No child - You are the one who needs to learn to read - and growing up.
Despite the term "learn to read" suggest you are very young and immature and that any explanation from me will be utter waste of time I shall give it to you anyway:
"If we could have the type of revolution our forefathers had "
Revolution is most likely a metaphor here for strong action, but he could perhaps mean actual armed revolution to force a change, then he goes on to list what he thinks we should do something about:
"for silly import taxes for health coverage,"
We should do something about Import taxes on health coverage since it is wrong.
" worker's rights,"
We should do something about workers rights (i.e., we should give them some instead of letting big business step on them)
"the ability for criminal corporations to poison our environment, "
We should do something about corporations so they don't get away with poisoning our environment.
"politicians that adhere to big business's needs more than the will of the people,"
We should do something about politicians who don't care about ordinary people but only big business.
" that'd be really doing something,"
Then we would have done something worthwhile.
" but no, we'd rather have a phone "revolution."
Instead we waste time on a phone.
What's even worse is the SMS generation can't even read english anymore.
He knows what revolution means, he is lamenting that people are getting worked up over something as irrelevant as a telephone, when there is so much real misery in the world which could do with some attention instead.
Of course he overlooked that fact that most people just don't give a shit about others.
In my book, using violence or threat of violence to take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons
" Please read what I wrote. I'll say it again. Having a low ranking is not actionable; having an *artificially* low ranking due to incompetence or malice in the ranking system is."
I saw that and dismissed it since incompetence/malice is a subjective term for something which may simply be a different opinion when there is not objective definition of incompetence. "We don't think this criteria is that important - Well it is, so you are inceompetent!" Erh, no.
"That's a candidate for "obvious statement of the year." Of course it's their opinion. Do you not know what libel is?"
A false publication... that damages a person's reputation.
So if they say this person is a drunk, that is false.
If they say, which they do, we think person A is better at handling your case than Person B - that's their opnion. They also say it is just their opnion and suggest people check other sources as well.
"This site is offering its opinion in the context of providing advice to potential clients, manifesting its ranking as a factually accurate and impartial guide."
They don't say factually accurate.
"They are providing a service, not a *personal* opinion of what they think of an attorney *based on their experience*. In the course of that service, they are obligated to disclose their subjectivity "
Google hasn't been forced to disclose their subjective pagerank system.
"You claim to be logical, but don't actually use any logic"
Sure I do, I haven't been to their site (nor have I claimed to) this is theory. As I said it depends on what they say.
"The claim is that they rank attorneys."
Surely that is not the phrasing used
"Having a low ranking is not actionable; having an *artificially* low ranking due to incompetence or malice in the ranking system is."
Wow, that's a corrupt law. If its true, which it most likely isn't - like when people sue Google because they want a better rank. This is their rank, its not the word of god.
"The INPUTS are what determine if that numerical ranking produces factually incorrect information or is designed to penalize certain kinds of lawyers while claiming to be a "fair" system."
The ranking does not produce factually correct information, it represents how valuable the website think a laywer is - its their opinion. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
"This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has."
Which is the amoral part. One shouldn't have to pay for that, and if they don't like it: Don't play!
Heh, and I'm not sure how you aren't able to get this - perhaps I'm logical and you are a laywer?
" The input absolutely is relevant. If the criteria used for rating are flawed or subjective, then the output is of no value."
The output is still not relevant. It doesn't matter if you thin it has value or not, what matters is how they present it.
"This proves who are competent" could be a dangerous statement, whereas "According to our subjective criteria this person comes out on top" is probably fine.
"If there's a selection criteria giving precedent to lawyers from wealthier parts of cities, for example, that's a flawed input."
No, that's subjective input. Just like the Oscar for best movie is not for all movies made that year, but only a group of movies made. Doesn't mean its valueless, just means you need to know the conditions.
"If there's a system designed to penalize lawyers from certain geographic or ethnic backgrounds, that's a flawed criterion."
