Because he also said illegals, which typically implies racism.
If we didn't have millions of illegal aliens in the USA, I would agree that "only" racism could explain any reference to illegal aliens. If you think it's terrible to want people to obey immigration laws, take a look at Mexico's sometime. We're quite soft by comparison. A little parity would achieve the "fairness" so many hypersensitive types keep demanding.
Truth is, you had no idea where he was coming from. Maybe you don't have the guts to admit that, but it's manifestly true. You just took it upon yourself to assume anyone who believes in rule of law and doesn't abandon that belief when the law in question is immigration must be a bigot. How nice. Is that really easier for you than looking at the facts of the matter?
Oh right, if you are saying we should just ignore any laws we find inconvenient and abandon all concepts of rule of law, I suppose this cowardly bullshit probably _is_ easier for you than making a solid case. You know there are a lot of people like you. "Oh, I'll just decide in advance what I want and if any pesky facts contradict that, I'll just make personal attacks against anyone who mentions them". When cowards like you get a little authority, that becomes "I'll just use force of law to threaten them into shutting up so I never have to face reality". It's why the world is so fucked up.
Go ahead. Keep making serious accusations like racism (might as well call them a murderer too) against anyone who disagrees with you. Evidence? Fuck evidence, that only matters when you are accused of something. You couldn't be more transparent and obvious. I like the fact that your ilk are so eager to identify themselves.
So what you're saying is, even when it's not winter, it's still nice and white.
I moved TO California. Glad I'm here. Glad you're not.
If you automatically assume that "retards" implies a certain skin color, or that wanting people to either obey the law or change it can only be due to bigotry... are you certain it's the GP and not you who views the world in terms of race, finding it behind every possible motivation, using it as your very first explanation for every disagreement about where to live?
I mean... if you're going to call someone a thief you'd have evidence, right? What makes this particular accusation so special?
This is probably the last time in history that could work. Very soon the 1% will be able to afford robotically defended fortresses. Automated machine gun turrets capable of killing hundreds of thousands will render the anger of the mob irrelevant.
Even if you're screaming right outside their door, they're just going to call the cops and crank up the volume on the TV. I don't seriously believe that the Occupy campaign are going to do that much to change what is going on. The 1% already control everything. Everything that you buy, everything that you watch and everything that you do is controlled completely by this 1% group. Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days. Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.
It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.
The real aristocracy does everything by proxy, by funding, by corporations, and by front organizations. The single most effective thing they ever did was to replace real state-issued money with bank-issued monetized debt. That's how you grab a nation by the balls without ever using physical force.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose. That's why (in terms of Establishment priorities) it's okay to give them so much media attention. It's little more than a way to get the "troublemakers" to identify themselves and be arrested or otherwised put through the system.
"OK now just right click that icon"...'but I'm left handed'
"No, take your finger and push the button on the right side of the mouse once and hold it down.. what do you see?".." My email browser explorer express just started up"
"no you clicked the LEFT button.. i want you to click the Right button!.. don't you know left from right"
"...hey don't get mad at me i'm not a computer EXPERT like you!"...20 minutes later...
that's click it TWO times.. double click means TWO clicks"
"...hey don't get mad at me i'm not a computer EXPERT like you!"....
Yeah, that's about how it goes. The ability to rub two brain cells together is suddenly defined as expertise...
I wonder, when a doctor writes a prescription and says something like "take this pill once a day", does anyone reply with "but I'm not a medical EXPERT like you!"?
Some people try to take care of their things. Some people don't think they have time to figure out how. The former group is proud of their collection of tools and earned experience. The latter bemoans every failure as being someone else's problem without ever considering if there were something they could have done differently.
Fuck man, you said it. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain this notion, usually in the context of computer security.
In so many words it amounts to, "you're not a baby anymore, you're as helpless as you choose to be, learning can be a joyful process of discovery and amazement, independence is a virtue, and the more personal freedom and integrity you have the less you blame others for your problems".
So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
... Why would we make fun of the judge? He most likely didn't write the order, the moving party usually drafts an order and presents it to the judge, who then signs it.
Because if you bring something to me that is fatally flawed and cannot possibly fulfill its stated purpose, I won't sign it?
You might or might not agree with that, but it isn't exactly difficult to discern.
Or is your concern that its "within a browser", and thus inherently must be insecure?
In a nutshell, yes. One great way to take relatively small security concerns and greatly magnify them is to have a single application that tries to be everything and do everything for everyone. The browser is involved in too many different things as it is. As it becomes more and more central, it is also a more and more tempting target. A worst-case compromise now has fewer barriers in terms of the damage it can do.
If you are (implicitly, of course) saying that adding remote access to an already complex Web browser has absolutely no security implications whatsoever and no amount of caution could possibly be reasonable, well, I say that statement carries with it a burden of proof. Until you demonstrate otherwise, that positive claim is rightly considered false.
Those who disagree with you by default are merely being sensible.
But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.
They deserved something other than humiliation? (Winning a case based on laws you bought doesn't count as not-humiliating...)
This isn't going to be very useful if it requires a user to be already logged in to work.
It sounds like it could be an alternative to WebEx, for those who use it for remote support.
It beats the hell out of trying to get most adults to follow simple verbal instructions.
Ever work a technical support job? After explaining to an otherwise educated person (i.e. educated stupid) for the fifth time that when you ask him to "right-click with the right mouse button" it is not the same as "double-click (with the left)" you start thinking about remote desktop yourself.
Thankfully that was a long time ago. After a while, you stop thinking of involuntary sterilization as a viable option.
Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...
Running your own caching DNS server is so ridiculously easy, I'm surprised so many people trust $MEGACORP to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, in terms of load on the root servers it works for me that most others aren't doing this. I enjoy lots of things that would go away if everyone did it.
It's a shame that assuming responsibility of your own experience where it is reasonable to do so isn't precisely popular. We place far too much trust in random strangers to do too many things for us that we could do ourselves. This isn't at all like trying to be your own doctor or electrician, where the result could be quite disastrous. Still, if Establishment/authoritarian types start thinking that DNS is their one-stop solution for easy censorship, local caching DNS servers may become more common. Failing that, there are foreign proxies.
One could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one. Yet I think this points to a deeper and much older issue.
It's the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Obviously the intent was to make the Pirate Bay Web site unreachable. Obviously such an oversight was unintended. Yet the ISPs receive very specific instructions and are only looking after their own financial interests by following them to the letter.
