Here is a thought provoking thread. Cosmosis tries to tackle the eternal question of man: "Where did it all start?" Assuming you believe in God, the question is analogous to "Where did God come from?" I want to focus on one quote in here, but I will try to answer this question to the best of my mortal limits. Since I have moderated in the thread and cannot post there, I will do so here.

No matter how you try to explain the origin of any laws, none of the theories can account for the cause of those laws. From this, I concluded there can be no fundamental laws.

First, let me get one thing out on the table before we tackle this issue. Man has basically two methods available to him to understand the universe and answer fundamental questions like these. Empirical and Transcendental thinking.

Empirical thinking is also termed scientific thinking. It was conceived of by Aristotle, who was known as the first scientist. Empirical thinking is based on logic, fact and testability. It has given mankind a wealth of understanding about things that affect our mortal selves. We own much of our technology and comforts to Empirical thinking. It is based on the idea that truth exists everywhere but must be verified. The key to empiricism is testability. This means that all truth is relative to the tester. As more people verify a certain theory, that theory becomes more universal and less relative. However, Aristotle himself scoffed at the idea of universal truth. Empirical thinking is well suited for answering questions like "How does this machine work?" and "Why do birds fly south in the winter?" It fails miserably when trying to answer questions like "What is it that makes humans self-aware?" and "Where did the universe come from?" Great empirical thinkers are such people as Darwin, Newton, Einstein and Rousseau.

Transcendental thinking is based on the notion that all truth is absolute. Truth exists inside of each person and life is the process of discovering this latent truth. Furthermore, my truth is the same as your truth and any disagreements are a product of us not yet having found the same truths. This type of thinking actually came about before empirical methods. Aristotle was a student of Plato who was a student (purportedly) of Socrates. Plato and Socrates are the best known transcendental thinkers. Since then, there have been a wealth of philosophers who have expanded on the ideas generated by these great men. My personal favorite is Immanuel Kant. His notions on enlightenment (hence the icon) are nicely married to the religious principles I espouse. Truth is implanted within man and can be discovered through education, meditation and study. Truth does not have to be logical to be true and there does not have to be a method that describes or explains it with any certainty. Nevertheless, transcendental moments in the lives of man are fact and cannot be easily discounted. So called miracles, paranormal events or other unexplained mysteries may not be resolvable with science, but that does not make them any less true. What breaks down is our ability to apply science to events that are not scientific. Just as empirical thinking has many flaws, so does transcendental thinking. It can explain the origin of the universe, the purpose of life and what happens to man when he dies. It is ill-equipped to answer questions pertaining to science and logical thought.

The problem then is not which method one should choose to think with, but which one answers any given question the best? To answer our question, I will use transcendental thinking and follow the path of truth, not the path of testable fact.

Laws are boundaries that apply consequences to those who cross over them. The severity of the consequences are directly proportional to the law that is broken. For example; causing damage to your neighbor's house carries with it the punishment of restitution. But if you kill your neighbor, how do you restore his/her life? Therefore, the punishment may need to be as severe as the loss of your own life. This is known as 'justice'. I believe strongly in justice and claim that it is the only power that is greater than God.

What was that? Yes, I said that there is a power higher than God. It is this simple little thing called justice. You see, even God cannot brush aside justice for whatever ends He desires. He is bound to justice because it is justice that gave Him His power. Here is a quote from an ancient prophet that explains this further: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God."

Justice is a two-way street. It doles out punishment and blessings. It does so based on the actions, intents, thoughts and words of the individual. We each work out our own mortality before God. He judges us on how well we have done, but in the end, it is justice that determines our fate. That is the beauty of Jesus Christ's atonement. To quote another prophet, "[Jesus] Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice."

