> The fact that its rated insightful makes it even funnier
(True.)
And this comment should not be rated as "funny" (althou it is that too), but as "insightful". And my comment should be "off-topic" (even if it is sightly funny).
My story is pretty much same as your's except that we didn't get much of additional Slashdot effect. I guess Slashdoters can understand "Finland only", unlike the one guy at stonebrook.edu who sent around 200000 request for the file during Sunday. *sigh*
My fav is the coolest-ever (as in calm) raidar operator's even voiced statement: "A fleet of Satr Destroyers is coming out of hyper-space in sector 12." (Or something to that effect.)
I agree, we have a fight in our hands. Let's do some scientific analysis and try to figure which one will win.
> The Jedi are rallying behind the Force, while the Rangers summon the courage of the Numenor. Edge: SW.
Force and Jedi took a blow in the Phantom Menace (Mitocondrias or what?) but at least they didn't get sunk and beaten at every turn.
> The Skywalker family against the Isildur lineage. Edge: even.
Both families have a lot going for them and we simply do not know enough about them to judge. Curently Skywalker's great strenght is of course Natalie Portman (NAKED AND PETRIFIED!... sorry, about that, I just had to do it.) but she may
face stiff (or should that be "stiffing") competition from Liv Tyler.
> Darth Vader vs. the Nine. Edge: LotR
Vader is cool, and so was Maul and emperor too has things going for him, but the Nazgul are the real thing. They are scary, really scary. They are probably the one really-scary-evil-guys-in-black in popular fantasy that don't suffer inflation during the story. Wizard-king is just as scary bashing down the gates of Minas Tirith as he was chasing hobbits in Shire and Bree.
> Obewan up against Gandalf the Gray. Dead/Ghost Obewan up against Gandalf the White. Edge: even
Sir Alec should have played Galdalf who is much more complicated character then Obi-Wan. I don't think Ian McKellen can match Sir Alec so Obi-Wan has room for a come-back. This is your chance Evan, use it, um, wisely.
> Bobafet vs. the Balrog. Edge: LotR
The Balrog kicks Boba's butt even with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded. You could throw in Rankor too and it wouldn't make a difference.
> Storm Troopers vs. Orcs. Edge: LotR
The Imperial Elite, gimme a break. Orcs suck as bad but at least they know they do. And there's Uruk-hai to consider.
Conclusion: it's 3 to 1 for Lord of the Rings with 2 even.
It looks bad for Star Wars but it's not hopeless. It would be really easy to fumble the Aragon and Arwen romance and even more so with understandable but dangerous story changes. That would make the Skywalker-Isildur match-up a clear victory for SW. That would pretty much leave to whole battle in to the able hands of Evan McGregor as he can be the tie-breaker in the Obi-Wan-Galdalf deadlock.
So it looks like a close thing with LotR leading at the moment but Star Wars definately able to catch up.
--Flam, who won't watch the trailers as he is going anyways.
Or one lucky (and not-so-brilliant) bastard like me...
I just beat my previous record for Beginger level by 3 seconds. That's like the biggest improvement _ever_. And I'm on a 10-year-old laptop with almost non-working roller-ball.
I worked for an hour to get my record on this machine down from 32 seconds and finally got it to 31. Just one more, I thought, wih little luck I can get this down under 20 seconds... and then total of 4 clicks later, BAM, 6 seconds!
Do you really want a government that believes IT can make the important decisions for you
What do you want if not that? A government that doesn't trust itself to make important decisions?
If you can't trust them with taxes then how can you trust them with the nukes?
Couldn't md5sum be replaced with some authentication method within the client? And couldn't you make that method's output dependent of input from the server. Wouldn't make it perfect, as you could always reverse engineer the whole client, but it wouldn't be incredibly easy anymore.
That goes for real life too. The female form is a much more pleasing shape to look at than the male form.(Don't think I'm biased because I'm male, ladies. Anyone who's ever studied art knows this.)
I must disagree with that. As mentioned in previous post, this is very much a cultural thing.
Never studied art or marketing so I don't persume to know what other people think about this. I do however have a visually orientated perception of the world and looks do mean quite a bit to me (more then they should, probably). To me the male form is very pleasing, just as much as the female. Now there are more real life females that I find beautiful then males that I find beautiful/handsome/cute/etc, but that can easily be just because females in average spend more effort on appearance. And the things a good tailor can do with a well-build man...