You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process. The intent is not difficult to discern. The Founders' notions about the proper role of government are not unknown. Free speech zones, you say? Does anyone really think the likes of Jefferson and Madison wanted the government to easily brush aside those who would speak against it? Why was this ever even a controversy?
The Constitution and most other basic laws are not so difficult to understand. The only reason one needs to be a "scholar" is to find clever ways to play word games so you can twist it around and do what was never intended. It's the same deal with this ruling. The intention is pretty damned clear (too bad one cannot say that about most tax codes). The effect is very much the opposite.
The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
Newsflash - Windows boxes are a lot harder to infect these days. In fact, the vast majority of compromises don't happen because you connected a Windows box to the Internet. They happen because the user browses to some website, and either a drive-by download happens and installs malware (either through a compromised website, or through a compromised ad network), or they run an attachment because the email says to.
I didn't really consider it relevant at the time, but consider the majority of the Windows userbase. They tend to not only be ignorant about technical matters, but they work hard to stay that way and will resent the notion that this should gradually change as they acquire experience. I call them permanent newbies. They're the people who can use computers for seven years and still remain as ignorant now as they were when they first started. They want to learn the basics of how their computers work about as much as an aristocrat wants to fraternize with the help. That's about the contempt with which they view it. That is a conscious decision. It is not an accident. When it causes problems for others, I think they should be held responsible.
Linux tends to attract more technically-inclined users. It's not nearly so easy to trick the average Linux user into running some kind of trojan or opening some kind of backdoor as it is to pull the same trick on the average Windows user. User education -- or better still, users who feel a responsibility to educate themselves the same way you'd seek instruction before operating a dangerous machine -- works every time it's tried.
I thought we all agreed that the whole "walled garden" approach was a Bad Idea(tm)? The primary problem is the user, and the only way to fix that is closed, locked-down devices that can only run vetted apps.
The walled garden approach is in lieu of education. Users who understand the risks and generally know what they're doing don't really need it.
You may or may not see where I'm coming from. What I am about to say is a very easy thing to demagogue, but it's the only method of self-correction available. I think the focus should be on making sure careless/stupid users harm others as little as possible. Otherwise, if they want to take a stupid risk and they get burned, that's their problem. Perhaps some way of holding them responsible when their machines become spam-spewing botnet members is the way to handle this. I think criminal charges would be going too far, but perhaps suspend their Internet access for six months each time an incident happens. Get rid of the low-hanging fruit and it becomes far less profitable for the criminals.
The first step is to stop viewing these adult people who purchase computers and Internet access as victims. View them as reckless individuals who make risky choices despite the very well-known threats, who tend to make the network worse for everyone else as a consequence, providing fertile ground to enable the worst sort of criminals who can cause real material harm. Then find the best way to discourage the kind of ignorance they cherish. None of this means we shouldn't go after the criminals, but rather, that we should understand them as the last links in a long unbroken chain of events that is entire preventable.
Oh horseshit. Microsoft makes ease-of-use it's focus because that is what it's customers want. Does your house come with a warning that trimming the shrubs is required, and if they grow too large it is bad for security? Does the home builder bear liability if someone hides behind the shrub, breaks a window and gets in? Does the homeowner? No to all of those - the only one we hold responsible is the person who broke in. And why single out Microsoft for liability? If Microsoft is liable, why aren't all software vendors (including FOSS)? Equal justice and all that.
Most people think like you do: childishly. They will pass up an available, doable solution that will work because it might mean a slight bit more effort for users and might not fulfill their visceral desire to feel the gratification of hanging the black-hats by their toes. I know exactly how you think. Anything that doesn't give users streets paved with gold and their every heart's desire while simultaneously torturing the evil hackers to death would be... UNFAIR. That makes it against your religion, an anathema to you. Like I said, this is childish.
If you have a widespread, reoccurring problem that causes real material harm, and you have practical, achievable steps you can take to ameliorate it, you take those steps. You then worry about going after the bad guys. They are not mutually exclusive. Hardening the targets doesn't mean the criminals get a pass. Your either-or thinking is pathetic and outdated. I'm tired of how many good discussions it poisons.
It's funny that you mention homeowners. Actually, if a premises is maintained poorly enough, indeed the city or the county will step in and mandate that basic maintainence be performed. Also, you don't need to tell most homeowners to lock their doors at night, to mow their lawns occasionally, to shovel the ice and snow from their sidewalks because they understand that these chores go along with owning your own home. It is considered basic common knowledge. Those who fail to adequately maintain their properties are the small minority. That's not the case with computer users at all and you know it.
Personally I practice what I preach. I read up on security from time to time. I'm not the world's foremost expert, nor do I have to be. You'd be surprised how little research it takes to become a much harder target. It is no exaggeration to say that any literate adult can handle it. Whether you think it's fair or not, the circumstances are offering users the following choices: do nothing and consider it a matter of time until you join a botnet, or put a small amount of effort into informing yourself. Now I know you can't stand that this effort is a cost imposed by bad guys, but in that case you should never put locks on your doors or PINs on your ATM card because those have a non-zero cost and fall into the same category, you hypocrite.
I mentioned Microsoft specifically because I am realistic. I have never seen nor heard of a 50,000-member botnet that exploited *nix or OSX. I don't see many VAX-based botnets. There seems to be a shortage of QNX-based botnets as well. At the moment, Windows is the problem area. If that should change, my focus will change with it. If you think that means the big mean ol' causality is verbally beating up on the poor helpless widdle Microsoft, well then I'm glad you always take the high road whenever it is possible. So be it.
FTFA: "The bad guys can buy or rent these as well, getting inside known good IP blocks so that the reputation systems don't blacklist them as quickly."
Criminals establish "safe houses" in nice neighborhoods. Film at eleven.
Besides, these cat-and-mouse games aren't going to stop the widespread, automated compromises of Windows systems that make botnets possible in the first place. It also won't eliminate the average users' notion that security must always be someone else's problem, that they don't need to learn a few basic things that would make them much harder targets (particularly for trojans and other user-assisted exploits).
Inconvenient though it may sometimes seem, we need to look at the cause-and-effect and address the root of the problem. It sucks that the black-hats are tarnishing the reputations of previously good IP blocks, but they wouldn't do this if they didn't have massive botnets to operate. The very notion of a blacklist, while it can be helpful, is after-the-fact and reactive. It's damage control. It's a game of catch-up where breaking even is defined as winning. It doesn't prevent anything.