This is called mercy. Justice demands that if you sin (break the law), a punishment must be inflicted. Alternatively, if you keep a law (i.e. by not breaking it) you are entitled to a blessing. Another quote: "Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement" There is a punishment and a happiness attached to every law. When you keep the law, you are blessed, when you break it, you are punished. There may be a delay in the execution of the blessing or punishment but they are inescapable. Mercy is something that diverts the punishment from the offender to someone else.

The absolutely wonderful beauty of God's plan for mankind is that He allows for our mistakes. Because of Jesus's death and suffering, the punishment can be claimed by mercy and not inflicted upon the sinner. Last quote: "But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." If we repent of our sins, justice is satisfied by mercy. Mercy comes about because of Jesus and justice is immutable or God would cease to be God. Finally, note that here is where I get the notion that God's power is tied to justice. If the works of justice are destroyed, God would cease to be God. God cannot interfere with justice, except through mercy. This means that no matter how much He loves us, He cannot simply snap away our sins and save us. We have to qualify for the protection of mercy. But that is another discussion.

So we come back to the origin of the law. I have already explained in truth that God is subject to the law. Now I will try to explain how there can be something before God, who is both eternal and without beginning or end.

I believe that God was once a man as we are now. Furthermore, that man can become like God because we are His literal children. However, as He changed from a mortal to an immortal being, He also acquired His current attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. God is eternal because He is only subject to one law: justice. All the laws of physics, corporeality and all the perceptions of our existence don't apply to Him. Because of this, time cannot restrict His movement and it loses all meaning for Him. This is difficult for us to understand and our minds cannot easily move beyond this boundary. Basically, once God became God, all notion of a beginning to the universe (and consequently the end of it) became irrelevant. It doesn't matter for us who started it all or where it precisely began. What matters is that we are on this earth to grow and discover truth. That discovery does not end at death and eventually, we will have the opportunity to progress infinitely as God has.

The History of Israel and Zionism

Zionism is the goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Since this goal was realized in 1948, the meaning has changed. Zionism now has several meanings depending on who you are. For most Jews, it means the maintenance of Jewish sovereignty over the "Land of Israel". For some, it means much more. So called "Messianic Zionists" desire nothing less than the total control of the entirety of Palestine by the Jews. In fact, they hold it as a matter of divine destiny.

The 1967 six-day war proved an important turning point both for and against Israel. Egypt, Syria and Jordan began massing troops around Israel in an attempt to intimidate it. Israel, reading the writing on the wall, launched a pre-emptive strike that decimated the Egyptian air force. After the fighting was over, Israel had captured the Sinai, west bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. While the Arabs had close to half a million troops and were far from routed, they chose to end the war because Israel was within a day's fight from Cairo, Damascus and Amman.

The results of the war were many-fold. America, seeing an opportunity to check the expansion of the Soviet Union in the Middle East, began to prop up the fledgling state. Arms sales, nuclear technology and a close tie between Mossad and the CIA offered Israel more than a chance to survive. It created a regional hegemon that has consistently threatened the stability of the area. Second, it humiliated the Arab nations who could not believe that such a small bunch of unbelievers could defeat the armies of Islam. This humiliation would create a huge up well of support for Islamic fundamentalist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and later, al-Qaeda. One other result was that Jews saw a miraculous victory by overwhelmed forces as a miracle and a key step in the Messianic view of Zionism. Expansion of borders was natural to their ideas of full, autonomous control of the entirety of "Zion".

The History of Arabs in Palestine since the creation of Israel

Arabs in Palestine resisted, from the outset, the creation of a Jewish state. Quote:

1. "In November 1947, the General Assembly endorsed a plan for the partition of Palestine, providing for the creation of an Arab State and a Jewish State, with Jerusalem to be placed under international status. The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States."

The day after the creation of Israel, Arabs began armed hostilities and two weeks later, the Security Council of the UN called for a cessation of the conflict. Since then, Arabs have repeatedly refused the idea of peace and the existence of a Jewish state. Nasser, who was the single greatest leader of Arab Nationalism said that the Arab goal was "... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

Nasser would achieve the first goal through arms deals with the Soviets, which increased aid to Israel from America. After his death in 1970, the Egyptian military would decline and never see again its dream of further closing the gap in military power with Israel.

