Tell you what. If they (the so-called editors/sysops) can't fix the shitty moderation, can they at least fix the reporting of the shitty moderation so that it makes some sort of intelligible sense?

I have how many MiB and how many GiB a CD and DVD hold memorized. I don't have how many bytes they hold.

However, often I am told how many KiB or bytes a file is.

Thus, I necessarily must convert.

Shifting a decimal place is much easier.

Actually, it's a case of human factors trumping computer science, which is a good thing, since few computer users are computer scientists. At least 5, if not 10 standard deviations of hard disc sales go to human beings who are not computer scientists . Human beings use base 10 innately, and there is absolutely no reason to force them to think in base two, just because they've attached something to a computer.

Why should we care about your short wittiness? Or care about this poll, either, since the topic of "care" has come up.

However, at least I have to express my deep and profound gratitude for the death of that long-lasting but dull-witted poll. I've already forgotten everything about it except that it was there for a long time. I remember checking for "funny" a couple of times, but that was a real deader (or the moderators were screwing up (as usual)).

Today I'm motivated to proffer a counter-poll:

When should a /. poll die?

1. After the rate of new responses sinks below some threshold.

2. After the appearance of new comments sinks below some threshold.

3. When the assignment rate of mod points gets low enough.

4. When the comments start looping.

5. When the pollster recovers from his latest drunk.

6. When Cowboy Neal gets around to answering.

Actually most of those options could be implemented via clever programming of the sort that /. never exhibits these years. They could even give subscribers a peak at the next proposed poll give them a special vote for starting the next one earlier.

Making constructive suggestions on /. again, I see. Evidence of a masochistic streak. Hey you stupid moderators. It's your cue.

My constructive motivation for reading /. was the humor, which no longer exists. I'm now thinking that's probably yet another symptom of the stupid moderation. For example, one hypothesis is that the few good moderators who actually recognize and appreciate technical wit might be hesitant to give out karma-useless funny mods even when they're deserved. Meanwhile, the typical lousy moderators get offended and have no qualms about moderating downward. (After all, there is some evidence that there are still a few witty posters around, but they don't seem very visible these years.)

When is this stupid poll going to go away?

Not worth the effort of a real meta-poll, but /. desperately needs rational poll-termination criteria. They could even give subscribers a preview of the next poll and a vote for the automated cutover to the next poll when the current poll has died the big death--like this one.

Except for the required programming skills and motivation. We don't need a poll to see those shortages in the /. of 2009.

Now come on, you moderating morons, you. Prove my sig right.

Okay, have it your way. No shortage of mod points. Just a surplus of censorious morons with mod points.

Either it's a zen art or I'm pandering to the Microsoft fan boys with mod points. Cf. sig. In a sense, given the artificial scarcity of mod points, encouraging their waste is just par for the course.

On the other hand, were you were just trying to beat another dead meme?

In conclusion, perhaps your configuration settings are such that you're seeing a different /. than I see. The one I see is not very interesting, constructive, informative, or (heaven forbid) useful these years.

I think my main motivation for dropping by /. lately is when my back is hurting. "So my back is hurting again, eh? Isn't that a better fate than befell /.?"

Long, long ago, my motivations were to find witty technical humor or new information. However, from this topic, you can see that I've obviously adapted to the times.

On the topic at hand, I'm afraid the discussion has already thrilled me past caring.

You think you can fool Microsoft so easily? Perhaps you can disguise your mouse and your IP address--but as soon as you switch your spelling dictionary to American English, they'll nail you.

Microsoft is like seawater. Everywhere, but poisonous.

Actually, what I want is REAL choice = REAL freedom.

In our current episode, Microsoft is playing games with the European regulators in hopes of appeasing them. In our last episode, Microsoft wanted to dictate Vista or DEATH! Wait, Microsoft didn't mean it. Now you can choose Windows 7 with only 35% of the awful and unneeded features of Vista! And at a special price, too. Such a deal!

Microsoft has become way to big to fail, which means too big to exist. Sooner or later they are going to fail. Whoops. Who am I kidding? Microsoft is constantly failing. What I mean is sooner or later they are going to fail so big and so hard that the economic consequences will be astronomical. This is TOO big.

Actually, I think the part that most annoys me is that Microsoft has actually become such a powerful a brake on progress. No software innovation is safe if Microsoft wants to kill it. My personal least favorite is what Microsoft did to Palm. Is it somehow supposed to be better because the entire thing was insincere? Now they've apparently decided to abandon that turkey?

From the 'positive' perspective, why would Microsoft want to innovate when they're already getting the lion's share? New versions? That's a decision for marketing! What year will be convenient for the next marketing campaign? That's the WRONG basis for improvements.

Suggestion: Cut Microsoft into 5 companies. Call them Microsoft A to E with a time limit before they need to pick new names. Give each of them a copy of the source code and 1/5 of the people and facilities and assets. Require them to compete. Windows can remain the standard OS, but they have to compete on the basis of the standard, and all changes and improvements to the standard must be discussed in public and agreed to, or the changes will be proprietary to that branch of the company.

Result? Real choice = freedom.

Side effect? As the code bases evolve over time, the single points of failure will be eliminated. Instead of 80% of the world's computers being at risk from one programming mistake, the risk will be greatly reduced.