What we really need is for the average target to be hardened enough that you can't write a single exploit that works on millions of machines. As long as Microsoft sells their products on the basis of ease-of-use with no warnings made that some knowledge is required to use them safely, they should have some liability. As long as users insist on never slowly learning more and more about the systems they use, they are not victims when someone exploits this. It's not a matter of blame, it's a matter of personal responsibility and whether one chooses to be part of the problem.
3) We need better trolls. The trolls right now are lame.
The decreased quality of trolls in recent years is directly proportional to the increased presence of the Linux infestation on the Internet. Back in the 1990s, most high-end Internet servers were running some form of proprietary UNIX or Windows NT. (You may recall the Netcraft study that showed that NT far outperformed the popular Linux distributions of the day.) They were respectable pieces of hardware running respectable operating systems. Furthermore, they were administered by intelligent engineers, full of independent thought and imbued with a lust for creativity and self-expression.
In the intervening years, the landscape has been polluted with low-cost commodity Intel boxes running some damnable variant of the Linux virus. With cute names like "Gentoo", "Ubuntu", and "Red Hat Enterprise Linux", this operating system has hijacked the once-vibrant Internet community. The afore-mentioned Windows and UNIX administrators have been sent packing and replaced with soulless, hive-minded drones from the Linux gulags. And once this happened, the high-quality trolls were nowhere to be found.
Let's be perfectly clear about one thing: The Linux "community" is a liberal slaughterhouse of the mind. The goal of this community (rarely stated out loud but none the less obvious) is complete totalitarian Communism and an end to Western civilization. They see our dreams of prosperity and a high standard of living for our children and our grandchildren. They want to replace these dreams with a nightmarish reality: burning trash barrels on every corner, mile-long government bread lines, and children in burlap sacks drinking water out of discarded automobile tires.
This is what Linux has wrought. This is where they intend to bring us.
Haha, damn. That's a good one. If you could make it a bit more subtle and maybe get a first post on an Open Source discussion, it would be fucking great.
If you're going to fix something about this site, you should first identify something that can be easily recognized as broken. What comes to my mind is the JS that drives the comment system. It's unresponsive as hell. Most of the time, I have to click "Preview" and "Submit" multiple times before anything happens. Even then, it often won't update to show me the finalized comment, forcing me to use my browser's Refresh button. Since this is neither consistent nor the intended functionality, I consider it a glaring and obvious bug(s). If I were the developer, I would focus on basic usability and getting fundamental functions to work smoothly before I'd move on to larger ideas.
Though it may seem like the Javascript, it's not. If you run a webserver from your posting IP and tail the logs while you post, you'll see that it's checking to see if you're posting through an open proxy, the frontend hangs until it finishes that server side check. Now, I have no idea why that check takes so long, but they don't make the check against the same IP too often, so if you post again soon after you make another post (or preview and then submit), you'll see that only the first request is slow, the rest skip the open proxy check and respond reasonably quickly.
I'm aware of the port scan; it's frankly trivial to detect (with or without running a Web server) and well-known to anyone who's maintained an account for some time. Slashdot is not the only Internet service which does this. Maybe this makes me unusual, but the way I look at things, I'd have no business talking about this subject (except to ask questions) if I hadn't taken the few minutes necessary to rule out things like this. I'm not among the thoughtless people who have come to define the norm.
At any rate, the results of that scan are cached for a time. So yes, my first post of the day would be subject to that delay.
I am referring to what happens afterwards, after the delay for the open-proxy scan has been accounted for. This site definitely has UI responsiveness issues that are not so trivially dismissed. They have worsened since long after the port-scan was standard practice.
Yes, but we still have the problem that anyone and everyone can moderate as long as they manage to get enough karma.
My karma is maximized and has been for years now. I get mod points from time to time but not terribly often. I receive them maybe a few times a month. Also, I never receive the 15 points I hear others talk about. It's five each time. I don't consider this excessive.
As has already been discussed, it's pretty formulaic if you want to get modded up. Find the right discussion, and plug in the right "thoughts" and you'll be +5 in no time. So with enough formulaic regurgitation posts under your belt, you start getting mod points, and then it's really a matter of luck whether or not you're worthy of them.
If Slashdot is completely immune to determined individuals who wish to game the system, I believe it would be the first in history. When you consider the kind of empty person who would do all of this instead of manning up and telling the world what they really think with no apologies, well, they're pretty damned pathetic and ball-less. Let them have their ten minutes of gratification.
Besides, those comments are also very easy to deconstruct if you have any kind of skill whatsoever with reason and disputation. You know you've done it well when the person suddenly shuts up and has nothing further to say despite your (non-inflammatory) obvious challenge to them. That's as close as most of these immature people ever come to having the guts to say "I was wrong about that, thanks for setting me straight". Either way, they are their own worst enemies. You probably have some mercy in you, so you likely would not make their existence as empty and pointless as they already do themselves. Consider it a built-in sort of justice.
There is much to appreciate here. Don't let the childish types ruin it for you. They are quite vocal because they think making a lot of noise makes them right, but don't let that fool you. They are a much smaller minority than they would first appear to be.
I'm assuming meta-moderation is why I don't get mod points anymore. I've modded up some minority opinion and I've been punished for it.
Not that this comment will ever be seen, as I'm also stuck permanently on a score of 1.
Usually when I have the urge to comment I remind myself it's just Slashdot and posting is a waste of time.
If it helps, I mod up unpopular or minority opinions all the time. There is no shortage of cases when an unpopular notion that no one really wants to hear happens to be the fuckin' truth. I'd rather people grow up and work to change any truth they dislike. I won't help them do otherwise, nor should I.
I don't view it as "just Slashdot". I view it as a way to almost instantly reach a large audience of mostly intelligent people, a technological marvel no one would have imagined just a hundred years ago. Consider for a moment how easy it is to take that for granted. If Slashdot goes away, I'll do this someplace else. They don't have a monopoly on communication. What they do have is a community I appreciate that actually knows a thing or two about reason, despite the highly visible users who don't.
Eh, even if you don't like a single thing I've said, at least for now your (quoted verbatim) comment is effectively at my +3 score.
When they changed the meta-moderation system I stopped meta-moderating. I'd be surprised if I were the only one that stopped. The older system of an up or down vote was a lot easier to do, without actually spending huge amounts of time, it's just too hard to figure out what the moderation should have been.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
I also used to meta-moderate frequently, anytime the request to do so came up at the top of the front page. Maybe I misremember things, for it was some time ago, but it seems the meta-mod system used to actually have some teeth. Mods who didn't do so well when meta-moderated tended not to receive mod points so often. After they softened that, I no longer saw much point in participation.
