> Is there a legitimate practical use for animated gifs that I am missing?
Two issues with this:
1. THe fact that you cannot imagine a practical use doesn't mean there isn't one.
2. Seeing the popularity of flash to create animated advertisements, banners and such, there may not be a 'need', but defintiely a very strong wish to use such things.
Well, I guess you made a joke there, but uh.. there is of course no language of Roman, there were two languages spoken by the Romans, Latin in the west and Greek in the east.
There is however a Roman alphabet. The capital letters XP in the Roman alphabet would be pronounced somewhat similar to how we would pronounce it. There is also a Greek alphabet and indeed the captial letters XP would be pronounced as CHR or Chi-Rho
> Be careful what you wish for. MS itself might back such a law if they can be sure that anyone distributing a free OS is forced to meet the same requirement. Bye-bye free Linux
Hmm, when you 'buy' a Microsoft product, you in fact buy certain very limited rights with regards to usage of a piece of their software, some level of support and depending on your contract, a distribution medium. The license functions as a form of contract here.
When you buy a Linux CD, you do not buy any 'rights', you merely buy a distribution medium possibly including some level of support. The mostly unrestricted rights you get are due to a license that merely gives the person you buy the CD from the right to sell you that CD, this license is however not a form of contract between you and the provider of the software.
You'd have to make a very warped bit of law to let such a requirement apply to both.
Maybe your statement would be believable when you could point at any relevant projects that got severely fragmented....
For now, companies like this one can tell you a lot about the cross platform availability of Java.
Matter of fact is that unless SUN opens up their license regarding distribution of binaries and allows actually using ports done by others then SUN, JAVA will become irrelevant and/or fractured.
That it is available on YOUR platform of choice doesn't make it cross platform.
emailing the Dutch prime minister about a political issue earlier this year got me an email reply the next day detailing how my question was going to be handled, and after about a month I got a letter with a very detailed answer. My discussion is still running, but I get sick of people suggesting that there is no way to reach Dutch politicians when they obviously never tried. This specific case is just another example of that.
I also bet this is not unique for the Netherlands.
You are mistaken and ignoring a rather relevant fact.
The council of ministers IGNORED the explicit vote from the EU parliament in this matter. The minister did a bad job and the Dutch parliament told him so.
I did read the proposal and I understand that in this case the 'fee' is in investing a bit of CPU power, and as already mentioned, this proposal addresses most of the issues with the 'fee' solution.
What stands tho is that for any commercial entity that wants its customers to contact them, such a setup is undesirable. Such organisations are prepared to take your phone cost by using 0800 numbers, and they are very unlikely to want their customers to have to invest something in order to be able to buy from them.
The same applies to for example peopel who run a news service of some sort, and you can probably find many more examples.
It also creates a problem for those who run email services of any kind. I run a small webmail service for a couple of families. That is a hobby and nothign comemrcial. When they use it, am I going to end up spending the cpu time for their stamps? if so then I can only run it comemrcially.
Also, like I said already, making the origin of email tracable at least to the originating mailserver solves a lot more then just spam. Also, unlike you suggest, it does not prevent things like anonymous remailers and such, but it does make them accountable for spam still.
At any rate, I don't oppose a 'fee' based solution (regardless of what the 'fee' will be) but I think there is another priority, and that a fee based solution can still be implemented after that if it turns out to be needed.
> Since when hasn there been a "much needed authentication of email senders"? Other than destroying privacy on the 'net, how does that help anything?
I suggest you read this and esp. the articles it links to. No need for me to repeat what has been said quite often and quite well already.
I agree with your sentiment regarding anti-spam zealots btw, but really, paying for email in whatever form is not the solution, it takes away the eact thing that makes email so usefull and widely used.
> And for them, for that group that chooses not to stamp their email, how is their situation any worse with this system than it is today?
There is nothign inherently bad with the idea of stamps, what is bad is when it distracts efford from much needed authentication of email senders.
> (I'm assuming you read the whole thread and know what this system actually involves.)
Yes, and I know that I could simply turn it off on my side if I don't want it. That makes it better then many other email stamp proposals.
My main issue is that the first thing that should happen is get something like SPF (or a better alternative if someone comes up with it) accepted and widely employed. This will not stop all spam and will not address the 'financial' side of things, but it will stop most spam and will make the remainign spam tracable.
It also prevents other auses of email, and is a pre-condition for implementing a reliable stamp based system as well if you still end up needing that.
