... What I'm really looking for is to have every PC they already sell (or at least some significant percentage of them -- it could exclude their prepackaged "Outrageous Deal" systems that have no options) to have an "O/S" option, with the choices: "XP Professional (+ $100)", "XP Home", and "None (- $30) *". The asterisk would be explained by a note that says "Unit ships with FreeDOS to allow hardware checkout; if you choose this option, Dell will not provide support for consumer installed O/S."
A while back, I purchased a 400SC server from them with no O/S. I remain quite happy with it, and Mandriva runs great. I just want the same options available on their PCs.
If the cartridge was not my property, I could understand this ruling. It's their property and I'm only borrowing it. However, in this case, It's my property. If I choose to transfer a liquid that I own from a container that I own into another container that I own, that's nobody's business but mine. But if I destroy my printer because my refilled cartridge is not "up to specs," then it's also my fault.
I really think this is a great point, and I think it would be much more honest if they'd lease the cartridges instead of sell them. They could make it clear to the consumer that the ink itself is being sold, but the cartridge is only a lease. If that was the case, this ruling wouldn't be necessary at all. People understand that when they lease something, they are using someone else's property, and they have to abide by a lease agreement. I think consumers would understand they were doing something wrong if they took their leased Honda to the garage and had suspension and paint modifications. Sending your ink cartridge off to be refilled at some 3rd party refiller or modifying it yourself to pour in more ink would be the same thing -- against the lease agreement. It's this underhanded fake sale that's the problem. Of course, who would want to sign a lease agreement for an ink cartridge?
I realize the STS fleet is aging, but still, it almost sounds like they've been incredibly lucky 100 times and haven't spotted the flaws until now, which sounds quite incredible.
My guess is that the reason WP isn't taking over the universe is because the crappy ad-ware version of WP they ship on Dells isn't very stable. I recently got a laptop from them, and I decided not to pay the money to upgrade to MS Office because I remembered WP being a decent word processor, at least the last time I'd used it (geez, it might have been a decade ago). What I got was an annoying popup every time I started that asked me if I wanted to upgrade to the newest version (at significant cost), and random crashes in the middle of my writing. I was just about to bite the bullet and buy MS Office when I decided to try OO.o. I'm sold. It may not have every feature Word has, but it appears to have the ones I need on a daily basis, and it (v1.1.4) has been rock stable for me. Maybe Dell's switch to shipping WP by default will cause OO.o to take over the universe instead. At least if frustrated WP users find OO.o.
I'm going to guess that the reason for going to Intel and not AMD is the same as the reason they say they're going to Intel instead of PPC -- mobile computing. IIRC, Intel may be playing some "catch-up" in the 64-bit area, but their Pentium-M line has been leading in the low-power area, right? I was looking for a laptop last fall, and while I could get "fast" with AMD, I couldn't get "lasts long on battery". Now, I know in January AMD announced their new "Turion" line, but I have yet to see one and all I have to go on are reports like this (slashdot coverage of the same here). So far I haven't found anyone claiming that the performance / watt of the Turion is better than the Pentium-M. Maybe similar, maybe close to, but not better.
I also think that once they're on the x86 bandwagon, they'll have the option of eventually switching to AMD, painlessly. And I'm sure, like Dell, they'll use it as a bargaining chip every chance they can -- though I imagine it will be a smaller lever, since Apple ships what, 1/10th as many units each quarter as Dell (about 800K/Q as opposed to about 8M/Q)?
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm a developer who loves it when someone runs tests on my software and finds bugs. OK, I don't love that there were bugs in there, I work hard to avoid them, but I want my software to be perfect, so the testers doing me a favor, giving me information that I need in order to improve it.
On the other hand, as much as I appreciate good testers running my code, I don't think I could be in QA testing someone ELSE'S code. I have a personal interest in making my code (or the code I'm maintaining) as good as possible, but that's probably because my name is all over it. The guys just running test after test after test, with little or no recognition, are saints.
Soyuz doesn't have the robotic arm like the shuttle does. It might be possible for them to do it, but it wouldn't be nearly as easy. It also doesn't have a way to take it back down to Earth.
