"Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition."

[...]

In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won the election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again in November 2004. Now Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.

I was born in America.
But I am not an American.

I still love the U.S.A.
I love southern hospitality. I love giant fireworks and novelty shops right next to a state border.
I love New York (once you get used to the smell). I love the fact that one of it's strongest symbol is French-made.
I love the space program: It's not unique, but it's got style.
I love Harley Davidson bikes, though I usually ride japanese bikes: They're more practical.
And I love Walt Disney and his buddies, and I love Hollywood. I also hate Hollywood, but that's life for you.

I'm pondering the possible motivations of the trolls.

I see them daily (around slashdot, fark, IMDB, any open forum really), so I pay attention to the patterns. Some of them remind me of a former collegue of mine who amazed me with his sheer stupidity (he once argued with me that the queen of England was not wealthy, his main point being that when she dies someone else will inherit all the money... I'm always amazed that people can be that daft). He was also short, and quite repulsive. Basically, he was the office troll, as he both looked and acted the part.

It's irrational, ugly behaviour. He simply was arguing for the sake of arguing, and since he was being made a fool by the very basis of his argument, he was getting angrier, and therefore more passionatly irrational. I simply waited him out. A man that obtuse couldn't last long at any workplace, and I only had to tolerate him for a few weeks before he was fired. But on the internet, there are no bosses to ween out the idiots, and no shortage of supply on trolls of all kinds.

Of course, such a vast pool of idiots cannot be homogenous. Trolls simply bait, and pick on those who bite. Flamebaiting trolls, for instance, are attempting to get insulted. I'm not sure exactly why they want to be insulted, maybe they are masochists, maybe they get a thrill out of pissing people off while safely away, who cares. The point is that they add to the noise, and the noise should be reduced.

Now, let's consider a message. How would we moderate it? Let's assume the following reply:

You cocksucking faggot. I want to rape your mom and make you suck my cock.

This should be moderated as

• troll
• flamebait
• offtopic
• and redundant.

If it is above 0, it is also Overrated.

This, of course, poses a problem. Because such a post can only be modded down to -1, and we have more moderation choices than can be applied to this one post, guilty of all of them.

What I'm wondering is if it's possible to have a quick, easy to use system that would take all of that into account.
Perhaps a more democratic system where it would be possible to label a post without expending points, on top of the current points-based moderation layer.
Flags that could be set once per user, that did not directly influence a post's score, but that kept a record of the number, or percentage, of the different labels.

The "overrated" mod as first mod.

I've been getting lots of those recenty, and I've been told it is because the metamoderations never review the "overrated/underrated" mod. So people with a sad agenda (personnal grudge or ideological mindlessness, insuficient data to tell) get to keep doing it without being stopped by an already established filter.
I speak my mind, and therefore I've watched my enemies list grow. But the low lives that lurk on slashdot have found a perticularly cowardly way of attacking people now it seems.
I got to admit: It is somewhat annoying.

It's just another way for petty loosers to make other people's lives just that little bit more incovenienced I supposed.

Like that "fan" (stalker) of mine that goes to post uninspired replies detailing bodily functions to post I've made a couple days prior (presumably to avoid getting modded down while the thread is still read by people with mod points, the sneaky coward). I wonder how someone becomes so pathetic... to have a life so empty that you actually spend time harassing strangers, karma-whoring to have mod points and that lil' +1 so people will see your sad attempts at getting attention through crude, mindless profanity.

I understand thugs: getting hit makes you want to hit others. But I have no way to relate to this kind of behaviour. It's so... small.

Main Entry: irrational
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

Where there's no emotion, there's no motive for violence. -- Spock, "Dagger of the Mind", stardate 2715.1

We are all irrational.

From time to time, our emotions take over and our reason takes a step back. Anger, fear, pride, or any of the host of emotions we experience might override reason and make us behave in reprehensible ways.

But does it have to be this way?
If our understanding of our squishy bits was more advanced, and we could take away emotions to let reason reign, should we do it?
Would it be something that would make us better, usher in a true age of reason? Or would it be a bane, reducing us to logical automatons?

Is fun worth all the suffering that comes with it? Is the human condition so noble, or are we fooling ourselves because we can't bare the horror that a different truth would bring?

If we could create a person without emotions, a true Man of reason, would it be unethical to do so, or would it be irrational not to?

I'm a big fan of the sci-fi show Firefly , wich started on fox, but they changed their mind and announced that they wouldn't buy more episode before they even aired the pilot.

However, fox is not the only network out there, and others are considering buying it. Namely UPN, who already aquired Buffy after fox decided they didn't want it anymore at the end of season 6 (or was it 5?).

• Please help save Firelfy .

I like the show because it looks good (I've liked show that didn't look good, but this one does), because it is smart and because it deals with adult subject matter. Fox was airing it at 8pm (normally...when they aired baseball the show was on afterwards at 12:20 one week and 12:05 the next). I think 10pm on a schoolnight would be a better choice, its not a show well suited for children.