I think we all remember what MS has done to in regards to HTML right? Any webmaster knows what I'm talking about.
What about what they have done to "take advantage of platform features on Windows" regarding Java? Another clusterf**k. Luckily Sun had the $$$ to fight it.
Forget the fact that there ARE no advantages to the Windows platform in regards to Perl... in my opinion, so what is there for MS to take advantage of? Nothing. They will simply try to bastardize the popular CGI language and lock in even more MS shops because they were foolish enough to follow suit.
This may be linux's chance to take the desktop
on
The Cost of Bug Fixes
·
· Score: 1
Well, I'll admit that while KDE is not quite as easy to use as Windows 9x, it is a great step forward. This most recent pricing fiasco may be just what KDE/Gnome/etc need to push their way into the desktop mark and make linux a legitimate desktop OS for John Q. Public.
I personally refuse to pay to FIX an OS that Microsoft and Dell FORCED me to buy with the equipment I purchased.
I don't have a problem with the new system itself, but the existing alignments may need a bit of tweaking. I for one have an alignment of -12 or something like that, much of this came from "interesting" bouts of moderation and a bit of overkill regarding scoring.
While I think the overall idea has merit, basing something on a past that is cluttered with unclear moderation standards and experimental moderation tactics may exclude relevant opinions simply due to a checkered past.
The other option I guess is... to get a new account and start fresh. *shrug*
As a Dell owner, I can honestly say that Dell's #1, 2, and 3 priorities are make money, make money, and make money. They will get in bed with ANYONE if they think it's beneficial.
While Dell's interest in Redhat and linux in general is good, don't misunderstand their motives. Dell is not interested in the Open Source cause nor your right to CHOOSE your OS, they are interested only in your money.
I'm not saying Dell is the great satan, just trying to keep perspective on how business sees linux and the linux userbase.
(I wonder if I can now complain that my Crystal Fusion sound card in my Dell doesn't work with Redhat?! I've always gotten "that's not a standard OS response before. heh)
Disney backed Divx because they thought they could make even more money off the people addicted to their films.
This backfired when Warner sold MILLIONS in DVD product while Disney sold "Thousands" in Divx product. People didn't by into their pay-per-view (screw-per-view) scheme like they had hoped, even with little Jimmy crying about not being able to watch the Lion King 15 times a day.
Zones are irrelevant in the DVD vs Divx debate
on
Anti-DIVX article
·
· Score: 1
Since Divx uses Triple-DES encryption, it is only available in the US (and only in 43 states). This is why regional coding shouldn't even play into the debate since it would not be apples to apples.
If Divx every makes it off the mainland, then this should be considered an issue.
Also, there is a 99.9% chance that if you have a set top DVD player and a DVD-ROM... you bought them in the same "zone" so regional coding would not matter than either.
Well, I agree that more emphasis should be placed on the learning that is involved when going to Linux but it seems much of the community wants it both ways.
They want Linux available from big OEM's but don't want people complaining when it doesn't run like Windows does.
I think it is often forgotten that not everyone (not even most!) using a computer does so for the "learning" experience, they do it to get work done.
I think the complaining is somewhat justified. Most want to work WITH their computer, not ON it.
To gain mass desktop acceptance, Linux will have to be dumbed down MUCH more than it is right now, both in regards to installation and maintenance. No need to STRIP it down, simply put a simple cover on it for the clueless people.
First, the existence of the GUID in Word documents was not "recently discovered." It's part of the spec, and it's been known about for a long time.
What spec? Since word documents use a proprietary format, I don't think there is an open spec available for inspection by the public. If there IS such a document, please point me towards it. If there is NOT such a document available to the public, then I would still consider embedded MAC addresses in.doc files as "recently discovered".
The ZDNet article also goes into detail about how the GUID was matched with another GUID from a document on a website owned by a known virus author. Considering the uniqueness of the MAC addressed utilized in the GUID, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible that the two documents were not created by the same machine.
The report never mentioned anything about using the gather MAC address from Windows 98 registrations to track down this person. Where are you getting that from?
I wholeheartedly agree. Many are missing the bigger picture in this instance.
If federal authorities USE this 3rd party tracking mechanism to convict, it will VALIDATE the notion that anyone, as long as they are not law enforcement, can implant people, their ideas, and their works with hidden identifiers to track them down at a later date.
In many respects, this is similar, if not identical to key escrow.