Granted, the return to Earth option would be right out w/o a shuttle mission. I don't see that as important as keeping it working, or safely deorbiting it. I can appreciate a full-scale mock-up at the Smithsonian just as much as the real thing. What I wouldn't appreciate is a toasted piece of primary mirror slag dropping through my roof (or through the roofs of any of my 6.5B neighbors' houses) since it didn't deorbit cleanly.
Not nearly as easy without the shuttle's arm, but perhaps doable. And it would be safer from the perspective of NASA, since they won't fly any missions unless they have a "safe-haven" for the crew.
I just wonder how far "outside-the-box" (e.g. partnerships with ESA or RSA) NASA has been thinking. Without a replacement launched until maybe 2011, a functioning HST is worth something -- and if we were willing to spend $700M to $1B for each service mission with the shuttle, and at least two more were planned, it stands to reason that we could spend something on alternatives, too. Just because the shuttle's out, it doesn't mean we should give up.
This guy in Space Daily a year and a half ago wrote an interesting article that proposed the idea of using an ESA hosted launch of a Soyuz (or two) to service Hubble. I have no idea if its feasible, but I wonder if anyone in NASA is considering ideas like this.
OK, how would his showing ID in any way prevent "a disaster from repeating"?
You're assuming that a) the guards at the airport would be looking for a particular person, and b) that particular person (in this case John Gilmore) wouldn't be presenting easily obtained fake-ID.
Isn't it better to search every passenger to make sure he or she isn't carrying a weapon? Is an ID a guarantee that a person ISN'T a terrorist? What would stop your hypotetical "white male - paid off by Al Qaida" from having an ID? Has the government stopped issuing IDs to white males recently?
Of course you're 100% correct about the problem with anecdotal evidence... We have Win 2K servers at work, and we have several hundred software / system engineers connecting to them via Citrix and Terminal Services. I don't think there's been a 3 week period in the last year without one of the Win 2K servers crashing or requiring a reboot ("Emergency maintenance required! Server X will be rebooted in 15 minutes, exit and save immediately!"). And I personally have hit a kernel crash on my desktop Win2K, though only 1 in the last year. Perhaps the constant rebooting everytime PCMVS pushes out a patch has something to do with that.
On the other hand, I and 2 of my friends all run various Linux distributions and our own servers, we all run websites (one hosts dozens of sites), and none of us has seen any kernel panics ever, outside of hardware failures. So my wildly different, statistically insignificant anectodal evidence is directly opposite yours. I'll end by taking your advice: In my experience, the Linux core has been more stable and reliable. Of course, YMMV goes without saying. I'm hoping when we move up to XP and Win2K3 over the next 2 months, our experience varys a lot. Several hundred developers sitting on their hands waiting for the server to come back up is costly.
Perhaps the solution is to stop referring children into grades. Rather there could be the concept of Groups. Alphas would be the future researchers and intellectual workers of the world. Betas would be the middle managers and skilled craftspeople. Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons would form the broad class of moderately skilled to unskilled labor. With a gramme of soma this structure could certainly work.
The problem is in trying to identify the various groups as young as possible (perhaps even before birth). Hmmmm....
And if we just herd people into vocational training early for a few years, no one who read Brave New World will actually be around anymore to recognize it. Brilliant!
Maybe not yet, but it would would seem that it would not be entirely out of character for them to do so. Forgive me if I believe that they have it in them to do so again.
I think I disagree with your analogy. Your TOS tells people what they can and can't put up on your webiste, or you may cancel their account. Good for you. That's your site, you reserve the right to get rid of people posting junk on it. Their TOS tells people what they can or can't do on their own websites, and in communications to third parties, involving sharing URLs. That's entirely different.
It doesn't really matter anyway, I've never found any good deals on their site anyway.
Good point, if the installers have a clue (and a motivation to complicate their install), this has a chance. I guess the key is making them have a reason to go the extra step and make the XML format the default. I'm still assuming that Microsoft won't make it the installation default, and it will require the installer (or the user) to change the default.
While I honestly hope the OpenDocument format catches on and wins out in the end, I really think it's not going to make a major impact until Microsoft Office & Works save in OpenDocument format by default.
