Man, how many of us used our real names when talking about all kinds of crazy shit back in the day... I did, and regret it to this day. Especially on usenet. OH man hehe. On the web my real name is only good stuff, published articles, interviews, technical stuff from listservs, etc. On usenet? Holy fuck. Flame wars, drugs, sex, all kinds of really embarrassing stuff.
And having a page on every member of the Beatles fits with the design goal of an encyclopedia? Lists of songs? Information about Britney Spears? The Lord of the Rings? How does describing fictional places and languages fit into that?
Wikipedia is a collection of information. Thats it. Plain and simple. I am not saying this is what it should be, or wants to be, it is what it IS, because it is what it makes itself into. It is a self creating thing. You, nor I, should be able to say what it is not.
Man, did you just prove the parents point. Spectacularly.
All those things are simple improvements to *existing* design methodologies. Incremental improvements are not new technology. The parent is absolutely correct: the state of the art in airplane/engine/rocket design is 50 year old tech. 50 years ago, new designs were NEW. Brilliant ideas being formed in the golden age of flight. Todays tech is: lighter/stronger plastics, computer control systems, better more efficient wing designs, etc. Most of that is brought about by computer simulation technology and materials science, NOT aeronautics engineering. We are able to design better wings because fluid dynamics solvers are much faster and better than what they had many many years ago.
Now, is that because of lack of interest? Are new, revolutionary designs being hampered by external forces? I don't know, I doubt it, because there is still lots of research going on. Its just that we have finally reached the ability to realize many of the theoretical designs of 30-40-50 years ago. They are still 40 year old ideas.
But make no mistake about it: a modern airliner or fighter jet is simply using highly advanced versions of designs from decades past. Evolutionary tech, not revolutionary. The jet engine was a revolutionary design. A highly efficient modern jet engine is not. It is just a better version.
I don't think progress has stalled, its just in the refinement stage. Eventually new paradigms will be born and start entire new veins of refinement.
Well, real world events don't happen in a precise, scientific manner. Falling from a bridge and trying to drop a hammer to help break the fall is something easily testable by the mythbusters, all they do is replicate the events as stated in the myth. "Busted" does not mean impossible, just not likely, given their simple but effective testing of events that happened "in the wild" so to speak.
The mythbusters could certainly, and with good reason, bust the "myth" that people can survive a fall of 18,000 ft. Yet somebody HAS survived that.
Improbable does not mean impossible. Just because they busted something that is "actual and verified" doesn't mean they haven't busted the myth. The myths imply a repeatable effect typically, as in "you can break your fall from a bridge by dropping a hammer in the water." No, you can't. Can somebody survive the fall, after having dropped a hammer? Possibly. Doesn't change the typical result however.
Absolutely right. This is programming. If programmers are constantly reinventing the wheel, they are idiots. What about standard libraries, etc?
Code is meant to be reused. Thats why people put it out there.
Man, if the original poster worked for me, he wouldn't for long. Thats the exact type of programmer that you DONT want, someone wasting precious time and resources rewriting code thats been written a million times before.
And what other systems has modern society tried? None. Of course, you believe we have tried other systems, because you are a good sheep.
China? Capitalist. USSR? Capitalist. North Korea? Capitalist.
You show me a single modern industrial society functioning without private ownership of the means of production (also, learn what "private ownership" means) and without the concept of capital, I double dog dare you.
Every modern industrial society on earth is a capitalist society.
The Soviet Union was a democratic country. Or have you not read the USSR's constitution? Or did you just believe the bullshit taught to you in school? They had essentially the same system for determining leaders as the united states. A representative republic based on a party system.
We have had basically one system running the entire planet for about 100 years now, tiny third world countries not withstanding.
So take all the things you consider bad about the "other" systems you are completely ignorant about, and apply them to what you are proposing is the "best" system in the world. It is the only one, ergo nobody can point out a more successful modern alternative.
Since you are not well informed about alternative potential socio-economic systems, we'll just not go into that, because it would simply turn into a big mess. Ignorant people are lousy at debating politics and economics.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ignorance and misinformation.
Of course, because everybody reading and posting on slashdot is in the united states. There are many countries in which escaping is not a crime, Mexico for instance.
