So stop your bitchin and go setup your own Slashdot. The code is free so it shouldn't be a problem to get it up in time before beta goes live. All the beta haters will love you for it.
BTW I hate the beta too but I hate what you're doing more.
Ironically, you're destroying/. when you're trying to save it this way.
The point of the distruption is to bring awarness and that has clearly been accomplished. You're continuing distruption however is fueled by a different motive which is to control/. and make/. do what you want them to do. That's a violation of property rights and I'm not going to support it. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's not you're fucking Slashdot! Trying to control them won't work and will cause more harm than good.
Here's a superior way to accomplish what you want. Once you've communicated your displeasure and have gotten confirmation from the owners that they understand your concerns, simply wait to see what happens. If the owners decide to not please their audience then they'll have a natural consequence of losing that audience and revenue. It will also create void for someone else to fill with perhaps a better site than the "perfect" classic/.
I know you're trying to be funny by saying that libertarians are running Sweden but there is some truth to that. Sweden is rank fairly high on the economic freedom index. They have somewhat low corporate taxes and stay out of wars and these are things that you'll find in common with libertarians. Having that said, they are not a wealthy country either measured as a whole or per capita. Like other socialist countries, they have to enjoy a lower standard of living than countries with smaller governments.
Children aren't adults. They can't reason like adults. They're unfinished adults in training. Swatting an adult on the butt because they started to dart out into traffic . . . would offend most people. Swatting a child on the butt because they did the same . . . might just keep them alive long enough to be an adult one day themselves. Because you won't always be there to save them.
Show me evidence that swatting a child will stop them from darting out into traffic. I can tell you from experience that something very interesting happens when you do this. The child loses your trust and your ability to influence them diminishes. Do you trust anyone that hits you?
Children have unfinished brains and have difficulty seeing dangers so they have to rely on someone that they can trust. If you want your child to do what you ask, build trust, don't destroy it.
You may be right . . . swatting the child on the butt to enforce a lesson may very well be "Immoral" . . . it may also be "necessary" to train the child to not do dangerous things that can kill them.
Hitting is absolutely not necessary and has the opposite affect that you think. It destroys trust. Once you have someone's trust, they'll do anything you say.
(Unmarried with no children so of course I'm an expert. But . . . ) I'd prefer to have a live offended child . . . than an emotionally well adjusted casket filler.
Sorry if that sounds brutal . . . I don't intend to offend. Its just unreasonable to assume you can "teach" a child, in the same way you "teach" an adult.
We want the same thing, to have alive and happy children. Using force is an inferior method and ironically puts your child at a higher risk of danger later in life. A child who has been forced to please the people around them will rebel later and not trust any advice from their oppressors. Advice about education, sex and drugs will fall on deaf ears.
I wouldn't "reason" with a two year old why drinking drain cleaner is a bad idea . . . I'd just lock it out of their reach. Yes, they have rights and emotions, and we want them to be non-traumatized and emotionally sound adults . . . but they must LIVE to achieve that.
Removing someone from unknown lethal danger is not coercion. It's coercion when you have determined that he is wilfully putting themselves in danger and fully understands the consequences and level of risk. Most children don't have a will to die and hurt themselves unless they've been abused or have a genetic defect.
Chores: No punishment but I will show them that if they help me, I'll help them. Next time they ask for a ride to their friend's house, I might be too busy for example because I need to do the chores that they didn't do. Homework: No punishment. I will try to find out why they aren't doing their homework, encourage them and show them that education will make their lives much easier later in life. Beat up their sibling: I'll physically defend the sibling but there will be no punishment. I'll try conjure feelings of empathy in them.
Many children misbehave when you force them to follow rules outside of the non aggression principle. From my experience, it's like a Chinese finger trap, the more you try to control them, the more they do the opposite of what you want. Coercion works for some children early on but rebellious behaviour eventually surfaces, usually in their teens which is when some parents have difficulty.
My most valuable lesson as a parent is don't control you children. Guide them. If they don't please you with their choices, don't punish them, it's ineffective and it will make them resent you.
The Bitcoin network still works great even if everyone has an equal share of Bitcoins. There's no dependence on a base which is the key identifier of a pyramid scheme.