If this evidence IS used against this person, Bell Atlantic/Pac Bell may just start tapping our phone lines TOMORROW with the off chance that we will say something that can be used against us in court. It would be the same thing since it's a 3rd party, NOT law enforcement, invading our privacy to gather evidence against us.
I will have to research the cases you site, thanks for pointing those out.
I find it very hard to swallow however, that evidence gained from illegal activity is admissible in court in all instances. If this were the standing precedence, why wouldn't the cops simply get non-cops to break into people's houses to search when they can't get a warrant? Why wouldn't they get non-cops to plant bugs and cameras in crack houses to get evidence?
I think there may be a fine (although gray) line between inadvertent discovery during a crime and out right pursuance of evidence during a crime. This may explain why if you found a body in my basement during a B&E, I would get charged but if you went in and planted a camera for the specific purpose to taping what I do in my own house and that tape caught the killing, that would not be admissible. (However, I'm sure it would be enough to get me arrested and the body found subsequent would be enough to convict me. *grin* There is a big difference between evidence required to arrest/detain and evidence required to convict.)
To me this is a clear distinction. The MAC address is not attached to the word doc by chance, it was programmed to do that, specifically. This "theft" of unique personal data was not inadvertent, rather is was blatant.
Your points are very valid regarding current privacy statutes. My point was that this is uncharted waters and the argument could (should?) be made against 3rd party distribution of our unique data without our knowledge.
People are well aware of Caller-ID and there is a publicly available mechanism to disable this feature. I have no problems with that.
I'm not suggesting this argument to get around the crime itself, I'm suggesting it as a way to protect others from being victimized for non-criminal acts that my be unpopular.
If it stands that 3rd parties can "implant" everything you do with an ID that you do not know about or cannot turn off, free anonymous speech will disappear as we know it. That's my main concern.
Just as it's not a problem for the Gov't to take fingerprints off a letter that you sent or DNA samples from the saliva you used to lick a stamp or an emvelope shut. Once you voluntarially give something up, it's fair game for the man.
I agree completely, except that until recently, no one even KNEW they were giving up their MAC address simply by publishing a Word document. Considering how new this knowledge is, it's safe to say that many STILL do not know.
You can only voluntarily give up something you KNOW you have... the unknown data attached to it without your consent by a 3rd party should not fall under these same rules.
How many people (beyond slashdot) even KNOW what a MAC address is and how it's created?! I would venture a guess that 65% of computer users are clueless about this aspect of networking technology.
Essentially, MS Word does a type of digital signing on a document. If you release a signed file, well... too bad.
Since this digital signature is hidden from the user completely, I disagree that once you release the document publicly, it's your fault the data got out.
If Outlook attached your credit card number to each outgoing mail message without your knowledge, would you then be liable for all fraudulent purchases on that card since you sent an email? No, I don't think you would be.
I don't see how someone can be held responsible for consequences of sending out data that they do not know is being sent.
Remember, Kenneth Starr couldn't tape record Monica Lewinsky's phone conversations w/o her consent or a warrant, but Linda Tripp could as she is a private citizen and not subjected to the same restrictions as law enforcement.
Laws regarding recording phone conversations vary from state to state. In some states what Tripp did was perfectly legal... in others, completely illegal and inadmissible by Starr. I guess he was lucky it was in DC. *grin*
My point was that the illegal search argument would be what I would use as a defense since there is no clear precedence set in this regard. Information obtained by a 3rd party without the defendants knowledge is very shaky ground in court, especially when it's a commercial 3rd party as Microsoft is.
If I planted a bug in your system (via a macro virus, yaay!) that logged all keystrokes and internet traffic, would I then be allowed to prosecute you when you went to a kiddie-porn site or downloaded the latest Quake III warez? I don't think so because I, as a 3rd party, violated your private space. I would actually be PROSECUTED as such. The argument can be made (and possibly successfully) that MS violated this person's private space by recording unique information about that space and broadcasting it publicly (even if embedded in a document now made public).
I'm not sure if use of such GUID's would hold up in court since it is private information gathered by an illegal search. The user did not give permission for his unique ID to be attached to his.doc file. The app (Word) had no just cause to attach this ID either so it's similar to having the feds tap your phone without a warrant.
While I am not defending this moronic macro virus creator, I do think that utilizing these GUID's is setting a BAD standard in regards to a person's right to publish anonymously.
What's next, they track down the GUID of the person who wrote an anti-Clinton.doc and posted it online?
The problem with this reorg is that all the monopolistic aspects of MS are still existent and able to flourish. Simply because there are consumer oriented groups now does not mean that the apps group will not utilize proprietary OS calls to make their office suite unbeatable to competition.
