In article <e9g5q6$81k$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>
>Knud Sørensen wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:40:31 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> 
>>> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
>> 
>> Bruno are you familiar with the D wish list ?? http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
>> 
>> http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php
>
>Yes I am, remember this? : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/29253.html (see the last post)

He wrote in http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/29517:

> Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even
> if a simple one), but I don't think a poll system works at all for that
> purpose. One should have a voting/ranking for each individual
> feature/change, not a ranking amongst them. And it would also need
> the following:
>* User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes)
>* Allow negative voting. (i.e. deslike)

Well, the wiki doesn't exactly solve the duplicate votes problem either since people could still log in under multiple names (though the wiki would alleviate the problem). I suppose it would allow "negative" voting, though.

jcc7

Thanks, I don't think I ever got around to those posts.

> Yes, I often thought that the scoring algorithm for this poll is wrong.

Well, the eigenpoll where never designed to be used as a feature request system, so the rank on the ranking page may seems a little strange.

The ranking on
http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php
is an acceptance vote and should be okey for this type of thing.

> Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even if
> a simple one),
Here we agree ;-)

> but I don't think a poll system works at all for that purpose.

I don't agree here as a developer it is nice to have some feedback
on what the users want without being flooded with mails.
The developer still decide what gos into the app.

>One should have a voting/ranking for each individual feature/change, not a ranking amongst them.

Well, I strongly disagree here. Ranking provide much more information, and when you have the users ranking you can generate results for many of the known voting systems.

>And it would also need the following:
>* User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes) * Allow negative voting.
>(i.e. deslike)

Well, eigenpoll where designed specific so that it could be used
to get feedback from users without login.
The philosophy is that it is better to get much feedback than little
feedback and most people don't bother to make a username to take a poll
and that gaming is fairly easy to spot.

Especially people who know a lot have many projects and are very busy and this type of people is the target audience for the eigenpoll.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:12:39 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:

> Knud Sørensen wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:40:31 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> 
>>> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
>> 
>> Bruno are you familiar with the D wish list ?? http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
>> 
>> http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php
> 
> Yes I am, remember this? : http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/29253.html (see the last post)

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
> 
> == Make imports private by default ==
> 
> -- Description --
> All import statements which do not have a "protection" attribute should default to private, instead of public.
<snip>

It would strike me as inconsistent, considering that everything else is public by default.  Moreover, I can imagine that people would begin to ask for a keyword to reset protection to the default, if not for practical use then for the sake of completeness.

Stewart.

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
<snip>
> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P

Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?

Stewart.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
> 
> 
> Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
> 
> Stewart.

The people with the money - the consumers where it should be.
There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.

-DavidM

In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1@digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
>
>Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> <snip>
>> 
>>> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
>> 
>> 
>> Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
>> 
>> Stewart.
>
>The people with the money - the consumers where it should be. There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.
>
>-DavidM


Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.

-JJR

jcc7 wrote:
> In article <e9g5q6$81k$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>> Knud Sørensen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:40:31 +0100, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>
>>>> Following the recent generalized discussion about imports, and the entry in the wiki of proposals of new kinds of imports, and also the idea I've mentioned before of using the wiki to keep track of proposals, I have launched this thread as the primary point of discussion for a very well known and familiar proposal:
>>> Bruno are you familiar with the D wish list ?? http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/
>>>
>>> http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/story.php
>> Yes I am, remember this? :
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/29253.html
>> (see the last post)
> 
> He wrote in http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/29517:
> 
>> Indeed. I think a feature/change feedback system would be nice (even if a simple one), but I don't think a poll system works at all for that
>> purpose. One should have a voting/ranking for each individual
>> feature/change, not a ranking amongst them. And it would also need the following:
>> * User Autentication (to avoid duplicate votes)
>> * Allow negative voting. (i.e. deslike)
> 
> Well, the wiki doesn't exactly solve the duplicate votes problem either since
> people could still log in under multiple names (though the wiki would alleviate
> the problem). I suppose it would allow "negative" voting, though.
> 
> jcc7

When I said that a poll system wouldn't work for that, I didn't mean as to prevent abuse. I meant just that I prefer an absolute ranking(with a possible textual comment) rather a relative numeric ranking.
I didn't think about ranking abuse, and I hope that we are not yet at a stage that we have to worry about that.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

In article <e9j80l$1k8c$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
>
>Bruno Medeiros wrote:
><snip>
>> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
>
>Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?

The people (like me) who continue to enjoy their cheeseburgers.

McDonalds isn't a government institution. They will only continue to exist as long as their products are being bought by customers.

jcc7

In article <e9jcs7$1pms$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
>In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1@digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
>>
>>Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> 
>>>> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
>>> 
>>> Stewart.
>>
>>The people with the money - the consumers where it should be. There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.
>>
>>-DavidM
>
>
>Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.

