I've been a member of several online entrepreneur communities, and I'd conservatively estimate that members spend less than 10% of the time talking about actually improving products and services, and more than 90% of the time talking about how to "game" the various systems that people use to find them, such as search engines and the media.
Good point, BUT if the new meritocracy search will be based on voting, wouldn't the company need to spend some of those 90% of effort to prove the "merit" to the community, trying to influence the voting? The abovementioned problem will still exist, imho.
I remember some years ago boys at my neighbourhood played footbal, and one of them became so thirsty afterwards, that he drank the full 1.5 litre bottle of water. Other guys considered this cool so they offered him to buy him a full pack of cigarettes if he manages to drink another 1 litre of water on the spot. He did, but soon afterwards he had got terrible stomachache and vomited quite nasty...it was not fun at all. He stayed alive, but from that encounter I remember drinking too much water is not a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
>> Is it really fair to blame the language? Yes, because it *encourages* it, by design.
What exactly makes them "cipherpunks"?
I remember some years ago boys at my neighbourhood played footbal, and one of them became so thirsty afterwards, that he drank the full 1.5 litre bottle of water. Other guys considered this cool so they offered him to buy him a full pack of cigarettes if he manages to drink another 1 litre of water on the spot. He did, but soon afterwards he had got terrible stomachache and vomited quite nasty...it was not fun at all. He stayed alive, but from that encounter I remember drinking too much water is not a good idea.