I personally doubt it is needed, and in fact I find the idea contradicting the ideas that make email very usable. But regardless, I believe there are higher priorities in fighting spam for now, and at least mainstream implementation of anti spam measures should concentrate on those. Imho the one highest prioriy is to make mail sources indentifiable.
> I don't think a short reference back to the one line explanation provides much support for your assertion that "the FAQ goes to quite some length trying to explain why funny is different".
Neither were you right that the FAQ doesn't treat it differently. Also, while 'funny' should be blatantly obvious, it actually gets an explanation twice.. you may not find that odd or goign to great length, considering the subject at hand, I do think it goes to great length to explain this.
> Yet you said "Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however".
The problem is that you seem to want to define this as extremely black/white, while it really is not.
Karma should not be a major consideration for moderating posts, and you should never moderate to give karma (besides the fact that you can't as you correctly pointed out)
That said, karma is a result of moderation, regardless of if you like that.
This means thinking a bit about if a post should be considered to contribute to the discussion and site, not just if the post itself was funny or interesting to read. The exact result of a single post you cannot judge, and I don't think karma should in any way be a major consideration. But when you are moderating anyway, you know that your actions will have some effect on others, and I really don't see any reason why that is wrong to keep in mind.
> That's fine, of course, but not how this discussion started. It started with someone suggesting that modding a funny post insightful or interesting or whatever was the right thing to do because funny doesn't give the poster karma.
Yes, and that is saying in other words 'avoid funny moderation whenever you can and use something else'. Different words, same intention. Sure, I leave a bit more room there and will rather not moderate then moderate something interesting while it isn't. The intention is not different and the underlying reason is not different.
> My main problem with this is it means the comment reason modifiers I can set won't do what I want
Fair enough, and honestly, this is the only good argument so far for as far as I'm concerned. I already took it into account, and I will keep doing so.
> It would be more accurate for me to say that this is the first discussion of it that I've seen (since you're not the only poster whose talked about it here).
More accurate for sure, but it still makes me think you just haven't been looking at all. I was aware of this issue ever since the change took place, partially because of it beign discussed on slashdot, partially just by thinking about the effect, and partially because it has been discussed for ages outside slashdot. Maybe I am just ultra sensitive for such things, but I somehow doubt it.
> As for not having been here long enough, look at my user ID. Note that I've posted twice as many comments as you have. I've been around a long time (I remember when karma was a number you could see and funny gave you karma) and I've spend a lot of time here.
Hint: the comment I made there was cynical, I did see your userid. I'd suggest tho to consider that many people have been reading Slashdot for years without ever creating a uid. I only created mine so I can use the 'light' interface which works a lot better with my palmtop browser (and saves quite a bit of bandwidth) I have been postign anonymously for years and I doubt I am alone in that.
It seems you did get the underlying message tho seeing you corrected the exact thing that got me to make that comment.
No its not. A flaw in ALL payment based system is that the sender is interested in it arriving while for legitimate mail you are at best sure that the receipient wants it to arrive. First time contacts mailing me a pointer to info I may want to write about form a very important part of my email.
Lets see, you can't find it in the FAQ obviously, but for example, a bit beyond the part that you qouted you'll find:
* If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else. [This won't help you anymore; see above.]
Which is why there also has to be an explanation about why it is different now.
I do agree with the original statement and consider humor in and of itself a contribution.
Then, I don't consider the actual karma that a poster will get (and as you rightfully say, I can't), and it plays no relation to how I moderate (if you'd be so kind to also read the names of posters, you'd see that I wasn't the person who said doing so). I do take into account that funny is treated differently then any other choice when moderating (and hence is broken imho), and will as a result avoid using it (and just in case you still don't get it, NO, that does NOT mean moderating things insightfull whuile they are not, just get that out of your mind, it means AVOIDING funny as moderation whenever possible). If I am the first one you hear complain about this then you have not been listening much or you just haven't been around long enough.
The owners of the site do not own the content of the site, rather, the users own that content. The users also judge their own content.
Sure, the people who run the site set the rules, but those happen include allowing the users to judge.
> So don't moderate. The moderators job is to judge the worth of posts, not to hand out karma. If you don't want to do that job correctly, don't do it at all.
If one option in the system is broken, don't use that option. No reason to not use the system at all.
> It really is. Read the FAQ
That FAQ tells that funny was originally intended to work the same as any other 'judgement'. That was changed at a certain point, and ever since, there are people who refuse to moderate things funny when there is any alternative, draw your conclusion. Also, the FAQ goes to quite some length tryign to explain why funny is different then all other moderation options, so the FAQ doesn't exactly confirm that its simple.
Lets get something very clear here, yes, the people who runt the site own the server, own the domain, and set the rules. They do not own the content. They do in fact depend on their users to provide and moderate that content which gets them viewers and as a result income. That only works when those users actually have opinions and as a result something to discuss or argue about. Do not be surprised that those same people also have an opinion about moderation.
Besides, if people would all agree on how to moderate, there would be little point in letting multiple people moderate the same post.
This solves a lot more then the 'zombie' issue, and has to be done anyway, why not do it now and fix multiple problems at the same time instead of putting up fees for all kinds of things.
> That's good, and how it should work. People modding funny material insightful when it is not insightful are not modding correctly. It's as simple as that.
That is a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree with 'funny' being treated differently, and as a result will refuse to use it. Means I'll have to select another option, insightfull may not always be the proper one, but funny doesn't give the proper result imho so is never the right thing to do.
You can say its simple, but things that are a matter of opinion are really not simple at all, and definitely not as black/white as you try to make it.
> No. Mods are not there to individually decide whether or a poster is a good one and should be able to post with the bonus (which is the sole point of karma, and the indirect effect of awarding it). Mods are there to judge an individual post. A mod doesn't have enough information to make the judgement anyway. For example, you don't know whether your's, or others' mods will actually affect a users karma - they may be at the cap, or a mod may be metamodded unfair.
Either mods have enough information to judge the post or not. if you don't think that should affect karma then too bad, it does in most cases. And since it does, many moderators also keep it in mind and won't mod a post funny.
> And yet in many competitions where a group of judges are used, they do not confer or compare their judgement to the others. With moderation you should be considering only the value of the post in the context of the story, the thread, and it's current score, not whether or not the author will get karma from your moderation.
I agree when you say that you shouldn't be lookign at how the post has been moderated by others. Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however.
I share your experience with regards to how many development shops work..
Its sad because it makes economic sense to do it differently. Yes, the initial investment for doign it 'right' is bigger, but you have a product that is cheaper to maintain and update and as a result has most likely a longer lifetime with lower overall cost for the developer, and a better product for the customer.
Part of the problem seems to be the ignorance of most customers. They do realize often that computer programs have annoyances like crashing or not always doing what you'd expect them to do, btu they somehow just fail or refuse to link this to the actual quality of that same software.
Its one reason why it would be such a good idea to simply disallow software patents alltogether and to ensure that the government only uses publicly documented data formats that can be implemented without financial and legal obstruction. Those two measures would go a long way to provide for a situation where it is possible to provide alternatives and where competition based on quality will be a possibility.
> Just because its privatized doesn't mean it can't be government funded (vouchers) and it still can be required to meet federal requirements.
There are other countries who tried that, and guess what, it doesn't work.
The result of it is a market in vouchers and 'fake students' to get better numbers and as a result more funding.
If you link funding to anything, link it to actual results, and give schools certain targets for things like social background of their students and how many of them finish with what results (don't only do the later because schools will still start filtering on background and exclude many people otherwise)
Yeah, mr. expert.. justr explain also why (as the original article mentions) there are actually MORE FreeBSD servers now then a year ago out on the internet. If your explanation was anywhere near the truth then there wouldn't be.
Then, mind actually providing any actual information, such as links to explanations of why MySQL on FreeBSD sucks? I told you how to find the info to make it work without being sucky, and for some more info on it still you can go read this for example.
Now.. come up with some actual evidence of your claims or just fuck off mr. anonymous braveheart:P
The only thing you seem to forgo is that what you say while being at the police station can as well be used against you in court, hence the same standards should apply.
Slashdot Mirror
> Is there a legitimate practical use for animated gifs that I am missing?
Two issues with this:
1. THe fact that you cannot imagine a practical use doesn't mean there isn't one.
2. Seeing the popularity of flash to create animated advertisements, banners and such, there may not be a 'need', but defintiely a very strong wish to use such things.
> What? You shun the mighty language of Roman?!
Hehehe.
Well, I guess you made a joke there, but uh.. there is of course no language of Roman, there were two languages spoken by the Romans, Latin in the west and Greek in the east.
