I agree with you in ideal but in practice I don't think it would be a good idea. Adding more negative mods would only encourage their abuse. I'm quite certain that a "Clearly And Definitely Flat Wrong And Probably Libel " mod would encourage people to downgrade based on ideology in regards to debates where that applies.
You initial point has merit as "factually wrong" would give modders an option to mod someone down after correct information has been posted. "Disagree with values" seems super vague and is basically just a disagree option which is to say, pointless without a backing argument provided by a post. I'm very weary though of adding any extra negative mods beyond flame and troll though as they risk stifling conversation. For instance, if a post explaining why another was factually wrong isnt made then the "factually wrong" mod is pointless as it's just a baseless claim without a justification.
In regards to your second point, any form of institutionalizing a negative score for disagree stifles debate. It only encourages any post that is a bit controversial to be down modded to oblivion. While a minority use Flamebait and Troll to do so, providing a legitimate downgrade option for disagreeing would only increase the frequency and thus result in less debate. Likewise, as stated before, a disagree with a zero score is pointless and disagreeing without explaining why is as such.
What would be the point of that? If a post is worth reading then mod it "interesting" or the like. If you disagree then post a response. A mod of "disagree" is literally meaningless without some sort of argument to back it up.
What would the point of that be? If a post is interesting and one thinks people ahould read it then it should be marked as such. If you disargee with some one then write a post. Disagreeing without posting a jutification is meaningless in a discussion.
You know i hear people complain of this rampant abuse but i rarely see it. Here I am with three posts disagreeing with me and I'm at +5 and the post I disagreed with is doing just fine as well. There's been a time or two where i suspect a post i've made has been down modded inappropriately but as far as I've seen it is hardly the epidemic I see a few people make it out to be. We would however, see an uptick in people modding people down because they disagree if you provided a legitmate option. We would be left with only the blandest, least controversial posts at a score of above 1.
As for a zero point disagree mod, please explain the point of doing a zero point "disagree"? If one disagrees with some one, what's the point of stating it without explaining why?Disagreeing with no justification is pointless.
I couldn't disagree more. A "disagree" mod that didn't affect a posts score would be pointless. What's the point of disagreeing if you can't post a contrary argument or idea?
As for if the "disagree" mod has a -1 value, down voting is in essence silencing a person as I imagine a lot of users don't browse at the 0 score level. A person shouldn't be silenced because you disagree with them. Meanwhile most would agree that relegating those who post Obama erotica or the like to a 0 score is fine as they're not contributing to the conversation in a positive way. Sure, some people miss use the tools Slashdot provides to drown out Trolls and Flamers as a means of stifling legitimate ideas or arguments but that doesnt mean we have to legitimize the process by giving it an actual mod title.
I doubt the modding system will ever be perfect but providing a "disagree" mod would only serve to stifle discussion and debate if it was scored and would be just pointless if it wasn't.
I was just dealing with the fallout from Microsoft's upgrade push today. My mother upgraded from 7 to 10 and 10 would no longer support the 1600 x 900 her shitty HP monitor wanted to do. If I hadnt come along she would have been stuck on an extremely low rez setting (which is all Wondows 10 would support on her monitor) for god only knows how long because there was no driver update for her crappy on board video card to solve the problem.
Was that specifically Miscrosofts fault? No.
Should they have been pushing an OS upgrade like they were on people with old crappy hardware? the answer is also no.
I put her back on system 7 and everything works fine now.
How about the fact that we're doing much better (economically speaking) then Europe who took the austerity path to try to solve their economic problems during the last global recession?
There's a sinister connection between leaf blowers and illegal immigration? So If there were no leaf blowers there'd be no illegal immigration? Or would it be if there was no illegal immigration there'd be no leaf blowers? Both seem pretty preposterous to me.
The people who do the yard work in the condo complex where I live (California) all have ear protectors. They're mostly Hispanic but if they're illegals they arent recent arrivals as all of them that I've talked to speak pretty good English. Now both of our stories are anecdotal but I see plenty of grounds keepers wearing proper ear protection while operating leaf blowers where I live.