Beginning in 1965, the PLO began what was to be known as the "Entanglement Theory". This involved a series of sabotage attacks that were specifically designed to provoke offensive retaliation from the Israelis, thus giving the PLO something to point their finger at and say, "See, we told you they were killing innocent Palestinians". This strategy has been largely successful and continues today in the form of bus bombings, suicide attacks and the random machine gunning of civilian areas. However, it is now known as 'intifada'. Naturally, there are different views on its meaning and origin.

Where do we go from here?

Since the end of the six-day war, the cycle of violence has increased, causing greater suffering and deaths. Both Israel and the Palestinians are responsible for the deaths and suffering they have caused. They both need to accept blame and move on. Resolution can only come after they both give up their incessant quest to kill each other, regardless of justification.

1. First, there needs to be a Palestinian state. Borders can be negotiated, but would probably be best set at the 1948 lines.
2. Israel needs to withdraw all military, government and civilian personel from the occupied territories. It also needs to give up control of the water being diverted from the aquifers in the west bank and any other resources being taken from occupied territories.
3. America must immediately reduce aid to Israel and divert that to nation building efforts in Palestine (roads, power, water, telephone, schools, hospitals, etc.).
4. Jordan, Syria and Egypt must sign a pact of non agression towards Israel and Israel must reciprocate.
5. UN forces (most likely American) must be put in place to enforce the treaty and maintain an orderly transfer of power in the affected areas.

I know I have probably left quite a bit out, but this is a work in progress. Let me know what I am missing and tell me just how pie in the sky this plan is.

I just became aquainted with Twirlip of the Mists and have been reading and replying in his/her journal. One particular comment got me thinking and I wanted to address my thoughts here.

Basic morality is absolute. The devil, as always, is in the details, but to deny a person his freedom because of an opinion he expressed about a religious figure is wrong. Not unfortunate, not disappointing, wrong. A society that not only allows but actually mandates such a practice is bad, and wrong.

I couldn't disagree more...and agree more. Here is what I read this as saying: "There is one (basic set of) morality for all people. Denying people their rights because they adhere to a different moral code than me is wrong. The only thing worse is government enforced morality.

Okay, I agree that there is only one set of "truths" that apply to the universe. However, there is absolutely no method established for anyone to obtain this knowledge in-toto. Therefore, no one person can pass judgment on another for their beliefs and be justified. Now if we diverge our thinking to include common social morality and ascribe to the social contract theory, then we can find justification for these judgments. But this argument inherently relies on the basic premise of majority rule and democratic political ideology. Everything else is mandated from a person or group of people. So no, I do not agree that any state can apply judgment to any other based solely on moral grounds, no matter how reprehensible they may be.

To apply this to Islam, we need to understand what Islam is and why it functions the way it does. The basic premises of Islam lie in the Koran and sumah (way of the prophet). The Articles of Faith for Islam are: Oneness of God, Belief in Angels, Belief in the Prophets of God, Belief in the Holy Books (Bible, Koran, Torah), Belief in a day of judgment and Qadr (the will of God). The pillars of Islam are: Shadada (testament of faith), Salaat (Prayer), Zakat (Charity typically 2.5% of annual income), Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) and Fasting (Ramadan).

Mohammed was the first prophet and civil leader of all Muslims. When he died there were two ideas on how to lead the people. One view held that the leader must be a direct descendant of the Prophet (Shi'i) and the other was to be determined by election (Sunni). Later a third group split from the Shi'i called the Khawaraj due to differences in dealing with sinful leaders, but they are mostly non-existent. See here and here for more information.