The problem with reporting mod abuses is that they are likely to get swamped with useless reports. Not every mod I wouldn't do personally is an abuse of the system, but how many people honestly see it that way? How many would appreciate the nature of a judgment call, particularly when there are no consequences for false or petty or questionable reports? Right now, the inconvenience of having to gather some information and send an e-mail to report an abuse is a good thing. It means people are less likely to do it carelessly or casually.
Being able to express a contrary opinion while retaining popular support is a skill. Being a dick about it is what gets you modded down to stay.
You and I are of one mind on this. If you do it skillfully, you can even be a dick and it will work. Sometimes it's necessary to be a bit of a dick when you're dealing with incredibly thick-headed people who do not cherish reason. It serves a purpose. It mildly shocks them out of their slumbering, almost hypnotic unwillingness to consider what is in front of them. If it doesn't do that directly, it works indirectly -- petty people who dismiss you because they don't like the (evidence-based, reasoned) things you say won't so quickly dismiss looking stupid in front of an audience.
I'll give you a great example of the mentality I'm talking about. Consider those who welcome with open arms the fascism that is accumulating in most Western nations. These are not philosophers. These are sophisticated animals who are governed by fear and cling to any promise of security offered no matter how costly. Do they deserve to have anyone tip-toe around how stupid and unreasonable they are to avoid offense at all costs? I don't believe so, though that isn't the same thing as offending them for the mere sake of some kind of personal gratification.
Being a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as malice.
If you're going to fix something about this site, you should first identify something that can be easily recognized as broken. What comes to my mind is the JS that drives the comment system. It's unresponsive as hell. Most of the time, I have to click "Preview" and "Submit" multiple times before anything happens. Even then, it often won't update to show me the finalized comment, forcing me to use my browser's Refresh button. Since this is neither consistent nor the intended functionality, I consider it a glaring and obvious bug(s). If I were the developer, I would focus on basic usability and getting fundamental functions to work smoothly before I'd move on to larger ideas.
This is absolutely a must. Between that, and if you could eliminate the need for html code to format posts, life would be much better.
Do you view that as a burden? Honestly, I miss the ability to specify the formatting when I post on other sites. It's really no big deal. Just about any formatting you'd want to use can be covered by 4-5 tags at most (BR, A, B, I, and quote/blockquote). That's a tiny price to pay to reach a large, intelligent audience who frequently gives you substantive feedback. At some point you have to wonder, would this be a big obstacle to anyone who really has something worthwhile to say?
I'm slow to eliminate these kinds of hurdles that silently ask, "do you care enough to expend the slightest effort?" They definitely have a place.
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
I've found that one can thoughtfully articulate an unpopular opinion in a way that causes others to consider ideas and perspectives they would otherwise be unwilling to entertain. Though they do it for petty and ignorant reasons, that same rigid orthodoxy winds up serving the higher purpose of helping me sharpen a skill that is otherwise more difficult and costly to practice. If they insist on being this way, let them; I will continue to use it constructively despite their narrow-minded intentions.
If you're going to fix something about this site, you should first identify something that can be easily recognized as broken. What comes to my mind is the JS that drives the comment system. It's unresponsive as hell. Most of the time, I have to click "Preview" and "Submit" multiple times before anything happens. Even then, it often won't update to show me the finalized comment, forcing me to use my browser's Refresh button. Since this is neither consistent nor the intended functionality, I consider it a glaring and obvious bug(s). If I were the developer, I would focus on basic usability and getting fundamental functions to work smoothly before I'd move on to larger ideas.
Otherwise, it would be easier to view the staff as a group of professionals if they'd take a small portion of their revenues and hire a good copy editor. Even a part-time copy editor would help tremendously. I frequently see mistakes that even automated spell-checkers would have caught. You're telling me an article submitted to an audience of millions isn't important enough to spend a few hundred milliseconds of CPU time to run a spell-checker? That would cost nothing, even if they can't be bothered to proofread anything. The lack of even basic attempts to achieve quality sends the message that these are not professionals who really care about the quality of their work, that they're just mercenaries who are not doing something they enjoy and value.
The problem is with the teaching, people are taught very poorly... They are not taught general concepts, they are taught specific of particular applications so if they were to learn Libreoffice people would complain that it's not what working environments are using.
You see half of the problem. That much I can say with certainty. But do you see why it is not going to be solved, why those who make the decisions and control the curriculum, who could solve it in short order, will never voluntarily do so?
Can you take the next step and see the other half? It's simple: it is 100% deliberate. The "educators" have thoroughly explored psychology and development and the learning process. They cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for why the average American is frankly so damned stupid, docile, and undiscerning. For example, they know that students taught to read via phonics greatly outperform those taught with the "whole word" methods. Those taught with phonics are often several grade levels ahead of their peers. Yet which method do they push? Whole-word. Because then you have to be taught and cannot reason it out on your own.
The US school system was built on Prussian-style schooling. The entire purpose of it is to produce (like a factory) citizens who are just smart enough to perform useful, non-trivial work yet dumb enough not to look too deeply into things, not to enjoy learning, not to have natural curiosity, not to discover things on their own because they were taught to depend on someone else to hand knowledge to them. Definitely, above all else, they are not to have the capability of the kind of critical and abstract principle-based conceptual thought (what one may call a classical philosopher) that would make them tough-minded, independent, and able to individually question the social order in which they are asked to participate.
The wealthy businessmen who established the American school system we know today were, in the beginning, extremely open and up-front about their intentions. They quite plainly stated that it was about control. They admired the Hindus, the way the tiny minority of Brahmins could maintain control over all the lower castes, the way this was done through forced "education" and learned subservience. What they most strongly feared, right at the height of the Industrial Revolution, was "overproduction" - the idea that the independent, entrepreneurial, individual spirit that defined America had to be destroyed or else the factories with the massive investments put into them would have to compete with many different small businesses. This was a time when most men had a trade and a business and were their own boss or aspiring to be. It is not compatible with the concentration of wealth and top-down administration of large corporations.
The very finest reference available for this subject is John Taylor Gatto. To stand up and speak out as he has done requires some actual guts (notice how rare that is these days?). He also has an entire book on the subject available online for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Because he also said illegals, which typically implies racism.
If we didn't have millions of illegal aliens in the USA, I would agree that "only" racism could explain any reference to illegal aliens. If you think it's terrible to want people to obey immigration laws, take a look at Mexico's sometime. We're quite soft by comparison. A little parity would achieve the "fairness" so many hypersensitive types keep demanding.