You're either a troll or I'm having discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between objective and subjective. Must be slow morning for me. ATH1
The truth is the same regardless of the source. I can't have an opinion on the sum of 2 + 2 just like I can't have an opinion on whether the Bitcoin network is a pyramid scheme.
Bitcoin is nearly opposite of a pyramid scheme in a mathematical sense. Because Bitcoins are algorithmically made scarce, no exponential benefit is derived from introducing new users to use of it. There is a quantitative benefit in having additional interest or demand, but this is in no way exponential.
Bitcoin is not a pyramid. A pyramid is a scheme where a few at the top depend on a large base to keep it going. Bitcoin is a peer to peer system like BitTorrent. Hard to believe you got a score of 5 Insightful for such a non-insightful comment.
While the old GTK vs QT and C vs C++ debate continues, the interesting stuff is really happening in the Web space with projects like Mozilla Servo where the UI is parallelised as much as possible. Servo might be rendering HTML at first but it could just as easily render another XML dialect designed for apps like XUL. Actually, it would be nice if they could move away from XML and move to JSON but I digress.
... but I *do* have to trust a group of random people on the Internet who have a massive stake in the market and say they would never manipulate that market.
Bitcoin will have more impact on our lives than any technology that has emerged over the last 20 years. It is a game changer. This is the kind of thing that only happens once in a lifetime.
I don't know where the price of a Bitcoin will eventually settle to but there's one thing I do know for sure; the Bitcoin protocol and network isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
If you aren't prepared to support the system, why should you be allowed to benefit from it (ignoring for now the substantial benefits you have already derived) ?
If you are able to pay taxes and refuse, it is immoral for you to live in a society that depends on those taxes to function.
I said if you aren't going to pay taxes, then you shouldn't expect to live in a society that provides publicly-funded services.
So you're saying that I'm immoral for not giving money to someone who is holding a gun to my head because they are providing me with a service? Wow. Not sure how to respond to that. You're the first person who's ever proposed to me that the person from who the government is stealing from is the one who is immoral. That's like saying it's immoral for slave to refuse to pick cotton because the master is providing him with food.
Ok, so they'll put you in exile at gun point. I'll feel better now... Sounds like a moral institution.
Why do you say that there won't be any services without government? A society is not a government. Just because you're currently depending on government for services doesn't mean that only government can provide these services.
Unsustainable. Great way to reduce the number of customers. It'll never work. In addition, this is usually done with the help of government by using the government police and government jail.
knowingly sold lethally dangerous products
Unsustainable. How long do you think that will last. When people get bad service, they tell up to 100 people.
Customer service gurus know that while one happy, satisfied customer might tell five friends and family members about their pleasant experience, an unhappy customer is more likely to share the bad news with up to 100 people.
Government pollution through war dwarfs all other pollution. Pollution is a violation of the non aggression principle and it should be dealt with by force. Are you saying that you don't approve of government because of all the pollution that they produce? Educate yourself. http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
and spent millions lobbying to minimise workers rights and minimise their salaries.
Of course corporations will use government to do their dirty work. The government literally has the biggest guns and the cheapest way to gain access to the these guns is to lobby. Buying the guns would be way too expensive and not profitable. When governments disappear, so does lobbying and the guns.
The best way to make a profit is to be a monopolist and/or rentier. Which is why all capitalists strive for those outcomes.
If monopolies are bad and the government is a monopoly then why do you think governments are good?
Companies make profits by pleasing you. If they don't, you can and should stop paying for their products and services. It's not profitable to SPAM when no one is buying. You can't just stop pay the government though, no matter how shitty their services are. They'll knock your door down and put you in jail at gun point.
Any corporation that would try to arm themselves with tanks and missiles would go bankrupt very quickly. It's just not profitable. Profit comes from pleasing your fellow man, not killing him.
Slashdot Mirror
So stop your bitchin and go setup your own Slashdot. The code is free so it shouldn't be a problem to get it up in time before beta goes live. All the beta haters will love you for it.
BTW I hate the beta too but I hate what you're doing more.
Ironically, you're destroying /. when you're trying to save it this way.
The point of the distruption is to bring awarness and that has clearly been accomplished. You're continuing distruption however is fueled by a different motive which is to control /. and make /. do what you want them to do. That's a violation of property rights and I'm not going to support it. Let me let you in on a little secret. It's not you're fucking Slashdot! Trying to control them won't work and will cause more harm than good.