There is considerable disagreement between the two remaining sects of Islam regarding what is 'right'. For example, this site makes the following claim, "The Ahlus Sunnah or the 'Sunnis' are the only group of Muslims on the face of this planet who still adhere to the beliefs that were taught 1400 years ago by Islam's Noble Prophet Muhammad." Obviously, the Shi'a do not consider themselves to be in the wrong. Added to this split, there is also the problem of centralization within Islam (or even within its two sects). Simply put, there is no central authoritative body that governs the actions of all Muslims. Without this central body, there is no way to unite member of Islam to a common purpose or to prevent further schisms within the two sects (see Wahhabism and Ismailism). Most religious decisions are made at the local Mosque and are absolute. Furthermore, the concept of ijtihad (independent reasoning) is shunned. Most Muslims are textualists meaning that they practice Islam how Mohammed practiced it with no variation. There are however, voices of dissent who are urging a rational approach to Islam. Still unresolved are the questions of "Who speaks for God?" and "How does God Speak?". Ask ten Muslims and you may get ten answers. There is essentially no answer for these questions and this is why Islam is such a difficult religion to understand.

So now we come to the problem of Islam and Civil authority. There is an inherent conflict between Islam and secular political authority. There is only one way to run a "Muslim country" and that is with Islam. You have a mullah or other Islamic leader double as the leader of the government. If you allow a "Muslim country" to become secular, you are giving up on Islam. This would apparently be in conflict with western ideas like democracy and capitalism, yet we see American Muslims proclaim that there is no better place to practice Islam than the United States. Principally because of the freedom we enjoy. A strange paradox indeed.

Submitted 10:43am EST on 2-12-03. If it doesn't get posted, at least it is here for the rest of us.

The NYT is reporting that both the Senate and the House have blocked funding for the 'Big Brother' type program. However, the CIA is allowed to present more evidence as to how it would not invade American's privacy, and President Bush could certify that lack of the program would constitue a threat to National Security. Senator Leahy said, "If there is one thing that should unite everybody...it is a concern that our own government should not spy on law-abiding citizens."

2003-02-12 15:44:45 'Total Information Awareness' hits snag in Congres (articles,privacy) (rejected)

That was fast...

Another story submission that I wanted to have posted in case it gets rejected.

The times is reporting that President Bush is "planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users." The recommendation is part of a report entitled "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace". It is due to be published early next year.

Nice to know that Big Brother will be watching.

Posted!

Just submitted a story on telemarketing in America (yay capitalism!) and wanted to have it preserved for posterity if it gets rejected. If by some strange reason it gets posted, I will delete the entry. (I have had 11 straight submissions killed after going 3/10).

Update: Well that was fast! Rejected in record time... I hope someone gets the post up because it really is a great story.

Not a big surprise that regular people hate telemarketing so much that they have found out how to defeat the dreaded telemarketer. However, like all industries that made $295.3 billion last year, it is fighting back. TeleZapper and their ilk are great now, but what will happen when predicitive dialers start ignoring the tones? Will we rely on the phone companies, who make money from both sides in this little war to keep our privacy? Are there any other ways to fight telemarketers?

Personally, I have two phone lines that I only use for local calls and dialing into work. I am seriously considering going without one or both. I also have a cell phone that covers most of my needs (sans dialup). It wouldn't be new either as I have used only a cell phone in the past. The big gotcha with that is when your phone dies (and it will), you often find other plans more attractive/cheaper and will change services. This means a new number and a big hassle to get the word out because there is no automated "the new number is..." message on cell services. I went around and around with Verizon on this last year. I finally just bought out the rest of my contract with them and got an AT&T phone ($10 per month, unlim time on nights and weekends, free national long distance.) Not too shabby.

This story has proven to be the most active one on slashdot for quite a while, and understandably so. This issue has been on the minds of Americans since the 1934 Federal firearms act and remains one of the fundamental conflicts in America today. Perhaps aside from abortion, the single biggest legal issue in America.

