HanzoSan is dead. (Hacked)
It is now official - Netcraft has confirmed: HanzoSan is DEAD
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered HanzoSan when recently IDC confirmed that HanzoSan accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all positive karma. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that HanzoSan has lost more karma, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. HanzoSan is collapsing in complete disarray, was fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict HanzoSan's future. The hand writing is on the wall: HanzoSan faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for HanzoSan because HanzoSan is dying. Things are looking very bad for HanzoSan. As many of us are already aware, HanzoSan continues to lose karma. Red ink flows like a river of blood. HanzoSan is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of his karma. There can no longer be any doubt: HanzoSan is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Slashdot editor CmdrTaco states that there are 3786 posts of HanzoSan. How many posts of HanzoSan are there? Let's see. The number of HanzoSan posts versus intelligent posts on Slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. HanzoSan posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of posts. A recent article put HanzoSan as author of about 80 percent of Slashdot posts.
All major surveys show that HanzoSan has steadily declined in karma. HanzoSan is very sick and his long term survival prospects are very dim. If HanzoSan is to survive at all it will be at (Score:-1,Troll). HanzoSan continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save him at this point in time. For all practical purposes, HanzoSan is dead.
Fact:Until slashdot fixes the bug in the moderation system, HanzoSan is dead.
Different ways of thinking
From my experience there are two types of people in this world. Individualists who do whats in their best interest, these people are simply doing whats logical. Then theres idealists, or people who follow their heart,their emotions and generally do things w hich may not be in their best interest but which in their opinion is in the best interest of the world as a whole.
Do people always act in their own best interest? This has been used over and over again to attempt to understand people, and I'd say most people do follow this thinking pattern. The problem is alot of people do not follow that pattern and to everyone else these people seem like aliens, illogical, crazy, etc.
A great example is this, we have one person who will do a job because they want the money, perhaps because they enjoy the job, but they will only do this job if something is in it for them. They are not capable of understanding how its possible to do something when theres nothing in it for them.
Then you have people who do everything for the people, or for someone else and nothing for themselves, the polar opposite, these people usually end up homeless or they take a job as a teacher, join the military, etc.
I think the reality is that some people in this world are only capable of thinking about "self" and doing things which benefit "self". In a way this is a very logical viewpoint, but they also lack the emotion involved which could allow them to do things for the world in general, to better humanity, and to make great sacrifices.
This is my opinion at least. And there you have it, this is why we have people who want to redistribute wealth, help the poor, feed the hungry, educate the youth, etc. From a pure logic point of view its stupid, its creating competition for your job or field, its taking money directly out of your pocket, its taking from you to give to"them". So why do people do this? Because to some people in this world, the individual is not as important as the whole. Meaning humanity is more important than "self".
This explains why people will do illogical things such a give food off their plate and starve to feed someone else, or why people will risk their life to save a person.
Now, I'm not illogical to the point where I will die to save someone else, but I understand the point of view that its more important to help the world than it is to help myself. What do I have to gain by doing it? Nothing. Is it in my best interest? No. Is it illogical and stupid? Perhaps considering I wont be alive forever so anything I do which benefits the future technically should not matter to me since its a future I most likely will not live to see.
So why do dedicate their lives to improving the lives of others?
No Child Left Behind is a sham!
President Bush talks a good talk about "No Child Left Behind", however he actually cut funding education funding.
Currentlly about 50% of students graduate with a highschool diploma and the other 50% drops out. This means 1 out of every two of your classmates (if you are a highschool student) will drop out.
Tell me, where did Bush come up with the name "no child left behind" when his plan actually is to increase demands on students. More standardized tests, higher stakes test, so for Bush the solution to the problem is to simply make more people drop out by increasing the filtering when currently only 50% actually graduate.
So whats the goal? To have 25% graduate highschool? I understand the point of view of those who have graduated and who are getting a degree, why not make it harder for kids coming up today, I mean if we dont well then we will all have degrees and the job market will be too competitive right?
Well they arent thinking of the effects of this. What are the other 50% supposed to do with their lives? Work at McDonalds? Ever wonder why so many kids sell drugs, use drugs, and generally act stupid? Maybe because theres no jobs BUT McDonalds.