Here's a superior way to accomplish what you want. Once you've communicated your displeasure and have gotten confirmation from the owners that they understand your concerns, simply wait to see what happens. If the owners decide to not please their audience then they'll have a natural consequence of losing that audience and revenue. It will also create void for someone else to fill with perhaps a better site than the "perfect" classic /.
Corporate tax rate is relatively low. 22% in Sweden vs 40% in the United States.
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/...
Don't get me wrong, I'd confidently place a socialist label on Sweden as a whole but it's not as socialist as some might think.
I know you're trying to be funny by saying that libertarians are running Sweden but there is some truth to that. Sweden is rank fairly high on the economic freedom index. They have somewhat low corporate taxes and stay out of wars and these are things that you'll find in common with libertarians. Having that said, they are not a wealthy country either measured as a whole or per capita. Like other socialist countries, they have to enjoy a lower standard of living than countries with smaller governments.
Coercion is immoral WHEN DEALING WITH AN ADULT.
Age doesn't change the immorality of coercion.
Children aren't adults. They can't reason like adults.
They're unfinished adults in training.
Swatting an adult on the butt because they started to dart out into traffic . . . would offend most people.
Swatting a child on the butt because they did the same . . . might just keep them alive long enough to be an adult one day themselves. Because you won't always be there to save them.
Show me evidence that swatting a child will stop them from darting out into traffic. I can tell you from experience that something very interesting happens when you do this. The child loses your trust and your ability to influence them diminishes. Do you trust anyone that hits you?
Children have unfinished brains and have difficulty seeing dangers so they have to rely on someone that they can trust. If you want your child to do what you ask, build trust, don't destroy it.
You may be right . . . swatting the child on the butt to enforce a lesson may very well be "Immoral" . . . it may also be "necessary" to train the child to not do dangerous things that can kill them.
Hitting is absolutely not necessary and has the opposite affect that you think. It destroys trust. Once you have someone's trust, they'll do anything you say.
(Unmarried with no children so of course I'm an expert. But . . . ) I'd prefer to have a live offended child . . . than an emotionally well adjusted casket filler.
Sorry if that sounds brutal . . . I don't intend to offend. Its just unreasonable to assume you can "teach" a child, in the same way you "teach" an adult.
We want the same thing, to have alive and happy children. Using force is an inferior method and ironically puts your child at a higher risk of danger later in life. A child who has been forced to please the people around them will rebel later and not trust any advice from their oppressors. Advice about education, sex and drugs will fall on deaf ears.
I wouldn't "reason" with a two year old why drinking drain cleaner is a bad idea . . . I'd just lock it out of their reach. Yes, they have rights and emotions, and we want them to be non-traumatized and emotionally sound adults . . . but they must LIVE to achieve that.
Removing someone from unknown lethal danger is not coercion. It's coercion when you have determined that he is wilfully putting themselves in danger and fully understands the consequences and level of risk. Most children don't have a will to die and hurt themselves unless they've been abused or have a genetic defect.
I follow the non aggression principle.
Chores: No punishment but I will show them that if they help me, I'll help them. Next time they ask for a ride to their friend's house, I might be too busy for example because I need to do the chores that they didn't do.
Homework: No punishment. I will try to find out why they aren't doing their homework, encourage them and show them that education will make their lives much easier later in life.
Beat up their sibling: I'll physically defend the sibling but there will be no punishment. I'll try conjure feelings of empathy in them.
Many children misbehave when you force them to follow rules outside of the non aggression principle. From my experience, it's like a Chinese finger trap, the more you try to control them, the more they do the opposite of what you want. Coercion works for some children early on but rebellious behaviour eventually surfaces, usually in their teens which is when some parents have difficulty.
My most valuable lesson as a parent is don't control you children. Guide them. If they don't please you with their choices, don't punish them, it's ineffective and it will make them resent you.
The Bitcoin network still works great even if everyone has an equal share of Bitcoins. There's no dependence on a base which is the key identifier of a pyramid scheme.
