What Facebook has over all of the other players is the network effect. Metcalf's Law tells us that everyone is on Facebook because... well, everyone is on Facebook. Yes, when Facebook upset its user base back in September, lots of people created Google+ accounts which are now dormant. BUT... those people now have Google+ accounts. They're not going away. Every time Facebook does something to irritate its user base, more people will create Google+ accounts out of frustration and a desire to "stick it" to Facebook. This has the potential (but is in in no way guaranteed) to iterate enough times that it could reach a tipping point. I don't think it would tip without two things happening: 1.) Google+ changing its experience to make Facebookers feel more at home, and 2.) Facebook doing something boneheaded that infuriates lots of people to vocally switch (after the critical mass has been assembled on Google+).

I think it's very possible, albeit not terribly likely, for us a few years down the road to say: "Facebook who?" Who would have thought that Myspace would have been unseated?

No, you really don't. Your vote won't put Obama in office OR keep him out. So use your one vote to vote for someone who both believes as you do, and has the credibility and history to back it up. (Not to sound like a broken record, but this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.)

Are you people not reading what I write? Oh right; of course not. I forgot this is Slashdot... Silly me. Let me respond to your statement by quoting what you replied to:

As I said, there will be plenty of candidates out there besides the nominees of the two major parties.

To help you get started, the venerable Wikipedia has a list of some of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

Some of them are screwballs, some of them look fairly compelling, particularly for single-issue voters. None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014. :)

Why, oh WHY on earth? Maybe it's because my experience with American is largely limited to flying into Haiti and coast-to-coast, but it's invariably a horrendous experience. Especially when compared to carriers like Southwest, who actually "gets" customer service.

In fact, I flew American back in January, and my Facebook status briefly said: "I am not in any way surprised that American Airlines is in bankruptcy."

I'm sorry, but if you were foolish enough in 2008 to see him as anything but what he is -- yet another (Chicago, even!) politician, you're kinda gullible (or, at least, insufficiently cynical.) (Don't worry, I fell for Bush 2000 myself, so I'm right there with you in the gullible camp.)

Well, you could start by figuring out how to vote in the Republican primaries and voting for Paul. If Paul isn't palatable for you, there are plenty of other parties and candidates; chances are very good that you can find someone that you pretty well agree with out there somewhere.

To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous. There are plenty of candidates for president who actually make a *credible* claim that they'll fight to restore our constitutionally-enshrined rights. Yes, they aren't likely to win, but I swear I'll go all medieval on you if you claim that I am throwing away my vote by voting for someone who believes as I do instead of voting for someone who I disagree slightly less with but is more likely to win.

Can't immediately find the Slashdot story, but this was mentioned a few years ago:

http://www.i-shovel.com/

If it's so self-evidently logical that the OP is wrong, why did you feel the need to enlighten us with an explanation of why he was wrong? Was it a waste of time, or did you possibly impart some knowledge that wouldn't have been passed on if the original statement had never been made? You did EXACTLY what should be done, instead of moderating an opinion into oblivion and leaving it unanswered, you replied and refuted it. THAT is the way that Slashdot comments are fruitful, not by abusing the moderation system.

For the record, I don't believe YOUR post deserves to be modded down, either. I'm sorry to see that it's been done, and I fear it might have been induced by my reply.

In my opinion, Flamebait and Troll are actions of intention. When I moderate down, I try to discern the intention of the poster -- were they attempting to incite something? Did they or should they have known better? Even if they were trying to incite something, do they have a legitimate point that CAN be replied to in an informative way?

Of course, more often I more try to find a good point-counterpoint thread and upmod both sides.

And we've all learned something from that conversation, right? That's why we should be encouraging opinions that differ from ours, not encouraging moderators to silence them. It provokes good discussion.

No, he doesn't. He deserves to have a logical and thoughtful refutation of his opinion posted in reply. I'm so sick of (-1, Disagree).

As a Christian, I often find myself cringing at dogmatic statements such as this from some of my fellow Christians. I'm glad (and, I suppose, somewhat dismayed) to see that it's not just "us".

Pretty much, yes. It's war; war is an ugly "us-or-them" fight to the death where a nation's very existence is on the line. That's why it must be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, the US hasn't been very good at that of late.

In the case of Japan, while I don't take any pleasure out of the usage of nuclear weapons, in the end Japan was the aggressor. If you start a fist fight by punching me and I hit you over the head with a fire extinguisher, yes that's "cheating" in a fist fight, but I didn't ask for the fight.

No, I have existed solely at the Federal level, although from what I can gather by friends who have and do work in state government, it's not all that different, at least in my state (MD).

I'm surprised that there aren't any provisions for small-value credit card purchases that can be approved at a lower level. *shrug*

I really do hope it works out well, in all sincerity. I have my doubts, but like R2D2, I have been known to make mistakes... from time to time...

But have you ever (and I'm quite serious about this) worked on a government project where acquisitions are made, to understand the kind of "We'll get what we want, it's just a matter of the right amount of paperwork" shenanigans that go on? And as such, do you honestly think the CIO of any agency will actually care?

I'm also curious -- the legislation that others quoted doesn't make any mention of the size of the acquisition. Does this mean that every credit card purchase of software will require such justification to be sent to the CIO? And if so, do you honestly expect anything other than copy and paste boilerplate explanations that will be so numerous and repetitive as to be essentially meaningless?

Perhaps those issues are addressed, but to be honest, it seems like one of those "sounds like a great idea" measures that will increase the amount of paperwork that people have to get their jobs done, and at best will only provide some technical person a little bit of fodder to demonstrate to management that his suggestion to use some sort of free software to accomplish the task isn't completely off the mark.