The DoJ's plan would split MS up so that each 'group' functions as a separate company and licenses the technology from the other. These same licenses would be available to their competitors.
MS would licenses the same Win32 codebase to develop Office that Corel would license to develop WP Office. No hidden.dll calls, no OS integration advantages. An even playing field where the best PRODUCT wins, not the best CONNECTED product team.
(This is for you Rob! On topic, not flamebait, and hopefully not moderated down! *grin*)
Katz makes it through my filters again (Take 3)
on
Assorted Katz Hype
·
· Score: 1
Wow, that one was moderated in less than 3 minutes. I love seeing my "acceptance" or lack thereof in real-time! Here's take 3 of my post!
Well, this is the 3rd time in as many days that Katz commentary has slipped past my filter.
Rob, why even code filters for us "Katz haters" simply to bypass them like this constantly?
I'm sorry that Katz authored stories aren't getting any traffic but that's what happens when most people don't want to read his dribble.
I guess a flame war gets just as many page/ad views as quality commentary by an author people actually like.
That is neither here nor there, however. What is disturbing is that a fairly blatant abuse of moderation has taken place here.
Get used to it. Look at the example CT and Hemos are setting. People bitched and moaned about Katz so CT created a filter so people could not read him if they wanted too. Well now so many people DON'T read Katz that CT and Hemos have resorted to posting stuff FOR him just to bypass the filters.
Moderator abuse is not the only abuse going on around here.
When you get SPAMMED at your admin contact email address from someone mining through the whois database, NSI says that "the database is public information, tough luck..." (I have an email from them to this effect) but when other companies want to give the consumer a choice and access this database, NSI says that the database is proprietary information. How nice it is to have double standards to grow your monopoly.
NSI and AOL... giving Virginia technology companies a bad name! UGH!
Why the HELL do you give us the option to FILTER out Katz (and lower the noise when he posts) just to have CT and Hemos post Katz's stuff for him?!?!
I guess I was right when I figured 75% of/. would filter him out. How do you fix that, have other people post his stuff for him.
How lame.
Best way around a filter ... have CT post it!
on
Assorted Katz Hype
·
· Score: 1
Well, I shut up about Katz and my feelings on him since the filters were introduced. I promptly filtered him (and only him) out of my slashdot page and things have been nice.
Now what do get, more Katz... but wait, I filtered it out?! Ohhhh, I guess too many people are doing what I'm doing and would never have seen such an article if it was posted by Katz himself (which I'm sure he wanted everyone to see).
Once again we are all whored for Rob's grand hope of being a celebrity and hob knobbing with the "true elite" of technology journalists.
I wonder if slashdot would sell it's soul to Microsoft just to get in the IE 5 Favorites list... hrmmmmmm.
The arrogance of this community obviously exisits and in many respects is out of control. However, you must also factor in the "ZD" effect. Here's the equation:
Community Arrogance * 2 - ZD FUD + # of comments on this article = True Community Arrogance Factor
Thank you for hearing our cries of a min/max value! This means that no one post/person can be moderated to the point of being muted. (I have my threshold at -1000 right now, heh.)
Also, the change on the threshold bar showing a threshold of "0" being "almost everything" is a very nice compromise. My biggest problem has been that new people will not realize that scores below 0 were even possible since common sense says that 0 is a starting point, now they can see from the drop down that there IS a -1 that shows EVERYTHING. I am satisfied with this solution (plus it looks damn good). I would have preferred a -1 default (or minimum of 0 score) but compromises are good I guess, they keep us sane.
Also, the controls being put on moderators to curb abuse is a very welcome change. Hopefully this will prevent many power struggles that idealist people have now and then (even me! *grin*).
I guess I can change my sig now since I'm somewhat happy with the changes made to the moderation system and I know you're only doing this to please me. heh.
That is a fantastic article, clear and consise and backed up by real numbers that mean something.
The fact that it was on CNN.com is even more amazing.
Someone should stand ourside an MCSE training class and hand out this article to all the people going in... maybe they'll just turn around and go home and fdisk. *grin*
I completely agree with keeping flames/off topic/attacks at a lower score than on topic discussion, but not below the default.
The problem (which we are seeing more of today alone) is that moderation is being used as a validation tool for ideals and values. Have an unpopular opinion, well it only takes one of the 407 moderators to dislike it enough to obscure it from much if not all of the community here.