Specifically in regards to your issues, have you tried becoming an active member in your condo association? As one of the board members for mine I've generally found there to be a shortage of people willing to be involved. Even if you're a renter in the complex you can often have some sort of role. If you havent then stop complaining in internet forums about conspiracy theories and get involved with your condo association to get your grounds keepers proper ear protection.
No, they're called "first world problems" because only affluent people with no real problems to complain about complain about nonsense like a bit of noise every once in a while that disturbs their perfect serenity.
After this we can work on a ban on scratchy sweaters. They're the WORST! How about children? They're noisy as all hell. Lets ban'em.
I'm going to abandon the first part of this conversation because I don't think you're capable of getting the point I'm making.
As for the second, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. MOST OF THE TRULY IMPORTANT VACCINES ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL. That's why diseases like Polio (one of many) almost don't exist anymore. Honesty, you're being ridiculous. You don't even seem to understand how vaccines work. Heard immunity for the worst diseases is maintained in almost every country except for the most war torn or violent by providing cheap / free inoculations.
AGAIN, what you're arguing for is most definitely eugenics. Denying vaccines that already exist from people is the same as condemning a certain portion of the population to death. You stated that society would benefit from this "culling". What is eugenics but an intentional culling of the population? Shoot, you've even made the typical psychopath argument of divorcing ones self from morality and embracing pure logic.
You're not really getting my point with people dying which sort of reinforces my point. Those people who are dying in their dying moments almost always don't want to die. What's sad is not sad people, what's sad is people not existing anymore. What's tragic is not that someone feels sorry their child died, it's that the child is dead.
Furthermore, what you're describing is eugenics. The "weak" die and not because they are "weak" but because they are denied something that will save their lives. Just because you arent advocating going out and directly killing the "weak" doesnt mean it isnt eugenics. Finally, your attempt to turn this into a race issue (which is pathetic) is only relevant in the US as far as first world nations go as we're the only nation dumb enough not to embrace more cost effective socialized medicine. As far as third world nations go, many get the most important inoculations for free via funding from first world nations. Polio didnt almost entirely get rid of itself planet wide.
Of course your child in this hypothetical scenario probably didnt want to die and because you chose to not inoculate them from the disease they died from you indirectly killed them.
Honestly, you just sound like a psychopath to me. In your own words the big negative for some one dieing is other people feeling bad? No thought for the actual person who died, huh? The chief negative of a person dieing, particularly when it's not from old age, for a normal person is that the dead person can not go on living.
Hitler, as part of his ethnic cleansing, rounded up the mentally disabled and killed them in mass with the exact same idea in mind. While what you're advocating for is not as direct in method, purposely witholding something from the population that will save large numbers of people from dieing is pretty damn similiar.
You don't understand the critique. What the above is getting at is not a problem with character motivation within the movies, it's a problem with story telling. Having a climax revolving around a Death Star now in three movies is boring and repetitive.
So what you've done is taken "usually eschews the supernatural" and implied that this means "always"....and honestly Star Trek has always been just as bad on hard science. I mean, just because they had some nonsense about Q coming from another dimension doesnt mean that he wasn't just a D&D god they had to deal with.
There's always been a "fantasy" element to Sci-fi. Just look at Jules Verne, one of the original authors of the genre. A lot of his stuff was most certainly not grounded in the hardest of science of his day and was very much fantasy based.
I've been saying this a bit lately on Slashdot because there seems to be a movement about to reshape the meaning of the term "sci-fi": I'm sorry you want the genre name to mean something it never has meant to be but you're just going to have to make due.
Yes, you are the rare enlightened soul who is blessed with insite beyond all others!
How can you say it wasnt Star Wars? It was basically A New Hope with the scenes mixed a bit. Now that certainly doesnt make it a great Star Wars movie but to say it wasnt one at all is just stupid when almost every scene was from prior movies.
Oh yes, you're one of the only people who wasnt a child who thought they were great movies because everyone else didnt understand them. Was the acting actually not horrible and everyone else just didnt get it? Were all of the alien races really not just lame ethnic stereotypes of our own cultures and only you saw through to the truth? Were we all just too simple to get the greatness of Jar-jar?
The crux of your argument is incorrect probably due to either a misreading of the article or an intentional skewing of what the article is saying to make it say what you want it to.