I find that in my experience, most MS Word users have no clue what different file formats are, why they'd care to change, or even that they CAN choose a different type in the "Save As..." dialog. The only time it ever becomes an issue is if the version of Word / Excel / Powerpoint that they're using at work is significantly newer than the one they have at home . If they don't let that completely stop them (maybe "Clippy" shows them how), they learn to choose "Microsoft Excel 97" from the list if they want to take work home. That's the only time they are likely to differ from the default. And when they do that, they get warned what a bad idea it is, because features or formatting may not be available.
No, I doubt the future is open, unless Microsoft makes open the default.
Bingo -- I know it would make it a few steps harder for Joe Sixpack to run some things that 95% of Joe Sixpacks will never run, but would it be so hard for Windows to come with a) unneeded services configured OFF by default (firewall ON by default was a step in the right direction, kudos to MS for finally getting that one right despite the pain), b) a bright red desktop background and a popup at login for the Administrator account telling the user that "Using the Administrator account for anything other than administration is a Real Bad Idea (tm)! Make your configuration change and log out immediately! Yes, that means NO BROWSING THE WEB!"
I know, that would probably temporarily cripple a bunch of poorly designed apps out there (until new versions came out), but like the firewall being on by default, it's something they should get over with and move on to being more secure.
Also, I'm sure Microsoft would have good documentation (and maybe even Clippy? No, sorry, cancel that thought...) to help you enable anything you really DID need. It's not like you'd need to hand-edit a cryptic config file or play with registry settings. How much harder would it REALLY be?
I haven't been paying any attention to Longhorn -- is there any chance Microsoft is telling everyone now "In Longhorn, users will NOT run as the Administrator, or as grossly overprivledged 'Power Users', so developers, you have until 2006 to fix your apps?" A big upgrade like that seems like a great time to do that.
What would you say to something of a middle ground, like an opt-out system that lasts some short period of time (e.g. 10 yrs) and an opt-in system that lasts lifeOfAuthor+70? So, you can continue to just mail yourself copies of things to keep your rights safe, but if you want a longer period of protection, you have 10 years to secure it by registering the work. Then, abandonned works (like my worthless/. comments) fall into the public domain (relatively) quickly, but valuable works can be protected for a longer period if the author desires.
Well, it does seem a little high, but it fits in your pocket and it can do do digital video recording, which is a combination it may be tough to find in an $800 laptop.
Maybe it's better to compare it to a high-end PDA that also has DVR capability? Maybe if the apps are there.
I think I'm with you, though, I'd probably buy the laptop.
I hate this stupid registration thing as much as anyone, but I do have to at least point out that months ago, I gave NYT a disposable sneakemail address, and have yet to receive a thing (from them, or from anyone else) on it. They haven't sent any spam, nor have they sold it to someone else [yet]. At least abusing the list by putting in someone else's email address to get them signed up for lots of spam wouldn't work. Of course, they could change that policy tomorrow -- which is why I always use disposable addresses.
One wonders why they even bother collecting them if they don't validate them, they don't use them to contact you, and they don't sell them.
You know what's real charming? I mean, what's a real make-friends kind of maneuver? Citing a dictionary. When, you know, the point the other person was trying to make was as plain as the nose on your face.
I will refresh your memory: You were the one that accused me of saying that we shouldn't discuss the issue, because I used the word "complaining". I replied by telling you that I never said that, and I posted up to you a definition of the word that said exactly what I meant. If you hadn't tried to tell me what I meant, I wouldn't have posted the link. Stop telling me that I mean something different than what I say (talk about a "real make-friends kind of maneuver"), and I'll stop sending you dictionary definitions. I'm pretty sure I learned both those words in school. I also learned in school not to attack the person who I was addressing, like this:
--we learned two big, scary words
(ooh, there's that troublesome concept again)
You're just lying. This is a possibility that can't be discounted, because this site not only permits but actually rewards the most flagrant liars.
Your defense of the status quo has been so strident, this statement rings false to me. Cui bono? I find myself wondering.
