One of the problems with your suggestion is that "remove the guns" (from the society) is easier said than done. Also, due to what I've already stated (equalization offered by guns, human right to self defense, etc), outlawing guns in the United States at large is not the answer. Tightly controlled access to schools in particular (like we do with airports and courtrooms) is a possible step that could be taken. I won't argue with that.
Sir... Would -you- like to step through a metal detector each and every time you enter a restaurant, a library, a supermarket, a shopping mall, etc?
I don't understand why people who defend the *American* contitutional right to bear arms do not consider for one moment what would happen if every single American was armed.
Parents in large cities are afraid to let their children walk to school, for fear that they might be kidnapped. This fear isn't justified, but that is not my point. My point is that with every person on the streets carrying a gun, would you TRULY feel safe anywhere but inside your own home?
"But if someone shoots and kills me, they'll get shot and killed too!"
Maybe so. Not like it'll do you a hell of a lot of good, will it?
"They wouldn't shoot me in the first place because they know they'll get shot!" (or at the very least caught)
That sure stopped the Columbine killers, didn't it?
"They could have used bombs instead! Then hundreds would have died!"
You almost sound like you would enjoy that... Proof that you were right... Yes, they could have built bombs. Someone present as they detonate them could have shot them. Wow. Both the bomber and shooter are still dead. However, it's a lot harder to conceal a powerful bomb than it is a gun.
If someone feels so strongly that these people are determined to kill, then there's quite the underlying social problem in the US.
A fun analogy:
You are carrying a lot of cash.. Say, at least 4 digit's worth. You have a gun, it's in a shoulder holster. Some guy jumps out of an alley, and attempts to mug you. He is armed with a gun. You are *not* going to be able to get your own out, and you are *not* going to try to run or fight him off. Bye-bye cash. Or...
You are not armed. You are mugged by a fellow with a knife. (Or, for fun.. A pipe bomb. Call the fellow's bluff). You are being mugged by a fellow with a knife. Dare you flee with your thousands of dollars? Or fight him off? I think I would rather be stabbed once or twice than shot once or twice in an attempt to get away. Wouldn't you?
I've got to say this... With no statistics to back me up, residents of Canada probably have the highest per capita access to the internet in the world. I would say that a *majority* of people in my area have private access. (ie, family)
In the area of BC where I live, the high schools all have t1 connections, and the public libraries have a *lot* of computers for public access. Most (if not all) of the universities have broadband in the dorms, and I know that at UBC, the only residence without it is Gage. (Locals could tell you that its buildings are about 60 years old, and solid concrete.) I'm not sure of the total student population at UBC, but I think it's over 50,000... If I'm wrong, correct me please.
In the past few months, the availibility of cable modems residentially has been skyrocketting. I'm in a town of about 30,000 people, and I'm paying a bit under $40 Canadian a month for my service. Bandwidth is unlimited, and I get t1-equivalent speeds in peak hours.
Tangent: City councils in the area are trying to encourage high-tech companies to move here, and there *are* a fair number of minor ones that have., despite our beloved NDP government.
It is interesting to note that the @Home Service has been expanding very quickly here in the last little while. It makes me wonder if the cable companies saw this ruling coming, and quickly made a deal with them so that they could get their own subscriber base before anyone else has a chance.
In other provinces, especially southern Ontario, I know that broadband is at least as easy to acquire as it is here.
What I think need to be added to this feature is pretty simple to explain, but probably quite a bit of trouble to code.
For normal comments, it should show the score the comment had before the moderation, and after. As it is now, you can be looking at a 5 point comment marked overrated. You don't have a clue whether it was called overrated at 2/3, and bumped down one, which would be Unfair, or whether the comment was at 5, bumped down, then marked up again.
Same thing goes for Underrated.
Redundant has been discussed by other people, funny is subjective... It's harder to be able to give good answers than you may think.
As to normal comments: I had one show up three times on my list of ten... Two times for interesting, once for overrated. If at all possible, give us before and after scores. Please. This would make for much more confidence in the process. (For anyone who cares, I think I left all three in the middle.)
Out of curiousity, what opinions do people have about all the posts moderated up to 3/4/5 for being funny?
While I have a sense of humour, I read comments to see feedback on the article, not the top 10 things about whatever. (As good as a few of the lists have been)
I think that the issue is that users with the +1 only need to be moderated up once to break into what I call the "stellar" comment levels. (Higher than 2). Only a minority of the comments which hit 4 for "funny" are (subjective) deserving of it. Maybe my issue is that people should start their humour posts without the +1.
Also, a question. Does anyone know if moderation on anonymous posts (from logged on users) counts on their karma?
I know that this isn't one of the most recent changes, but as I saw it, the whole point of the flat mode for comments was so that you could read them offline. It started at 100 comments per page, which was great. It then moved down to 50. That was.. fine, but annoying.
Next up was 37, then 25. I don't know about other people, but my computer starts to freak out when I have more 15 Netscape windows open. (With 64 megs of ram, even).