Think for a second when you post, the person you are responding to might be on the other side of the planet, or next door. Don't assume their situation mirrors your own.
Hmm, maybe because 64 bit systems ARE faster. Very much so.
I don't know why this was rated funny, when its true.
I don't know about you, but running through 24gb of tables in RAM as opposed to paged data is, in my book, an order of magnitude faster. 64 bit systems are massively faster than 32 bit systems.
I'm not talking about windows boxes, but database servers (which I'm sure Facebook have) DO see a major impact.
I know you thought you were being clever, and perhaps you were, to other not so bright and informed people. Believe it or not, computers CAN get faster! CPU register sizes can make a huge difference in this respect. Or are you still using a 8088?
CentOS is a clone of RHEL, a rock solid heavily supported OS. I've never seen OpenSUSE or Debian in a production/critical environment. If you dont think CentOS is a serious Linux OS, you have your facts out of whack.
Yeah, because only one person ever had that name. Who cares if there was some dude named Jesus way back when, there were probably a lot of people named many other things too. What about Roderick? Or Reginald? Or Brian?
Wow, that was the strangest demonization of unions ever. Capitalist libertarian dogma at its best right there. Lets frame the history of industry in modern capitalist ideas, and oh my gosh! socialized labor is an anachronism!
In the bizarro world that is America, perhaps thats a bit true. Our leaders have squashed the entire idea of a working class, so much so that people like you don't even realize that they ARE the working class. Pity you let yourself be a slave in such an idealistic way.
You are confusing "technology" with gadgets. "Technology" is the means of production, the users are corporate entities, not consumers. The economic systems of today are not geared to giving as many people technology as possible. They are geared to keeping technology profitable (and powerful) by producing useless items which the workers buy, with the accumulated tokens of their labor CREATING those items. Its a feedback loop whose existence is dependent on the concept of obsolescence, of "progress" because things are New! and Improved! You pay your workers with chicken feed, in which they feed to the chickens at the farm they work, in order to eat chicken. Its a useless system that only perpetuates itself, as a means of control and power ultimately. Ah well, people just love being sheep lined up to be sheered. Thats the true sadness of all this, we have breed ourselves into domestic cattle, whose sole purpose in life is to consume and produce. We all deserve the shackles we are born into, because we make them every single day.
I also like how you demonized the church and turned around to compare it with unions.
Umm, the argument holds as much water as it ever did. Pornography has driven new technologies since porn was invented. It wasn't only vhs. It was Super8. It was the cinema. It was PHOTOGRAPHY. Cheap printing. PAINT. Etc.
Porn will drive new content mediums as long as people are into porn. So you have more choices now. So what? The porn industry produces more video content than all other non-porn video content producers put together. Some porn houses release upwards of 10-20 titles a WEEK.
Also, Super8 projectors were the first time you could watch porn in your home. Err, or was that postcards? Playing cards? Plain old photos? Oil paintings? Fucking stone statues?
So your argument holds no water at all. He who produces the content drives the market.
Of course, because you certainly have the statistical knowledge of the 200+ million windows users out there and what they run. Because you help a few people with their computer. You are an expert on the issue.
When you install a typical filesharing program like kazaa or emule, because somebody told you you can download stuff from it, you don't necessarily know that it will default to scanning your system for media to share. People may not realize that when they download something, where it was downloaded is being shared back out. Quit being a righteous asshole assuming what people do and do not know about their computers. You are just using the topic of whether or not people really are being pirates by DOWNLOADING, to go off on a tirade about copyright infringement.
You are not an expert on what "most average people" do. Why? Because you are a pompous nerd trying to talk with authority about something you simply do not have the data to back up. Neither do I. But you know what? I'm not making grandiose statements about people and calling them all thieves. People like you are the problem in this equation, NOT file sharing. Assuming guilt by association, that if you download you are therefor a criminal pirate.