Fine. But cholesterol isn't an illegal substance (at least not in any country
that I'm aware of).

jcc7

In article <e9jj2e$208t$1@digitaldaemon.com>, jcc7 says...
>
>In article <e9jcs7$1pms$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>>
>>In article <e9j9tj$1m5b$1@digitaldaemon.com>, David Medlock says...
>>>
>>>Stewart Gordon wrote:
>>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>>>> Well, I happen to think that smokers take sole responsibility for the health risks of smoking. Do you also think that the fault of people getting fat eating at MacDonalds is MacDonalds's fault? :P
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Whose fault do you think it is that, after all these decades, McD's still haven't worked out how to make their products healthier?
>>>> 
>>>> Stewart.
>>>
>>>The people with the money - the consumers where it should be. There are plenty of healthier products around, but people use their freedom to choose Miccey Ds'.
>>>
>>>-DavidM
>>
>>
>>Yes, that's what drug dealers tend to like to point out too.
>
>Fine. But cholesterol isn't an illegal substance (at least not in any country
>that I'm aware of).
>
>jcc7


Thist topic was quite cleverly steered away from the original analogy.  A much more "grey" example was given to accomodate Bruno's purposes.  I avoided giving the example too much attention because I knew it could lead to such a debate. Alas, I guess I was unsuccessful.

BTW, cholesterol is much less the issue then one would think these days; it's a popular measure in the medical profession that is proving to be a less accurate assessment of why people get heart disease; there's a whole lot more going on in the western diet (including exercise and nutrition) than people realize and fixing cholesterol levels alone is NOT a solution, and in fact may have little effect at all; the medical profession, though, is a science that loves to analyze signs and symptoms and treat them on a individual bases; blood cholesterol is one such sign and is oft treated with drug therapies that have doubtful positive effects in people, especially when they are not taking corrective lifestyle action.  People eat and live unhealthily period, with or without McDonalds; so in this sense, I think McDonalds is really not the major issue here.  Cigarette companies, on the other hand, do have a much more subversive involvement (as much evidence has shown in court cases and such over the years).  And that was why I chose it as an appropriate anology for the sitation.  Bruno deflated the argument by bringing in a fairly non-parallel comparison and then implied that I thought it to be equivalent (which I most certainly do not).

Illegal substances or not, the underlying "complaint" was the total indifference to the human condition, and a company's or individual's ability to benefit (finacially or otherwise) from addictions and the weaknesses inherent in human kind.  That however, in itself, is a very difficult issue to argue or measure in the grand scheme of things: how do we blame an individuals weaknesses (which could amount to anything) on a company?  Theoretically anything can be an addiction.  The answer is that we can't, and that wasn't what I was getting at originally.

Instead what I do claim is that there is a lot of evidence pointing to many examples of industry /knowingly/ taking advantage of cosumerism and disregarding well-documented ill-effects and dependency engendered in large proportions of society.  There is no argument in these cases and the smoking industry is one of them.

Secondly and more importantly, my question encompasses the "spirit of the matter" and not the "letter of the law", in which we (who care enough) should make a conscientious effort to think about end results.  We may decide that certain companies have a legal right to do what they do, but if we really felt a genuine care and desire to help those that need and want help (but have difficulty changing without out), would we feel the obligation of making approproate changes?

Companies are not abstract operations, but are made up of real people that make real decisions.  They still have the ability to make choices, just like the people that buy their products.  You can never absolve them of complete moral responsibility.  The problem with our systems today is that we do absolve them and dump the burden completely on the people.  We laugh and say, "well, we can't help it if people are stupid!". Please remember, humans are fragile... they need help! Let's not mock people that are weak and suffering or incapable of escaping the snares that entrap them. Let's consider carefully what benefits are trully worthwhile.  Money shouldn't be the center of all decision making.

If we regard companies or individuals as having the right to "prey" on such inadequacies, fine.  Then, sadly, we remove all argument against professions commonly regarded as feeding the common "vices" of smoking, alcohol, pornography, and gambling (or even some TV evangelists that make a bundle tithes and offerings).  The mere fact that drugs are illegal is irrelevant to this discussion.  In some countries, they are not illegal.  Alcohol was once illegal in the US, if you recall.  The fact that the government legalizes some of these or not is of no bearing on the argument. But the thought process behind legal and illegal activities continue to be the same when money is at the center of it.

The original issue was proposals and D: my point was directly related to application of a proposals and voting systems in D, making people feel like they were providing a means to changing D, and falsely raising hopes of the success of such an effort.  The letter of the law might say this: if the object is merely accomplishing the general happiness of a group of people, perhaps that purpose is sufficient for those that believe in it.  Adopting that style of reasoning promotes the hedonistic principle, should you ascribe to it, but speaks little of the actual benefits beyond "good feelings", which are very likely temporary and subjective (can you imagine every body is made happy by the same thing?).  But the "spirit of the matter" is to realize that time is wasted, language influence is minimal, and people are confused and disappointed in the end.  That was my concern, more or less.  Furthermore, I was concerned about Bruno's promotion of the matter when prior efforts had already accomplished as much of the task as seemed necessary.

People appear to disagree with this. I accept that, since those that do NOT want to be helped will not be helped.  In that case, those people do take responsibility for their own actions.  But realize that those who are the promoters of certain ideas that cause such confusion have their own separate part in responsibility.  If you cloud that responsibility with doubt, then the final result is that no industry, no president of a country, no CEO of a corporation, has any responsibility for the actions they take in the interest of their own community (which may be a business or country). I'm sure some leaders would love that kind of vindication.

-JJR