There is however a Roman alphabet. The capital letters XP in the Roman alphabet would be pronounced somewhat similar to how we would pronounce it. There is also a Greek alphabet and indeed the captial letters XP would be pronounced as CHR or Chi-Rho
AH well..
> Be careful what you wish for. MS itself might back such a law if they can be sure that anyone distributing a free OS is forced to meet the same requirement. Bye-bye free Linux
Hmm, when you 'buy' a Microsoft product, you in fact buy certain very limited rights with regards to usage of a piece of their software, some level of support and depending on your contract, a distribution medium. The license functions as a form of contract here.
When you buy a Linux CD, you do not buy any 'rights', you merely buy a distribution medium possibly including some level of support.
The mostly unrestricted rights you get are due to a license that merely gives the person you buy the CD from the right to sell you that CD, this license is however not a form of contract between you and the provider of the software.
You'd have to make a very warped bit of law to let such a requirement apply to both.
> with the symbols pronounced Chi-Rho in Roman.
Hmmm.. I'd say that is Greek..
> Anyway I think we've about done this to death
:)
Heh.
> It's been a enjoyable discussion, thanks for that.
thanks and my pleasure.
Good to see there are people who can enjoy a little disagreement about things, good for discussions also
Complete and utter rubbish.
Maybe your statement would be believable when you could point at any relevant projects that got severely fragmented....
For now, companies like this one can tell you a lot about the cross platform availability of Java.
Matter of fact is that unless SUN opens up their license regarding distribution of binaries and allows actually using ports done by others then SUN, JAVA will become irrelevant and/or fractured.
That it is available on YOUR platform of choice doesn't make it cross platform.
emailing the Dutch prime minister about a political issue earlier this year got me an email reply the next day detailing how my question was going to be handled, and after about a month I got a letter with a very detailed answer. My discussion is still running, but I get sick of people suggesting that there is no way to reach Dutch politicians when they obviously never tried. This specific case is just another example of that.
I also bet this is not unique for the Netherlands.
You are mistaken and ignoring a rather relevant fact.
The council of ministers IGNORED the explicit vote from the EU parliament in this matter. The minister did a bad job and the Dutch parliament told him so.
I did read the proposal and I understand that in this case the 'fee' is in investing a bit of CPU power, and as already mentioned, this proposal addresses most of the issues with the 'fee' solution.
What stands tho is that for any commercial entity that wants its customers to contact them, such a setup is undesirable. Such organisations are prepared to take your phone cost by using 0800 numbers, and they are very unlikely to want their customers to have to invest something in order to be able to buy from them.
The same applies to for example peopel who run a news service of some sort, and you can probably find many more examples.
It also creates a problem for those who run email services of any kind. I run a small webmail service for a couple of families. That is a hobby and nothign comemrcial. When they use it, am I going to end up spending the cpu time for their stamps? if so then I can only run it comemrcially.
Also, like I said already, making the origin of email tracable at least to the originating mailserver solves a lot more then just spam. Also, unlike you suggest, it does not prevent things like anonymous remailers and such, but it does make them accountable for spam still.
At any rate, I don't oppose a 'fee' based solution (regardless of what the 'fee' will be) but I think there is another priority, and that a fee based solution can still be implemented after that if it turns out to be needed.
> Since when hasn there been a "much needed authentication of email senders"? Other than destroying privacy on the 'net, how does that help anything?
I suggest you read this and esp. the articles it links to. No need for me to repeat what has been said quite often and quite well already.
I agree with your sentiment regarding anti-spam zealots btw, but really, paying for email in whatever form is not the solution, it takes away the eact thing that makes email so usefull and widely used.
> And for them, for that group that chooses not to stamp their email, how is their situation any worse with this system than it is today?
There is nothign inherently bad with the idea of stamps, what is bad is when it distracts efford from much needed authentication of email senders.
> (I'm assuming you read the whole thread and know what this system actually involves.)
Yes, and I know that I could simply turn it off on my side if I don't want it. That makes it better then many other email stamp proposals.
My main issue is that the first thing that should happen is get something like SPF (or a better alternative if someone comes up with it) accepted and widely employed. This will not stop all spam and will not address the 'financial' side of things, but it will stop most spam and will make the remainign spam tracable.
It also prevents other auses of email, and is a pre-condition for implementing a reliable stamp based system as well if you still end up needing that.
I personally doubt it is needed, and in fact I find the idea contradicting the ideas that make email very usable. But regardless, I believe there are higher priorities in fighting spam for now, and at least mainstream implementation of anti spam measures should concentrate on those. Imho the one highest prioriy is to make mail sources indentifiable.