Truth is, you had no idea where he was coming from. Maybe you don't have the guts to admit that, but it's manifestly true. You just took it upon yourself to assume anyone who believes in rule of law and doesn't abandon that belief when the law in question is immigration must be a bigot. How nice. Is that really easier for you than looking at the facts of the matter?
Oh right, if you are saying we should just ignore any laws we find inconvenient and abandon all concepts of rule of law, I suppose this cowardly bullshit probably _is_ easier for you than making a solid case. You know there are a lot of people like you. "Oh, I'll just decide in advance what I want and if any pesky facts contradict that, I'll just make personal attacks against anyone who mentions them". When cowards like you get a little authority, that becomes "I'll just use force of law to threaten them into shutting up so I never have to face reality". It's why the world is so fucked up.
Go ahead. Keep making serious accusations like racism (might as well call them a murderer too) against anyone who disagrees with you. Evidence? Fuck evidence, that only matters when you are accused of something. You couldn't be more transparent and obvious. I like the fact that your ilk are so eager to identify themselves.
So what you're saying is, even when it's not winter, it's still nice and white.
I moved TO California. Glad I'm here. Glad you're not.
If you automatically assume that "retards" implies a certain skin color, or that wanting people to either obey the law or change it can only be due to bigotry ... are you certain it's the GP and not you who views the world in terms of race, finding it behind every possible motivation, using it as your very first explanation for every disagreement about where to live?
... if you're going to call someone a thief you'd have evidence, right? What makes this particular accusation so special?
I mean
This is probably the last time in history that could work. Very soon the 1% will be able to afford robotically defended fortresses. Automated machine gun turrets capable of killing hundreds of thousands will render the anger of the mob irrelevant.
Hopefully the software will be made by Microsoft.
Even if you're screaming right outside their door, they're just going to call the cops and crank up the volume on the TV. I don't seriously believe that the Occupy campaign are going to do that much to change what is going on. The 1% already control everything. Everything that you buy, everything that you watch and everything that you do is controlled completely by this 1% group. Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days. Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.
It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.
The real aristocracy does everything by proxy, by funding, by corporations, and by front organizations. The single most effective thing they ever did was to replace real state-issued money with bank-issued monetized debt. That's how you grab a nation by the balls without ever using physical force.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose. That's why (in terms of Establishment priorities) it's okay to give them so much media attention. It's little more than a way to get the "troublemakers" to identify themselves and be arrested or otherwised put through the system.
"OK now just right click that icon" ...'but I'm left handed'
"No, take your finger and push the button on the right side of the mouse once and hold it down.. what do you see?" .." My email browser explorer express just started up"
"no you clicked the LEFT button.. i want you to click the Right button!.. don't you know left from right"
"...hey don't get mad at me i'm not a computer EXPERT like you!" ...20 minutes later...
that's click it TWO times .. double click means TWO clicks"
"...hey don't get mad at me i'm not a computer EXPERT like you!" ....
Yeah, that's about how it goes. The ability to rub two brain cells together is suddenly defined as expertise...
I wonder, when a doctor writes a prescription and says something like "take this pill once a day", does anyone reply with "but I'm not a medical EXPERT like you!"?
Some people try to take care of their things. Some people don't think they have time to figure out how. The former group is proud of their collection of tools and earned experience. The latter bemoans every failure as being someone else's problem without ever considering if there were something they could have done differently.
Fuck man, you said it. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to explain this notion, usually in the context of computer security.
In so many words it amounts to, "you're not a baby anymore, you're as helpless as you choose to be, learning can be a joyful process of discovery and amazement, independence is a virtue, and the more personal freedom and integrity you have the less you blame others for your problems".
So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
... Why would we make fun of the judge? He most likely didn't write the order, the moving party usually drafts an order and presents it to the judge, who then signs it.
Because if you bring something to me that is fatally flawed and cannot possibly fulfill its stated purpose, I won't sign it?
You might or might not agree with that, but it isn't exactly difficult to discern.
In a nutshell, yes. One great way to take relatively small security concerns and greatly magnify them is to have a single application that tries to be everything and do everything for everyone. The browser is involved in too many different things as it is. As it becomes more and more central, it is also a more and more tempting target. A worst-case compromise now has fewer barriers in terms of the damage it can do.
If you are (implicitly, of course) saying that adding remote access to an already complex Web browser has absolutely no security implications whatsoever and no amount of caution could possibly be reasonable, well, I say that statement carries with it a burden of proof. Until you demonstrate otherwise, that positive claim is rightly considered false.
Those who disagree with you by default are merely being sensible.
But it serves 2 purposes - it placates those who wanted the judge to do something, and it's both simple to implement and simple to get around - so it's a win-win. The judge gets this case off his docket, the entity bringing the suit can say "we won", etc.
They deserved something other than humiliation? (Winning a case based on laws you bought doesn't count as not-humiliating...)
It sounds like it could be an alternative to WebEx, for those who use it for remote support.
It beats the hell out of trying to get most adults to follow simple verbal instructions.
Ever work a technical support job? After explaining to an otherwise educated person (i.e. educated stupid) for the fifth time that when you ask him to "right-click with the right mouse button" it is not the same as "double-click (with the left)" you start thinking about remote desktop yourself.
Thankfully that was a long time ago. After a while, you stop thinking of involuntary sterilization as a viable option.
Of course you could always change your DNS to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and avoid DNS blocking entirely...
Running your own caching DNS server is so ridiculously easy, I'm surprised so many people trust $MEGACORP to do it for them. Don't get me wrong, in terms of load on the root servers it works for me that most others aren't doing this. I enjoy lots of things that would go away if everyone did it.
It's a shame that assuming responsibility of your own experience where it is reasonable to do so isn't precisely popular. We place far too much trust in random strangers to do too many things for us that we could do ourselves. This isn't at all like trying to be your own doctor or electrician, where the result could be quite disastrous. Still, if Establishment/authoritarian types start thinking that DNS is their one-stop solution for easy censorship, local caching DNS servers may become more common. Failing that, there are foreign proxies.
One could make the case that judges don't generally understand technology, and it would be a valid one. Yet I think this points to a deeper and much older issue.
It's the difference between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". Obviously the intent was to make the Pirate Bay Web site unreachable. Obviously such an oversight was unintended. Yet the ISPs receive very specific instructions and are only looking after their own financial interests by following them to the letter.