Oh boy, does this Katz dude generate some heat. Even people with history of intelligent posting are losing their marples and posting some amazing personal attacks.
I do not agree with all that Katz says, I think my background in too much different from his, but he does speak about important issues. And he got one thing right; he knows that technology and science aren't the most important thing. They are the driving force behind todays economic and sociological changes but they still should be the tools and we (the people) should be the masters. It may piss you of that ethical questions are more important then the technolocal issues which give rise to them, but that's ok. Feel free to pissed about it, but if you disagree with this... well then you are wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Yes, I know, being wrong is not supposed to be possible today, there's just supposed to be many subjective truths and we can all have our own.
Sure Katz is wordy and gasbag and what-not, but at least he's got a clue about priorities. Of course, his priorities aren't exactly in accordance with the mainstream here. I guess that's why so many people just can't stand him.
Please remember that Slashdot does not carry malpractice insurance and any advice you get from Slashdot readers (myself included) should be highly suspect, since most of us ARE NOT LAWYERS.
That is very good advice. For legal advice, use lawyers. Remember, however, that legality isn't the only thing that should be considered. For a company coming into contact with Open Source for the first time Slashdot can be a valueable resource. Reading and asking questions can prevent many misunderstandings. Companies should take care not to alinate the Open Source community with newbie errors. For advice on the practices of the Open source community Slashdot is as good as any.
To me it would seem obvious that the jury system is based on the premise that most people are capable of acting as jurors. Let's call this assumption A.
You describe the most people of today in rather unfathery manner, especially their capacity for logical thinking. To make my arguments simpler, let's pretend that I agree with you on this (and I honestly do agree with much of it). However, I would also contend that person fitting that description would be unfit to be a juror. Let's call these assumption B (the description) and conclusion C (unfit jurors).
You start off by stating that jury system per se isn't fundamentally flawed. (Assuming that "problem is not" approximately equals "isn't flawed"). I am puzzled by this. To me A, B and C together bring about the conclusion (D) that jury system can't work.
There are few possibilities that might explain this. You could disagree with A, although that would be rather far out. B is your own words. The leap from B to C is probably questionable, but if you allow C then D is pretty obvious. So I think that either you: a) disagree with C (Meaning that people don't have to be able to think logically to be able jurors.) b) just didn't think it thru.
--Flam, who also thinks some people shouldn't be able to vote on account of stupidity
I am not as pessimistic about humans as you seem to be, on this subject at least. I do agree with you about most that you say. However, I do think that there has been definate positive change in at least one very meaningful thing. In ancient times rights of a person were applied to very limited group, for exsample the adult males of one citystate. In times more and people have gotten their rights and (while not nearly perfect in practice) now all humans have rights due to a person. This trend has been gradual and steady, and shows no sign of stopping at humans. While I am rather ambivalent on animal rights, (or AI rights for that matter) I am pleased about this trend. It has required masses of people to have different view of the world and self then their ancentors. You me it is very heartwarming to know that this can happen, the human culture can change for the better.
Meanwhile, the promised "freedom from necessity" is further away than ever. This is not a technological problem -- we could implement a society with no poverty today if we had the will and the virtue to do so. We have not done so, we are not going to do so, because greed ("Greed is good! It fuels The Economy!") is the rule.
I agree with some of this wholeheartedly. It's not technology problem to feed and clothe everybody, we could even afford a considerable amount of luxury for everyone. Humans are to blame, plain and simple.
However there is a difference between what we could do today and what Clarke is taking about. A large percentage of humans are still working in producing and distributing the necessities of life. Many of them probably doen't like their jobs very much and some of them at least would rather not work at all. If they all would stop working, we'd be doomed no matter how virtuous we are. In Clarke's vision UltraIntelligent machines will handle producing and distributing necessities and luxuries and no human who does not want to work has to. These are two very different situations. It's rather much easier to share when everybody knows that they will have plenty left.
That of course does not mean that we will become a leasure state. A lawyer state in which everyone tries to get has much for themselves by playing law-games seems at least as likely.
I think your dislike for Katz has clouded your thinking. I sympathize.
Of course pain is not irrelevant. When you say that pain is irrelevent but personhood is relevant, you fail to see that pain includes personhood. Now, I'm not trying to promote some angists philosophy, or, for that matter, arguing that ability to sense equals personhood. What I am saying is that when Katz says "Can Androids Feel Pain" he really means "Are Androids Going To Be Persons Just Like Me And You Really Soon Now." (Note the difference of sense and feel.)