From your article's introduction (the only place this is mentioned): "Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic". The bold text being what you missed or are glossing over.
In summary, there is no consensus on how much IQ is inherited and you are putting out as fact the most extreme percentage according to this single article from a newspaper.
Both the Left and the Right have their members who wallow in ignorance. Living in Sonoma County California I meet a lot on the Left who meet your description. My favorite that's popular around here right now is town wide leaf blower bans. Apperently our cities having to double their park maintenance budgets in highering all the extra staff to do the back breaking racking is worth it for all those poor children with alergies that apperently lack the ability to give these machines a wide berth and must instead congregate directly in front of them. Also, I've been told by people who drive to town council meetings that these things are just the worst in regards to global warming and the noise polution is so oppressive it actually causes them mild discomfort for small periods.
For every one of these on the Left, however, are your run of the mill rascists, homophobes and conservative bible thumpers denying scientific near certainties like evolution on the Right.
Also, there are are plenty of conservatives who are anti vac because "God" tells them to be by the way.
Of course I was talking about the left wing anti nuclear camp and made zero mention of social welfair advocates so your post is completely irrelevant. Furthermore your statisitics for and against the space program make zero differentiation between the ideologies involved in opposing the moon landings and are therefore useless in proving your (what seems to be) the Left is bad agenda.
So in summary, your post is both irrelevant and pointless.
I've never seen any evidence that the same left wing groups who opposed nuclear power opposed landing people on the moon. Those two issues seem very unrelated to me in fact.
Meanwhile, fiscal conservatism has always been the reason for NASA budget cuts in my experience. With a shrinking budget should NASA have kept landing people on the moon or invested its limited resources in other less understood aspects of our universe?
And i also wasnt talking about brief eye contact. I'm talking about head turning a total of 90 degrees watching me as they pass. It's not all the time at all but every now and then I get people completely unfocused from the road looking at me.
Slashdot Mirror
I addressed all that in my prior post. Please reread.
I agree with you in ideal but in practice I don't think it would be a good idea. Adding more negative mods would only encourage their abuse. I'm quite certain that a "Clearly And Definitely Flat Wrong And Probably Libel " mod would encourage people to downgrade based on ideology in regards to debates where that applies.
By the way, your account signature cracked me up.
You initial point has merit as "factually wrong" would give modders an option to mod someone down after correct information has been posted. "Disagree with values" seems super vague and is basically just a disagree option which is to say, pointless without a backing argument provided by a post. I'm very weary though of adding any extra negative mods beyond flame and troll though as they risk stifling conversation. For instance, if a post explaining why another was factually wrong isnt made then the "factually wrong" mod is pointless as it's just a baseless claim without a justification.
In regards to your second point, any form of institutionalizing a negative score for disagree stifles debate. It only encourages any post that is a bit controversial to be down modded to oblivion. While a minority use Flamebait and Troll to do so, providing a legitimate downgrade option for disagreeing would only increase the frequency and thus result in less debate. Likewise, as stated before, a disagree with a zero score is pointless and disagreeing without explaining why is as such.
What would be the point of that? If a post is worth reading then mod it "interesting" or the like. If you disagree then post a response. A mod of "disagree" is literally meaningless without some sort of argument to back it up.
What would the point of that be? If a post is interesting and one thinks people ahould read it then it should be marked as such. If you disargee with some one then write a post. Disagreeing without posting a jutification is meaningless in a discussion.
You know i hear people complain of this rampant abuse but i rarely see it. Here I am with three posts disagreeing with me and I'm at +5 and the post I disagreed with is doing just fine as well. There's been a time or two where i suspect a post i've made has been down modded inappropriately but as far as I've seen it is hardly the epidemic I see a few people make it out to be. We would however, see an uptick in people modding people down because they disagree if you provided a legitmate option. We would be left with only the blandest, least controversial posts at a score of above 1.
As for a zero point disagree mod, please explain the point of doing a zero point "disagree"? If one disagrees with some one, what's the point of stating it without explaining why?Disagreeing with no justification is pointless.
I couldn't disagree more. A "disagree" mod that didn't affect a posts score would be pointless. What's the point of disagreeing if you can't post a contrary argument or idea?