I have downloaded a lot of music. The majority of it copyrighted. The majority of it I have purchased in the past, on lp, cassette or cd. The majority of it I simply wish to have in a more usable form on my computer without having to hassle ripping it, etc. Or perhaps I have lost the media, it is scratched, on lp, etc. etc. The stuff I have not purchased? This has lead me to buy more music by more diverse artists then I ever would by listening to the radio or browsing a cd store. Illegal downloading on my part has MADE THEM MONEY. Turned me onto more music then I normally would have been exposed to. Does that make me a criminal? By yours and the MPAA standards, yes. So what. I will continue to do it with or without your or their consent. What can you or they do about it? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Perhaps the situation is more complex then you realize. Perhaps things are broken, technology has outpaced the outmoded means of controlling art and creative works. Adapt or be destroyed. Some choose to adapt and are successful. Some choose not to, and instead are demonized into oblivion. And some folks, like you, are just mean, narrow minded ignorant fools hiding behind a veneer of logic so frail and degenerate you simply sound like a crotchety old man with no understanding of technology or people.
BTW, I help my friends with their computers. Every single one of them has filesharing software on their computer. They have little understanding of it, I turn off sharing for them and explain that its a bad idea (for privacy reasons, not misplaced ethics or anything.) They get infected with viruses and trojans and spyware from downloads. They don't have any idea what is legal or not, somebody showed them this cool program you load up, type in a song name and there it is. Is this representative of most computer users? I have no idea. I do not make grand judgements of humanity based on my highly limited and narrow view. You do, because you are a fucking asshole.
Umm, you are showing your own lack of knowledge by assuming a theory is not fact. You are using the common tv version of the term, as in "I have a theory..." this is incorrect. A theory is only a step behind a scientific law. It is supported by experiment, factual data and has not been disproven by experiment or factual data.
From wikipedia: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."
Creationism is NOT a theory. If isn't even a conjecture or hypothesis. It is nonsense. There is no data whatsoever to back it up. There is no experiment that can show it to be true. There is nothing.
Evolution is a fact. It can be tested in a laboratory. Unless you don't believe in things like tuberculosis, drug resistant tuberculosis actually. We can evolve bacteria easily. There is solid evidence in the fossil record, in the linkage between DNA sets, in fucking DOG BREEDS.
It is not open for debate, it is not one of several competing theories, it is the ONLY theory there is for the existence of life and how it got to where we are today. There are no other theories. I am using the PROPER usage of the term here. Why this is something people have to argue about is beyond me. Why don't we argue about the existence of the moon while we're at it. It is just as stupid an argument.
So, the fact that somebody may or may not be completely insane, and stupid on top of that, means nothing to you?
Anybody who believes in creationism is unfit to lead in any capacity, because it is a symptom of a mind gone bad. They refuse to listen to reason, lack the ability to think rationally and are incapable of formulating solid factual ideas. They are utter morons and the fact that they believe in creationism is just a sign post to their idiocy, much as if they believed (truly believed) in santa claus, the easter bunny or crop circles.
I don't want anybody in a leadership capacity who is capable of believing in something so provably false, whatever that may be. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are just as stupid, so it probably doesn't really matter anyway.
A politicians stance on evolution is a huge indicator of their state of mind. They are either liars, stupid or both. Which bodes ill for all the decisions they would be making, and their reasoning (as it were) behind those decisions.
Would you vote for somebody, who was asked simply in a debate if they believed in the Sun, and they said "NO"? That doesn't seem to matter much, unless you look at it from a larger point of view. Obviously, somebody who doesn't believe in the sun is a supreme idiot or is totally insane.
Slashdot Mirror
Man, how many of us used our real names when talking about all kinds of crazy shit back in the day... I did, and regret it to this day. Especially on usenet. OH man hehe. On the web my real name is only good stuff, published articles, interviews, technical stuff from listservs, etc. On usenet? Holy fuck. Flame wars, drugs, sex, all kinds of really embarrassing stuff.
LOL, oh ok. Vitamin C. Wow. Big insight there.
You see, as long as humans bring FOOD with them, they will be ok. What about carbohydrates? Fat? Protein?
Vitamin C is but one of a loooong list of requirements for human life. Another one is water.
Vitamin C is a very simple molecule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C) EASILY synthesized, from hydrogen, carbon and oxygen.
I'm quite sure if we had the technology to travel between the stars, making C6H8O6 would be quite easy from readily available materials on the voyage.