Person isn't very good word for the use you are putting it into. Person is rather synonymous with human and that may well lead to assumptions that aren't correct. Most dog-owners would agree that their dog has a personality, but few would consider the pet to be a person. Still many dog-owners would agree that their dog has rights, meaning that in the eyes of the owner the self of the dog has value that is not dependant of the owner. That's what you mean when you say person, a being with rights and value in itself. It is possible that an android would someday be able to pass a human (which is so hard that many humans fail lot of times) thus qualifying as a person, but as a whole I would prefer "a righted being" (or something similar) as that would potentially include animals.
As to choice and meaning provived by modern technology. Clarke speaks about future not today. In the future leasure state there really is choice in the form of being free of necessity. This is to some extent reality in the wellfare states of modern Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland). I personally know several people who have decided not to work for living but rather live of the social benefits provided by the society. This is natuarally discouraged, because we do not not have AI/UI/AL of the future at our disposal, so if too many people stop working the system collapses. Anyways, that's besides the point, which was that Clarke said future technology, he didn't say modern technology.
To very many people the meaning comes from necessity. Their choices are a) do or b) die. Just being alive and finding substance from within themselves isn't a reality they have to deal with. Sure numerous men and women have contemplated the meaning before but they have more or less been part of that other 1% and have chosen to think about meaning. This is by the way where I think Clarke goes wrong. He suggests that given the chance people would start to think. I really do think most people will not choose to think but rather will drown themselves in escapist entertainment, which undoubledly will be available in abundance.
Your quote from G.K. Chesterton indicates that you really missed the point so badly that you think that you are disagreeing when you actually are agreeing. I do share Clarke's and Katz's fear for humanity.
Might really be worth it to grant as much rights to animals as possible... we really don't need a bad precedent when androids get around deciding what do about human rights.
Your defination of philosopher seems pretty limiting to me. In Europe (France in particular, I think) at least many influential current and recent philosophers have published their views in essays and prose, making them authors according your definations. Many mathematist and physists are significantly contibuting to meta-physics. Right now compuper scientists are contributing very much neurology, psychology and philosophy. At some point it became impossible for a single man to have deep understanding of many fields. At that point the ideal philosopher of yours also became much less significant to the development of philosophy as a whole. I agree with the previous poster that philosophers aren't anymore specialists of their own field.
--Flam, who has studied so far EE, math, CS, Drama and sociology
Oh, and this isn't science fiction, either- MIT, for example, is working on exactly the system I describe right now (they're calling it Oxygen).
Yes, it's not sci-fi, but it's Y2010+ stuff like genetic programing and quantium computers. Lot of software used today will be obsolete by then, but things that are just now coming in, like OS Office Suite will still be around at that time and along them will stay the econonic structures that are being build right now.
Open Source will force many programers (and other IT personel) to reinvent themselves in the workplace, as IMHO smaller percentage of IT personell will be actually programing in 5 years time then is now. Other changes (dare I say advencements) will natuarally also force the field to re-structure, but I would be fairly confident that programer as profession is rather safe for the next 20 years.
--Flam
PS. Programers may be replaced by Science Officers someday, but consultants are here to stay:-)
I often lounge at a student club frequented by CS majors at my university (TTKK). I have done so for many years and during that time I have had give informal tutoring to many first and second year students that are having real difficulties with C/C++. In my opinion, C/C++ is too hard. Yes, they can learn it, but many have to concentrate on the language so much that they don't actually have even a chance to learn programing.
-- Flam, who learned to program by diffusion at the said club.
I did notice that they weren't actually making (designing and manufacturing) the hardware, but they are attaching their name to a hardware product. To business-types (or half-breeds like me) that is "entering the hardware field". Especially if they will market it in connection to their established brands.
For Microsoft, is this the first significant entry into hardware?
Isn't it interesting how they have been buying into fields outside the traditional software, like media content and online services. This trend could probably be seen as a precautionary action in case they really would start to lose revenue from OS-market. And I would rate that a wise move from their part.
--Flam
PS. MS Console with Special CG Effects never before experienced, like the Blue Screen Of Death.
While it does happen that trolls trigger valuable discussions on occasion, it is relativly uncommon event compared to number of trolls and counter-trolls. Moderators should be able to identify these easily enough. I think it would be worth a try.