As for if the "disagree" mod has a -1 value, down voting is in essence silencing a person as I imagine a lot of users don't browse at the 0 score level. A person shouldn't be silenced because you disagree with them. Meanwhile most would agree that relegating those who post Obama erotica or the like to a 0 score is fine as they're not contributing to the conversation in a positive way. Sure, some people miss use the tools Slashdot provides to drown out Trolls and Flamers as a means of stifling legitimate ideas or arguments but that doesnt mean we have to legitimize the process by giving it an actual mod title.
I doubt the modding system will ever be perfect but providing a "disagree" mod would only serve to stifle discussion and debate if it was scored and would be just pointless if it wasn't.
I was just dealing with the fallout from Microsoft's upgrade push today. My mother upgraded from 7 to 10 and 10 would no longer support the 1600 x 900 her shitty HP monitor wanted to do. If I hadnt come along she would have been stuck on an extremely low rez setting (which is all Wondows 10 would support on her monitor) for god only knows how long because there was no driver update for her crappy on board video card to solve the problem.
Was that specifically Miscrosofts fault? No.
Should they have been pushing an OS upgrade like they were on people with old crappy hardware? the answer is also no.
I put her back on system 7 and everything works fine now.
How about the fact that we're doing much better (economically speaking) then Europe who took the austerity path to try to solve their economic problems during the last global recession?
What's your point? I never said grounds keepers werent overwhelmingly Latino.
There's a sinister connection between leaf blowers and illegal immigration? So If there were no leaf blowers there'd be no illegal immigration? Or would it be if there was no illegal immigration there'd be no leaf blowers? Both seem pretty preposterous to me.
The people who do the yard work in the condo complex where I live (California) all have ear protectors. They're mostly Hispanic but if they're illegals they arent recent arrivals as all of them that I've talked to speak pretty good English. Now both of our stories are anecdotal but I see plenty of grounds keepers wearing proper ear protection while operating leaf blowers where I live.
Specifically in regards to your issues, have you tried becoming an active member in your condo association? As one of the board members for mine I've generally found there to be a shortage of people willing to be involved. Even if you're a renter in the complex you can often have some sort of role. If you havent then stop complaining in internet forums about conspiracy theories and get involved with your condo association to get your grounds keepers proper ear protection.
No, they're called "first world problems" because only affluent people with no real problems to complain about complain about nonsense like a bit of noise every once in a while that disturbs their perfect serenity.
After this we can work on a ban on scratchy sweaters. They're the WORST! How about children? They're noisy as all hell. Lets ban'em.
I'm going to abandon the first part of this conversation because I don't think you're capable of getting the point I'm making.
As for the second, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. MOST OF THE TRULY IMPORTANT VACCINES ARE NEAR UNIVERSAL. That's why diseases like Polio (one of many) almost don't exist anymore. Honesty, you're being ridiculous. You don't even seem to understand how vaccines work. Heard immunity for the worst diseases is maintained in almost every country except for the most war torn or violent by providing cheap / free inoculations.
AGAIN, what you're arguing for is most definitely eugenics. Denying vaccines that already exist from people is the same as condemning a certain portion of the population to death. You stated that society would benefit from this "culling". What is eugenics but an intentional culling of the population? Shoot, you've even made the typical psychopath argument of divorcing ones self from morality and embracing pure logic.
You're not really getting my point with people dying which sort of reinforces my point. Those people who are dying in their dying moments almost always don't want to die. What's sad is not sad people, what's sad is people not existing anymore. What's tragic is not that someone feels sorry their child died, it's that the child is dead.
Furthermore, what you're describing is eugenics. The "weak" die and not because they are "weak" but because they are denied something that will save their lives. Just because you arent advocating going out and directly killing the "weak" doesnt mean it isnt eugenics. Finally, your attempt to turn this into a race issue (which is pathetic) is only relevant in the US as far as first world nations go as we're the only nation dumb enough not to embrace more cost effective socialized medicine. As far as third world nations go, many get the most important inoculations for free via funding from first world nations. Polio didnt almost entirely get rid of itself planet wide.