You see the same thing everywhere in the USA, particularly with anything regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. To make up an example, when the pre-Industrial Founders talked about "papers and effects" should that mean "computers and cell phones"? Obviously. Who seriously thinks it wouldn't? They didn't want the government to screw around with private individuals without an evidence-backed good reason and due process. The intent is not difficult to discern. The Founders' notions about the proper role of government are not unknown. Free speech zones, you say? Does anyone really think the likes of Jefferson and Madison wanted the government to easily brush aside those who would speak against it? Why was this ever even a controversy?
The Constitution and most other basic laws are not so difficult to understand. The only reason one needs to be a "scholar" is to find clever ways to play word games so you can twist it around and do what was never intended. It's the same deal with this ruling. The intention is pretty damned clear (too bad one cannot say that about most tax codes). The effect is very much the opposite.
The US is becoming a nation of damned Pharisees. The entire system is run by lawyers whose interests include making law as incomprehensible and inaccessible to the average person as possible. That's how they make themselves indisposable and advance their diabolical profession. I think most nations have gone down this road. I don't live in Belgium but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were also this way. So we can laugh at this judge who probably looks pretty stupid right now, making rules for what he so clearly does not understand, but the deeper problems it brings up are neither easy to solve nor limited to Belgium.
Newsflash - Windows boxes are a lot harder to infect these days. In fact, the vast majority of compromises don't happen because you connected a Windows box to the Internet. They happen because the user browses to some website, and either a drive-by download happens and installs malware (either through a compromised website, or through a compromised ad network), or they run an attachment because the email says to.
I didn't really consider it relevant at the time, but consider the majority of the Windows userbase. They tend to not only be ignorant about technical matters, but they work hard to stay that way and will resent the notion that this should gradually change as they acquire experience. I call them permanent newbies. They're the people who can use computers for seven years and still remain as ignorant now as they were when they first started. They want to learn the basics of how their computers work about as much as an aristocrat wants to fraternize with the help. That's about the contempt with which they view it. That is a conscious decision. It is not an accident. When it causes problems for others, I think they should be held responsible.
Linux tends to attract more technically-inclined users. It's not nearly so easy to trick the average Linux user into running some kind of trojan or opening some kind of backdoor as it is to pull the same trick on the average Windows user. User education -- or better still, users who feel a responsibility to educate themselves the same way you'd seek instruction before operating a dangerous machine -- works every time it's tried.
I thought we all agreed that the whole "walled garden" approach was a Bad Idea(tm)? The primary problem is the user, and the only way to fix that is closed, locked-down devices that can only run vetted apps.
The walled garden approach is in lieu of education. Users who understand the risks and generally know what they're doing don't really need it.
You may or may not see where I'm coming from. What I am about to say is a very easy thing to demagogue, but it's the only method of self-correction available. I think the focus should be on making sure careless/stupid users harm others as little as possible. Otherwise, if they want to take a stupid risk and they get burned, that's their problem. Perhaps some way of holding them responsible when their machines become spam-spewing botnet members is the way to handle this. I think criminal charges would be going too far, but perhaps suspend their Internet access for six months each time an incident happens. Get rid of the low-hanging fruit and it becomes far less profitable for the criminals.
The first step is to stop viewing these adult people who purchase computers and Internet access as victims. View them as reckless individuals who make risky choices despite the very well-known threats, who tend to make the network worse for everyone else as a consequence, providing fertile ground to enable the worst sort of criminals who can cause real material harm. Then find the best way to discourage the kind of ignorance they cherish. None of this means we shouldn't go after the criminals, but rather, that we should understand them as the last links in a long unbroken chain of events that is entire preventable.
Oh horseshit. Microsoft makes ease-of-use it's focus because that is what it's customers want. Does your house come with a warning that trimming the shrubs is required, and if they grow too large it is bad for security? Does the home builder bear liability if someone hides behind the shrub, breaks a window and gets in? Does the homeowner? No to all of those - the only one we hold responsible is the person who broke in. And why single out Microsoft for liability? If Microsoft is liable, why aren't all software vendors (including FOSS)? Equal justice and all that.
Most people think like you do: childishly. They will pass up an available, doable solution that will work because it might mean a slight bit more effort for users and might not fulfill their visceral desire to feel the gratification of hanging the black-hats by their toes. I know exactly how you think. Anything that doesn't give users streets paved with gold and their every heart's desire while simultaneously torturing the evil hackers to death would be ... UNFAIR. That makes it against your religion, an anathema to you. Like I said, this is childish.
If you have a widespread, reoccurring problem that causes real material harm, and you have practical, achievable steps you can take to ameliorate it, you take those steps. You then worry about going after the bad guys. They are not mutually exclusive. Hardening the targets doesn't mean the criminals get a pass. Your either-or thinking is pathetic and outdated. I'm tired of how many good discussions it poisons.
It's funny that you mention homeowners. Actually, if a premises is maintained poorly enough, indeed the city or the county will step in and mandate that basic maintainence be performed. Also, you don't need to tell most homeowners to lock their doors at night, to mow their lawns occasionally, to shovel the ice and snow from their sidewalks because they understand that these chores go along with owning your own home. It is considered basic common knowledge. Those who fail to adequately maintain their properties are the small minority. That's not the case with computer users at all and you know it.
Personally I practice what I preach. I read up on security from time to time. I'm not the world's foremost expert, nor do I have to be. You'd be surprised how little research it takes to become a much harder target. It is no exaggeration to say that any literate adult can handle it. Whether you think it's fair or not, the circumstances are offering users the following choices: do nothing and consider it a matter of time until you join a botnet, or put a small amount of effort into informing yourself. Now I know you can't stand that this effort is a cost imposed by bad guys, but in that case you should never put locks on your doors or PINs on your ATM card because those have a non-zero cost and fall into the same category, you hypocrite.
I mentioned Microsoft specifically because I am realistic. I have never seen nor heard of a 50,000-member botnet that exploited *nix or OSX. I don't see many VAX-based botnets. There seems to be a shortage of QNX-based botnets as well. At the moment, Windows is the problem area. If that should change, my focus will change with it. If you think that means the big mean ol' causality is verbally beating up on the poor helpless widdle Microsoft, well then I'm glad you always take the high road whenever it is possible. So be it.
Either ways, I should have all my bases covered?
No. They are belong to us.
FTFA: "The bad guys can buy or rent these as well, getting inside known good IP blocks so that the reputation systems don't blacklist them as quickly." Criminals establish "safe houses" in nice neighborhoods. Film at eleven.