Automatic penalties might need to be cancelled at some point (like two positive moderator points would also cancell the automatic negative point).
But that too is a good way for losing part of your installed base. If you force people to do an upgrade/immigration, they will look for their options too.
Slashdot Mirror
> The fact that its rated insightful makes it even funnier
(True.)
And this comment should not be rated as "funny" (althou it is that too), but as "insightful". And my comment should be "off-topic" (even if it is sightly funny).
--Flam
> I'm a sysadmin with one of the download sites
...
Likewise, of Peliportti.net.
My story is pretty much same as your's except that we didn't get much of additional Slashdot effect. I guess Slashdoters can understand "Finland only", unlike the one guy at stonebrook.edu who sent around 200000 request for the file during Sunday. *sigh*
Traffic is pretty much normal right now
--Flam
My fav is the coolest-ever (as in calm) raidar operator's even voiced statement: "A fleet of Satr Destroyers is coming out of hyper-space in sector 12." (Or something to that effect.)
--Flam
-Yeah, I agree: SW==camp
I agree, we have a fight in our hands. Let's do some scientific analysis and try to figure which one will win.
... sorry, about that, I just had to do it.) but she may
> The Jedi are rallying behind the Force, while the Rangers summon the courage of the Numenor.
Edge: SW.
Force and Jedi took a blow in the Phantom Menace (Mitocondrias or what?) but at least they didn't get sunk and beaten at every turn.
> The Skywalker family against the Isildur lineage.
Edge: even.
Both families have a lot going for them and we simply do not know enough about them to judge. Curently Skywalker's great strenght is of course Natalie Portman (NAKED AND PETRIFIED!
face stiff (or should that be "stiffing") competition from Liv Tyler.
> Darth Vader vs. the Nine.
Edge: LotR
Vader is cool, and so was Maul and emperor too has things going for him, but the Nazgul are the real thing. They are scary, really scary. They are probably the one really-scary-evil-guys-in-black in popular fantasy that don't suffer inflation during the story. Wizard-king is just as scary bashing down the gates of Minas Tirith as he was chasing hobbits in Shire and Bree.
> Obewan up against Gandalf the Gray. Dead/Ghost Obewan up against Gandalf the White.
Edge: even
Sir Alec should have played Galdalf who is much more complicated character then Obi-Wan. I don't think Ian McKellen can match Sir Alec so Obi-Wan has room for a come-back. This is your chance Evan, use it, um, wisely.
> Bobafet vs. the Balrog.
Edge: LotR
The Balrog kicks Boba's butt even with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded. You could throw in Rankor too and it wouldn't make a difference.
> Storm Troopers vs. Orcs.
Edge: LotR
The Imperial Elite, gimme a break. Orcs suck as bad but at least they know they do. And there's Uruk-hai to consider.
Conclusion: it's 3 to 1 for Lord of the Rings with 2 even.
It looks bad for Star Wars but it's not hopeless. It would be really easy to fumble the Aragon and Arwen romance and even more so with understandable but dangerous story changes. That would make the Skywalker-Isildur match-up a clear victory for SW. That would pretty much leave to whole battle in to the able hands of Evan McGregor as he can be the tie-breaker in the Obi-Wan-Galdalf deadlock.
So it looks like a close thing with LotR leading at the moment but Star Wars definately able to catch up.
--Flam, who won't watch the trailers as he is going anyways.
> All it takes is one brilliant hacker...
...
... and then total of 4 clicks later, BAM, 6 seconds!
Or one lucky (and not-so-brilliant) bastard like me
I just beat my previous record for Beginger level by 3 seconds. That's like the biggest improvement _ever_. And I'm on a 10-year-old laptop with almost non-working roller-ball.
I worked for an hour to get my record on this machine down from 32 seconds and finally got it to 31. Just one more, I thought, wih little luck I can get this down under 20 seconds
--Flam, depressed because he's reached his peak.
What do you want if not that? A government that doesn't trust itself to make important decisions?
If you can't trust them with taxes then how can you trust them with the nukes?
--Flam
Touche!
--Flam
Couldn't md5sum be replaced with some authentication method within the client? And couldn't you make that method's output dependent of input from the server.
Wouldn't make it perfect, as you could always reverse engineer the whole client, but it wouldn't be incredibly easy anymore.
--Flam
I must disagree with that. As mentioned in previous post, this is very much a cultural thing.