Where do people come up with these ideas? Your church needs to hire a chemist or two. Or I just fell for a troll. heh.
And having a page on every member of the Beatles fits with the design goal of an encyclopedia? Lists of songs? Information about Britney Spears? The Lord of the Rings? How does describing fictional places and languages fit into that?
Wikipedia is a collection of information. Thats it. Plain and simple. I am not saying this is what it should be, or wants to be, it is what it IS, because it is what it makes itself into. It is a self creating thing. You, nor I, should be able to say what it is not.
Man, did you just prove the parents point. Spectacularly.
All those things are simple improvements to *existing* design methodologies. Incremental improvements are not new technology. The parent is absolutely correct: the state of the art in airplane/engine/rocket design is 50 year old tech. 50 years ago, new designs were NEW. Brilliant ideas being formed in the golden age of flight. Todays tech is: lighter/stronger plastics, computer control systems, better more efficient wing designs, etc. Most of that is brought about by computer simulation technology and materials science, NOT aeronautics engineering. We are able to design better wings because fluid dynamics solvers are much faster and better than what they had many many years ago.
Now, is that because of lack of interest? Are new, revolutionary designs being hampered by external forces? I don't know, I doubt it, because there is still lots of research going on. Its just that we have finally reached the ability to realize many of the theoretical designs of 30-40-50 years ago. They are still 40 year old ideas.
But make no mistake about it: a modern airliner or fighter jet is simply using highly advanced versions of designs from decades past. Evolutionary tech, not revolutionary. The jet engine was a revolutionary design. A highly efficient modern jet engine is not. It is just a better version.
I don't think progress has stalled, its just in the refinement stage. Eventually new paradigms will be born and start entire new veins of refinement.
Well, real world events don't happen in a precise, scientific manner. Falling from a bridge and trying to drop a hammer to help break the fall is something easily testable by the mythbusters, all they do is replicate the events as stated in the myth. "Busted" does not mean impossible, just not likely, given their simple but effective testing of events that happened "in the wild" so to speak.
The mythbusters could certainly, and with good reason, bust the "myth" that people can survive a fall of 18,000 ft. Yet somebody HAS survived that.
Improbable does not mean impossible. Just because they busted something that is "actual and verified" doesn't mean they haven't busted the myth. The myths imply a repeatable effect typically, as in "you can break your fall from a bridge by dropping a hammer in the water." No, you can't. Can somebody survive the fall, after having dropped a hammer? Possibly. Doesn't change the typical result however.
Absolutely right. This is programming. If programmers are constantly reinventing the wheel, they are idiots. What about standard libraries, etc?
Code is meant to be reused. Thats why people put it out there.
Man, if the original poster worked for me, he wouldn't for long. Thats the exact type of programmer that you DONT want, someone wasting precious time and resources rewriting code thats been written a million times before.
Voyager 1 is the furthest human object.
Here is a nice link and a graphic of what is still being explored: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html
And what other systems has modern society tried? None. Of course, you believe we have tried other systems, because you are a good sheep.
China? Capitalist. USSR? Capitalist. North Korea? Capitalist.
You show me a single modern industrial society functioning without private ownership of the means of production (also, learn what "private ownership" means) and without the concept of capital, I double dog dare you.
Every modern industrial society on earth is a capitalist society.
The Soviet Union was a democratic country. Or have you not read the USSR's constitution? Or did you just believe the bullshit taught to you in school? They had essentially the same system for determining leaders as the united states. A representative republic based on a party system.
We have had basically one system running the entire planet for about 100 years now, tiny third world countries not withstanding.
So take all the things you consider bad about the "other" systems you are completely ignorant about, and apply them to what you are proposing is the "best" system in the world. It is the only one, ergo nobody can point out a more successful modern alternative.
Since you are not well informed about alternative potential socio-economic systems, we'll just not go into that, because it would simply turn into a big mess. Ignorant people are lousy at debating politics and economics.
Now back to your regularly scheduled ignorance and misinformation.
Of course, because everybody reading and posting on slashdot is in the united states. There are many countries in which escaping is not a crime, Mexico for instance.