Twenty five comments per page in flat mode is insane. It's hardly useful. When I browse something with 600 comments, I don't have the time to read all of them, and don't hit the server for a request at -1. I set threshold to 2, or even 3. And I still need 4 windows open? That's just silly.
Comment limits aside, all the changes are great. Someone asked about what abuse gives reason for the comment length thing. In some articles, people have posted full documents from people like ESR, footnotes intact. Takes about 10 pagedowns to get to the next comment.
I was just reading the other comments here, and I started to wonder something: Am I the only person who feels that a movie based on Ender's Game would be extremely hard to watch?
All of the main characters are younger than 14 for pretty much the whole story, and unlike all the tv shows and movies where they throw twenty-something year old in as high schoolers, they would need to use fairy young actors and (2) actresses. Let's see.. Supporting characters who can't really be dropped from the movie... Petra, Bonzo, Alai, Bean, (the older guy who was friends with Petra), a few others who have names I cannot recall. Valentine/Peter -could- be ignored in the movie.
Movies like that tend to be somewhat hard to bear. Take the more recent of the two movies based on The Lord of the Flies. This -is- my opinion, but.. it was brutal. I'm somewhat afraid that a movie on Ender's Game would be much the same. As the movie "Dune" is to the book. Watchable in its own right at best, a mockery of the book at worse.
Dozens of ~6 to ~14 year olds running around in a movie that probably can't help but turn itself into one aimed at children. And in a children's movie, can Ender kill two people and remain the hero?
To sum it up.. I liked this book enough so that I would never have wished for a movie to be based on it.
A couple things... To the best of my knowledge, the Windows version of Mozilla writes all of it's info to the file \windows\mozregistry.dat, NOT into the system.dat and user.dat files which make up the windows registry.
To your other question about a simple web browser, try viewer.exe. It is the browser, and nothing else. (Even so, it may insist on a profile.)
I just happenned to see a front page story on the MSNBC web page which is titled "AOL's epic aim: to slay Microsoft". I have to say that the obvious bias is funny, more than anything else.
It goes on about how AOL is trying to take over the world by cutting out Microsoft. It's fairly long, and doesn't really say much, but when they have the gall to present "AOL Everywhere" as a threat when the majority of their readers are using Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT, and a large share of them are using MS Internet Explorer 4/5 to read this article on MSNBC, it's too much.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems with your suggestion is that "remove the guns" (from the society) is easier said than done. Also, due to what I've already stated (equalization offered by guns, human right to self defense, etc), outlawing guns in the United States at large is not the answer. Tightly controlled access to schools in particular (like we do with airports and courtrooms) is a possible step that could be taken. I won't argue with that.
Sir... Would -you- like to step through a metal detector each and every time you enter a restaurant, a library, a supermarket, a shopping mall, etc?
I don't understand why people who defend the *American* contitutional right to bear arms do not consider for one moment what would happen if every single American was armed.
Parents in large cities are afraid to let their children walk to school, for fear that they might be kidnapped. This fear isn't justified, but that is not my point. My point is that with every person on the streets carrying a gun, would you TRULY feel safe anywhere but inside your own home?
"But if someone shoots and kills me, they'll get shot and killed too!"
Maybe so. Not like it'll do you a hell of a lot of good, will it?
"They wouldn't shoot me in the first place because they know they'll get shot!" (or at the very least caught)
That sure stopped the Columbine killers, didn't it?
"They could have used bombs instead! Then hundreds would have died!"
You almost sound like you would enjoy that... Proof that you were right... Yes, they could have built bombs. Someone present as they detonate them could have shot them. Wow. Both the bomber and shooter are still dead. However, it's a lot harder to conceal a powerful bomb than it is a gun.
If someone feels so strongly that these people are determined to kill, then there's quite the underlying social problem in the US.
A fun analogy:
You are carrying a lot of cash.. Say, at least 4 digit's worth. You have a gun, it's in a shoulder holster. Some guy jumps out of an alley, and attempts to mug you. He is armed with a gun. You are *not* going to be able to get your own out, and you are *not* going to try to run or fight him off. Bye-bye cash. Or...
You are not armed. You are mugged by a fellow with a knife. (Or, for fun.. A pipe bomb. Call the fellow's bluff). You are being mugged by a fellow with a knife. Dare you flee with your thousands of dollars? Or fight him off? I think I would rather be stabbed once or twice than shot once or twice in an attempt to get away. Wouldn't you?
------
I've got to say this... With no statistics to back me up, residents of Canada probably have the highest per capita access to the internet in the world. I would say that a *majority* of people in my area have private access. (ie, family)
In the area of BC where I live, the high schools all have t1 connections, and the public libraries have a *lot* of computers for public access. Most (if not all) of the universities have broadband in the dorms, and I know that at UBC, the only residence without it is Gage. (Locals could tell you that its buildings are about 60 years old, and solid concrete.) I'm not sure of the total student population at UBC, but I think it's over 50,000... If I'm wrong, correct me please.