In studying for my final in American National Government I came across this quote: "Federal firearms regulations did not come into being until Prohibition. In 1939, however, a unanimous Court upheld a 1934 federal law requiring the taxation and registration of machine guns and sawed off shotguns. The Court held the the Second Amendment protects a citizen's right to own a ordinary militia weapons; sawed-off shotguns did not qualify for protection."

From the decision itself, "In the absence of [the presentation of] any evidence tending to show that possession of or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within the judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." - (U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 1939) (Reference) Note that Miller died before the case was heard in the court, so a defense was not given to the Justices.

Some of the arguments put forth in the thread here in the slashdot debate are as follows:

Pro gun control
- Guns are dangerous and therefore should not be in the hands of regular citizens.
- The 2nd Amendment clearly states that guns are for militia, not everyone.
- Crime increases when the average citizen has access to guns.

Against gun control
- Guns are necessary to protect the people from tyranny.
- The 2nd Amendment clearly states that guns are for every citizen.
- Crime increases when you restrict citizen access to guns because criminals will acquire them anyway.

In my class this year, it has been pointed out that this is a classic case of freedom versus order. The freedom to bear arms versus the social order that the governmental regulation of firearms would bring. As with all fundamental issues like this, it has hotly divided the American people who fit two general molds. Those who value freedom more than order and those who value order more than freedom.

Personally, I value freedom more than order because I feel that order will come from freedom if those who bear the freedom make good choices. To force any standard on a people can only lead them into captivity regardless of the intent. Granted this would be a bit idealistic to apply to the real world and basic laws are therefore required. However, governmental regulation of a people has never sustained that people for a long period of time. On the contrary, all great civilizations that have imposed their will onto their people have failed and it was for that very reason.

I only just recently read through most of the pledge of allegience thread and came across a post by 'dmaxwell'. Here it is:

• "Inplicit in your posts is the idea that only your belief system contains the key to moral and ethical behaivor. Everybody else must be on a greased slicky slide to Hell. The dilemma you are posing is a form of Pascal's Wager.

  The most common form of Pascal's Wager goes thusly: If you believe as I do then will reward you or least refrain from punishing you. If you don't believe as I do then you risk terrible consequences for being wrong. You have nothing lose and everything to gain by converting to my beliefs. It is a false dilemma because we might both be wrong. It may actually be the case that Zeus is pissed as Hades at losing all of his followers and that we all walk around in danger of being used for lightning bolt practice.

  The key phrase is "Without a set of morals based on something" "Something" most certainly isn't limited to "be a Judeo Christian or else!!!" That isn't a basis for morality anymore than being conditioned with puke-up drugs strapped down in a movie theater is (Clockwork Orange). Come to think it, the character that saw through it was a hellfire and brimstone pastor. In both cases, the motivation for "good" behaivor is avoiding pain either gagging or hellfire. I've known plenty of ethical atheists and unethical theists (and vice versa to be fair). The more thoughtful theists tend to acknowledge non theists can be ethical or even "moral".

  The problem here is an implicit assumption. That assumption is 'Only God is fit to decide what is good.' If God suddenly decided that it's your moral duty to commit a murder a month would you do it? This is not as silly as it sounds. God is commonly held to be omnipotent. This includes the ability to reverse the meanings of "good" and "evil". If God does not define what is good and evil then those meanings are accessible even to those who are not Judeo Christians. Again, most Christians seem to grok this. I've even sat in sermons that made the point that morality requires the exercise of judgement.

  If I shared your viewpoint I could logically conclude that atheists/agnostics are all homicidal libertines who just haven't been caught yet. If you don't believe this then you're engaging in some rather confusing philosophizing. Since atheists are no more murderous or larcenous than anybody else then what do you suggest keeps them in check? I think they'll take some exception to 'afraid of getting caught'."

