Exactly the same as the ID card petition - an email from Blair and the government carries on regardless. They've already announced that's what they're going to do, before the petition has even closed.
So my question is, why would you put this site up for people to raise petitions, if you don't plan to pay any attention to the petitions people put on it?
Because politicians want to be seen "doing something". One of those things they want to be seen doing something is "listening to the people" (not necessarily actually listening to the people, only being seen to be listening). Another thing they want to be seen doing is "being at the forefront of the digital revolution" (even if their understanding of the digital revolution is that the internet is not a dump truck). Some bright spark came up with the idea of combing these two, especially as there was already growing "online citizens movement" in the UK with sites like WriteToThem - they even got one of those digital activists to set up the petitions site. I don't think they realized what they were doing.
I wonder how much longer Hollywood Accounting will be allowed to continue. You would think that somebody trying to make a name for themselves by going after "the next Enron" would find Hollywood a soft target.
I think the idea is that while the White Album may appear to be a uniform white to you, in reality it's not. It's mildly disturbing to think that a crappy cameraphone may have better colour vision than a human.
Seeing as the move to get people to call crackers crackers and not hackers never worked, I really doubt trying to get people call researchers researchers is every going to take off, especially as all researchers are, by definition, scientists anyway.
Anyway, why will changing the name stop ill-qualified challenges? One researcher in one branch of science could still challenge another researcher in another branch.
I think in all those cases, the orders were cancelled before the items shipped. What happened here is very different - Amazon is demanding their products that they have already shipped back, or they will charge people's credit cards. Once the item has shipped, the sale has been completed. Like pretty much everyone else here, IANAL, but I think they'd get in hot water if the tried that in the UK.
The problem I have with you wrote is that a piece of computer software really cannot be considered a agent of the company in itself, which seems to be implied
If that really is the case, then I doubt that internet trading should in any way be legal. How can I deal with a company if the method (and only method in Amazon's case) that I use to conduct transactions can not be considered to be legally binding?
Under English common law you're not bound by a contract if you make a mistake on price (or something else) and the other party suspects you're making a mistake and takes advantage of it
I thought that's only up to the point of shipping, so if before the seller ships an item they realize the mistake they can cancel the order. I doubt they could get away with charging after they've shipped the item.
They made a bunch of compilers and stuff like that, and PC using geeks loved them.
Then why were Borland's compilers so much more common back then? Very, very few MS products were ever "loved" by geeks or anyone else, either back in the golden ages or now.
that old adage that if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away.
And who benefits from that line of reasoning? Only the two main parties. When you vote for one of the two main parties, you're vote is effectively "thrown away", as one vote amongst tens of thousands is usually not going to matter all that much, especially in a district where one party has a large margin of support. If anything, you're throwing away your vote by not voting for a third party that more accurately reflects your opinion.
But even if information is from an unpaid source, it can't be assumed that it's not just as inaccurate or misleading or incomplete. And you can't just assume that paid information is always less inaccurate. You're getting into the realm of genetic fallacy
Since when does a weblog have to be personal? Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog. There are personal blogs, and there impersonal blogs. Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.
Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles?
Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.
Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.
and to enable the public to better judge political information that it receives.
But why does the funding, or lack of funding, for political information affect the judgement of the public? Either an argument has merit, or it doesn't. Either way, whether or not the information was paid for should not affect how I evaluate the information.
The real problem is that there isn't any real political argument any more. Campaigns have descended to little more than ad hominem attacks between political candidates who have very little difference between them. It's all a marketing exercice - Republican vs Democrat is that same as Coke vs Pespi (even the Red/Blue colors are the same) - whatever brand you choose, you're still getting pretty much the same thing. Are you young and hip? Well then you just have to be liberal (not being a Democrat is the same as not wearing an iPod - life just won't be worth living). Older? Taxes got you down? Vote Republican. Wait a second on the last one, the marketing department just said we need to retarget in certain key markets to attract a southern, strongly christian demographic.
No, it's well and truely a shining example of the medium of blogging (this started as CmdrTaco's blog and grew from that).
Notice the front page with posts? Notice the time based nature of those posts, in a rolling format? Notice how the "discussion forum" you mention is is called "comments". These are all part of the core definition of the term blog. If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.