Those parts of your message do not add to the discussion and they do not bolster your argument. In fact, they are the sort of thing that is likely to get your comments moderated down, regardless of whether your comment is itself valid.
Um. I guess what you're, in a bafflingly roundabout way, trying to say here is that you don't think the system is broken. You think it works just fine.
No, what I'm trying to say in an incredibly forthright manner is that you haven't been explaining why working within the system won't work! Explain it! Please! There's no need to attack me, I'll do it myself: I'm the stupidest idiot on the planet, I don't know "denotation" or "connotation"! I'm a plant of the management! I'm a dupe of the system! An absolute moron! There, I've said it all for you, now explain why moderation and meta-moderation make the problem worse.
The system is broken. Participating in it perpetuates it. Bad plus more equals worse. What part of that confused you?
It seems more likely that the current system doesn't work as well as it could because too many potentially good moderators lurk instead of participating. I propose that in fact the equation is good (system) minus good (quality moderators) equals less good (or even bad). The solution is then for more people to participate, not for less people to participate.
The word I used was "broken." I'd prefer that we stick with that term.
I'm sure you would, because then you would be hearing your argument come from me -- I won't change your words when I quote you, but I will use mine when I write what I think. You don't get to define the terms I use when I present my argument.
If you call it "inadequate," that connotes (ooh, there's that troublesome concept again) that the system could work if it were just bigger. That's not an idea I agree with.
Since it upsets you when I link to definitions, let me assure you that I don't mean that the system needs to be "bigger" (at least not in the sense that it needs to be more elaborate), it just needs more participation by those that disagree with how it is being done (including the author of the original comment, and especially you who obviously get more involved than just lurking)
but not an explanation of why
Why does the site solicit contributors who post junk? Page views. This site, which like all human endeavors is driven by a profit motive, lives and dies by the number of page views it gets.
I'll post my original comment again, since I think that if you're going to tell me what I said, you might as well actually include what I said:
Might I suggest that if you log in instead of lurking, you will probably be asked to moderate or meta-moderate yourself. That's the built-in solution for this problem. If enough people who agree with you stop lurking and start contributing, you'll collectively improve the site.
Complaining about it w/o logging in is like complaining about the election results without voting.
And now, your reply when I claimed I never said we shouldn't discuss it:
Nope. You may not have meant to, but you certainly did. It was the part where you dismissed discussion as "complaining about it."
And it is merely complaining, if you don't participate in trying to make it better! If the original poster (an Anonymous Coward) had not been a self-admitted "lurker" and was participating in trying to make it better, I'd have considered his/her comment constructive criticism!
Besides, you missed the point. The system is broken. Participation in the system won't change the fact that it's broken. It'll just make the things which are already bad worse.
That the system is broken is a claim you have now made twice, without providing any more evidence than that promoting ideology breeds page hits, so/. must be promoting ideology. I provided MY experience -- I have moderated, I have meta-moderated, I have never been instructed to promote ideology, I have never been instructed to bury dissent. So go ahead and provide yours -- How does moderating and meta-moderating "make the things which are already bad worse"? All you've provided so far was in your first reply:
This site's tolerance of --active solicitation of, really --people who litter the comments with hundreds and hundreds of pieces of trash makes the use of filtering by score a practical necessity. Which throws the flaws of the moderation system into stark contrast.
That's an accusation that/. solicits readers that post junk, and an accusation that the moderation system is inadequate, but not an explanation of why, or in what way. Maybe the problem is that all of the people who would make really good moderators are lurking instead of logging in?
What troubles me most of all, though, is your stridence. You're downright shrill about keeping within the rules of the system. You even use Slashdot jargon like "moderate" and "AC" and "lurking." I think maybe you're a little too close to the problem to be able to see it clearly.
And I think the problem is that you read what you want to read into my statements, because you are biased. The fact that I used jargon that anyone could pick up after reading two articles with the threshold set to 0 or 1 (including the term "lurker", used in the comment to which I was replying; and "moderate" -- which is used at the top of the page every time I log in!) doesn't make me "too close to the problem." I would counter that you're too far from the solution! You say I'm "downright shrill about keeping within the rules of the system?" I thought I was suggesting a more constructive way to deal with the perceived "problem" than lurking and not logging in! You NEVER get to moderate (or meta-moderate) if you don't log in! Who thought I'd catch this much flak about suggesting that someone get involved in making the site better!