Never studied art or marketing so I don't persume to know what other people think about this. I do however have a visually orientated perception of the world and looks do mean quite a bit to me (more then they should, probably). To me the male form is very pleasing, just as much as the female. Now there are more real life females that I find beautiful then males that I find beautiful/handsome/cute/etc, but that can easily be just because females in average spend more effort on appearance.
And the things a good tailor can do with a well-build man
--Flam, who is male, in case you wondered
I think you should stop calling then the Religious Right. That has much too positive ring to it. Call them the Religious Wrong. Everyone will get it.
Oh boy, does this Katz dude generate some heat. Even people with history of intelligent posting are losing their marples and posting some amazing personal attacks.
... well then you are wrong. Plain and simple wrong. Yes, I know, being wrong is not supposed to be possible today, there's just supposed to be many subjective truths and we can all have our own.
I do not agree with all that Katz says, I think my background in too much different from his, but he does speak about important issues. And he got one thing right; he knows that technology and science aren't the most important thing. They are the driving force behind todays economic and sociological changes but they still should be the tools and we (the people) should be the masters.
It may piss you of that ethical questions are more important then the technolocal issues which give rise to them, but that's ok. Feel free to pissed about it, but if you disagree with this
Sure Katz is wordy and gasbag and what-not, but at least he's got a clue about priorities. Of course, his priorities aren't exactly in accordance with the mainstream here. I guess that's why so many people just can't stand him.
--Flam
Yes. Oddities matter, even ones matter even more.
--Flam
That is very good advice. For legal advice, use lawyers. Remember, however, that legality isn't the only thing that should be considered.
For a company coming into contact with Open Source for the first time Slashdot can be a valueable resource. Reading and asking questions can prevent many misunderstandings. Companies should take care not to alinate the Open Source community with newbie errors. For advice on the practices of the Open source community Slashdot is as good as any.
--Flam
To me it would seem obvious that the jury system is based on the premise that most people are capable of acting as jurors. Let's call this assumption A.
You describe the most people of today in rather unfathery manner, especially their capacity for logical thinking. To make my arguments simpler, let's pretend that I agree with you on this (and I honestly do agree with much of it). However, I would also contend that person fitting that description would be unfit to be a juror. Let's call these assumption B (the description) and conclusion C (unfit jurors).
You start off by stating that jury system per se isn't fundamentally flawed. (Assuming that "problem is not" approximately equals "isn't flawed"). I am puzzled by this. To me A, B and C together bring about the conclusion (D) that jury system can't work.
There are few possibilities that might explain this. You could disagree with A, although that would be rather far out. B is your own words. The leap from B to C is probably questionable, but if you allow C then D is pretty obvious. So I think that either you:
a) disagree with C (Meaning that people don't have to be able to think logically to be able jurors.)
b) just didn't think it thru.
--Flam, who also thinks some people shouldn't be able to vote on account of stupidity
I agree with some of this wholeheartedly. It's not technology problem to feed and clothe everybody, we could even afford a considerable amount of luxury for everyone. Humans are to blame, plain and simple.
However there is a difference between what we could do today and what Clarke is taking about.
A large percentage of humans are still working in producing and distributing the necessities of life. Many of them probably doen't like their jobs very much and some of them at least would rather not work at all. If they all would stop working, we'd be doomed no matter how virtuous we are. In Clarke's vision UltraIntelligent machines will handle producing and distributing necessities and luxuries and no human who does not want to work has to. These are two very different situations. It's rather much easier to share when everybody knows that they will have plenty left.
That of course does not mean that we will become a leasure state. A lawyer state in which everyone tries to get has much for themselves by playing law-games seems at least as likely.
--Flam
I think your dislike for Katz has clouded your thinking. I sympathize.
... we really don't need a bad precedent when androids get around deciding what do about human rights.
Of course pain is not irrelevant. When you say that pain is irrelevent but personhood is relevant, you fail to see that pain includes personhood.
Now, I'm not trying to promote some angists philosophy, or, for that matter, arguing that ability to sense equals personhood. What I am saying is that when Katz says "Can Androids Feel Pain" he really means "Are Androids Going To Be Persons Just Like Me And You Really Soon Now." (Note the difference of sense and feel.)