Moderation is fine when it's not forced as the default. Everything starts a zero and those who don't want to see the stuff you mention, can simply set their threshold to 1 or more. How hard is that?
Slashdot Mirror
I think we all remember what MS has done to in regards to HTML right? Any webmaster knows what I'm talking about.
... in my opinion, so what is there for MS to take advantage of? Nothing. They will simply try to bastardize the popular CGI language and lock in even more MS shops because they were foolish enough to follow suit.
What about what they have done to "take advantage of platform features on Windows" regarding Java? Another clusterf**k. Luckily Sun had the $$$ to fight it.
Forget the fact that there ARE no advantages to the Windows platform in regards to Perl
Well, I'll admit that while KDE is not quite as easy to use as Windows 9x, it is a great step forward. This most recent pricing fiasco may be just what KDE/Gnome/etc need to push their way into the desktop mark and make linux a legitimate desktop OS for John Q. Public.
I personally refuse to pay to FIX an OS that Microsoft and Dell FORCED me to buy with the equipment I purchased.
I don't have a problem with the new system itself, but the existing alignments may need a bit of tweaking. I for one have an alignment of -12 or something like that, much of this came from "interesting" bouts of moderation and a bit of overkill regarding scoring.
... to get a new account and start fresh. *shrug*
While I think the overall idea has merit, basing something on a past that is cluttered with unclear moderation standards and experimental moderation tactics may exclude relevant opinions simply due to a checkered past.
The other option I guess is
As a Dell owner, I can honestly say that Dell's #1, 2, and 3 priorities are make money, make money, and make money. They will get in bed with ANYONE if they think it's beneficial.
While Dell's interest in Redhat and linux in general is good, don't misunderstand their motives. Dell is not interested in the Open Source cause nor your right to CHOOSE your OS, they are interested only in your money.
I'm not saying Dell is the great satan, just trying to keep perspective on how business sees linux and the linux userbase.
(I wonder if I can now complain that my Crystal Fusion sound card in my Dell doesn't work with Redhat?! I've always gotten "that's not a standard OS response before. heh)
Disney backed Divx because they thought they could make even more money off the people addicted to their films.
This backfired when Warner sold MILLIONS in DVD product while Disney sold "Thousands" in Divx product. People didn't by into their pay-per-view (screw-per-view) scheme like they had hoped, even with little Jimmy crying about not being able to watch the Lion King 15 times a day.
Since Divx uses Triple-DES encryption, it is only available in the US (and only in 43 states). This is why regional coding shouldn't even play into the debate since it would not be apples to apples.
... you bought them in the same "zone" so regional coding would not matter than either.
If Divx every makes it off the mainland, then this should be considered an issue.
Also, there is a 99.9% chance that if you have a set top DVD player and a DVD-ROM
Well, I agree that more emphasis should be placed on the learning that is involved when going to Linux but it seems much of the community wants it both ways.
They want Linux available from big OEM's but don't want people complaining when it doesn't run like Windows does.
I think it is often forgotten that not everyone (not even most!) using a computer does so for the "learning" experience, they do it to get work done.
I think the complaining is somewhat justified. Most want to work WITH their computer, not ON it.
To gain mass desktop acceptance, Linux will have to be dumbed down MUCH more than it is right now, both in regards to installation and maintenance. No need to STRIP it down, simply put a simple cover on it for the clueless people.
First, the existence of the GUID in Word documents was not "recently discovered." It's part of the spec, and it's been known about for a long time.
.doc files as "recently discovered".
What spec? Since word documents use a proprietary format, I don't think there is an open spec available for inspection by the public. If there IS such a document, please point me towards it. If there is NOT such a document available to the public, then I would still consider embedded MAC addresses in
The ZDNet article also goes into detail about how the GUID was matched with another GUID from a document on a website owned by a known virus author. Considering the uniqueness of the MAC addressed utilized in the GUID, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible that the two documents were not created by the same machine.
The report never mentioned anything about using the gather MAC address from Windows 98 registrations to track down this person. Where are you getting that from?
I wholeheartedly agree. Many are missing the bigger picture in this instance.
If federal authorities USE this 3rd party tracking mechanism to convict, it will VALIDATE the notion that anyone, as long as they are not law enforcement, can implant people, their ideas, and their works with hidden identifiers to track them down at a later date.
In many respects, this is similar, if not identical to key escrow.
If this evidence IS used against this person, Bell Atlantic/Pac Bell may just start tapping our phone lines TOMORROW with the off chance that we will say something that can be used against us in court. It would be the same thing since it's a 3rd party, NOT law enforcement, invading our privacy to gather evidence against us.