Don't think of it as a penalty for success. It's an inducement to reproduce your company when you are successful enough. A new form of corporate evolution that increases our freedom while also creating more pressure for creative innovations and progress. (If you succeed again up to about 40% of the market, then your company should reproduce again, just to note the obvious.)

To the Microsoft fan boy who modded it off topic:

Thanks for proving my point about how shitty moderation is destroying /. (as if more proof were needed).

I have to say "REAL alternatives" every time? How about if you consider what I actually said rather than trivia it suits you to address.

For the record, I primarily use Ubuntu WHEN I actually do have a choice. At home that means about 95% of the time, though it's a little hard to estimate. Two machines are multi-boots that normally run Ubuntu, and one of those machines has my attention most of the time. One ancient clunker is pure Windows, but only gets used about 10 minutes a day, and the 'muscle machine' runs Windows because of licensing restrictions, but has virtual machines for Ubuntu, a RedHat variant (with a special corporate configuration), Solaris, and so-help-me DOS.

At work I have much less choice. Though I've configured a number of machines as multi-boots, I'm basically constrained to run Windows almost all of the time. I had a scratch monkey that was usually in Ubuntu, but it died a while back and I'm not sure if I can replace it...

Apple? When I was teaching at the university I actually was in a Mac environment. The more I learned about Macs the less I liked teaching on them. At this point, my basic feeling is that Apple is mostly the source for Microsoft's worst ideas or twisted implementations of what were formerly good ideas before Microsoft mangled them. Apple not-so-secretly wants to be Microsoft, but they've accepted that they can't be that, so they are basically exploiting their high-margin fan boys. Perhaps I'm too harsh on Apple, but I don't regard Apple as a real choice for me.

Sun? I have quite a bit of experience, but I regard them as a small desert island these days. Not a choice I like.

We're back in the Microsoft ocean, with nary a drop to drink. (Shall I regard Ubuntu as my handy dandy solar still.)

Microsoft is like seawater. Everywhere, but poisonous.

Actually, what I want is REAL choice = REAL freedom.

Microsoft wants to dictate Vista or DEATH! Wait, we didn't mean it. Now you can choose Windows 7 with only 35% of the awful and unneeded features of Vista!

Microsoft has become way to big to fail, which means too big to exist. Sooner or later they are going to fail. Who am I kidding? Microsoft is constantly failing. What I mean is sooner or later they are going to fail so big and so hard that the economic consequences will be astronomical. This is TOO big.

In addition, Microsoft has actually become a brake on progress. Why innovate when you're already getting the lion's share? New versions? That's a decision for marketing to decide! What year will be convenient for our next marketing campaign? That's the WRONG basis for improvements.

Suggestion: Cut Microsoft into 5 companies. Call them Microsoft A to E with a time limit before they need to pick new names. Give each of them a copy of the source code and 1/5 of the people and facilities and assets. Require them to compete. Windows can remain the standard OS, but they have to compete in conforming to the standard, and all changes and improvements to the standard must be discussed in public and agreed to, or the changes will be proprietary to that branch of the company.

Result? Real choice = freedom.

Side effect? As the code bases evolve over time, the single points of failure will be eliminated. Instead of 80% of the world's computers being at risk from one programming mistake, the risk will be greatly reduced.

Don't think of it as a penalty for success. It's an inducement to reproduce your company when you are successful enough. A new form of corporate evolution that increases our freedom while also creating more pressure for creative innovations and progress. (If you succeed again up to about 40% of the market, then your company should reproduce again, just to note the obvious.)

Such a high percentage above average? Are they lying, or they just don't know what average is?

Anyway, in recent years I've gotten moderately good at retaining my orientation past stairs and escalators, and that's most of what I need for life around here. The trains never get lost. When I go wandering around the neighborhoods, I sort of navigate by the sun and by making sure my schedule has time for the leisurely wandering...

Meta-reaction to the poll: Boring question, full span of unimaginative answers, and nothing that can be mistaken for humor. On the five-point scale, at the bottom or maybe one above. Depends if any any humor appears in the answers. Didn't see any at this time, but it might be early in the so-called lifetime of the poll?

Repeating the obvious, but...

The dimensions of moderation should be rationalized. (This is especially important for confusing negative mods. What the hell is overrated supposed to mean? Make it a negative mod for some dimension. What is troll? I think the only true trolls are -polite and -informative, but there are many varieties of posts that contribute negatively to the conversation. Many moderators apparently think "troll" means "I disagree but I'm not competent to respond to the point" or "I disagree but he writes better than I do.")

The artificial scarcity of mod points that facilitates moderation abuse should be eliminated. (In other words, troll moderators should be diluted to harmlessness.)

Karma should be multidimensional, reflecting the dimensions of moderation.

People who have accumulated high karma in a particular dimension should be allowed double + or - mods in that dimension. (Other people would only be allowed to allocate one mod point at a time.)

Lesser suggestion, but I think the reported moderation should be logarithmic. In other words, +4 funny should mean e^4 +funny mod points.

What were we talking about. Oh yeah. The poll. Dull. The jokes about girlfriends were almost witty, though none of them deserved +5 funny (as e^5 funny).