Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment And who shall rate those self-same raters? (Score 1) 5

Seriously, unless the personal reputation of the raters as actual human beings is taken into account, then the system will be worthless. There has to be symmetry between the reliability of the raters for their ratings to have any reliability.

Almost all of these systems get polluted by gamesters and trolls, often using sock puppets. I'm not saying that anonymity needs to be eliminated, but if you do elect to be anonymous, then your opinions should be discounted as not really representing your public position. However in a situation like this, I do think that anonymous raters should be discounted to zero.

However, I've made basically the same argument as regards fixing the Slashdot moderation system. Haven't noticed any progress yet.

Comment Re:Why go for a simple majority? (Score 1) 613

This is the other one of only two comments to mention this obvious solution, and neither one of them was moderated upwards. Slashdot really has fallen on hard times, eh? This approach would effectively eliminate the Electoral College, and is already more than halfway to becoming effective (as measured by Electoral College votes that have been committed to it).

Again, it appears that no karma bonus was used. Why not?

Should I complain that my comment about the coalition government solution was also ignored? Or just put it on the list of hard-times-at-Slashdot-and-no-one-cares?

On reflection, I do have one more thought about my earlier comment. I think the Judicial branch would be better off as a pure meritocracy with as little political (AKA partisan) political involvement as possible. One approach might be to nominate judges for promotion based on objective metrics of their judicial performance. The judges whose opinions are most often cited by other judges and whose decisions are least often overturned would be the top candidates. When a vacancy appears on a higher court, the top few candidates, perhaps 5, would automatically be considered for the position, and only if all of them were rejected for the promotion (and I find it hard to imagine why that would ever happen) would the process be opened up for other candidates.

I actually think one benefit of this kind of system is that the top judges would tend to be older and therefore not stay in place for so long. Then again, I don't think it would be bad to include special criteria that do favor younger judges, as long as the criteria are applied impartially. Perhaps reduce the penalty if a young judge is overturned, counting it as a learning experience? Or give extra credit for younger judges who spent some time teaching at law schools? Maybe even consider teaching at a law school as counting as much as being a judge in terms of judicial seniority?

Comment Either that or (Score 1) 6

It pulls the chumps off of Wall Street to work in relatively economically harmless cabinet positions, thus allowing a new generation to take over on Wall Street producing a boom.

The Peter Principle- it still could work.

Comment I use the stock market (Score 1) 6

Over time, broad indexes tend to outperform gaming of systems.

Now, I have done options, but they're risky.

Hmm. Buy Scottish individual stocks when the UK market dives. Sell any London assets.

Non-stock .... hmmm

Comment Does insight have to involve a deeper truth? (Score 1) 108

Most insightful of the comments that got the mod. More deserving if you considered the topic a bit more broadly, for example by appealing to the orange counterexample who is about to occupy the White House.

I think the answers to your question largely revolve around economic models. Or you might prefer to see the situation in terms of the "military-industrial complex" that Ike warned us about, but I still think that's just another version of the money thing. I don't want to call it a "money problem" because I think problems should be defined in terms of solutions, and there is no solution for infinite greed, just as there is no final digit of pi. People like Trump will never have enough money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?

Working...