> I don't think a short reference back to the one line explanation provides much support for your assertion that "the FAQ goes to quite some length trying to explain why funny is different".
Neither were you right that the FAQ doesn't treat it differently. Also, while 'funny' should be blatantly obvious, it actually gets an explanation twice.. you may not find that odd or goign to great length, considering the subject at hand, I do think it goes to great length to explain this.
> Yet you said "Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however".
The problem is that you seem to want to define this as extremely black/white, while it really is not.
Karma should not be a major consideration for moderating posts, and you should never moderate to give karma (besides the fact that you can't as you correctly pointed out)
That said, karma is a result of moderation, regardless of if you like that.
This means thinking a bit about if a post should be considered to contribute to the discussion and site, not just if the post itself was funny or interesting to read. The exact result of a single post you cannot judge, and I don't think karma should in any way be a major consideration. But when you are moderating anyway, you know that your actions will have some effect on others, and I really don't see any reason why that is wrong to keep in mind.
> That's fine, of course, but not how this discussion started. It started with someone suggesting that modding a funny post insightful or interesting or whatever was the right thing to do because funny doesn't give the poster karma.
Yes, and that is saying in other words 'avoid funny moderation whenever you can and use something else'. Different words, same intention. Sure, I leave a bit more room there and will rather not moderate then moderate something interesting while it isn't. The intention is not different and the underlying reason is not different.
> My main problem with this is it means the comment reason modifiers I can set won't do what I want
Fair enough, and honestly, this is the only good argument so far for as far as I'm concerned. I already took it into account, and I will keep doing so.
> It would be more accurate for me to say that this is the first discussion of it that I've seen (since you're not the only poster whose talked about it here).
More accurate for sure, but it still makes me think you just haven't been looking at all. I was aware of this issue ever since the change took place, partially because of it beign discussed on slashdot, partially just by thinking about the effect, and partially because it has been discussed for ages outside slashdot. Maybe I am just ultra sensitive for such things, but I somehow doubt it.
> As for not having been here long enough, look at my user ID. Note that I've posted twice as many comments as you have. I've been around a long time (I remember when karma was a number you could see and funny gave you karma) and I've spend a lot of time here.
Hint: the comment I made there was cynical, I did see your userid. I'd suggest tho to consider that many people have been reading Slashdot for years without ever creating a uid. I only created mine so I can use the 'light' interface which works a lot better with my palmtop browser (and saves quite a bit of bandwidth) I have been postign anonymously for years and I doubt I am alone in that.
It seems you did get the underlying message tho seeing you corrected the exact thing that got me to make that comment.
> win win situation
No its not.
A flaw in ALL payment based system is that the sender is interested in it arriving while for legitimate mail you are at best sure that the receipient wants it to arrive. First time contacts mailing me a pointer to info I may want to write about form a very important part of my email.
Lets see, you can't find it in the FAQ obviously, but for example, a bit beyond the part that you qouted you'll find:
* If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny: If you don't have something truly developing to the topic, some humor is welcome. Humor is lacking in our lives and will continue to be promoted. Remember though, what rips your sides out may be completely inane to somebody else. [This won't help you anymore; see above.]
Which is why there also has to be an explanation about why it is different now.
I do agree with the original statement and consider humor in and of itself a contribution.
Then, I don't consider the actual karma that a poster will get (and as you rightfully say, I can't), and it plays no relation to how I moderate (if you'd be so kind to also read the names of posters, you'd see that I wasn't the person who said doing so). I do take into account that funny is treated differently then any other choice when moderating (and hence is broken imho), and will as a result avoid using it (and just in case you still don't get it, NO, that does NOT mean moderating things insightfull whuile they are not, just get that out of your mind, it means AVOIDING funny as moderation whenever possible). If I am the first one you hear complain about this then you have not been listening much or you just haven't been around long enough.
> The opinion of the owners of the site.
The owners of the site do not own the content of the site, rather, the users own that content. The users also judge their own content.
Sure, the people who run the site set the rules, but those happen include allowing the users to judge.
> So don't moderate. The moderators job is to judge the worth of posts, not to hand out karma. If you don't want to do that job correctly, don't do it at all.
If one option in the system is broken, don't use that option. No reason to not use the system at all.
