The reputation system still doesn't work. Even if you "only" get half the reputation for getting your question upvoted, it still means you can easily gain a huge amount of rep by just asking tons of questions and not answering any.
As an example, according to his reputation this user is among the 1500 most trusted members of our community. I don't know about you, but for me this actually means that reputation has no value at all. Someone who solely uses the site as a library and the users as his information manservants has no business being anywhere close to the top, no matter how good his questions are.
As I understand it, the whole point of the site is taking some and then giving something back. Shouldn't the reputation system then be specifically designed to encourage this?
The fact of the matter is, noone is going to not-ask-a-question because he won't be getting rep for it. If he has a question, he's going to ask. He wants an answer, so it's in his interest anyway, right?
So then why are we rewarding reputation for it?
Reputation should represent how much the community trusts you, and how much you have contributed to making this site as great as it is. The people that ask the questions are not the ones that make it great. It's all those that put in the time and effort to provide the good answers.
When I joined the site, I started with a huge amount of respect for anyone with more than a couple hundred rep. When I finally started gaining some myself, I took it with a certain amount of pride. I felt my help was valued by the community, which is exactly how reputation should work.
How 'bout we make it all about that again?