Maybe the name of the No Child Left Behind act should be renamed to the Education Reform and Refinement Filtering act.
Now, alot of people who support this act will mention school vouchers. I'm against school vouchers, and not because the idea is a bad one, but because its corporate welfare. Private schools should not recieve public funds. Instead Public funds should be used to build charter schools which will be public funded schools which operate like private schools. This is the kind of school I graduated from, so why do we need school vouchers when we have ways of doing the same thing with public schools?
"By Jessica Brice
September 30, 2002
SACRAMENTO - More than half of the high school students who took the
state's high school graduation test this spring failed its math and
English sections, meaning they will have to retake the test or they
won't receive a high school diploma.
California students, beginning with the class of 2004, must pass the
California High School Exit Examination to graduate. Students who don't
pass will have seven chances to retake the test.
That is the results of the no child left behind act. Seems to me even more are left behind, out of the 50% who actually dont drop out and make it through their senior year, now 50% of those seniors wont graduate.
So 25% get to graduate?
In some places the highschool graduation rate is as low as 25% right now.
"In Cleveland, just 28 percent of the class of 1998 earned a diploma. A stunningly low 23 percent of white students graduated -- far lower than any other district studied -- while 26 percent of Latinos and 29 percent of blacks graduated."
Why can't we make Democrats and Republicans happy?
Why not just Abolish the income tax and raise the sales tax to compensate?
The poor who cannot afford luxury items will pay almost no taxes, the rich well, they will pay taxes based on how much they actually spend. If you benefit from what this country has to offer you pay more taxes.
Of course George Bush wants to cut taxes but why not take it one step further, why not Abolish income taxes altogether? The poor will cheer, and the rich will cheer.
Will anyone care if someone has to pay 50% tax on a plasma TV? How many of you actually own a lexus anyway and who cares if they cost 75% more due ot taxes when most of us cannot afford a $100,000 car in the first place?
How to better educate children via the public school system
Alot of people say (well mostly conservatives), that pouring money into schools is not the answer. They say that more money cannot buy better teaches, make classes smaller, make children learn faster/better, etc.
The problem in my opinion however is not so much that we arent spending money, its that we are wasting money on solutions proven to not work. When most politicians talk about public schools, they refuse to think out of the box, colleges think out of the box, why cant our highschools and middle schools also think out of the box?
The current situation, basically millions of kids are not being educated at all in the public school system, essentially its a waste of their time, so in most cases they drop out. I was lucky, I finished school, I did not drop out, but in general most of my success is due to my ability to understand technology and use it as an equalizer. This is why I am all for technology in the classroom.
So here is a brief list of my solutions to the problem, and these solutions should be tried before people actually shoot them down.
- The use of technology to allow teachers to give instructions to more students at the same time (chalkboards just arent up to date)
- The tools should be upgraded when the material we are teaching our kids gets upgraded. This means if we plan to teach our kids intergral calculus, c++, and advanced writing techniques, we need to actually spend the money to develop the software to support teaching this via both E-Software and via physical means.
- Students should be rewarded for teaching other students, one technique to help teach a big class is to give students credit for teaching their peers, tutoring their peers, etc. Team Oriented Learning, thats what I want to call it.
- The education system needs to focus on the fundamentals. We keep complaining that our kids arent good at math or English, well the problem is we arent really teaching them math or English. Kids are forced to learn alittle bit of everything, from history, physical education, biology, science, anatomy, genetics, geography, and many other "elective" courses designed to waste a kids time which could be spent mastering the basics. My knowledge on geology sucked as a kid, my biology knowledge still isnt perfect, I did not memorize the tables, ultimately these classes would be considered a waste of time however in the case when I went to good school B vs bad school A, in the good school we actually had to write papers, submit high quality work, and we got graded on the quality of our work. I had to actually focus on my writing ability to submit higher quality scientific papers. Most public schools however focus on how well you memorize the table instead of the results you come up with, or the papers you write and I think the best thing we can do for the education system is to change it so that electives are no longer pre-requisites.