You're either a troll or I'm having discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between objective and subjective. Must be slow morning for me. ATH1
The truth is the same regardless of the source. I can't have an opinion on the sum of 2 + 2 just like I can't have an opinion on whether the Bitcoin network is a pyramid scheme.
Myth: Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_is_a_pyramid_scheme
Bitcoin is not a pyramid. A pyramid is a scheme where a few at the top depend on a large base to keep it going. Bitcoin is a peer to peer system like BitTorrent. Hard to believe you got a score of 5 Insightful for such a non-insightful comment.
While the old GTK vs QT and C vs C++ debate continues, the interesting stuff is really happening in the Web space with projects like Mozilla Servo where the UI is parallelised as much as possible. Servo might be rendering HTML at first but it could just as easily render another XML dialect designed for apps like XUL. Actually, it would be nice if they could move away from XML and move to JSON but I digress.
... but I *do* have to trust a group of random people on the Internet who have a massive stake in the market and say they would never manipulate that market.
As he types this on his Linux box.
Bitcoin will have more impact on our lives than any technology that has emerged over the last 20 years. It is a game changer. This is the kind of thing that only happens once in a lifetime.
Bitcoin is a programmable and on open protocol. Proof of work can easily be changed to SETI@home, Rosetta@home or any of the projects listed here
I don't know where the price of a Bitcoin will eventually settle to but there's one thing I do know for sure; the Bitcoin protocol and network isn't going to disappear anytime soon.
Humbled after reading Largest small system emulator. http://ioccc.org/2013/cable3/hint.html
I'd love to continue this debate with you but I'm out of time.
I urge you however to look into Walter E. Williams and Milton Friedman.
Youtube has some good material.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=walter+e+williams&sm=3
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=milton+friedman&sm=3
Disclaimer: I'm a reforming big government/liberal/socialist. Evidence on how destructive these systems are is overwhelming.
If you aren't prepared to support the system, why should you be allowed to benefit from it (ignoring for now the substantial benefits you have already derived) ?
If you are able to pay taxes and refuse, it is immoral for you to live in a society that depends on those taxes to function.
I said if you aren't going to pay taxes, then you shouldn't expect to live in a society that provides publicly-funded services.
So you're saying that I'm immoral for not giving money to someone who is holding a gun to my head because they are providing me with a service? Wow. Not sure how to respond to that. You're the first person who's ever proposed to me that the person from who the government is stealing from is the one who is immoral. That's like saying it's immoral for slave to refuse to pick cotton because the master is providing him with food.
Ok, so they'll put you in exile at gun point. I'll feel better now... Sounds like a moral institution.
Why do you say that there won't be any services without government? A society is not a government. Just because you're currently depending on government for services doesn't mean that only government can provide these services.
That's why corporations have sued their customers
Unsustainable. Great way to reduce the number of customers. It'll never work. In addition, this is usually done with the help of government by using the government police and government jail.
knowingly sold lethally dangerous products
Unsustainable. How long do you think that will last. When people get bad service, they tell up to 100 people.
http://www.unitiv.com/intelligent-help-desk-blog/bid/64134/New-Survey-Shows-Unhappy-Customers-Spread-the-Word
knowingly polluted the environment
Government pollution through war dwarfs all other pollution. Pollution is a violation of the non aggression principle and it should be dealt with by force. Are you saying that you don't approve of government because of all the pollution that they produce? Educate yourself. http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
and spent millions lobbying to minimise workers rights and minimise their salaries.
Of course corporations will use government to do their dirty work. The government literally has the biggest guns and the cheapest way to gain access to the these guns is to lobby. Buying the guns would be way too expensive and not profitable. When governments disappear, so does lobbying and the guns.
The best way to make a profit is to be a monopolist and/or rentier. Which is why all capitalists strive for those outcomes.
If monopolies are bad and the government is a monopoly then why do you think governments are good?
Companies make profits by pleasing you. If they don't, you can and should stop paying for their products and services. It's not profitable to SPAM when no one is buying. You can't just stop pay the government though, no matter how shitty their services are. They'll knock your door down and put you in jail at gun point.
Any corporation that would try to arm themselves with tanks and missiles would go bankrupt very quickly. It's just not profitable. Profit comes from pleasing your fellow man, not killing him.
Spread the word ShanghaiBill, spread the word!