|
Isn't that theology/philosophy rather than logic? 
|
|
|
|
|
Riddler, Riddler ask me why the birds fly free on a mackerel sky...
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
What is the average velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut? 
|
|
|
|
|
The definite integral of it's acceleration during the trip, obviously!
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
Well a king must know these things 
|
|
|
|
|
The african or the European Swallow?
#region(start signature)
Life's like a nose, you've got to get out of it whats in it!
#endregion
|
|
|
|
|
Not reading the Insider news much are we? 
|
|
|
|
|
idd, missed that... 
|
|
|
|
|
All the houses are the same colour (blue) - they are just moving away from our reference frame so fast that the light reaching us from them appears shifted up the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
All the owners have horses as pet it's just the distance between us and the houses that the pets appear to be cat, fish goat etc
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Schrodinger owns the cat - although I haven't seen it for a while. I wonder if it's OK?
|
|
|
|
|
Well I can't tell anything about Dr Schrodinger, but Einstein himself was one of the five house owners who used to drink milk I guess. Pertaining to his geniusness 
|
|
|
|
|
A person who lives in Green house owns fish...
DVL
|
|
|
|
|
A person who lives in a greenhouse is too busy not throwing stones to own fish. Your answer does not compute. Danger, Will Robinson, danger!
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's easy...
V. wrote: The question is: Who owns the fish?
Answer: None of them.
One has dogs, one has birds, one has cats, one has horses, and the fifth? None of those hints said anything about fish, so for all we know, he has gerbils.
And that took about ten seconds 
|
|
|
|
|
Would your beer spill moving that fast?
|
|
|
|
|
When someone upvotes a message or article I wrote it's nice seeing who it was how voted. Really nice.
Conversely when someone downvotes you there's often a "who on Earth would downvote that?"
We've talked about this a lot and so I bring this up as something that's already been brought up, but times change as do opinions.
So onto the debate:
Whereas knowing your admirers and foes brings either a warm fuzzy feeling or concrete contact to discuss improvements, be it resolved that showing names next to votes is a Good Thing.
Those debating for the motion please state their case, and those debating against provide their counter-arguments.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Putting a name to a vote may make people think a little more carefully before down voting. It would also give the person being downvoted the ability to ask the voter what the rationale for the downvote was.
|
|
|
|
|
No.
Look at it this way; everyone who wants non-anonymous votes always seems to want it on other people's votes, but they never seem to say they want their own votes to be non-anonymous. How's about an experiment -- allow members to make their own votes non-anonymous and see how many actually do.
I am against non-anonymous votes. I'd stop voting.
This isn't Facebook.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I'd stop voting.
Exactly. If your down votes had any merit, and you could back them up, then you would still down-vote. That is the whole point. You should not be able to down-vote unless you can publicly back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not? My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: My down vote may have much merit, but I don't have the time/inclination to enter a debate about it.
Then it has no merit, and serves no constructive purpose. The user knows that someone didn't like something, but has no recourse to find out what it was, or to engage in conversation to fix it or discuss it.
Your down vote without accountability, satisfies your ego, but nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: serves no constructive purpose
Not so. Voting for something gives a measure of popularity (if nothing else) of the entity in question.
With many, many articles on the same subject, how is the user to determine which are the best?
By having votes.
The reasons for those votes, while they may be interesting to the author, are of much less import to the user - especially the casual user who is just looking for info on how to do something.
You seem to be looking at everything from one single author's perspective rather than from that of the other 9,999,999 users who just want to find the best article.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone felt the way you did, then Chris would not be having a debate about it.
I disagree with your points. Any further discussion would not be productive, IMHO.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: f everyone felt the way you did, then Chris would not be having a debate about it
If he didn't have a debate about it, how would he know what everybody thought?
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