I'd instead double the hours of math and English, why? Because solid math and English are the core basics which allow an adult later on to learn all the garbage they didnt learn as a kid. Right now I can decide I want to learn Geography because I can read the book, and if my math skills were not so weak(wish I had balanced my skills when I taught myself) I could decide to learn pretty much any science.
Treat education like you treat computer AI, or software, you do not flood the software with endless information and let the software figure out whats useful and what isnt, instead you'll have a stronger program if you give it precise focused information it needs and allow it to specialize in that area. Chess software works because people feed it the opening book, with all the common openings, the software learns the core openings in chess, this could be 1-50 moves in the opening, and the software itself once it learns all the major rules, and memorizes the openings, can then proceed to beat just about any human because the computer knows the basics and can rely on its pure calculating ability to win games.
Humans are the same way, if I were to teach a kid to play chess, I'd start with the absolute basics, I'd teach the rules of chess, then I'd teach the kid one opening line, when the kid learns the absolute core of chess, the kid on his own can decide how he wants to play the game or if he wants to play at all, but without knowing the rules of the game, the basics, the kid will NEVER figure out chess.
The kid has to know how to read the notation in the most basic way before this kid can ever learn an opening line, if you try to teach a kid the opening lines before he fully learns the notation, sure the kid may use a few based on short term memory, but this kid will not have the ability to master chess later on by studying games and learning openings on his own.
This is what I see as the biggest problem in the school system, it does not teach a kid the tools needed to teach himself, and it does not really do the best job of teaching every kid. I cannot expect schools to be perfect teachers, but I demand schools teach kids to educate themselves and really the only two fundamental tools that exist for a person to teach themselves anything is the ability to understand English(read), and the ability to understand math (logic).
I get by just knowing English, sure my math skills are weak, I'm not well rounded, I will not pretend to be, but if I would have memorized all the crap taught in school instead of focusing on the core knowledge, I wouldnt be able to decide now to learn Math, you cannot learn Calculus if you cant read the book, and you cannot learn science if you dont know Calculus.
Boycott the RIAA, Buy used CDs.
The best way I have found to Boycott the RIAA and punish them for attempting to sue 60 million people, is to buy used CDs.
Its simple, you go to a site or we setup a P2P program, people list all the legit CDs they own, its perfectly legal, finally they resell the original CD.
What would this do? It would hurt the RIAA's profits and anything which hurts their profits is good for the artists and the consumer.
You can find some used CDs at http://half.ebay.com/products/music/index.cfm
The reason why I am not and can never be conservative.
Our education system, while alot of people say more money cannot fix it, the only way I think it can work is if we pour money into it. Conservatives usually believe in private education, and this is the main reason why I could never be a conservative.
Let's ask each and every conservative a question, how many of you went to public schools, then we can take it to the next step and ask them how many of them would be able to educate themselves without the public school system?
Private schools cost money, and the only way our economy works at all is through the education system, I see investing in education as the same thing as investing in R&D, companies do this, why shouldnt our government?
Conservatives say they support tax cuts, I could be convinced to support tax cuts. I could also be convinced to drop most of the social programs, like welfare, free healthcare, etc. I do however think education is an essential service which every human has a right to. No one would be where they are today without an education, and to think that people should inherit their education quality, should we just go back to the system europe had, where peasants arent allowed to read or get an education and nobles are allowed to get the best education?
Its 2003, in this day and age education is manditory for survival. So what would I like to see a president do? I'd like to see the education budget be at LEAST half the military budget, because just like its important to build a big gun, its also important to have the intelligence to control the guns we create. Education and Knowledge should be free, physical objects can be sold, services can be sold, food, water, shelter, all of this can be sold, but once you begin to sell information and knowledge, this is where the true divide begins.
What happens when all knowledge is controlled by an elite class and the price of knowledge is raised so high that 99% of the world cannot afford to learn? If you cannot learn you cannot get a job, if you cannot get a job you have no class mobility, so I'd think it would be essential for anyone who supports the conservative agenda to always allow a person with nothing to someday through hard work move up. When it actually costs money to move up, well then no one moves up, the people at the bottom of the pile will stay there forever because they are too poor to afford the new programming book, or to learn the new math, or to go to school or college.