You obviously have an account, why didn't you answer my question about whether you have moderated, and whether anyone pressured YOU to moderate in any particular fashion? I'm curious, because maybe it's only ME that the/. management has chosen to allow free reign to moderate as I choose. Maybe you and everyone else has the experience that when given the chance to moderate up an insightful but dissonant opinion, you've been somehow penalized? It suppose it is possible, though since I don't personally know anyone associated with running the site, I doubt it.
Your suggestion is that we shouldn't talk about this.
Please re-read my comment, and explain which line said we shouldn't talk about it...
Might I suggest that if you log in instead of lurking, you will probably be asked to moderate or meta-moderate yourself. That's the built-in solution for this problem. If enough people who agree with you stop lurking and start contributing, you'll collectively improve the site.
Complaining about it w/o logging in is like complaining about the election results without voting.
None? That's because I didn't say not to talk about it. In fact, I enourage talking about it, AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Complain all you want, but don't do it from the sidelines, do it from the field.
I've moderated when given the opportunity and I periodically meta-moderate. Being an AC and lurking and then complaining is not helping. Get in there and meta-moderate!
When I moderate and meta-moderate, I don't do so with an eye on what will get/. more page views. I don't base it on what advertising/. might be getting. I don't base is upon promotion of some ideology. I moderate based upon what I think is interesting insight and will promote discussion. That's the point. And you know what? No one in the/. management seems to have objected, nor instructed me to do otherwise.
Have you moderated? And when you did, were you instructed to moderate up "that which will give more page views"?
I've been lurking here a long time, and still wonder when exactly this fundamentalist turn happened. Suddenly everything is either black or white. Only One Way. And bias and fud (the thing we used to be against) is more important than facts. Bullshit (and I don't mean opinions but facts) are rated +5 informative just because it is pro-Linux and/or anti-MS, while facts correcting this are modded down.
Might I suggest that if you log in instead of lurking, you will probably be asked to moderate or meta-moderate yourself. That's the built-in solution for this problem. If enough people who agree with you stop lurking and start contributing, you'll collectively improve the site.
Complaining about it w/o logging in is like complaining about the election results without voting.
Slashdot Mirror
... What I'm really looking for is to have every PC they already sell (or at least some significant percentage of them -- it could exclude their prepackaged "Outrageous Deal" systems that have no options) to have an "O/S" option, with the choices: "XP Professional (+ $100)", "XP Home", and "None (- $30) *". The asterisk would be explained by a note that says "Unit ships with FreeDOS to allow hardware checkout; if you choose this option, Dell will not provide support for consumer installed O/S."
A while back, I purchased a 400SC server from them with no O/S. I remain quite happy with it, and Mandriva runs great. I just want the same options available on their PCs.
I haven't a clue, but this guy or this guy might.
My guess is that the reason WP isn't taking over the universe is because the crappy ad-ware version of WP they ship on Dells isn't very stable. I recently got a laptop from them, and I decided not to pay the money to upgrade to MS Office because I remembered WP being a decent word processor, at least the last time I'd used it (geez, it might have been a decade ago). What I got was an annoying popup every time I started that asked me if I wanted to upgrade to the newest version (at significant cost), and random crashes in the middle of my writing. I was just about to bite the bullet and buy MS Office when I decided to try OO.o. I'm sold. It may not have every feature Word has, but it appears to have the ones I need on a daily basis, and it (v1.1.4) has been rock stable for me. Maybe Dell's switch to shipping WP by default will cause OO.o to take over the universe instead. At least if frustrated WP users find OO.o.
I also think that once they're on the x86 bandwagon, they'll have the option of eventually switching to AMD, painlessly. And I'm sure, like Dell, they'll use it as a bargaining chip every chance they can -- though I imagine it will be a smaller lever, since Apple ships what, 1/10th as many units each quarter as Dell (about 800K/Q as opposed to about 8M/Q)?
