I'm sorry, but this obviously untrue. Pennies on the tax dollar actually go un-wasted. I agree that's not a good situation, but that's how it is. Also, I'm not the one who decides how to spend the tax-money. I wish they'd only take what they are willing to put to good use (or maybe nothing at all) and if that were the case, maybe we could use the money left over to fund a private space venture. But as long as they're taking it and wasting it, they might as well waste it on something interesting.
space is an endless money/resource sink with no practical value
Not every human endeavor must have "practical value." You must be a lot of fun at parties. I'm just kidding, you obviously don't got to parties because they are an endless money/resource sink with no practical value.
Risk is a relative concept. When you think of how working conditions used to be when most people worked in factories or on farms, it's easy to see how people of the time would view the risk Apollo astronauts took as acceptable. But along with moves toward large scale agriculture and automation, the standards changed. It's not a bad thing, as production has become cheaper, there should be more resources available to make exploration safer. The reason the Space Shuttle disasters were so shocking is they shouldn't have happened. They were the result of political decisions which should not have been a part of the technical design of the spacecraft. They were not a result of the risk inherent in space-flight (which most people are willing to accept).
Calling something insightfull isn't necessarily saying you agree with it, though it is often used that way. Modding something up just because you agree with it is abusing the moderation system. Obviously this form of abuse is less problematic because you're less likely to agree with a comment if it's poorly written or not insightfull.
A better technique is to simply limit how high up or down you can moderate something. That means other moderators can easily undo the effects of such abuse. Also bear in mind that Slashdot only gives moderator points people who are already active in the forums. That way you're discouraging people who want a popularity contest from participating at this site while you are also alleviating the effects from moderator abuse that happens.
Ok, but Slashdot and most of it's readers don't give a rats ass about your bullshit popularity contest. And you shouldn't either. Reading and discussing things like this is beneficial because it can inform us. If you just want to play a game, get Everquest or whatever everyone is playing these days.
If you agree with someone, there's little point in adding a comment mirroring their views. Such a comment would be redundant. Also, disagreeing comments sometimes get moderated redundant because they simply restate an argument the parent was already responding to.
I suppose the key here is to realize that not everything you have to say is important enough to be included in the discussion. Maybe you'd really like people to know you agree or disagree with something, but you don't really have anything meaningful to add. It might feel good to post a comment saying simply that you agree or disagree, but it doesn't add anything for the reader. It's a nuisance. That's why such comments are routinely moderated "redundant". And yes, if there were an agree or a disagree button that would be redundant too. Such a thing is only useful for ego-stroking or encouraging group think. Slashdot is supposed to be here to inform people, not corral them into groups that think alike.
If you disagree, you should write a comment explaining why, otherwise, what have you added to the conversation? You're just taking part in a popularity contest at that point.
Does anyone else think we should be worried that businesses like Microsoft don't think making products just for business is a viable long-term strategy? Are we expecting most business will be out of business in the long term, or do we just think these businesses will be able to make do with much less expensive services from new entries into the market?
hire an electrician and carpenter to put in more electrical outlets around your room at all of the levels you expect to plug things in.
Speaking of that, what devices do we plug in at floor level anyway? Floor-lamps, maybe, but it'd still be a hell of a lot more convent if the outlet was 2 feet or so off the ground so that you didn't have to get on you hands and knees just to plug the damn thing in.
Mob justice is going to someone's house with pitchforks and torches and lynching them to death. This is not that, not by a long shot. Nor is it reprehensible by any means, that's just absurd. He got some bad reviews? Some people made fake accounts and made fun of him? Someone took down his website? The horror! The calamity! How will this poor man ever recover? This is truly a great tragedy!
This isn't mob justice, this is just the equivalent of getting a bunch of bad reviews on yelp. What a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense!
What this man did wasn't just stupid, it was also immoral. He's apologized for being stupid, and promised to learn from his mistakes, but he makes no apology for is immoral actions. That being the case, the bad reviews should stand.
It's not mob justice, it's just the truth coming out about this asshole. I have no sympathy for him, since he has not seen the error of his ways, nor should anyone else defend his antisocial behavior or claim that the treatment he has received as a result of it has been inappropriate or unfair.
“So when you take a situation in which the legal rules don’t impose any effective sanctions on people for that kind of behavior, mob behavior on the Internet, then a legal analyst like myself should look at that situation and say: ‘You can’t fix everything that’s broken,’” he said. “There is not a proper legal remedy for it. I attempted to do something and I made it worse.”
So the problem is not that he was attempting to bring a lawsuit that was clearly without merit in order to harass an innocent comedian, but that the internet mob can't be reasoned with or controlled?
I agree it can't be controlled, and he's a pretty stupid guy for not realizing that going in. But maybe he should also admit (at least to himself) that he's a horrible piece of shit that hates free speech.
I don't know if you're serious or not, but you really have to compare those people to leaders from history to make the claim that people have become "more retarded."
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you are not an inventor.
Ah, very sneaky. . . It's not really lying as long as you can play a convoluted word-game to make what you're literally saying true.