Besides, these cat-and-mouse games aren't going to stop the widespread, automated compromises of Windows systems that make botnets possible in the first place. It also won't eliminate the average users' notion that security must always be someone else's problem, that they don't need to learn a few basic things that would make them much harder targets (particularly for trojans and other user-assisted exploits).
Inconvenient though it may sometimes seem, we need to look at the cause-and-effect and address the root of the problem. It sucks that the black-hats are tarnishing the reputations of previously good IP blocks, but they wouldn't do this if they didn't have massive botnets to operate. The very notion of a blacklist, while it can be helpful, is after-the-fact and reactive. It's damage control. It's a game of catch-up where breaking even is defined as winning. It doesn't prevent anything.
What we really need is for the average target to be hardened enough that you can't write a single exploit that works on millions of machines. As long as Microsoft sells their products on the basis of ease-of-use with no warnings made that some knowledge is required to use them safely, they should have some liability. As long as users insist on never slowly learning more and more about the systems they use, they are not victims when someone exploits this. It's not a matter of blame, it's a matter of personal responsibility and whether one chooses to be part of the problem.
3) We need better trolls. The trolls right now are lame.
The decreased quality of trolls in recent years is directly proportional to the increased presence of the Linux infestation on the Internet. Back in the 1990s, most high-end Internet servers were running some form of proprietary UNIX or Windows NT. (You may recall the Netcraft study that showed that NT far outperformed the popular Linux distributions of the day.) They were respectable pieces of hardware running respectable operating systems. Furthermore, they were administered by intelligent engineers, full of independent thought and imbued with a lust for creativity and self-expression.
In the intervening years, the landscape has been polluted with low-cost commodity Intel boxes running some damnable variant of the Linux virus. With cute names like "Gentoo", "Ubuntu", and "Red Hat Enterprise Linux", this operating system has hijacked the once-vibrant Internet community. The afore-mentioned Windows and UNIX administrators have been sent packing and replaced with soulless, hive-minded drones from the Linux gulags. And once this happened, the high-quality trolls were nowhere to be found.
Let's be perfectly clear about one thing: The Linux "community" is a liberal slaughterhouse of the mind. The goal of this community (rarely stated out loud but none the less obvious) is complete totalitarian Communism and an end to Western civilization. They see our dreams of prosperity and a high standard of living for our children and our grandchildren. They want to replace these dreams with a nightmarish reality: burning trash barrels on every corner, mile-long government bread lines, and children in burlap sacks drinking water out of discarded automobile tires.
This is what Linux has wrought. This is where they intend to bring us.
Haha, damn. That's a good one. If you could make it a bit more subtle and maybe get a first post on an Open Source discussion, it would be fucking great.
Though it may seem like the Javascript, it's not. If you run a webserver from your posting IP and tail the logs while you post, you'll see that it's checking to see if you're posting through an open proxy, the frontend hangs until it finishes that server side check. Now, I have no idea why that check takes so long, but they don't make the check against the same IP too often, so if you post again soon after you make another post (or preview and then submit), you'll see that only the first request is slow, the rest skip the open proxy check and respond reasonably quickly.
I'm aware of the port scan; it's frankly trivial to detect (with or without running a Web server) and well-known to anyone who's maintained an account for some time. Slashdot is not the only Internet service which does this. Maybe this makes me unusual, but the way I look at things, I'd have no business talking about this subject (except to ask questions) if I hadn't taken the few minutes necessary to rule out things like this. I'm not among the thoughtless people who have come to define the norm.
At any rate, the results of that scan are cached for a time. So yes, my first post of the day would be subject to that delay.
I am referring to what happens afterwards, after the delay for the open-proxy scan has been accounted for. This site definitely has UI responsiveness issues that are not so trivially dismissed. They have worsened since long after the port-scan was standard practice.
Yes, but we still have the problem that anyone and everyone can moderate as long as they manage to get enough karma.
My karma is maximized and has been for years now. I get mod points from time to time but not terribly often. I receive them maybe a few times a month. Also, I never receive the 15 points I hear others talk about. It's five each time. I don't consider this excessive.
As has already been discussed, it's pretty formulaic if you want to get modded up. Find the right discussion, and plug in the right "thoughts" and you'll be +5 in no time. So with enough formulaic regurgitation posts under your belt, you start getting mod points, and then it's really a matter of luck whether or not you're worthy of them.
If Slashdot is completely immune to determined individuals who wish to game the system, I believe it would be the first in history. When you consider the kind of empty person who would do all of this instead of manning up and telling the world what they really think with no apologies, well, they're pretty damned pathetic and ball-less. Let them have their ten minutes of gratification.
Besides, those comments are also very easy to deconstruct if you have any kind of skill whatsoever with reason and disputation. You know you've done it well when the person suddenly shuts up and has nothing further to say despite your (non-inflammatory) obvious challenge to them. That's as close as most of these immature people ever come to having the guts to say "I was wrong about that, thanks for setting me straight". Either way, they are their own worst enemies. You probably have some mercy in you, so you likely would not make their existence as empty and pointless as they already do themselves. Consider it a built-in sort of justice.
There is much to appreciate here. Don't let the childish types ruin it for you. They are quite vocal because they think making a lot of noise makes them right, but don't let that fool you. They are a much smaller minority than they would first appear to be.
I'm assuming meta-moderation is why I don't get mod points anymore. I've modded up some minority opinion and I've been punished for it.
Not that this comment will ever be seen, as I'm also stuck permanently on a score of 1.
Usually when I have the urge to comment I remind myself it's just Slashdot and posting is a waste of time.
If it helps, I mod up unpopular or minority opinions all the time. There is no shortage of cases when an unpopular notion that no one really wants to hear happens to be the fuckin' truth. I'd rather people grow up and work to change any truth they dislike. I won't help them do otherwise, nor should I.
I don't view it as "just Slashdot". I view it as a way to almost instantly reach a large audience of mostly intelligent people, a technological marvel no one would have imagined just a hundred years ago. Consider for a moment how easy it is to take that for granted. If Slashdot goes away, I'll do this someplace else. They don't have a monopoly on communication. What they do have is a community I appreciate that actually knows a thing or two about reason, despite the highly visible users who don't.
Eh, even if you don't like a single thing I've said, at least for now your (quoted verbatim) comment is effectively at my +3 score.
When they changed the meta-moderation system I stopped meta-moderating. I'd be surprised if I were the only one that stopped. The older system of an up or down vote was a lot easier to do, without actually spending huge amounts of time, it's just too hard to figure out what the moderation should have been.