1. We have important laws against lying about someone and presenting it as factual information.
But that's not political speech. The closest that is to political speech is an ad hominem attack against a political candidate. It's not the same as "bozo law #4365 is running through congress, write your congressman now to stop it".
2. We have serious problems with freedom of speech when corporations monopolize the process of distributing information.
But that would have been the case throughout the last few hundred years of politics, as whoever has the money for the printing press gets to put their views across. If anything, the UK is better for this because non-televised media wear their political biases as badge of honour, not something they try to hide as being "fair and balanced". If I want a right wing view, I read the Telegraph, if I want a left wing view the Guardian, with a whole spectrum of papers to choose from. I find the whole idea of forcing "fairness" absurd.
You are a voter who has decided to vote based on the opinions of 10 random people. You believe that this is a good representation of the public and want to vote the way the public does.
Surely, as a voter, you should be voting based upon your own opinion and not just voting the way the crowd is voting. I can't see there is even much point in voting if you're just going to follow the crowd - as the crowd will be the majority anyway, why waste time voting?
If you are voting based on your own opinion, but listen to and then evaluate the views of 10 random people, then it won't matter if one of them is a shill or not - if an opinion's arguments don't seem to ring true then they won't affect the direction of your vote.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how that one will end.
Exactly the same as the ID card petition - an email from Blair and the government carries on regardless. They've already announced that's what they're going to do, before the petition has even closed.
So my question is, why would you put this site up for people to raise petitions, if you don't plan to pay any attention to the petitions people put on it?
Because politicians want to be seen "doing something". One of those things they want to be seen doing something is "listening to the people" (not necessarily actually listening to the people, only being seen to be listening). Another thing they want to be seen doing is "being at the forefront of the digital revolution" (even if their understanding of the digital revolution is that the internet is not a dump truck). Some bright spark came up with the idea of combing these two, especially as there was already growing "online citizens movement" in the UK with sites like WriteToThem - they even got one of those digital activists to set up the petitions site. I don't think they realized what they were doing.
I wonder how much longer Hollywood Accounting will be allowed to continue. You would think that somebody trying to make a name for themselves by going after "the next Enron" would find Hollywood a soft target.
Shouldn't it be "Music And Film Industry Associations of America"?
Having less configurability isn't so bad, as long as the default behaviour is good.
What happens when the default behaviour (no matter how "good" it is) isn't what I want?
I think the idea is that while the White Album may appear to be a uniform white to you, in reality it's not. It's mildly disturbing to think that a crappy cameraphone may have better colour vision than a human.
forget all the calculations and fancy formulas, most breakthroughs are still done by "mistake"
I think it's more a matter of the successful mistakes get better reporting as the "it was a mistake" makes for a better story.
Seeing as the move to get people to call crackers crackers and not hackers never worked, I really doubt trying to get people call researchers researchers is every going to take off, especially as all researchers are, by definition, scientists anyway.
Anyway, why will changing the name stop ill-qualified challenges? One researcher in one branch of science could still challenge another researcher in another branch.
I think in all those cases, the orders were cancelled before the items shipped. What happened here is very different - Amazon is demanding their products that they have already shipped back, or they will charge people's credit cards. Once the item has shipped, the sale has been completed. Like pretty much everyone else here, IANAL, but I think they'd get in hot water if the tried that in the UK.
The post indicates that in some cases, it was a small amount
'grand total' shown (before order submission) was $0.00 or some very small amount
The problem I have with you wrote is that a piece of computer software really cannot be considered a agent of the company in itself, which seems to be implied
If that really is the case, then I doubt that internet trading should in any way be legal. How can I deal with a company if the method (and only method in Amazon's case) that I use to conduct transactions can not be considered to be legally binding?
Under English common law you're not bound by a contract if you make a mistake on price (or something else) and the other party suspects you're making a mistake and takes advantage of it
I thought that's only up to the point of shipping, so if before the seller ships an item they realize the mistake they can cancel the order. I doubt they could get away with charging after they've shipped the item.
Of course, part 2, if correctly applied, can pretty much eliminate part 1.
Wise up people. You may one day wake up to find you have no options left.
I think it's best we try to reason with it.