What is my solution? Make education free for all, allow a person in the USA to get a free education up to a bachlors degree, increase financial aid funding, increase funding to public schools, build more schools so that schools can be smaller, share as much information as possible, try to create free books to compete with the books that cost money and give the free books away to poor communities who we know cannot afford to buy them, etc.
I'm not against the conservative agenda if it allows class mobility, when you know for a fact that class mobility will be impossible due to the fact that information and education has a price, how can you support the conservative agenda and call it fair?
Yes there are libraries but for how long? The RIAA is declaring war on all public knowledge. Microsoft is declaring war on public knowledge. This is why I support the open source movement and file sharing, its supporting the spread of knowledge. Sure I'd like people to get paid, but there must be a balance, there must be free knowledge along with knowledge which isnt free, when we get to a point where one company buys all the knowledge that matters and controls everything(like microsoft or what the riaa is trying to do to the music industry)
The only thing you can do to stop a knowledge monopoly is to begin a boycott. So I will never buy another RIAA CD, or another software product from Microsoft. I will do my best to support any product which competes with it, and any software product which is open source.
As a solution, I will start buying used CDs. I suggest others do the same, and try Linux, its free.
Post your comments.
A solution to the RIAA problem is for us to take their place
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.
We replace the RIAA and distribute music via P2P systems.
The solution is a P2P system which intergrates into the web, there also needs to be a payment mechanism, (maybe paypal?)
Users buy credits in this system, credits represent dollars and cents. So how do you get into the system? You buy in by buying music from fans who are already in the system.
Say you are an indie musician, you make a bunch of music and you create a website, you then intergrate this system onto your website, allowing people to download off a certain P2P network via your site, almost like magnet links. The person who downloads from your site pays .50 cent per mp3 download, however the mp3 isnt downloaded from the musicians site, the mp3 is downloaded from the distrinbutor which happens to be a person who previously paid their way into the system by buying an mp3.
So the fans take the place of the RIAA as distributor and take 25 cent of the 50 cent, so the musician gets 25 cent and the fan gets 25cent or 25 credits. When the fan gets 50 credits they can then go buy another song, so its a system which allows you the filesharer to get unlimited access to music (Free Music) because you become distributor, you legally pay the musician for the music so the musician is happy.You may even make a bit of money. Everyone Wins.
Consumer/Downloader --> $ = $ --> Distributor&Creator , Consumers = Distributors & Downloaders. A closed system where we are the distributors, the creators, the owners of the intellectual property, and we get paid while having access to unlimited free music.
You get free music as long as you share. Musicians get paid. New people have to pay their way into the system but once they do, they get free music or money, whichever they choose.
If we can put the RIAA out of business, alot of the famous musicians which everyone likes would agree to such a setup.
What do you think?
Pay the tax.
The RIAA wants their money, stop being a thief and pay the tax.
Forget about the Boston tea party, this is the real world.
Of course if you dont pay, our socialist president will certainly pay it for you by using tax dollars.(Think Airline Industry & Farm Subsidies)
This is the first time I've even tried this Journal thing, but I have a rant. Why do people who support a Global Economy also happen to be the same people who are against a Global Minimum Wage? or a Global Currency? As if we in the USA with out inflated economy, and out expensive dollar can ever hope to compete with the third world?
Get a fucking clue people, the only way we can have a fair competition is for every country to follow the same rules we follow. We need a Global Currency, we need a Global Minimum Wage, and we need some sort of Global taxing system so companies cannot move around to avoid taxes without getting taxed each time they move to another country.
I'm all for helping the economy, but big global companies and big government do not help our economy or our world. Globalism leads to big government, big companies growing bigger, and unstable enviornment for small businesses.
If anyone wants to reply to this you can, and I'm not against Capitalism or Global Economy, I'm just against the way its being done, right now its being done and theres glitches in the system, rich CEOs collect the difference between converted currencies, they use the difference between currency to produce "slave labor."
So its ok for people in other countries to get robbed of their fair wage so the CEO can be richer? Its ok for us to be robbed of our jobs so the CEO can be richer? Who is really winning here? Not any of us.