In the past few months, the availibility of cable modems residentially has been skyrocketting. I'm in a town of about 30,000 people, and I'm paying a bit under $40 Canadian a month for my service. Bandwidth is unlimited, and I get t1-equivalent speeds in peak hours.
Tangent: City councils in the area are trying to encourage high-tech companies to move here, and there *are* a fair number of minor ones that have., despite our beloved NDP government.
It is interesting to note that the @Home Service has been expanding very quickly here in the last little while. It makes me wonder if the cable companies saw this ruling coming, and quickly made a deal with them so that they could get their own subscriber base before anyone else has a chance.
In other provinces, especially southern Ontario, I know that broadband is at least as easy to acquire as it is here.
------
What I think need to be added to this feature is pretty simple to explain, but probably quite a bit of trouble to code.
For normal comments, it should show the score the comment had before the moderation, and after. As it is now, you can be looking at a 5 point comment marked overrated. You don't have a clue whether it was called overrated at 2/3, and bumped down one, which would be Unfair, or whether the comment was at 5, bumped down, then marked up again.
Same thing goes for Underrated.
Redundant has been discussed by other people, funny is subjective... It's harder to be able to give good answers than you may think.
As to normal comments:
I had one show up three times on my list of ten... Two times for interesting, once for overrated. If at all possible, give us before and after scores. Please. This would make for much more confidence in the process. (For anyone who cares, I think I left all three in the middle.)
------
Out of curiousity, what opinions do people have about all the posts moderated up to 3/4/5 for being funny?
While I have a sense of humour, I read comments to see feedback on the article, not the top 10 things about whatever. (As good as a few of the lists have been)
I think that the issue is that users with the +1 only need to be moderated up once to break into what I call the "stellar" comment levels. (Higher than 2). Only a minority of the comments which hit 4 for "funny" are (subjective) deserving of it. Maybe my issue is that people should start their humour posts without the +1.
Also, a question. Does anyone know if moderation on anonymous posts (from logged on users) counts on their karma?
It shouldn't, IMO.
------
I know that this isn't one of the most recent changes, but as I saw it, the whole point of the flat mode for comments was so that you could read them offline. It started at 100 comments per page, which was great. It then moved down to 50. That was.. fine, but annoying.
Next up was 37, then 25. I don't know about other people, but my computer starts to freak out when I have more 15 Netscape windows open. (With 64 megs of ram, even).
Twenty five comments per page in flat mode is insane. It's hardly useful. When I browse something with 600 comments, I don't have the time to read all of them, and don't hit the server for a request at -1. I set threshold to 2, or even 3. And I still need 4 windows open? That's just silly.
Comment limits aside, all the changes are great. Someone asked about what abuse gives reason for the comment length thing. In some articles, people have posted full documents from people like ESR, footnotes intact. Takes about 10 pagedowns to get to the next comment.
I was just reading the other comments here, and I started to wonder something: Am I the only person who feels that a movie based on Ender's Game would be extremely hard to watch?
All of the main characters are younger than 14 for pretty much the whole story, and unlike all the tv shows and movies where they throw twenty-something year old in as high schoolers, they would need to use fairy young actors and (2) actresses. Let's see.. Supporting characters who can't really be dropped from the movie... Petra, Bonzo, Alai, Bean, (the older guy who was friends with Petra), a few others who have names I cannot recall. Valentine/Peter -could- be ignored in the movie.
Movies like that tend to be somewhat hard to bear. Take the more recent of the two movies based on The Lord of the Flies. This -is- my opinion, but.. it was brutal. I'm somewhat afraid that a movie on Ender's Game would be much the same. As the movie "Dune" is to the book. Watchable in its own right at best, a mockery of the book at worse.
Dozens of ~6 to ~14 year olds running around in a movie that probably can't help but turn itself into one aimed at children. And in a children's movie, can Ender kill two people and remain the hero?
To sum it up.. I liked this book enough so that I would never have wished for a movie to be based on it.
A couple things... To the best of my knowledge, the Windows version of Mozilla writes all of it's info to the file \windows\mozregistry.dat, NOT into the system.dat and user.dat files which make up the windows registry.
To your other question about a simple web browser, try viewer.exe. It is the browser, and nothing else. (Even so, it may insist on a profile.)
I'm thinking that if it isn't too hard to do, a limit on AC messages from a single IP in a certain time period would be nice.
I just happenned to see a front page story on the MSNBC web page which is titled "AOL's epic aim: to slay Microsoft". I have to say that the obvious bias is funny, more than anything else.
Link right here.
It goes on about how AOL is trying to take over the world by cutting out Microsoft. It's fairly long, and doesn't really say much, but when they have the gall to present "AOL Everywhere" as a threat when the majority of their readers are using Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT, and a large share of them are using MS Internet Explorer 4/5 to read this article on MSNBC, it's too much.