> It really is. Read the FAQ
That FAQ tells that funny was originally intended to work the same as any other 'judgement'. That was changed at a certain point, and ever since, there are people who refuse to moderate things funny when there is any alternative, draw your conclusion. Also, the FAQ goes to quite some length tryign to explain why funny is different then all other moderation options, so the FAQ doesn't exactly confirm that its simple.
Lets get something very clear here, yes, the people who runt the site own the server, own the domain, and set the rules. They do not own the content. They do in fact depend on their users to provide and moderate that content which gets them viewers and as a result income. That only works when those users actually have opinions and as a result something to discuss or argue about. Do not be surprised that those same people also have an opinion about moderation.
Besides, if people would all agree on how to moderate, there would be little point in letting multiple people moderate the same post.
I believe it would be both mroe effective and cheaper in the end to simply fix smtp to the point where this is no longer a possibility.
Some info on how that should be done and why..
Sender Policy Framework
Why SPF?
Authentication Is Key To Fighting Spam
Spammy issues
This solves a lot more then the 'zombie' issue, and has to be done anyway, why not do it now and fix multiple problems at the same time instead of putting up fees for all kinds of things.
> That's good, and how it should work. People modding funny material insightful when it is not insightful are not modding correctly. It's as simple as that.
That is a matter of opinion. I happen to disagree with 'funny' being treated differently, and as a result will refuse to use it. Means I'll have to select another option, insightfull may not always be the proper one, but funny doesn't give the proper result imho so is never the right thing to do.
You can say its simple, but things that are a matter of opinion are really not simple at all, and definitely not as black/white as you try to make it.
> No. Mods are not there to individually decide whether or a poster is a good one and should be able to post with the bonus (which is the sole point of karma, and the indirect effect of awarding it). Mods are there to judge an individual post. A mod doesn't have enough information to make the judgement anyway. For example, you don't know whether your's, or others' mods will actually affect a users karma - they may be at the cap, or a mod may be metamodded unfair.
Either mods have enough information to judge the post or not. if you don't think that should affect karma then too bad, it does in most cases. And since it does, many moderators also keep it in mind and won't mod a post funny.
You may not like that but thats how it works.
> And yet in many competitions where a group of judges are used, they do not confer or compare their judgement to the others. With moderation you should be considering only the value of the post in the context of the story, the thread, and it's current score, not whether or not the author will get karma from your moderation.
I agree when you say that you shouldn't be lookign at how the post has been moderated by others. Wether or not you feel that the post should provide karma to the poster should be part of your judgement however.
I share your experience with regards to how many development shops work..
Its sad because it makes economic sense to do it differently. Yes, the initial investment for doign it 'right' is bigger, but you have a product that is cheaper to maintain and update and as a result has most likely a longer lifetime with lower overall cost for the developer, and a better product for the customer.
Part of the problem seems to be the ignorance of most customers. They do realize often that computer programs have annoyances like crashing or not always doing what you'd expect them to do, btu they somehow just fail or refuse to link this to the actual quality of that same software.
Its one reason why it would be such a good idea to simply disallow software patents alltogether and to ensure that the government only uses publicly documented data formats that can be implemented without financial and legal obstruction. Those two measures would go a long way to provide for a situation where it is possible to provide alternatives and where competition based on quality will be a possibility.
> Just because its privatized doesn't mean it can't be government funded (vouchers) and it still can be required to meet federal requirements.
There are other countries who tried that, and guess what, it doesn't work.
The result of it is a market in vouchers and 'fake students' to get better numbers and as a result more funding.
If you link funding to anything, link it to actual results, and give schools certain targets for things like social background of their students and how many of them finish with what results (don't only do the later because schools will still start filtering on background and exclude many people otherwise)
> Your job as a mod is not to correct other peoples' moderations.
When judging something, it makes sense to consider how your judgement will work out in reality.
It seems they think its funny now (continuing the commentary)
Yeah, mr. expert.. justr explain also why (as the original article mentions) there are actually MORE FreeBSD servers now then a year ago out on the internet. If your explanation was anywhere near the truth then there wouldn't be.
:P
Then, mind actually providing any actual information, such as links to explanations of why MySQL on FreeBSD sucks? I told you how to find the info to make it work without being sucky, and for some more info on it still you can go read this for example.
Now.. come up with some actual evidence of your claims or just fuck off mr. anonymous braveheart
The only thing you seem to forgo is that what you say while being at the police station can as well be used against you in court, hence the same standards should apply.