On the other hand, as much as I appreciate good testers running my code, I don't think I could be in QA testing someone ELSE'S code. I have a personal interest in making my code (or the code I'm maintaining) as good as possible, but that's probably because my name is all over it. The guys just running test after test after test, with little or no recognition, are saints.
Not nearly as easy without the shuttle's arm, but perhaps doable. And it would be safer from the perspective of NASA, since they won't fly any missions unless they have a "safe-haven" for the crew.
I just wonder how far "outside-the-box" (e.g. partnerships with ESA or RSA) NASA has been thinking. Without a replacement launched until maybe 2011, a functioning HST is worth something -- and if we were willing to spend $700M to $1B for each service mission with the shuttle, and at least two more were planned, it stands to reason that we could spend something on alternatives, too. Just because the shuttle's out, it doesn't mean we should give up.
This guy in Space Daily a year and a half ago wrote an interesting article that proposed the idea of using an ESA hosted launch of a Soyuz (or two) to service Hubble. I have no idea if its feasible, but I wonder if anyone in NASA is considering ideas like this.
You're assuming that a) the guards at the airport would be looking for a particular person, and b) that particular person (in this case John Gilmore) wouldn't be presenting easily obtained fake-ID.
Isn't it better to search every passenger to make sure he or she isn't carrying a weapon? Is an ID a guarantee that a person ISN'T a terrorist? What would stop your hypotetical "white male - paid off by Al Qaida" from having an ID? Has the government stopped issuing IDs to white males recently?
On the other hand, I and 2 of my friends all run various Linux distributions and our own servers, we all run websites (one hosts dozens of sites), and none of us has seen any kernel panics ever, outside of hardware failures. So my wildly different, statistically insignificant anectodal evidence is directly opposite yours. I'll end by taking your advice: In my experience, the Linux core has been more stable and reliable. Of course, YMMV goes without saying. I'm hoping when we move up to XP and Win2K3 over the next 2 months, our experience varys a lot. Several hundred developers sitting on their hands waiting for the server to come back up is costly.
This whole discussion is convincing me I should go burn a LiveCD and try running Linux on my pathetic old Dell Inspiron 3800.
And if we just herd people into vocational training early for a few years, no one who read Brave New World will actually be around anymore to recognize it. Brilliant!
Maybe not yet, but it would would seem that it would not be entirely out of character for them to do so. Forgive me if I believe that they have it in them to do so again.
It doesn't really matter anyway, I've never found any good deals on their site anyway.
Good point, if the installers have a clue (and a motivation to complicate their install), this has a chance. I guess the key is making them have a reason to go the extra step and make the XML format the default. I'm still assuming that Microsoft won't make it the installation default, and it will require the installer (or the user) to change the default.
I find that in my experience, most MS Word users have no clue what different file formats are, why they'd care to change, or even that they CAN choose a different type in the "Save As..." dialog. The only time it ever becomes an issue is if the version of Word / Excel / Powerpoint that they're using at work is significantly newer than the one they have at home . If they don't let that completely stop them (maybe "Clippy" shows them how), they learn to choose "Microsoft Excel 97" from the list if they want to take work home. That's the only time they are likely to differ from the default. And when they do that, they get warned what a bad idea it is, because features or formatting may not be available.
No, I doubt the future is open, unless Microsoft makes open the default.
I know, that would probably temporarily cripple a bunch of poorly designed apps out there (until new versions came out), but like the firewall being on by default, it's something they should get over with and move on to being more secure.
Also, I'm sure Microsoft would have good documentation (and maybe even Clippy? No, sorry, cancel that thought...) to help you enable anything you really DID need. It's not like you'd need to hand-edit a cryptic config file or play with registry settings. How much harder would it REALLY be?
I haven't been paying any attention to Longhorn -- is there any chance Microsoft is telling everyone now "In Longhorn, users will NOT run as the Administrator, or as grossly overprivledged 'Power Users', so developers, you have until 2006 to fix your apps?" A big upgrade like that seems like a great time to do that.