Think for a second when you post, the person you are responding to might be on the other side of the planet, or next door. Don't assume their situation mirrors your own.
Hmm, maybe because 64 bit systems ARE faster. Very much so.
I don't know why this was rated funny, when its true.
I don't know about you, but running through 24gb of tables in RAM as opposed to paged data is, in my book, an order of magnitude faster. 64 bit systems are massively faster than 32 bit systems.
I'm not talking about windows boxes, but database servers (which I'm sure Facebook have) DO see a major impact.
I know you thought you were being clever, and perhaps you were, to other not so bright and informed people. Believe it or not, computers CAN get faster! CPU register sizes can make a huge difference in this respect. Or are you still using a 8088?
Check this project out: http://www.homebrewcpu.com/
Now THATS intimidating. Friggin awesome and insane.
5 seconds on google: http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/6332
CentOS is a clone of RHEL, a rock solid heavily supported OS. I've never seen OpenSUSE or Debian in a production/critical environment. If you dont think CentOS is a serious Linux OS, you have your facts out of whack.
Have you ever used bleach? What about the billions upon billions of bacteria you have slaughtered in your life?
ALL LIFE on earth EATS other LIFE. Period. Get over it. If god didn't want man to eat meat, he'd stop making cows out of beef.
At least humans have some morality about killing. Ever seen a cat torment and kill a small creature? For pure pleasure with evil intent?
Probably the same way everybody else who deals with radiation does. Its not that hard. We have been safely working with radiation for decades now.
Yeah, because only one person ever had that name. Who cares if there was some dude named Jesus way back when, there were probably a lot of people named many other things too. What about Roderick? Or Reginald? Or Brian?
Wow, that was the strangest demonization of unions ever. Capitalist libertarian dogma at its best right there. Lets frame the history of industry in modern capitalist ideas, and oh my gosh! socialized labor is an anachronism!
In the bizarro world that is America, perhaps thats a bit true. Our leaders have squashed the entire idea of a working class, so much so that people like you don't even realize that they ARE the working class. Pity you let yourself be a slave in such an idealistic way.
You are confusing "technology" with gadgets. "Technology" is the means of production, the users are corporate entities, not consumers. The economic systems of today are not geared to giving as many people technology as possible. They are geared to keeping technology profitable (and powerful) by producing useless items which the workers buy, with the accumulated tokens of their labor CREATING those items. Its a feedback loop whose existence is dependent on the concept of obsolescence, of "progress" because things are New! and Improved! You pay your workers with chicken feed, in which they feed to the chickens at the farm they work, in order to eat chicken. Its a useless system that only perpetuates itself, as a means of control and power ultimately. Ah well, people just love being sheep lined up to be sheered. Thats the true sadness of all this, we have breed ourselves into domestic cattle, whose sole purpose in life is to consume and produce. We all deserve the shackles we are born into, because we make them every single day.
I also like how you demonized the church and turned around to compare it with unions.
It expires in the US in 2030.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Amazing..
Umm, the argument holds as much water as it ever did. Pornography has driven new technologies since porn was invented. It wasn't only vhs. It was Super8. It was the cinema. It was PHOTOGRAPHY. Cheap printing. PAINT. Etc.
Porn will drive new content mediums as long as people are into porn. So you have more choices now. So what? The porn industry produces more video content than all other non-porn video content producers put together. Some porn houses release upwards of 10-20 titles a WEEK.
Also, Super8 projectors were the first time you could watch porn in your home. Err, or was that postcards? Playing cards? Plain old photos? Oil paintings? Fucking stone statues?
So your argument holds no water at all. He who produces the content drives the market.
Of course, because you certainly have the statistical knowledge of the 200+ million windows users out there and what they run. Because you help a few people with their computer. You are an expert on the issue.
When you install a typical filesharing program like kazaa or emule, because somebody told you you can download stuff from it, you don't necessarily know that it will default to scanning your system for media to share. People may not realize that when they download something, where it was downloaded is being shared back out. Quit being a righteous asshole assuming what people do and do not know about their computers. You are just using the topic of whether or not people really are being pirates by DOWNLOADING, to go off on a tirade about copyright infringement.