Person isn't very good word for the use you are putting it into. Person is rather synonymous with human and that may well lead to assumptions that aren't correct. Most dog-owners would agree that their dog has a personality, but few would consider the pet to be a person. Still many dog-owners would agree that their dog has rights, meaning that in the eyes of the owner the self of the dog has value that is not dependant of the owner. That's what you mean when you say person, a being with rights and value in itself. It is possible that an android would someday be able to pass a human (which is so hard that many humans fail lot of times) thus qualifying as a person, but as a whole I would prefer "a righted being" (or something similar) as that would potentially include animals.
As to choice and meaning provived by modern technology. Clarke speaks about future not today. In the future leasure state there really is choice in the form of being free of necessity. This is to some extent reality in the wellfare states of modern Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland). I personally know several people who have decided not to work for living but rather live of the social benefits provided by the society. This is natuarally discouraged, because we do not not have AI/UI/AL of the future at our disposal, so if too many people stop working the system collapses. Anyways, that's besides the point, which was that Clarke said future technology, he didn't say modern technology.
To very many people the meaning comes from necessity. Their choices are a) do or b) die. Just being alive and finding substance from within themselves isn't a reality they have to deal with.
Sure numerous men and women have contemplated the meaning before but they have more or less been part of that other 1% and have chosen to think about meaning. This is by the way where I think Clarke goes wrong. He suggests that given the chance people would start to think. I really do think most people will not choose to think but rather will drown themselves in escapist entertainment, which undoubledly will be available in abundance.
Your quote from G.K. Chesterton indicates that you really missed the point so badly that you think that you are disagreeing when you actually are agreeing. I do share Clarke's and Katz's fear for humanity.
Might really be worth it to grant as much rights to animals as possible
--Flam
Your defination of philosopher seems pretty limiting to me. In Europe (France in particular, I think) at least many influential current and recent philosophers have published their views in essays and prose, making them authors according your definations.
Many mathematist and physists are significantly contibuting to meta-physics.
Right now compuper scientists are contributing very much neurology, psychology and philosophy.
At some point it became impossible for a single man to have deep understanding of many fields. At that point the ideal philosopher of yours also became much less significant to the development of philosophy as a whole.
I agree with the previous poster that philosophers aren't anymore specialists of their own field.
--Flam, who has studied so far EE, math, CS, Drama and sociology
I think ment that Linux was a favorite target for crackers.
--Flam
Yes, it's not sci-fi, but it's Y2010+ stuff like genetic programing and quantium computers. Lot of software used today will be obsolete by then, but things that are just now coming in, like OS Office Suite will still be around at that time and along them will stay the econonic structures that are being build right now.
Open Source will force many programers (and other IT personel) to reinvent themselves in the workplace, as IMHO smaller percentage of IT personell will be actually programing in 5 years time then is now. Other changes (dare I say advencements) will natuarally also force the field to re-structure, but I would be fairly confident that programer as profession is rather safe for the next 20 years.
--Flam
PS. Programers may be replaced by Science Officers someday, but consultants are here to stay
I often lounge at a student club frequented by CS majors at my university (TTKK). I have done so for many years and during that time I have had give informal tutoring to many first and second year students that are having real difficulties with C/C++. In my opinion, C/C++ is too hard. Yes, they can learn it, but many have to concentrate on the language so much that they don't actually have even a chance to learn programing.
-- Flam, who learned to program by diffusion at the said club.
I did notice that they weren't actually making (designing and manufacturing) the hardware, but they are attaching their name to a hardware product. To business-types (or half-breeds like me) that is "entering the hardware field". Especially if they will market it in connection to their established brands.
--Flam
(Assuming this is true and all that.)
For Microsoft, is this the first significant entry into hardware?
Isn't it interesting how they have been buying into fields outside the traditional software, like media content and online services. This trend could probably be seen as a precautionary action in case they really would start to lose revenue from OS-market. And I would rate that a wise move from their part.
--Flam
PS. MS Console with Special CG Effects never before experienced, like the Blue Screen Of Death.
While it does happen that trolls trigger valuable discussions on occasion, it is relativly uncommon event compared to number of trolls and counter-trolls. Moderators should be able to identify these easily enough. I think it would be worth a try.
Automatic penalties might need to be cancelled at some point (like two positive moderator points would also cancell the automatic negative point).
--Flam
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Is this your original or should it be attributed to someone else?
--Flam
But that too is a good way for losing part of your installed base. If you force people to do an upgrade/immigration, they will look for their options too.
--Flam