They could also provide an easier way of reporting abuses of mod points.
I also used to meta-moderate frequently, anytime the request to do so came up at the top of the front page. Maybe I misremember things, for it was some time ago, but it seems the meta-mod system used to actually have some teeth. Mods who didn't do so well when meta-moderated tended not to receive mod points so often. After they softened that, I no longer saw much point in participation.
The problem with reporting mod abuses is that they are likely to get swamped with useless reports. Not every mod I wouldn't do personally is an abuse of the system, but how many people honestly see it that way? How many would appreciate the nature of a judgment call, particularly when there are no consequences for false or petty or questionable reports? Right now, the inconvenience of having to gather some information and send an e-mail to report an abuse is a good thing. It means people are less likely to do it carelessly or casually.
You and I are of one mind on this. If you do it skillfully, you can even be a dick and it will work. Sometimes it's necessary to be a bit of a dick when you're dealing with incredibly thick-headed people who do not cherish reason. It serves a purpose. It mildly shocks them out of their slumbering, almost hypnotic unwillingness to consider what is in front of them. If it doesn't do that directly, it works indirectly -- petty people who dismiss you because they don't like the (evidence-based, reasoned) things you say won't so quickly dismiss looking stupid in front of an audience.
I'll give you a great example of the mentality I'm talking about. Consider those who welcome with open arms the fascism that is accumulating in most Western nations. These are not philosophers. These are sophisticated animals who are governed by fear and cling to any promise of security offered no matter how costly. Do they deserve to have anyone tip-toe around how stupid and unreasonable they are to avoid offense at all costs? I don't believe so, though that isn't the same thing as offending them for the mere sake of some kind of personal gratification.
Being a bit of a dick isn't the same thing as malice.
If you're going to fix something about this site, you should first identify something that can be easily recognized as broken. What comes to my mind is the JS that drives the comment system. It's unresponsive as hell. Most of the time, I have to click "Preview" and "Submit" multiple times before anything happens. Even then, it often won't update to show me the finalized comment, forcing me to use my browser's Refresh button. Since this is neither consistent nor the intended functionality, I consider it a glaring and obvious bug(s). If I were the developer, I would focus on basic usability and getting fundamental functions to work smoothly before I'd move on to larger ideas.
This is absolutely a must. Between that, and if you could eliminate the need for html code to format posts, life would be much better.
Do you view that as a burden? Honestly, I miss the ability to specify the formatting when I post on other sites. It's really no big deal. Just about any formatting you'd want to use can be covered by 4-5 tags at most (BR, A, B, I, and quote/blockquote). That's a tiny price to pay to reach a large, intelligent audience who frequently gives you substantive feedback. At some point you have to wonder, would this be a big obstacle to anyone who really has something worthwhile to say?
I'm slow to eliminate these kinds of hurdles that silently ask, "do you care enough to expend the slightest effort?" They definitely have a place.
Slashdot has probably of the best comment systems on Earth. But it certainly is subject to orthodoxy. Unpopular opinions are modded down, turning some comment threads into echo chambers. I'd rather hear stuff I don't agree with than only one side.
I've found that one can thoughtfully articulate an unpopular opinion in a way that causes others to consider ideas and perspectives they would otherwise be unwilling to entertain. Though they do it for petty and ignorant reasons, that same rigid orthodoxy winds up serving the higher purpose of helping me sharpen a skill that is otherwise more difficult and costly to practice. If they insist on being this way, let them; I will continue to use it constructively despite their narrow-minded intentions.
If you're going to fix something about this site, you should first identify something that can be easily recognized as broken. What comes to my mind is the JS that drives the comment system. It's unresponsive as hell. Most of the time, I have to click "Preview" and "Submit" multiple times before anything happens. Even then, it often won't update to show me the finalized comment, forcing me to use my browser's Refresh button. Since this is neither consistent nor the intended functionality, I consider it a glaring and obvious bug(s). If I were the developer, I would focus on basic usability and getting fundamental functions to work smoothly before I'd move on to larger ideas.
Otherwise, it would be easier to view the staff as a group of professionals if they'd take a small portion of their revenues and hire a good copy editor. Even a part-time copy editor would help tremendously. I frequently see mistakes that even automated spell-checkers would have caught. You're telling me an article submitted to an audience of millions isn't important enough to spend a few hundred milliseconds of CPU time to run a spell-checker? That would cost nothing, even if they can't be bothered to proofread anything. The lack of even basic attempts to achieve quality sends the message that these are not professionals who really care about the quality of their work, that they're just mercenaries who are not doing something they enjoy and value.
You see half of the problem. That much I can say with certainty. But do you see why it is not going to be solved, why those who make the decisions and control the curriculum, who could solve it in short order, will never voluntarily do so?
Can you take the next step and see the other half? It's simple: it is 100% deliberate. The "educators" have thoroughly explored psychology and development and the learning process. They cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for why the average American is frankly so damned stupid, docile, and undiscerning. For example, they know that students taught to read via phonics greatly outperform those taught with the "whole word" methods. Those taught with phonics are often several grade levels ahead of their peers. Yet which method do they push? Whole-word. Because then you have to be taught and cannot reason it out on your own.
The US school system was built on Prussian-style schooling. The entire purpose of it is to produce (like a factory) citizens who are just smart enough to perform useful, non-trivial work yet dumb enough not to look too deeply into things, not to enjoy learning, not to have natural curiosity, not to discover things on their own because they were taught to depend on someone else to hand knowledge to them. Definitely, above all else, they are not to have the capability of the kind of critical and abstract principle-based conceptual thought (what one may call a classical philosopher) that would make them tough-minded, independent, and able to individually question the social order in which they are asked to participate.
The wealthy businessmen who established the American school system we know today were, in the beginning, extremely open and up-front about their intentions. They quite plainly stated that it was about control. They admired the Hindus, the way the tiny minority of Brahmins could maintain control over all the lower castes, the way this was done through forced "education" and learned subservience. What they most strongly feared, right at the height of the Industrial Revolution, was "overproduction" - the idea that the independent, entrepreneurial, individual spirit that defined America had to be destroyed or else the factories with the massive investments put into them would have to compete with many different small businesses. This was a time when most men had a trade and a business and were their own boss or aspiring to be. It is not compatible with the concentration of wealth and top-down administration of large corporations.
The very finest reference available for this subject is John Taylor Gatto. To stand up and speak out as he has done requires some actual guts (notice how rare that is these days?). He also has an entire book on the subject available online for free.