Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score 1) 565

I'm suggesting two things:

1) Congress screwed their own staff over, in the same way that they screwed all the rest of us over, because they couldn't be bothered to read and debate the bill before they passed it. So the Executive is going to fix their little 'oopsie' for them (illegally, I feel); for us? Not so much.

2) Employers are already making negative changes to their health coverage (or their projected health care coverage liabilities) and I think it's reasonable to assume this is going to continue if not accelerate. UPS cut off working spouse coverage with no change in compensation. On top of that, there are too many stories to list of companies that are cutting back working hours to avoid having to pay up under the law and that's certainly a cut in compensation.

Comment Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score 1) 565

He said "overtly partisan" which is entirely correct. The Democrats passed this law completely without opposition support. That's pretty much a text book definition of "overtly partisan."

The current proposal on the table, by the way, is to delay implementation by a year. Something that the POTUS has already done selectively (and illegally) for special interest groups that support him. Why should big businesses get a break on the ACA but not everyone else?

Comment Re:Here is the difference Mr. President (Score 2) 565

I find your selective outrage amusing. Where was your high minded defense of democratic first principles when this train wreck was forced through Congress? The simple fact is the Democrats didn't have enough votes to cleanly pass the bill they wanted and so through a lot of undemocratic shenanigans they managed to cram an unpopular bill through Congress with no opposition party support.

Now you'd like to be all outraged that the opposition didn't just pack up and go home and, worse, they're playing the same dirty tricks against your side.

Turn about is fair play.

Comment Cross-posting from my comment in the Journal Entry (Score 5, Interesting) 1191

Original comments are here.

tl;dr:

"There are at least four glaring problems with how you've redesigned the comments:

1) You're wasting at least 33% of the usable screen space for comments. ...
2) You've dropped the visual cues as to how far down in the thread you are. ...
3) You moved 'load more/all comments' to the end of the comments! WTF! ...
4) You've removed the ability to filter on moderation rating in the story. ...

Also be careful with moderation changes and
You broke my ability to track my own comments and responses to them.

Overall this is much much worse."

Comment You've broken comments; BADLY (Score 5, Insightful) 69

There are at least four glaring problems with how you've redesigned the comments:

1) You're wasting at least 33% of the usable screen space for comments. I understand you need to put in some ads but after that you should be using the entire screen to display comments. The new format is hard to read and actively penalizes longer and better formatted comments. Like other posters have said: I come here for the discussions, not the stories, and this is a major turn off.

2) You've dropped the visual cues as to how far down in the thread you are. This is particularly bad in long threads because as it is designed today when I spot a flame war I can pretty easily visually skim past it to the next relevant comment. I can't do that in the new format.

3) You moved 'load more/all comments' to the end of the comments! WTF! I don't want to read down to the end of the screen, load more comments, and then have to go back to the top and try to figure out what's new. Now, you're saying to yourselves: yeah that's not how it works. Now we just add more comments onto the bottom which brings me to problem four:

4) You've removed the ability to filter on moderation rating in the story. It looks like now you're just barfing out the first X comments, regardless of moderation, and the loading X more when I hit the button. I understand how this makes #3 simpler but it's a pain the ass if on one story I want to follow the high level threads and the next I want to read at -1 so I can moderate.

Additionally: I'm really concerned that every comment has a moderate link. Be really careful here. /.'s moderation has warts but it's far and away better than any other moderation system out there. Break this and you break /.

Also on the user page you took away the ability for me see how my comments got moderated (vanity) and also to track replies to comments that I've made (breaking current functionality).

Comparing current to Beta it also looks like you increased the size of the ads. I don't like it but I can live with it.

Overall, this is much much worse.

Comment Re:Intelligent Design != Creationism (Score 1) 1293

I have children in public elementary, middle, and high schools in Texas. TFA is creating strawman: no public school in TX is teaching anything but straight up science. In fact, my high school child's genetics/dna material is more rigorous than what I saw in college.

All this BS about teaching ID in Texas might be fun to get in a lather over but it just isn't true.

Comment Re:READ the Constitution Marissa (Score 1) 524

I was responding to the summary quotation that releasing classified information is treason. For a release of classified information to be treason, and not just illegal, you'd have to prove it was giving aid and comfort to our enemies. There's plenty of wiggle room in both directions when it comes to defining: aid, comfort, and enemy.

Her statement, assuming she quoted accurately and in context, is wrong and it furthers an illegitimate end, in my opinion, by reinforcing the belief that the federal government can pretty much do as it pleases and we shouldn't be asking any inconvenient questions about it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...