I will have to research the cases you site, thanks for pointing those out.
I find it very hard to swallow however, that evidence gained from illegal activity is admissible in court in all instances. If this were the standing precedence, why wouldn't the cops simply get non-cops to break into people's houses to search when they can't get a warrant? Why wouldn't they get non-cops to plant bugs and cameras in crack houses to get evidence?
I think there may be a fine (although gray) line between inadvertent discovery during a crime and out right pursuance of evidence during a crime. This may explain why if you found a body in my basement during a B&E, I would get charged but if you went in and planted a camera for the specific purpose to taping what I do in my own house and that tape caught the killing, that would not be admissible. (However, I'm sure it would be enough to get me arrested and the body found subsequent would be enough to convict me. *grin* There is a big difference between evidence required to arrest/detain and evidence required to convict.)
To me this is a clear distinction. The MAC address is not attached to the word doc by chance, it was programmed to do that, specifically. This "theft" of unique personal data was not inadvertent, rather is was blatant.
Your points are very valid regarding current privacy statutes. My point was that this is uncharted waters and the argument could (should?) be made against 3rd party distribution of our unique data without our knowledge.
People are well aware of Caller-ID and there is a publicly available mechanism to disable this feature. I have no problems with that.
I'm not suggesting this argument to get around the crime itself, I'm suggesting it as a way to protect others from being victimized for non-criminal acts that my be unpopular.
If it stands that 3rd parties can "implant" everything you do with an ID that you do not know about or cannot turn off, free anonymous speech will disappear as we know it. That's my main concern.
Just as it's not a problem for the Gov't to take fingerprints off a letter that you sent or DNA samples from the saliva you used to lick a stamp or an emvelope shut. Once you voluntarially give something up, it's fair game for the man.
... the unknown data attached to it without your consent by a 3rd party should not fall under these same rules.
I agree completely, except that until recently, no one even KNEW they were giving up their MAC address simply by publishing a Word document. Considering how new this knowledge is, it's safe to say that many STILL do not know.
You can only voluntarily give up something you KNOW you have
How many people (beyond slashdot) even KNOW what a MAC address is and how it's created?! I would venture a guess that 65% of computer users are clueless about this aspect of networking technology.
Essentially, MS Word does a type of digital signing on a document. If you release a signed file, well... too bad.
Since this digital signature is hidden from the user completely, I disagree that once you release the document publicly, it's your fault the data got out.
If Outlook attached your credit card number to each outgoing mail message without your knowledge, would you then be liable for all fraudulent purchases on that card since you sent an email? No, I don't think you would be.
I don't see how someone can be held responsible for consequences of sending out data that they do not know is being sent.
Remember, Kenneth Starr couldn't tape record Monica Lewinsky's phone conversations w/o her consent or a warrant, but Linda Tripp could as she is a private citizen and not subjected to the same restrictions as law enforcement.
... in others, completely illegal and inadmissible by Starr. I guess he was lucky it was in DC. *grin*
Laws regarding recording phone conversations vary from state to state. In some states what Tripp did was perfectly legal
My point was that the illegal search argument would be what I would use as a defense since there is no clear precedence set in this regard. Information obtained by a 3rd party without the defendants knowledge is very shaky ground in court, especially when it's a commercial 3rd party as Microsoft is.
If I planted a bug in your system (via a macro virus, yaay!) that logged all keystrokes and internet traffic, would I then be allowed to prosecute you when you went to a kiddie-porn site or downloaded the latest Quake III warez? I don't think so because I, as a 3rd party, violated your private space. I would actually be PROSECUTED as such. The argument can be made (and possibly successfully) that MS violated this person's private space by recording unique information about that space and broadcasting it publicly (even if embedded in a document now made public).
I'm not sure if use of such GUID's would hold up in court since it is private information gathered by an illegal search. The user did not give permission for his unique ID to be attached to his .doc file. The app (Word) had no just cause to attach this ID either so it's similar to having the feds tap your phone without a warrant.
.doc and posted it online?
While I am not defending this moronic macro virus creator, I do think that utilizing these GUID's is setting a BAD standard in regards to a person's right to publish anonymously.
What's next, they track down the GUID of the person who wrote an anti-Clinton
The problem with this reorg is that all the monopolistic aspects of MS are still existent and able to flourish. Simply because there are consumer oriented groups now does not mean that the apps group will not utilize proprietary OS calls to make their office suite unbeatable to competition.