Of course your child in this hypothetical scenario probably didnt want to die and because you chose to not inoculate them from the disease they died from you indirectly killed them.
Honestly, you just sound like a psychopath to me. In your own words the big negative for some one dieing is other people feeling bad? No thought for the actual person who died, huh? The chief negative of a person dieing, particularly when it's not from old age, for a normal person is that the dead person can not go on living.
Hitler, as part of his ethnic cleansing, rounded up the mentally disabled and killed them in mass with the exact same idea in mind. While what you're advocating for is not as direct in method, purposely witholding something from the population that will save large numbers of people from dieing is pretty damn similiar.
You don't understand the critique. What the above is getting at is not a problem with character motivation within the movies, it's a problem with story telling. Having a climax revolving around a Death Star now in three movies is boring and repetitive.
So what you've done is taken "usually eschews the supernatural" and implied that this means "always". ...and honestly Star Trek has always been just as bad on hard science. I mean, just because they had some nonsense about Q coming from another dimension doesnt mean that he wasn't just a D&D god they had to deal with.
There's always been a "fantasy" element to Sci-fi. Just look at Jules Verne, one of the original authors of the genre. A lot of his stuff was most certainly not grounded in the hardest of science of his day and was very much fantasy based.
I've been saying this a bit lately on Slashdot because there seems to be a movement about to reshape the meaning of the term "sci-fi": I'm sorry you want the genre name to mean something it never has meant to be but you're just going to have to make due.
Yes, you are the rare enlightened soul who is blessed with insite beyond all others!
How can you say it wasnt Star Wars? It was basically A New Hope with the scenes mixed a bit. Now that certainly doesnt make it a great Star Wars movie but to say it wasnt one at all is just stupid when almost every scene was from prior movies.
Oh yes, you're one of the only people who wasnt a child who thought they were great movies because everyone else didnt understand them. Was the acting actually not horrible and everyone else just didnt get it? Were all of the alien races really not just lame ethnic stereotypes of our own cultures and only you saw through to the truth? Were we all just too simple to get the greatness of Jar-jar?
The crux of your argument is incorrect probably due to either a misreading of the article or an intentional skewing of what the article is saying to make it say what you want it to.
From your article's introduction (the only place this is mentioned): "Researchers have believed for some time that intellect is inherited with studies suggesting that up to 75 per cent of IQ is genetic". The bold text being what you missed or are glossing over.
In summary, there is no consensus on how much IQ is inherited and you are putting out as fact the most extreme percentage according to this single article from a newspaper.
I do too. That was awfully fringe though.
Both the Left and the Right have their members who wallow in ignorance. Living in Sonoma County California I meet a lot on the Left who meet your description. My favorite that's popular around here right now is town wide leaf blower bans. Apperently our cities having to double their park maintenance budgets in highering all the extra staff to do the back breaking racking is worth it for all those poor children with alergies that apperently lack the ability to give these machines a wide berth and must instead congregate directly in front of them. Also, I've been told by people who drive to town council meetings that these things are just the worst in regards to global warming and the noise polution is so oppressive it actually causes them mild discomfort for small periods.
For every one of these on the Left, however, are your run of the mill rascists, homophobes and conservative bible thumpers denying scientific near certainties like evolution on the Right.
Also, there are are plenty of conservatives who are anti vac because "God" tells them to be by the way.
Of course I was talking about the left wing anti nuclear camp and made zero mention of social welfair advocates so your post is completely irrelevant. Furthermore your statisitics for and against the space program make zero differentiation between the ideologies involved in opposing the moon landings and are therefore useless in proving your (what seems to be) the Left is bad agenda.
So in summary, your post is both irrelevant and pointless.
I've never seen any evidence that the same left wing groups who opposed nuclear power opposed landing people on the moon. Those two issues seem very unrelated to me in fact.
Meanwhile, fiscal conservatism has always been the reason for NASA budget cuts in my experience. With a shrinking budget should NASA have kept landing people on the moon or invested its limited resources in other less understood aspects of our universe?
And i also wasnt talking about brief eye contact. I'm talking about head turning a total of 90 degrees watching me as they pass. It's not all the time at all but every now and then I get people completely unfocused from the road looking at me.