As you can tell s/he has thought this through and is correct on many things. Since this is now an archived thread I have to resort to replying through my journal. Here goes:

First of all I need to clarify my stance on religion so there are no misconceptions while you read my reply. I am a Christian which precisely translated means that I believe in Jesus Christ as the literal son of God. I believe therefore that there is a God and that He created us. More specifically, we (all people) are the literal children of God.

dmaxwell states that religion is not necessary for morals to exist. I agree wholeheartedly. What is at issue here is that religiously spawned morals are what inspired the founding fathers (and later Eisenhower) to create and maintain the government as it is. To deny the religious basis for our country would be as blind as saying that only Christians are going to heaven. I contend that the founding fathers of our country were purposful about their inclusion of God and religion in the main documents that serve as a foundation for our government and political views. I also feel that they were just as intentional about making sure that religious views did not interact directly with the functionality of that government. Morals exist without religion but religion (in my view) cannot exist without morals. When I say morals I mean rules or guidelines with specific rewards and punishments.

dmaxwell said, "Only God is fit to decide what is good" in one of his/her examples. I contend that God is subject to the definitions of good and evil and not the other way around. dmaxwell goes on to use the 'if God commands you to murder' example. This was touched on in this part of the thread, specifically citing the Abraham-Isaac scenario. What I realized from previous study of this and other examples of apparent God mandated commandment breaking is this. While God does not define good or evil, He does have freedom to choose what is done among His children. As a general rule, murder is wrong because it is important for us to have mortal bodies and to be free to choose good or evil. Murder infringes upon that freedom by ending the life of a person without their desire to stop living. However, God can and has killed people that have made their choice *and* were actively engaged in interrupting the freedoms of His other children. Sodom and Gomorah, the flood, the plagues of Egypt, etc. are all well known examples from the Bible. From my perspective, God does not randomly choose to obey or ignore the rules He himself has given. Instead He gives us the commandments and lets us choose to keep them or not.

My opinions on God are mine and are subject to change based on the knowledge I gain in this life and the experiences I have with Him. That being said, I fully respect the views of others no matter how different they are from mine. Even those who choose not to believe. It doesn't bother me a bit whether they acknowledge a supreme creator or think man evolved from a lower life form. I can be happy either way. What bothers me is that in a country that should be the most religiously tolerant of all can hypocritically say, "You cannot have organized prayer in school" while forcing (or coercing, or pressuring) those same children to utter, "One nation under God." If we are indeed one nation under God and have room to include those who don't believe in a God, then let's make the room. Forget the petty bickering and infighting. We should act like we follow the tenets of an organized religion and exercise tolerance and love. Those two principles are found in almost every religion that I have studied. Why is it then so hard to put into practice? Why can't the tolerance flow both ways? How is it that the citizens of the USA demand religious freedom and also demand religous intolerance or intolerance of any kind? These are the questions that need to be addressed; not whether certain phrases should be included in the pledge or on money.

Recently I began musing about why CmdrTaco, Hemos and the whole /. crew have been doing what they have been doing. With the advent of the subscription system, many questions have risen about the particular implementation. Why base it on pageviews? Some including Hemos would say that it is because of the dynamic nature of /. They contend that those who view more pages would view more ads and therefore create more impressions. I submit that subscriptions, aside from being a revenue source for OSDN, are also part of a specifically crafted plan to mold or channel it's user base into something Rob and Jeff want to see. The perfect.

There are several reader types on /. as you no doubt have guessed. I have identified some of them and posted them here for all to see. If you can think of more, please let me know and I will add them to the list.

Lurker: Probably the most common reader type. This person will read story after story for months or years on end without a single post. They usually have something to say, but are beaten to the punch by other 'faster' readers. Every now and then a lurker will post, usually about being a lurker.

Addict: The opposite of the lurker. Posts at least ten comments a day and would love to post more if space-time were more fluid. They come in many flavors (journal, science, Linux and debater just to name a few). Sometimes you will come across a lurker-addict. These poor souls can't stop reading /., constantly refresh the main page looking for a new story/poll/review to read and muse upon.