I'm sorry, but this obviously untrue. Pennies on the tax dollar actually go un-wasted. I agree that's not a good situation, but that's how it is. Also, I'm not the one who decides how to spend the tax-money. I wish they'd only take what they are willing to put to good use (or maybe nothing at all) and if that were the case, maybe we could use the money left over to fund a private space venture. But as long as they're taking it and wasting it, they might as well waste it on something interesting.
No, they don't intend to do this at all, they already do collect all of it.
Not every human endeavor must have "practical value." You must be a lot of fun at parties. I'm just kidding, you obviously don't got to parties because they are an endless money/resource sink with no practical value.
Risk is a relative concept. When you think of how working conditions used to be when most people worked in factories or on farms, it's easy to see how people of the time would view the risk Apollo astronauts took as acceptable. But along with moves toward large scale agriculture and automation, the standards changed. It's not a bad thing, as production has become cheaper, there should be more resources available to make exploration safer. The reason the Space Shuttle disasters were so shocking is they shouldn't have happened. They were the result of political decisions which should not have been a part of the technical design of the spacecraft. They were not a result of the risk inherent in space-flight (which most people are willing to accept).
Calling something insightfull isn't necessarily saying you agree with it, though it is often used that way. Modding something up just because you agree with it is abusing the moderation system. Obviously this form of abuse is less problematic because you're less likely to agree with a comment if it's poorly written or not insightfull.
A better technique is to simply limit how high up or down you can moderate something. That means other moderators can easily undo the effects of such abuse. Also bear in mind that Slashdot only gives moderator points people who are already active in the forums. That way you're discouraging people who want a popularity contest from participating at this site while you are also alleviating the effects from moderator abuse that happens.
Ok, but Slashdot and most of it's readers don't give a rats ass about your bullshit popularity contest. And you shouldn't either. Reading and discussing things like this is beneficial because it can inform us. If you just want to play a game, get Everquest or whatever everyone is playing these days.
If you agree with someone, there's little point in adding a comment mirroring their views. Such a comment would be redundant. Also, disagreeing comments sometimes get moderated redundant because they simply restate an argument the parent was already responding to.
I suppose the key here is to realize that not everything you have to say is important enough to be included in the discussion. Maybe you'd really like people to know you agree or disagree with something, but you don't really have anything meaningful to add. It might feel good to post a comment saying simply that you agree or disagree, but it doesn't add anything for the reader. It's a nuisance. That's why such comments are routinely moderated "redundant". And yes, if there were an agree or a disagree button that would be redundant too. Such a thing is only useful for ego-stroking or encouraging group think. Slashdot is supposed to be here to inform people, not corral them into groups that think alike.
If you disagree, you should write a comment explaining why, otherwise, what have you added to the conversation? You're just taking part in a popularity contest at that point.
Are people still using that? I would have though everyone would have figured out how do download Firefox or Chrome by now.
Does anyone else think we should be worried that businesses like Microsoft don't think making products just for business is a viable long-term strategy? Are we expecting most business will be out of business in the long term, or do we just think these businesses will be able to make do with much less expensive services from new entries into the market?
The difference is we lowly users who are trusted to moderate the comments.
Speaking of that, what devices do we plug in at floor level anyway? Floor-lamps, maybe, but it'd still be a hell of a lot more convent if the outlet was 2 feet or so off the ground so that you didn't have to get on you hands and knees just to plug the damn thing in.
It's unlikely most people will realize that risk includes being electrocuted. . .
Mob justice is going to someone's house with pitchforks and torches and lynching them to death. This is not that, not by a long shot. Nor is it reprehensible by any means, that's just absurd. He got some bad reviews? Some people made fake accounts and made fun of him? Someone took down his website? The horror! The calamity! How will this poor man ever recover? This is truly a great tragedy!
This isn't mob justice, this is just the equivalent of getting a bunch of bad reviews on yelp. What a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense!
What this man did wasn't just stupid, it was also immoral. He's apologized for being stupid, and promised to learn from his mistakes, but he makes no apology for is immoral actions. That being the case, the bad reviews should stand.
It's not mob justice, it's just the truth coming out about this asshole. I have no sympathy for him, since he has not seen the error of his ways, nor should anyone else defend his antisocial behavior or claim that the treatment he has received as a result of it has been inappropriate or unfair.
This doesn't make any sense. Why shouldn't he feel good about overcoming this bullshit legal challenge? And how does that make him a tool?
And they're wrong to think that? Care to explain why?
Really? Are you serious?
So the problem is not that he was attempting to bring a lawsuit that was clearly without merit in order to harass an innocent comedian, but that the internet mob can't be reasoned with or controlled?
I agree it can't be controlled, and he's a pretty stupid guy for not realizing that going in. But maybe he should also admit (at least to himself) that he's a horrible piece of shit that hates free speech.
Most metals are not magnetic.
I don't know if you're serious or not, but you really have to compare those people to leaders from history to make the claim that people have become "more retarded."
You can find a list of potential health effects like this for just about any chemical. There may be something to it, but there probably isn't.