You are not an expert on what "most average people" do. Why? Because you are a pompous nerd trying to talk with authority about something you simply do not have the data to back up. Neither do I. But you know what? I'm not making grandiose statements about people and calling them all thieves. People like you are the problem in this equation, NOT file sharing. Assuming guilt by association, that if you download you are therefor a criminal pirate.
I have downloaded a lot of music. The majority of it copyrighted. The majority of it I have purchased in the past, on lp, cassette or cd. The majority of it I simply wish to have in a more usable form on my computer without having to hassle ripping it, etc. Or perhaps I have lost the media, it is scratched, on lp, etc. etc. The stuff I have not purchased? This has lead me to buy more music by more diverse artists then I ever would by listening to the radio or browsing a cd store. Illegal downloading on my part has MADE THEM MONEY. Turned me onto more music then I normally would have been exposed to. Does that make me a criminal? By yours and the MPAA standards, yes. So what. I will continue to do it with or without your or their consent. What can you or they do about it? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Perhaps the situation is more complex then you realize. Perhaps things are broken, technology has outpaced the outmoded means of controlling art and creative works. Adapt or be destroyed. Some choose to adapt and are successful. Some choose not to, and instead are demonized into oblivion. And some folks, like you, are just mean, narrow minded ignorant fools hiding behind a veneer of logic so frail and degenerate you simply sound like a crotchety old man with no understanding of technology or people.
BTW, I help my friends with their computers. Every single one of them has filesharing software on their computer. They have little understanding of it, I turn off sharing for them and explain that its a bad idea (for privacy reasons, not misplaced ethics or anything.) They get infected with viruses and trojans and spyware from downloads. They don't have any idea what is legal or not, somebody showed them this cool program you load up, type in a song name and there it is. Is this representative of most computer users? I have no idea. I do not make grand judgements of humanity based on my highly limited and narrow view. You do, because you are a fucking asshole.
Umm, you are showing your own lack of knowledge by assuming a theory is not fact. You are using the common tv version of the term, as in "I have a theory..." this is incorrect. A theory is only a step behind a scientific law. It is supported by experiment, factual data and has not been disproven by experiment or factual data.
From wikipedia: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity."
Creationism is NOT a theory. If isn't even a conjecture or hypothesis. It is nonsense. There is no data whatsoever to back it up. There is no experiment that can show it to be true. There is nothing.
Evolution is a fact. It can be tested in a laboratory. Unless you don't believe in things like tuberculosis, drug resistant tuberculosis actually. We can evolve bacteria easily. There is solid evidence in the fossil record, in the linkage between DNA sets, in fucking DOG BREEDS.
It is not open for debate, it is not one of several competing theories, it is the ONLY theory there is for the existence of life and how it got to where we are today. There are no other theories. I am using the PROPER usage of the term here. Why this is something people have to argue about is beyond me. Why don't we argue about the existence of the moon while we're at it. It is just as stupid an argument.
So, the fact that somebody may or may not be completely insane, and stupid on top of that, means nothing to you?
Anybody who believes in creationism is unfit to lead in any capacity, because it is a symptom of a mind gone bad. They refuse to listen to reason, lack the ability to think rationally and are incapable of formulating solid factual ideas. They are utter morons and the fact that they believe in creationism is just a sign post to their idiocy, much as if they believed (truly believed) in santa claus, the easter bunny or crop circles.
I don't want anybody in a leadership capacity who is capable of believing in something so provably false, whatever that may be. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are just as stupid, so it probably doesn't really matter anyway.
A politicians stance on evolution is a huge indicator of their state of mind. They are either liars, stupid or both. Which bodes ill for all the decisions they would be making, and their reasoning (as it were) behind those decisions.
Would you vote for somebody, who was asked simply in a debate if they believed in the Sun, and they said "NO"? That doesn't seem to matter much, unless you look at it from a larger point of view. Obviously, somebody who doesn't believe in the sun is a supreme idiot or is totally insane.
1. Get a bunch of ads served on your site.
2. Piss off Slashdot community, directing them to your site.
3. Get slashdot'd
4. Profit!
The site goes down regularly in the wee hours of the morning. Has been doing that for years. Nothing to see here.
That is why it is so awesome. Totally awesome.