.dll calls, no OS integration advantages. An even playing field where the best PRODUCT wins, not the best CONNECTED product team.
The DoJ's plan would split MS up so that each 'group' functions as a separate company and licenses the technology from the other. These same licenses would be available to their competitors.
MS would licenses the same Win32 codebase to develop Office that Corel would license to develop WP Office. No hidden
(This is for you Rob! On topic, not flamebait, and hopefully not moderated down! *grin*)
Wow, that one was moderated in less than 3 minutes. I love seeing my "acceptance" or lack thereof in real-time! Here's take 3 of my post!
Well, this is the 3rd time in as many days that Katz commentary has slipped past my filter.
Rob, why even code filters for us "Katz haters" simply to bypass them like this constantly?
I'm sorry that Katz authored stories aren't getting any traffic but that's what happens when most people don't want to read his dribble.
I guess a flame war gets just as many page/ad views as quality commentary by an author people actually like.
I guess you gotta pay the rent some how eh Rob?
That is neither here nor there, however. What is disturbing is that a fairly blatant abuse of moderation has taken place here.
Get used to it. Look at the example CT and Hemos are setting. People bitched and moaned about Katz so CT created a filter so people could not read him if they wanted too. Well now so many people DON'T read Katz that CT and Hemos have resorted to posting stuff FOR him just to bypass the filters.
Moderator abuse is not the only abuse going on around here.
When you get SPAMMED at your admin contact email address from someone mining through the whois database, NSI says that "the database is public information, tough luck ..." (I have an email from them to this effect) but when other companies want to give the consumer a choice and access this database, NSI says that the database is proprietary information. How nice it is to have double standards to grow your monopoly.
... giving Virginia technology companies a bad name! UGH!
NSI and AOL
Why the HELL do you give us the option to FILTER out Katz (and lower the noise when he posts) just to have CT and Hemos post Katz's stuff for him?!?!
/. would filter him out. How do you fix that, have other people post his stuff for him.
I guess I was right when I figured 75% of
How lame.
Well, I shut up about Katz and my feelings on him since the filters were introduced. I promptly filtered him (and only him) out of my slashdot page and things have been nice.
... but wait, I filtered it out?! Ohhhh, I guess too many people are doing what I'm doing and would never have seen such an article if it was posted by Katz himself (which I'm sure he wanted everyone to see).
... hrmmmmmm.
Now what do get, more Katz
Once again we are all whored for Rob's grand hope of being a celebrity and hob knobbing with the "true elite" of technology journalists.
I wonder if slashdot would sell it's soul to Microsoft just to get in the IE 5 Favorites list
The arrogance of this community obviously exisits and in many respects is out of control. However, you must also factor in the "ZD" effect. Here's the equation:
Community Arrogance * 2 - ZD FUD + # of comments on this article = True Community Arrogance Factor
heh.
Thank you for hearing our cries of a min/max value! This means that no one post/person can be moderated to the point of being muted. (I have my threshold at -1000 right now, heh.)
Also, the change on the threshold bar showing a threshold of "0" being "almost everything" is a very nice compromise. My biggest problem has been that new people will not realize that scores below 0 were even possible since common sense says that 0 is a starting point, now they can see from the drop down that there IS a -1 that shows EVERYTHING. I am satisfied with this solution (plus it looks damn good). I would have preferred a -1 default (or minimum of 0 score) but compromises are good I guess, they keep us sane.
Also, the controls being put on moderators to curb abuse is a very welcome change. Hopefully this will prevent many power struggles that idealist people have now and then (even me! *grin*).
I guess I can change my sig now since I'm somewhat happy with the changes made to the moderation system and I know you're only doing this to please me. heh.
Kudos Rob
That is a fantastic article, clear and consise and backed up by real numbers that mean something.
... maybe they'll just turn around and go home and fdisk. *grin*
The fact that it was on CNN.com is even more amazing.
Someone should stand ourside an MCSE training class and hand out this article to all the people going in
I completely agree with keeping flames/off topic/attacks at a lower score than on topic discussion, but not below the default.
The problem (which we are seeing more of today alone) is that moderation is being used as a validation tool for ideals and values. Have an unpopular opinion, well it only takes one of the 407 moderators to dislike it enough to obscure it from much if not all of the community here.
Moderation is fine when it's not forced as the default. Everything starts a zero and those who don't want to see the stuff you mention, can simply set their threshold to 1 or more. How hard is that?