They did make clear that he wasn't in custody, early on. And they did allow him to leave the premises, too.
I just wonder why he didn't start calling lawyers first, even before brushing his teeth. It's not like they would be offended by his geeky halitosis over the phone. "The system", as a whole, is not out to get you, but when something like this occurs, you can be sure that certain people within the system definitely ARE. You need somebody else in that system on YOUR side. That's the way it works.
As to having a criminal lawyer "on call", not necessary. Just call the first one you find and ask for a referral if your case is not his cup of tea. You can change lawyers if you need to, but it's like changing majors in college. Do it early, if at all.
The editors perceived something worthwhile in the article, and Sokal has no standing to insist otherwise, even if he is the author.
Sokal published a follow-up to the article describing all the intentional bogosity used in it, an article which those selfsame self-deceived editors rejected as "not meeting intellectual standards".
The editors saw something worthwhile to themselves, it is true: an opportunity to preen their feathers and strut their scientific sophistication in public. That the principles of postmodernism failed to disclose to them the hook inside the bait, a hook obvious to most geeks who read the original article, oughtn't to escape your attention.
Another thing to consider is, postmodernists claim to be able to deconstruct anything. That goes for your post, as well. You have no standing to insist that it means any particular thing, if I want to see it otherwise.
Right you are. IIRC, he has never actually identified the two fellows who DID break the encryption. I don't think that the three of them had ever met anyplace except online. Possibly they still haven't.
the ability to tell politicians I think they're nuts in a form they understand, without necessarily having to wait until the big sack-'em-every-four-or-six-or-whatever-years thing
The thing is, that politicians only listen to the poll results because they supposedly provide an advance warning of the likely results of the "sack-'em every ${TIME_PERIOD}", which is the only poll that they really care about. Once they get the idea that poll results don't square with election results, depend on it: the polls will disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
It is remotely possible that something like this has already happened.
In politics, if you have to prove that you're not on fire, you just make an ash of yourself. The only sure defense is to be obviously noncombustible.
The old dead-tree system of balloting, because it is obviously open to public scrutiny at every point, can satisfy this test in a way no electronic system can ever have.
The amount languages and cultures change, you can't just write on it, and even things like skull pictures could be interpreted as meaning "burial chamber - archaelogists, get digging!".
You shouldn't assume that nobody understands ancient languages just because everybody doesn't.
It's the closed source model where the vast majority of IP violations occur but most of them go by unnoticed.
And herein we see the mark to which SCO's FUD attacks are directed. Not to people who want to do right, but to those who want to avoid being canned for doing wrong. (Think PHB's here.) While tepidly approving the notion of full disclosure and propriety, on balance they prefer the cover of darkness which closed source provides.
SCO may well have a weak legal case, but that's because it's aimed at the boardroom, not the courtroom.
Speaking off the top of my head, I seem to remember that Yahoo is an acronym: "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle", or something like that. If this were actually important, I'd probably have remembered the source as well.
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I had a job at a design shop where unfortunate project acronyms were "escaped" in such a way as to avoid unpleasant associations. Example: "A2S". On the other hand, my project, which predated that one, had been called "E3S", so the "escape code" may have been just fortuitous fallout.
Which reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide's statistics on the Universe, particularly:
Population: None
There are infinitely many planets, but only a finite number of inhabited ones. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, therefore it follows that the population of the universe is zero, and any real people you may meet are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
(DisClymer: This "quote" is reconstructed from memory. Any resemblance it may bear to the original is itself the product of a deranged imagination.)
Slashdot Mirror
I just wonder why he didn't start calling lawyers first, even before brushing his teeth. It's not like they would be offended by his geeky halitosis over the phone. "The system", as a whole, is not out to get you, but when something like this occurs, you can be sure that certain people within the system definitely ARE. You need somebody else in that system on YOUR side. That's the way it works.
As to having a criminal lawyer "on call", not necessary. Just call the first one you find and ask for a referral if your case is not his cup of tea. You can change lawyers if you need to, but it's like changing majors in college. Do it early, if at all.
Warn me so I can blind myself with the first available object just before it happens.
Don't scoop up the yellow sand!
"It's a fair cop."
Sokal published a follow-up to the article describing all the intentional bogosity used in it, an article which those selfsame self-deceived editors rejected as "not meeting intellectual standards".
The editors saw something worthwhile to themselves, it is true: an opportunity to preen their feathers and strut their scientific sophistication in public. That the principles of postmodernism failed to disclose to them the hook inside the bait, a hook obvious to most geeks who read the original article, oughtn't to escape your attention.
Another thing to consider is, postmodernists claim to be able to deconstruct anything. That goes for your post, as well. You have no standing to insist that it means any particular thing, if I want to see it otherwise.
It's a goose-and-gander thing.
Right you are. IIRC, he has never actually identified the two fellows who DID break the encryption. I don't think that the three of them had ever met anyplace except online. Possibly they still haven't.
The thing is, that politicians only listen to the poll results because they supposedly provide an advance warning of the likely results of the "sack-'em every ${TIME_PERIOD}", which is the only poll that they really care about. Once they get the idea that poll results don't square with election results, depend on it: the polls will disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable.
It is remotely possible that something like this has already happened.
The old dead-tree system of balloting, because it is obviously open to public scrutiny at every point, can satisfy this test in a way no electronic system can ever have.
You shouldn't assume that nobody understands ancient languages just because everybody doesn't.
Just don't put anything in /usr/local/share if you run linux....
Since they are all products of a deranged imagination anyway, this would depend on how long it's been since your last Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
We should note that on one occasion an interstellar space flight was delayed for >900 years on account of those little lemon-soaked paper thingies.
It certainly doesn't. It's a "band-aid over cancer" sort of fix.
And herein we see the mark to which SCO's FUD attacks are directed. Not to people who want to do right, but to those who want to avoid being canned for doing wrong. (Think PHB's here.) While tepidly approving the notion of full disclosure and propriety, on balance they prefer the cover of darkness which closed source provides.
SCO may well have a weak legal case, but that's because it's aimed at the boardroom, not the courtroom.
When troubled by burnination, try Gulliver's remedy. (The actual remedy is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Hear, hear!
Hey, idiot!
Is that a car or a PHONE BOOTH!
And another being the extinction of OOG THE OPEN-SOURCE CAVEMAN!
In related news, the amazing Flyborg has reportedly signed a contract with the BBC to host its own interview show.
People actually drink it.
And like it.
<mmmmm>
Are we scared yet?
Speaking off the top of my head, I seem to remember that Yahoo is an acronym: "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle", or something like that. If this were actually important, I'd probably have remembered the source as well.
I thought it was a reference to "number crunching", which suits don't do much. Well, that is, if they aren't "bean counters."
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I had a job at a design shop where unfortunate project acronyms were "escaped" in such a way as to avoid unpleasant associations. Example: "A2S". On the other hand, my project, which predated that one, had been called "E3S", so the "escape code" may have been just fortuitous fallout.
<wibble>
Please don't do that in here again. It frightens the children.
Not at all. It's a litmus test.
Which reminds me of the Hitchhiker's Guide's statistics on the Universe, particularly:
Population: None
There are infinitely many planets, but only a finite number of inhabited ones. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, therefore it follows that the population of the universe is zero, and any real people you may meet are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
(DisClymer: This "quote" is reconstructed from memory. Any resemblance it may bear to the original is itself the product of a deranged imagination.)