Pest (Crapflooder, FP Nazi, Fanboy): The bane of the /. editor, these (with the exception of the fanboy) are attracted to the stink of rotting flesh and enjoy causing as much trouble as possible. Their sole purpose on /. is to make noise and see who listens. Most of them would go away if they were ignored. However some would do it anyway. They get special glee when the site is specifically altered to thwart whatever attack they have devised. Anti-wide post mods, the lameness filter, IP banning and such all cause a warm glow to come over the pest. Fanboys are another breed of pest. They are almost never seen on the main page or in discussions but constantly badger the bejeezus out of the editors. E-mails, story submissions and endless banter on IRC extolling the virtues of whomever they admire. Another cause to shudder if you are an editor.

Troll: Technically a troll is an intelligent poster who is only looking to start a heated debate. Lately, troll has been a catch-all title for anyone not contributing positively to the community. Frankly, I love a good troll, especially the targeted troll.

Whiner: These have become more prevalent lately especially with the advent of subscriptions. These folks have issues and want everyone to know about it. "Why won't you accept my story submission?!?", "I got modded as flamebait, but I really was trying not to be", "Can't you do something about Klerck? His wide posts are annoying" and "I'm not paying a dime to you until you fix [insert pet peeve]" are just some of the few snotty rants typically found in posts by whiners.

Advertiser/Campaigner: These guys have an agenda and want to get supporters. Some can be whiners, but most are sincere in their desire to "save the community". Typically, they will post their plea in a journal entry then post like mad with a sig linking to it. A great example would be the "THGSB" campaign that is currently going on. Or is it? Anyway, they are usually a form of Addict or pest but sometimes are good solid slashdotians who just want to sell a book or something.

KarmaWhore: Do I really need to elaborate?

Idealist/Purist: Mostly older members of slashdot, they usually have UID's lower than 10000. They long for the days of old when Klerck hadn't invented crapflooding and a story rarely had more than 100 comments. They want all the newbies to go to Kuro5in or some other blog and to leave them the hell alone.

Perfect: These only exist in the heads of /. editors. They are what Rob and Jeff want us to be, the perfect /. citizen. These users post about once or twice a week, read about half the stories and are subscribers. They participate in M and M^2, have read the rules on moderating, and follow them. They have submitted one or two stories this year and might submit another. They don't whine, flame, troll or crapflood. When they read comments (about once or twice a week) they browse at 0, nested.

This last category is of course total supposition on my part. However, I have some supporting evidence. First, the Karma cap. Why cap it? In the FAQ. It states, "This was done to keep people from running up insane karma scores, and then being immune from moderation." Despite this I see a hidden agenda or at least a secondary effect. It destroys one incentive for people to post more. Quite a few people like slashdot because of the Karma system. For these people, once they hit 50, it is no longer fun to post on slashdot. They don't care and may even start posting crap.

Another indicator is the way slashdot implemented it's subscription system. They could have just put the guitar case out and let us voluntarily put money in. Why pageviews? Well, I think that a secondary motive or at least effect is to limit posting and participation by the addicts. This is where most of the bandwidth is used and therefore, the bulk of the cost for maintenance.

My last bit of 'evidence' is the way Taco and co treat their users. For the most part, they are left alone. But the vocal minority that happen to be the ones who post the most, are more frequently slammed. The post from hell is a great example.

***Update*** 4/26/02

After doing some thinking, I also have some more "evidence" for my reasoning. Think about how moderator points are awarded. When I posted four and five times a day, I was only given mod points once every two months. I took a few days off this last week and now have points again after only two weeks. From the FAQ: "The scripts track average accesses from each logged-in user. It then selects eligible users who read an average number of times. The homepage doesn't count either. It then picks users from the middle of the pack- no obsessive compulsive reloaders, and nobody who just happened to read an article this week ." So it seems that /. is bent on rewarding those who participate but don't use too much bandwidth\resources. I guess they believe that there is too much of a GoodThing(TM)? Can there be too much good contribution from a single user?