Okay, maybe "canspire" would be better, but it would not be as funny.
But wouldn't "Linonical" have been more comical?
They made a bunch of compilers and stuff like that, and PC using geeks loved them.
Then why were Borland's compilers so much more common back then? Very, very few MS products were ever "loved" by geeks or anyone else, either back in the golden ages or now.
Microsoft's .Net more or less does exactly that (multiple copies of DLLs)- which is one of .Net's selling points.
that old adage that if you vote third party you are throwing your vote away.
And who benefits from that line of reasoning? Only the two main parties. When you vote for one of the two main parties, you're vote is effectively "thrown away", as one vote amongst tens of thousands is usually not going to matter all that much, especially in a district where one party has a large margin of support. If anything, you're throwing away your vote by not voting for a third party that more accurately reflects your opinion.
But even if information is from an unpaid source, it can't be assumed that it's not just as inaccurate or misleading or incomplete. And you can't just assume that paid information is always less inaccurate. You're getting into the realm of genetic fallacy
Since when does a weblog have to be personal? Engadget is just like slashdot, and it's a blog. Boing Boing isn't personal, it's a blog. TechCrunch isn't personal, it's a blog. There are personal blogs, and there impersonal blogs. Look at the wikipedia definition - Slashdot fits the definition perfectly.
Why can't discussion forums have time-based articles?
Well, they could, but then they'd be blogs, not discussion forums.
Seeing as you hate blogs, this should make your day - you already have one - http://slashdot.org/~dangitman/journal/ Because slashdot is built on the blogging software called slashcode, every slashdot users get's thier own personal blog, seperate from the main one.
The entire Bill Of Rights was an afterthought
and to enable the public to better judge political information that it receives.
But why does the funding, or lack of funding, for political information affect the judgement of the public? Either an argument has merit, or it doesn't. Either way, whether or not the information was paid for should not affect how I evaluate the information.
The real problem is that there isn't any real political argument any more. Campaigns have descended to little more than ad hominem attacks between political candidates who have very little difference between them. It's all a marketing exercice - Republican vs Democrat is that same as Coke vs Pespi (even the Red/Blue colors are the same) - whatever brand you choose, you're still getting pretty much the same thing. Are you young and hip? Well then you just have to be liberal (not being a Democrat is the same as not wearing an iPod - life just won't be worth living). Older? Taxes got you down? Vote Republican. Wait a second on the last one, the marketing department just said we need to retarget in certain key markets to attract a southern, strongly christian demographic.
No, it's well and truely a shining example of the medium of blogging (this started as CmdrTaco's blog and grew from that).
Notice the front page with posts? Notice the time based nature of those posts, in a rolling format? Notice how the "discussion forum" you mention is is called "comments". These are all part of the core definition of the term blog. If slashdot was just a "discussion forum", it wouldn't have time based articles - it would be one of those web based bulletin boards or an old usenet group.
1. We have important laws against lying about someone and presenting it as factual information.
But that's not political speech. The closest that is to political speech is an ad hominem attack against a political candidate. It's not the same as "bozo law #4365 is running through congress, write your congressman now to stop it".
2. We have serious problems with freedom of speech when corporations monopolize the process of distributing information.
But that would have been the case throughout the last few hundred years of politics, as whoever has the money for the printing press gets to put their views across. If anything, the UK is better for this because non-televised media wear their political biases as badge of honour, not something they try to hide as being "fair and balanced". If I want a right wing view, I read the Telegraph, if I want a left wing view the Guardian, with a whole spectrum of papers to choose from. I find the whole idea of forcing "fairness" absurd.
You are a voter who has decided to vote based on the opinions of 10 random people. You believe that this is a good representation of the public and want to vote the way the public does.
Surely, as a voter, you should be voting based upon your own opinion and not just voting the way the crowd is voting. I can't see there is even much point in voting if you're just going to follow the crowd - as the crowd will be the majority anyway, why waste time voting?
If you are voting based on your own opinion, but listen to and then evaluate the views of 10 random people, then it won't matter if one of them is a shill or not - if an opinion's arguments don't seem to ring true then they won't affect the direction of your vote.
In fact, I detest blogs.
So what are you doing here? Slashdot is a blog.