What would you say to something of a middle ground, like an opt-out system that lasts some short period of time (e.g. 10 yrs) and an opt-in system that lasts lifeOfAuthor+70? So, you can continue to just mail yourself copies of things to keep your rights safe, but if you want a longer period of protection, you have 10 years to secure it by registering the work. Then, abandonned works (like my worthless /. comments) fall into the public domain (relatively) quickly, but valuable works can be protected for a longer period if the author desires.
Maybe it's better to compare it to a high-end PDA that also has DVR capability? Maybe if the apps are there.
I think I'm with you, though, I'd probably buy the laptop.
One wonders why they even bother collecting them if they don't validate them, they don't use them to contact you, and they don't sell them.
I will refresh your memory: You were the one that accused me of saying that we shouldn't discuss the issue, because I used the word "complaining". I replied by telling you that I never said that, and I posted up to you a definition of the word that said exactly what I meant. If you hadn't tried to tell me what I meant, I wouldn't have posted the link. Stop telling me that I mean something different than what I say (talk about a "real make-friends kind of maneuver"), and I'll stop sending you dictionary definitions. I'm pretty sure I learned both those words in school. I also learned in school not to attack the person who I was addressing, like this:
Those parts of your message do not add to the discussion and they do not bolster your argument. In fact, they are the sort of thing that is likely to get your comments moderated down, regardless of whether your comment is itself valid.
No, what I'm trying to say in an incredibly forthright manner is that you haven't been explaining why working within the system won't work! Explain it! Please! There's no need to attack me, I'll do it myself: I'm the stupidest idiot on the planet, I don't know "denotation" or "connotation"! I'm a plant of the management! I'm a dupe of the system! An absolute moron! There, I've said it all for you, now explain why moderation and meta-moderation make the problem worse.
It seems more likely that the current system doesn't work as well as it could because too many potentially good moderators lurk instead of participating. I propose that in fact the equation is good (system) minus good (quality moderators) equals less good (or even bad). The solution is then for more people to participate, not for less people to participate.
I'm sure you would, because then you would be hearing your argument come from me -- I won't change your words when I quote you, but I will use mine when I write what I think. You don't get to define the terms I use when I present my argument.
Since it upsets you when I link to definitions, let me assure you that I don't mean that the system needs to be "bigger" (at least not in the sense that it needs to be more elaborate), it just needs more participation by those that disagree with how it is being done (including the author of the original comment, and especially you who obviously get more involved than just lurking)
And now, your reply when I claimed I never said we shouldn't discuss it:
And it is merely complaining, if you don't participate in trying to make it better! If the original poster (an Anonymous Coward) had not been a self-admitted "lurker" and was participating in trying to make it better, I'd have considered his/her comment constructive criticism!
That the system is broken is a claim you have now made twice, without providing any more evidence than that promoting ideology breeds page hits, soYou obviously have an account, why didn't you answer my question about whether you have moderated, and whether anyone pressured YOU to moderate in any particular fashion? I'm curious, because maybe it's only ME that the /. management has chosen to allow free reign to moderate as I choose. Maybe you and everyone else has the experience that when given the chance to moderate up an insightful but dissonant opinion, you've been somehow penalized? It suppose it is possible, though since I don't personally know anyone associated with running the site, I doubt it.
Please re-read my comment, and explain which line said we shouldn't talk about it...
None? That's because I didn't say not to talk about it. In fact, I enourage talking about it, AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Complain all you want, but don't do it from the sidelines, do it from the field.I've moderated when given the opportunity and I periodically meta-moderate. Being an AC and lurking and then complaining is not helping. Get in there and meta-moderate!
When I moderate and meta-moderate, I don't do so with an eye on what will get /. more page views. I don't base it on what advertising /. might be getting. I don't base is upon promotion of some ideology. I moderate based upon what I think is interesting insight and will promote discussion. That's the point. And you know what? No one in the /. management seems to have objected, nor instructed me to do otherwise.
Have you moderated? And when you did, were you instructed to moderate up "that which will give more page views"?
Might I suggest that if you log in instead of lurking, you will probably be asked to moderate or meta-moderate yourself. That's the built-in solution for this problem. If enough people who agree with you stop lurking and start contributing, you'll collectively improve the site.
Complaining about it w/o logging in is like complaining about the election results without voting.