Why not have each reviewer's rating for a given item/location be statistically compared/weighted to that reviewer's history of ratings, e.g. a 5-star rating from someone who consistently gives 5-star ratings for everything could be valued less than someone who only does so some of the time, with weighting for older reviewers, anonymous reviewers, etc. Basically the equivalent of a bayesian spam filter, except for reviewers instead of mail. Yes, it won't be perfect, but can it at least be better than what we have now?

To borrow from HHGttG, maybe the foreigners realise the purpose of the president is "not to wield power but to draw attention away from it"?

On slashdot, GP usually means "Grand-Parent (post)", as in:

Grand-Parent post
.. Parent post
.. .. This post.

... where did you source your monitor, Umbrella or Weyland-Utani or something?

Point taken.

That's (state) socialism, not communism. I've pondered that communism ("characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state") should be easier to achieve via capitalism than via (state) socialism, since the former more strongly encourages the technological innovations required to provide the means of eliminating scarcity that communism requires to be at all practical.

That, so far to me, was the deepest irony of the USSR: to eliminate the State, they created the State, and It was doomed from the beginning; whether or not communism may one day be feasible, our 20th Century selves lacked (and still lack) the technology to compensate for our psychology.

The USA and similar "capitalist" nations do have their own irony: one of their economic foundations is the very non-capitalist structure of copyright and patent law (think about it: fundamentally, the state dictates who may use any idea, enforcing artificial scarcities and artificially captive markets). It will be interesting to see if/how they overcome this flaw.

Ugh, one of those questions. By which I mean, people do tend to unconsciously insert "knowingly" into such questions, proceed to consciously answer "No", and then there it is, lurking silently in the filing cabinet for if HR ever need a pretext to fire someone.

I believe the implication is that if your opponents are claiming to be proponents of the existing government, it's hypocritical of them to use illegal means in their efforts to silence you - the old "do as I say, not as I do" problem.

Hmm. Also from Wikipedia, later in that same article:

This issue did come before the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court, "reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states."

As for your assertion that there is no right to overthrow the government, that is not strictly true. Note that the Second specifies not just any "state", but a "free state". A lawful government should have nothing to fear from the Second. An unlawful government, on the other hand, one would hope not so much.

Actually, per the official download page, MSE is free for "small businesses with up to 10 PCs".

Really? What if that database field is CUSTOMER_NAME? Do you think it won't "shape the business" if the chosen field length turns out to be too short for 20% of the intended customer base?

But if I am to support that system with my tax dollars, the people who use it have to do their part to try to live healthy lives. Drug addicts and alcoholics get treatment then go into rehab, overweight people are put on a healthy diet and exercise regimen, and so on. But since that would violate people's rights, and I can't force my beliefs onto others, even when they are using my tax dollars, I don't support a public health system.

I don't get it. How would that violate rights? When society assumes an obligation to offer help to its members, members who seek out that help to correct their personal failings assume the reciprocal obligation of not "crying wolf" (not quite the phrase I want to use, but I hope it's close enough that you get what I'm trying to convey). "Society, I'm addicted / obese, please treat me." "Our obligation is that we will treat you, but your obligation is that you'll accept our help in avoiding this situation in the future." "Okay." The whole basis of society is the social contract - we help you, you help us!

The technicalities of deciding when any given person is not meeting that reciprocal obligation should only impinge on the general availability of a public health system to the extent that the statistical occurrence of recalcitrant individuals would make the system a net burden or benefit to society. And even then, that is not necessarily an argument to completely reject a public health system instead of the less drastic response of narrowing its scope.

You seem to be implying that when a company suffers harm, the rest of the country is unaffected.

Not only is that not how it works, some of those private companies are also the ones whose lobbying brought the USPTO to its current state.

Geneticists admit that physical appearance varies thanks to mutations and variations in the expression of the genome, so why is intellectual variability so verboten? Because it's politically incorrect?

That and just as more people believe they are far better at driving a car than they actually are, more racists believe they are better than {insert other race} than they actually are.

Hypothetical: let's say geneticists somehow manage to quantify that race X averages 5% "smarter" in some way than race Y once you remove all the other factors. Despite the fact that this still means the vast majority of race X _aren't_ smarter than race Y? Despite the fact that the geneticists acknowledge race is only one of multiple factors involved in determining the intellectual capability of a random individual? A lot of X - led by the already racist contingent - are going to falsely believe that science has "proven" they are superior and a lot of Y - led by their own racist contingent - are suddenly going to feel the need to "prove" they aren't "inferior". That's not going to end well.

Basically, you don't give an arrogant idiot ammo for their gun when you're trapped in the room with them. Not even if you're the same race, because you're still trapped in the same room as an arrogant idiot with a loaded gun.

So not only do we have to worry about incompetence indistinguishable from malice, we also have to worry about righteousness indistinguishable from malice.