If you knew much about the history of compelled schooling, you would realize that a high school education was never meant to prevent you from menial, mind-numbing and stressful jobs. Quite the opposite. It was meant to prepare you for it.
And me without a mod point. Well, maybe someone else will mod it up.
No, moderating is designed to make a post "more visible" to the casual reader. If person X mods a post "insightful" or some other positive mod, it rises to the surface (so to speak). Person Y meta-modding the original moderation "unfair" doesn't erase the original positive moderation and doesn't cause the original post to drop back down, in terms of visibility (as far as I know). I believe it just effects the original moderators odds of getting more mod points.
I used to meta-mod most days but now I only do so infrequently. I don't think I need to be "voting up or down" some casual comment or joke. The whole thing is exacerbated by the fact that most posters don't bother quoting what they're responding to, so there's no context to judge the post against.
Oh, well. It's not my website and I guess the power that be will run it how they see fit. I'm still here so must not be too aggravated by it all.
As a real estate agent, I'd be the perfect candidate. I'll set up the first interplanetary real estate brokerage. Now, where was that gold jacket
I understand that meta moderation is moderating the moderator. My problem is that when I go to meta-moderate, none of the posts I'm given have been moderated. Go re-read the paragraph at the top of the meta-moderation page. It's changed in the last few months.
>That is exactly why we must meta moderate like crazy these days
Except that Metamoderation these days doesn't present you with already-moderated posts. At least, not for me. All I get is a selection of 10 random posts and I have to decide if you, the average Slashdotter, would benefit. Nearly every post I'm given to "meta-moderate" us not previously moderated.
Now, someone mod me down.
>No, my point was kind of that there is an implicit trust between all employees and their IT personnel.
Gotcha. I thought you were defending the $5M bail.
> You can have all the redundancy and safety protocols you want, but at some level, it comes down to a decision of trust.
Even that doesn't justify the uber-excessive bail in this case. If he's found not guilty are they going to keep him in jail, "just in case"?
> Prosecutors have argued that the bail is appropriate because, if released, Childs could cause damage to San Francisco's network.
It sounds like they have zero confidence in whoever is now in charge of securing their network.
..'cause Gmail works perfectly for me, and has been working just fine the whole day. Does the fact that I am in Finland have anything to do with Gmail not going down?
If your email is that important, you'd better have some kind of redundancy and a backup plan in case the redundancy fails.
It was the lack of money that caused the lack of spending, not the lack of things to buy.
The lack of money is just as imaginary as the abundance of money that preceded it.
No. I don't know if I'm being funny or not. Why do you ask?
"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc
