Slashdot Mirror
Gawker Pays $750,000 To That Guy Who Didn't Invent Email (gizmodo.com)
Shiva Ayyadurai still claims he invented email -- rather than the late ARPANET pioneer Ray Tomlinson. Now Gizmodo reports that Ayyadurai "will receive a $750,000 settlement from Gawker Media, the bankrupt publisher that he sued for defamation earlier this year."
As part of the settlement, Gawker Media has agreed to delete three stories from the archive of Gawker.com, including one about Ayyadurai. Univision, which purchased most of Gawker Media's assets [including Gizmodo] out of bankruptcy in September, deleted two Gizmodo posts concerning Ayyadurai -- over the objections of the editorial staff -- immediately after closing the transaction... The offending Gizmodo articles made the case that "a lot of people don't believe that Ayyadurai invented email," and that "networked communication actually predates [his] computer program by a few years." As Tomlinson told Gizmodo in one of the stories Ayyadurai succeeded in getting unpublished, the email formats that are so familiar today -- to:, from:, etc. -- were in use years before Ayyadurai "invented" them.
The third post was titled, "If Fran Drescher Read Gizmodo She Would Not Have Married This Fraud."
The third post was titled, "If Fran Drescher Read Gizmodo She Would Not Have Married This Fraud."
the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Because everyone knows we only want reasonable bullying.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I didn't invent email either.
I don't get it. Who wants to see a sex tape of the guy who didn't invent email?
No wonder they went bankrupt.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The case is pretty simple. The RFCs that created the Arpanet email infrastructure that modern Internet email is built in were developed years before this fraud.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Forgot one more prediction. I predict a serious lack of funny or insightful comments on Slashdot. Or does that even qualify as a prediction since it's just a description of the status quo?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
These pretty much cover this...
I will be presenting evidence.
You need a newsletter, or at least regular guesting on any show Glen Beck runs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Don't most sex tapes feature people that didn't invent email? It's obviously a common fetish.
Read his claims carefully. If you consider use of a database critical to email then he did invent email.
Before anyone criticizes me, the above is humour. Yes, everyone outside of Microsoft realizes that use of a database is not necessary for email.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Who let the bots out? This one needs a better bottish-to-english translator.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Except bat boy has no tort, .
Hey, we don't need that sort of language here. Kids could be reading this page. At least use the medical term for batboy's body parts.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Rule #34 definitely applies. If there is the category of "someone who didn't invent email", there is porn featuring that group of people.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I've got all the Ray Tomlinson sex tapes as animated gifs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not any more - they barely last two years together.
Pffft! I have them as ASCII art. A thousand frames to a file. Hold down the PageDown button, and watch the action. ;^)
A sample. https://vice-images.vice.com/i...
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
They harassed him and tried to ruin his life. Hence why there is no more Gawker, the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Exactly. Obviously people dislike the guy for falsely claiming to have invented email, but that isn't what Univision is paying for. They're paying for having published weasel words that added up to secret evidence. They might have just been attempting to be snarky, but when you're publishing insults and shit designed to damage the reputation of somebody, you have to make sure you follow very narrow rules to protect yourself. It doesn't matter if the general thrust of what you're saying is true if you heap on so many untrue details that a reader ends up with a false understanding. If you read the articles in question, they packed so many insults in there, it is hard to tell what is actually claimed as a fact and what isn't; lots of untrue things that are probably sarcasm are phrased in the form of factual statements. And the weasel-worded stuff about "lots of people say" or whatever it was, combined with sarcasm-phrased-as-fact, well that quite easily will combine to be disparaging claims made based on secret evidence. And you're not supposed to do that.
Being right about one thing, and adding on fifty seven more insults that aren't actually true, and implying you have evidence of all of it? That's just moronic when done by a publisher.
Just give me a few minutes to redefine the meaning of the word "invent".
> The RFCs that created the Arpanet email infrastructure that modern Internet email is built in were developed years before this fraud.
I'd say 'described' rather than 'created'.
Depending on what you consider email, it was going strong in the 70s and there were proto-email systems back in the 60s, whereas Postel's email RFC is from 1982.
If she has a speaking role, I think I'd rather it only have the guy in it...
I didn't invent a lot of things. Where's my $750,000?
Actually, as I noted in the "EMail Architecture" chapter of the "Handbook of Information Security", to To/From/Subject(Re) structured headers are far older than Internet email, or for that matter, computer-based electronic messaging. The structure of these headers can be found at least as far back as the inter-war period in military telegraphy and so-called tear-tape messaging. Those familiar with telegraphy-based messaging, civilian, military, or HAM-radio would recognize the elements of the messaging formats and protocol issues in the original RFCs.
You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, the executive does not get to make new laws, unless you count the executive orders that go beyond the scope of existing law. They eventually will get shot down by the courts though. Second, it's not just the Democrats that hate Trump. The "establishment" Republicans can't stand him either. He will not be able to get anything accomplished as President.
In 2012, an enterprising young Gizmodo blogger published the story of Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT lecturer and renowned liar who pretends he invented email. Today, he adds another achievement to the resume, marrying Fran Drescher. Fran, you fucked up
What is falsifiable here exactly? Let's go through it :
The enterprising-ness is just a matter of opinion. It's true that they published something about Ayyadurai, perhaps not the whole of his story (I guess it didn't describe his birth for example, or how he sits on the shitter) but an interesting part of it; this is a reasonable use of the term "story".
True
True. He certainly is a liar to make that claim, and he is renowned in that many people have heard that claim and know it as a lie. I already had heard of him as a liar and I am no-where close to the story. Lets have a hand count on it.
Is Ayyadurai claiming it is not an achievement?
If untrue, this would be a defamation of Drescher, not Ayyadurai.
All sounds like normal stuff for a tabloid coverage of a celebrity. Ayyadurai wanted fame - this sort of stuff is what comes with it. Ayyadurai lied - this is the kind of flak to expect.
The case is pretty simple. The RFCs that created the Arpanet email infrastructure that modern Internet email is built in were developed years before this fraud.
Proper vocal communication was developed centuries before Fran Drescher was born, but that certainly doesn't stop her from attempting to convert nails on a chalkboard into some form of language.
Obviously people dislike the guy for falsely claiming to have invented email
I think you'll find the 99.9% of people have a complete indifference of vast proportions. It's not as if he's levying a fee on every email. No one cares. When the history books a written they'll say, like the do for so many other inventions, that there are competing claims to being the inventor and they all built upon existing inventions. Which claim you believe makes very little difference to anything.
Was it a case of Gawker believing their own premise (and that of many other people in the media) that revisionist history is always right and reparations must be made?
the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Because everyone knows we only want reasonable bullying.
Often, that is what 'news' businesses do.
Here's a business plan you could use to keep your bank account full: have it translated into Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu, and have it distributed all over the Middle East. There is no shortage of Jew-hating fanatics who'll gladly lap it all up, hook, line & sinker. In fact, you would do even better to make it a newsletter and add to the number of things they did in 9/11 w/ each succeeding edition
Why, is Beck one of those anti-Jewish nutjobs?
the site bullied people beyond what could be considered reasonable.
Because everyone knows we only want reasonable bullying.
Often, that is what 'news' businesses do.
Especially when they let out some truth. In this post-truth age, that is unforgiveable.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He'll be able to get enough done that it'll cause problems. You really think even the establishment Republicans would turn down a chance to flood the Supreme Court with authoritarian crazies if they're anti-abortion, for example? That's the same supreme court that would supposedly reject restrictions on the media.
I'd also like to remind you that history has a habit of populaces underestimating the ability of a demagogue to inflict massive damage on a country when they gain power, by writing them off as "just a clown" or believing "He doesn't really mean that, he's just saying it to get support."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Why, is Beck one of those anti-Jewish nutjobs?
Oh, Mr Beck is shall we say, kind of entertaining. Crying, yelling, and willing to believe and promote some really strange stuff.
Used to have a show on Fox News. Eventually he got a little too crazy for them. Note - I don't think he is necessarily anti-jewish, but he is wayyyy out there.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Because they don't have money to deal with huge numbers of frivilous lawsuits.
Essentially Peter Thiel found a way to do an end-run around the barratry laws: instead of flooding a target with frivilous lawsuits where you're the plaintiff, find as many other potential plaintiffs instead and fund their lawsuits. You can even look the hero by pretending you're just trying to get justice for people who can't afford it, even when that's not even remotely true.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They harassed him and tried to ruin his life. Hence why there is no more Gawker, the site bullied people...
Oh so it's bullying when its the truth that he doesn't want anyone to hear... but when it's a falsehood that he wants to spread, it's 'news'. Is that how it works??? This is Donald Trump isn't it? Come on... admit it. ;)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
In action. Iron, feels so satisfying.
A little bit confusing here, but I'm trying to separate out the parts from fuzznuts.
On one hand, I actually think we are in agreement on the theory of how the Constitution is supposed to work. On the other hand, I think your naivete is touching.
The theory and practice of government are always separated. There are so many examples I really don't know where to begin, but I think the best is probably Dubya's signing statements, even though they never achieved the infamy they deserved. As far as I know, none of them were ever successfully challenged, either by Congress or the courts. Dubya broke all the records for abuse of signing statements. The history is actually quite long and interesting, but it seems that signing statements only became one of the presidential policy tools when Reagan became president. Now they have a status that is almost like legislation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As regards limiting Trump's possible executive orders, I think you [still fuzznuts] are pretty much deluded. The 4-4 Supreme Court won't override him, and will almost certainly rule in his favor after he appoints a 5th justice. The FBI is already in his pocket, even though Comey is one of those old-fashioned true Republicans. Congress? The House of so-called Representatives with such morons as McCaul and Goumert? The Senate? You think there are 40 Democratic Senators with sufficient balls to use the filibuster? I don't. I think the ONLY limit on the Donald will be his temperament, which is so bad he can't even be trusted with his own Twitter account.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Married Fran Drescher.
When did Slashdot start using madlibs for headlines?
I don't know where to begin... First, the OP was complaining about a potential President Trump strengthening libel law. I stand by my assertion the the President cannot make law. I also stand by my assertion that neither a Republican nor Democratic controlled Congress would be less than enthusiastic about passing legislation on his behalf. There is already talk of replacing the Speaker for his non-support. You know... The third guy in line for the Presidential Office. There is NO widespread support among establishment Republicans for Trump. If he was as "crazy" in office as squigleslash thinks, NOBODY would play ball. They would turn on him in a minute.
As for Democrats not lining up to thwart a President Trump, you clearly have not been paying attention. Even Bernie Sanders has bowed down to lick Hillary's boots and that is after the DNC worked hard to kick him to the curb and she insulted his supporters. I'd say the odds of any Democrats supporting a Supreme Court nominee that you describe are very long, particularly after there have been no hearings for Obama's nominee. And yes, I think finding 40 (actually only 34) dissenting votes are pretty good especially given that predictions are that the Senate will likely change hands anyway. I'm not nearly as naive as you are cynical.
As for Comey being in the Republican pockets, Republicans claim just the opposite. Maybe you missed that whole email thing over the past few months they were on about. Given no grand jury was impaneled despite calls from Republicans doesn't lend to the credibility of Comey taking his marching orders from them.
I think I am the OP you [fuzznutz] are referring to based on the subject line, but mostly I feel like you are demonstrating Nicholas Carr's thesis in The Shallows . Stretching hard to fit your comments to my recent comments...
On the opening topic, it doesn't matter what you want to call it as long as the executive branch treats it as law and the courts and Congress fail to make it stop. I'm inclined to approach things from a historical perspective, but seems unlikely to apply based on anything you've written so far. If you're my age, you might start with Iran Contra, but that's a while back. Hard to believe you could be too young to remember Dubya and Cheney. Your conception of party discipline in the Democratic Party is humorous, but obviously you don't remember Will Rogers. That also means it's unlikely you know much about REAL party discipline within the Bolsheviks, but there are a few differences from the modern so-called Republicans. Can't figure out what your point was supposed to be regarding Comey, nor imagine how it could have been related to anything I currently believe about Comey, so you must be projecting something from somewhere.
If you can't make things more coherent and actually relate your points to things I actually wrote, then I'll just flag the exchange as pointless and closed. Seen quite a number of those abortive dialogs recently--but that also fits within Carr's thesis. Apparently I'm becoming a weirdo because I can still concentrate long enough to read books... (Just passed a hundred for the year.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Dude, you're way off. I remember Nixon and the endless televised hearings over ALL THREE channels on our black and white console TV. He engendered the type of universal dislike from both sides of the aisle that a President Trump will have. Trump wouldn't be able to fart without a Congressional investigation. Hillary may be the same though. I expect the animosity for her may cause four years of investigation in he House assuming they don't try to impeach right away. Whatever the case, I certainly hope our choices are better in four years. It's gonna be a rough ride whatever happens. FWIW, I know there are a lot of HRC apologists here that think I'm a Trump supporter, but I supported Bernie. I won't vote for Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche. Yes, even us old farts watch South Park.
Of course Hillary's success/failure will depend on the balance in Congress, which with its usual 95% reelection rate probably won't change much. But if by chance the dems reacquire a majority, there won't be much investigation of anything. Conversely same goes for Trump with a republican congress. (But he's not going to win anyway) Besides that, they have enough skeletons in their closets to keep them from doing real harm. Hillary's people can take them down too. Notice how they let Nixon off the hook for actual crimes committed. It's gangster against gangsters. They are untouchable. The important thing is that republican/democrats keep all the seats. The opposition between them is more for our entertainment. Things were even uglier during Jefferson's and Adams' campaign, and they remained very close friends afterwards.
I certainly hope our choices are better in four years.
That the voters nominated the two worst options is only a reflection on them. It's been all downhill since Kennedy died. Who ever thought than anybody could make Bush look like a picture of grace and decorum?
I know there are a lot of HRC apologists here that think I'm a Trump supporter...
I get that from both sides. If you're against one you're for the other. Good old tribalism at work there. All rationality is pushed aside, something that you're bumping up against with the other guy there.
Your console TV have the record player too? I thought they were all in color by '68. We were fortunate to have five channels in the VHF with two local stations. Didn't have UHF until we got our first color set. It opened up a whole new world of professional wrestling and two minute long commercials.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually the history books have already spoken... he's just fooled a couple people in show business is all. Creating email and creating an email client are NOT the same thing.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
You hit the nail on the head. During the primaries, only Chris Christie and Bernie Sanders ever bothered to answer the questions that were asked. Every other candidate would ramble off on some subject that only indirectly had anything to do with the issue at hand. Whether you like them or not, at least you knew where they stood. Yet Republicans chose a clown with absolutely no filter between his brain and his mouth and Democrats chose a career liar that thinks laws apply only to the little people and would push her own daughter in front of a bus to get elected. It's utterly disgusting.
Bulls-eye again. No matter what transgression you point out, partisans on sides point across the table and scream, "But they did that!" No matter who we get, you can expect more of whatever they did in the past. If/when HRC wins, her apologists will justify it again. "I know it looks bad, but it wasn't actually criminal." Or if/when Trump shoots off his mouth on day one, you can expect more: "But that's not what he meant..."
We finally got a color TV in spring of 1975 and it could tune UHF (woo hoo). Color certainly wasn't universal by 1968. There were lots of riff raff living with black and white in the early seventies. A color TV set in 1975 was hundreds of dollars, and my dad bought a brand new car (Datsun) for less that $3,000 in 1976. Our old set was a nice piece of real wood furniture, but it did not have a record player in it. One of my uncles did have one. It had a nice walnut panel on the top that slid to the side to reveal the turntable. It was pretty cool!
It's utterly disgusting.
Regular machine politics that exploits natural animal cravings. I would like to think we'll evolve out of it, but it's so rewarding that it looks doubtful. It's a reminder that the cortex serves the brain stem.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Curso NR 10 online curso NR 10 curso NR 10 online
ZZ
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
My apologies for apparently underestimating your [fuzznutz's] age, but you really do write in a remarkably naive way. Perhaps your memory works in a funny way, whereas perhaps I have studied too much history?
So let me pose a question in your new framing: Exactly how were Nixon or Reagan held to account for their criminal activities?
I would say Reagan not at all, and many people even revere him to this day, though I would be unable to point at a single positive accomplishment that he earned primary credit for. Yes, Nixon was forced to resign from the presidency, but he was immediately pardoned. Actually I think that holding Nixon fully to account would have been America's last chance to roll back the imperial presidency. At the time it was sort of regarded as a joke that the president could claim anything he does is legal, but now the "unitary executive" is almost taken for granted by many politicians and judges, right up to the Supreme Court.
Not sure if your mention of Bernie was an ACK of a mention I made in this discussion, but I actually think we agree that he was the best candidate of this cycle. I think we probably disagree on the basis, however. Much as I admire his principles, I think he would have been able to do relatively little to advance them. The result would have been evolutionary change in a positive direction. In contrast, I cannot pretend to guess what principles Trump actually holds, though he has a long track record of vindictiveness and incompetence that should frighten any potential adversary or even the minor nuisances like me. The REAL threat of the Donald is the GOP party discipline behind him. I'm not too concerned about the angry losers or the mindless habitual voters who always vote R. I'm quite worried about the cold-blooded haters who have rallied around him.
Do you know how Cheny pulled Dubya's strings? Just a bit of patience. He would sit quietly through the meetings, but AFTER everyone else had left, then he would have a few final words with Dubya and, voila, the so-called decider did what Cheney wanted. We've already heard reports that Trump is basically the same way, parroting the last opinion he heard.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
To be expected
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^3
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I guess this is what trolls do
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^4
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I feel so helpless...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^5
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
People, take note of this...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^6
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Somebody take his gun away
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^7
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
He's an 'expat' for a reason. Who's he running from?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^8
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Good to see you finally hit the wall in the other thread...
I don't mind being your soft target. I want them to see the real you
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Z^9
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.