shoulds - sigh.
Erm, the problem isn't just generating enough power, it's generating infinite power.
Of course, the other problem with FTL that people keep forgetting is it'll mean we're travelling backwards in time. Pesky.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
the Galilean moons of Jupiter, such as Europa, *are* tidally locked around Jupiter)
Okay, now my curiosity is piqued. What does it mean for a body to be tidally locked around another? Is it in a circular orbit?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
So, it might be possible for one of these gas giants to have a moon that always stays between the planet and the star, keeping it always withen reach of the solar rays. Someone a bit more gifted in mathematics and planetary physics would have to figure that out to see if it would be possible.
Uhh... let's conduct a quick review, here. A moon orbiting a planet would be subject to conservation of angular momentum. Combine that with conservation of energy and you end up with three different types of path for an orbiting body: circular, elliptical, and parabolic (or was it hyperbolic?) (exceeds escape velocity and leaves orbit, never returning). So the moon couldn't always be between the planet and the moon.
But you've made me think of another idea. What if the moon's orbital plane was perpendicular to the vector joining the planet and the star? There would probably be a slight skew (angular deviation from 90 degrees), but other than that... We'd add in a bit of rotation so that we get more even heating effects (as opposed to our moon's light (HOT) side/dark (COLD) side) to keep the water fluid in more than just a narrow band....
What do you think? Feel free to tell me if I, in turn, am also overlooking some basic rule of planetary motion.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think once an accurate geometrical model of The Universe can be discovered, (and, IMO, it will be extremely closely tied to Grand Unification) punching holes in space should be trivial.
I was agreeing with you right until this point. Technically, it'll be trivial in theory. We'd still have to develop the technology to do it. I mean, technically, we know how to create wormholes (place two parallel plates in "empty" space, virtual particle density inside is less than virtual particle density outside, which leads to negative curvature and, voila!). That doesn't mean we have the technology to make these at any practical size or to control them.
Btw, for the curious, my source is Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, the updated 1998 version (it has a whole chapter on wormholes).
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, it doesn't seem like it'll be that romantic. In the article, they quoted the name of one of the planets as: HD 192263. I think part of it has to do with the star it orbits, and another with how far from the star the planet is. *shrug* IANAnAstronomer, so WYSIWYG. :)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
(Then there's the Hawking commentary which holds that if the universe ever condensed toward a singularity, on the way it's position would become uncertain enough to prevent total collapse.. I don't understand his proposed re-expansion
If I remember correctly, if all the mass of the universe were to contract to a single singularity (the Big Crunch), you would get to a point where all the points' positions and velocities would be known. As this is a violation of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, there would have to be slight variations in position... imagine them all swirling together, tighter and tighter until they just swirl apart again.
I'm trying to picture your proposal, but with the micro-blackholes, wouldn't the emitted radiation just get sucked up by some other micro-blackhole? I mean, if they're that close, they would eventually have to collapse into a single singularity which would lead to a re-expansion, no? Maybe I'm just being romantic when I say it sure would suck if in the end, the universe was simply radiated through a black hole as virtual particles -- talk about entropy.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Anyway, here's a bunch of links within there:
Friedmann Universes: The three basic models of the universe that start off just after the big bang singularity.
No-Boundary Universe: Stephen Hawking's pet theory until at least '96. I don't know where he stands on it now.
An explanation of Space-Time: What this NYT article is saying is flat. Hmm... it's not that good.
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose debated on the nature of Space-Time in '95.
Does that help?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Forgot to add in a link.
Find some info on wormholes here.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
This to me has seemed to be the most elegant and probable value of the Omega constant.
If this is valid, then it raises the question, Which iteration of Big Bang -> Big Crunch are we in?
You seem to be slightly confused. If the omega constant = 1, the Universe will expand much faster than the gravitational attraction of its mass can pull it in, and will eventually reach a condition known as "heat death" where it will have effectively zero density.
Imagine you had a finite number of particles (the Universe has a finite ammount of mass/energy) and put them in an infinitely large room. By Newton's third law (entropy increases), these particles will spread further and further apart until they're evenly spread over the room. Since the room approaches infinity, their density approaches zero.
Now then, if the Universe's rate of expansion were lower than the critical rate to avoid recollapse, we might have the oscillating Universe you refer to.
In the course of my research, I have found that the scenario scientist's find most probable is the one where the universe expands just slightly above the critical rate to avoid recollapse, and its expansion has a limit, so the Universe is virtually in a steady state.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
There went my plans send MicroSoft to the other side of the universe quickly by going through the middle... now we'll have to wait a little longer.
Actually, you could try to send them through a wormhole... the gravitational changes of trying to send MS through would cause the wormhole to collapse. Nobody is quite sure what would happen then, just that it wouldn't be good. :)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I ask, because I just recently did a 10 minute oral report on the origin of the universe and the nature of space-time, and my partner and I based our report heavily on Stephen Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, the 1998 reprint, and it didn't mention anything about the Doppler effect being discontinuous, nor this new method of sound wave detection. He did mention he was working on a theory where the big bang discontinuity didn't exist because it was continuous in complex time, or something along those lines.
To reiterate, sources please?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
People, they are not saying the universe is flat in 3D, but 4D. We know by scientific observation that the Universe is not flat in three dimensions. Witness stars being in every direction of the sky. The Milky Way just tells us our galaxy is a relatively flat, spiral one.
When scientists talk about a flat, spherical, or saddle-shaped universe, they are talking about space-time, a four dimensional construct. Most scientists believe the universe is closed in three dimensions, (meaning no edge to sail off of, even if we could sail faster than the edge expands, a totally different matter), but whether it is closed or open in four dimensions is another matter altogether.
I hope that cleared things up.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
The Bermuda company was owned by some private stock holders of UPS. This is a problem because since they own a major stake in UPS and the Bermuda company it amounts to being self-insured.
Not only does this lead to UPS being self-insured again, but wouldn't it also be a conflict of interest?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
What I'm saying is, the DMA isn't in charge of all the e-spam going on in the States or Canada. There are many companies which start up on their own whose first step is to purchase name lists and spam away, hoping for the aforementioned magical 2% response. Talking with the DMA will not take care of (IMOSHO) much of the problem at all.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Oh, that was precious! Thank you for bringing a huge grin into my day! hee hee hee *chortle snort*
This would be done with terrible characterization, so would have no reason to be read except by die-hard fans who absolutely need to know what happens to their favourite characters.
We can't forget, of course, that while he's gone, poor Han's trying to deal with all these fake Chewies, half of which have amnesia, the other half don't recognize Han because they don't know who Chewie really is ... Boba Fett's twin brother!
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I think the whole thing is disgusting. People usually do stuff like this because it was done to them. Instead of giving them the psychological help they need, they're thrown in prison and abused more.
There is a big myth-conception that child-molestors are just sick people who, given the right counseling, can recover. This is not supported by the figures. IIRC, approx 90 percent of child molestors relapse upon release from prison -- even if they did have psychiatric help. Molesting children is completely a power issue. It's actually a very low percentage of child molestors who are just 'passing the love along' (ie, were molested themselves, in turn). Yes, prison will not help with these power issues, but rather exacerbate them, leaving the molestor (if he gets out alive) needing even more to verify to him/herself they are still in power over somebody... hence more kiddies. Sure, they're supposed to inform the proper authorities of where they plan to move and make sure they're not near an area with a high child density (much less a playground), but the simple fact is, they don't. They claim it ruins their life, people don't want them living near them, and so on. Think about it. Within two weeks, they know all the nearby parks as well as the regulars at each one. I find that scary.
Maybe I'm a bit more callous than your average joe because I grew up in a country where the death sentence (as well as other punitary mutilations) are carried out quite often: Saudi Arabia. Let me say the crime rate there is amazingly low, though there are definitely drawbacks to their system which keep me from completely endorsing their punitary system.
Where is the "correction"? Where is the therapy that will reform the criminal into an ordinary person who will be of some use to themselves and to society?
I'm no fluffy bunny, but I'll tell you it is there. It's not the best, it's not available for everybody, and it doesn't always work, but for the handful of success stories we have I am unwilling to throw it all out the window. It is not successful with child molestors, though, and until then I am of the view they should be killed as they're not worth the tax money to keep them warm, fed and alive until they die of 'natural causes'.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
I find the Unfair/Neutral/Fair options to be quite limited, not to mention misleading. As another poster has already pointed out, are we M2'ing the value the moderator awarded or the category they modified the post by?
My proposal for a better set of buttons would be: Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Disagree Somewhat - Neutral - Agree Somewhat - Agree - Strongly Agree. These can easily be assigned points from -3 to 3. If each of the decisions are being M2'ed by multiple people, then the average of the feedback would be an appropriate reflection on the moderating decision.
My proposal for differentiating between category and points would be, (sorry) to have a presentation of radio buttons for each aspect. I don't like this solution, so am *very* open to alternate solutions.
So, what do you think?
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Ahh, the bubble could have used some bursting. Thanks for the tips, and the books are definitely going onto my reading list. Thanks again!
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Well, Slashdot isn't just a news and facts site. First off, not everything posted in the articles is correct, and often, they raise more questions. The comment forum does exactly what its name implies: adds a community to /.. And often, the questions which are raised by these articles in the comments are also answered (albeit sometimes conflictingly) in that same forum. The comments forum, thus, is also a valuable place for learning more "news and facts".
Of course, adding this societal impact to /. does mean that we get all that comes along with a society. That means nonsense, back-biting, trolling, name-calling, as well as the brilliant contributions mentioned earlier, not to mention interjections of much needed (and appreciated) humour. And that means, unless we want this society to fall into anarchical chaos (which I'm sure some wouldn't mind or would even enjoy), we need to create some form of moderation.
We all who read /. regularly are members of this community, be it occasional or hard-core. Anything affecting this community (in this case, moderation) affects us. Thus, /. moderation is a valid topic for /. news.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
The way *I'd* implement it, the M2 would be presented with *both* moderation activities and be able to score *both*. Same goes for the second example. Remember, it will most likely be on a sliding scale (say, from -5 to strongly agree) so each of the moderators will get the appropriate response. They'll be accountable only for their actions, not for another's.
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...
Maybe I understood his explanation because I've been coding ceaselessly all Labour day, but here goes my attempt at translation:
"A [MetaModerator] gets 10 comments..."
An M2 logs in and is presented with a page which contains 10 moderated comments (and hopefully the article which they're commenting on) as well as further descriptors explaining what type of action was performed on them. The M2 then decides whether each decision was a good one, a neutral one, a silly, or even bad/spiteful/baseless/you-name-it one, and so indicates through some form provided for that purpose which is most likely right after the comment.
The program then attaches these decisions to a description of the moderators' behaviours. If you get a lot of good decision marks, your Moderation Karma increases. If you get a bunch of bad decision marks, it decreases, and you will eventually lose the ability to moderate if I understand correctly.
Hope that explained it, and Rob, I hope that's pretty much on the mark :)
Droit devant soi on ne peut pas aller bien loin...