Subjectively chosen input.
"If the gender of the attorney results in a different score between two otherwise identical subjects, you've got an invalid data point. "
Subjectively chosen input.
"The output is simply a totaled numerical score derived from the values of the inputs--it's the criteria that determine whether the entire ranking process is appropriate."
From your point of view, others may find it perfectly fine.
Slashdot Mirror
"rape and murder are not caused by pornography, video games, rock and roll, Drugs"
But can be triggered by them.
With letters which you could actually read if you weren't a kid, then it might be interesting.
" No one was talking about a revolution in the phone industry having anything to do with anything that you just typed"
HE was talking about that - you didn't understand it. I explained it to you. And as expected it was a low IQ childish rant.
Pity Slashdot doesn't have an outright ignore function - but *plonk*
"Obviously he didn't."
,"
Yes he did.
"Learn to read."
No child - You are the one who needs to learn to read - and growing up.
Despite the term "learn to read" suggest you are very young and immature and that any explanation from me will be utter waste of time I shall give it to you anyway:
"If we could have the type of revolution our forefathers had "
Revolution is most likely a metaphor here for strong action, but he could perhaps mean actual armed revolution to force a change, then he goes on to list what he thinks we should do something about:
"for silly import taxes for health coverage,"
We should do something about Import taxes on health coverage since it is wrong.
" worker's rights
We should do something about workers rights (i.e., we should give them some instead of letting big business step on them)
"the ability for criminal corporations to poison our environment, "
We should do something about corporations so they don't get away with poisoning our environment.
"politicians that adhere to big business's needs more than the will of the people,"
We should do something about politicians who don't care about ordinary people but only big business.
" that'd be really doing something,"
Then we would have done something worthwhile.
" but no, we'd rather have a phone "revolution."
Instead we waste time on a phone.
What's even worse is the SMS generation can't even read english anymore.
because he has a problem with reading comprehension, instead mod his parent up.
Man? Sure you don't mean kid.
He knows what revolution means, he is lamenting that people are getting worked up over something as irrelevant as a telephone, when there is so much real misery in the world which could do with some attention instead.
Of course he overlooked that fact that most people just don't give a shit about others.
"You've strayed from the original point,"
If so, thats because you confused me with all your nonsense.
"You lose."
Actually you do, you didn't manage to explain your position.
In my book, using violence or threat of violence to take control over a ship you do not own, is piracy. Selling counterfeit CDs? Not piracy. Piracy involves vessels moving on the surface of a large body of water, and weapons
_ hijack_070605w/
Yes, and not just in silly movies: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/06/navy_somali
" Please read what I wrote. I'll say it again. Having a low ranking is not actionable; having an *artificially* low ranking due to incompetence or malice in the ranking system is."
... that damages a person's reputation.
I saw that and dismissed it since incompetence/malice is a subjective term for something which may simply be a different opinion when there is not objective definition of incompetence. "We don't think this criteria is that important - Well it is, so you are inceompetent!" Erh, no.
"That's a candidate for "obvious statement of the year." Of course it's their opinion. Do you not know what libel is?"
A false publication
So if they say this person is a drunk, that is false.
If they say, which they do, we think person A is better at handling your case than Person B - that's their opnion. They also say it is just their opnion and suggest people check other sources as well.
"This site is offering its opinion in the context of providing advice to potential clients, manifesting its ranking as a factually accurate and impartial guide."
They don't say factually accurate.
"They are providing a service, not a *personal* opinion of what they think of an attorney *based on their experience*. In the course of that service, they are obligated to disclose their subjectivity "
Google hasn't been forced to disclose their subjective pagerank system.
Nuff said.
They haven't gotten past the notion of money and greed in the far future.
Wow, what a lousy system.
"You claim to be logical, but don't actually use any logic"
Sure I do, I haven't been to their site (nor have I claimed to) this is theory. As I said it depends on what they say.
"The claim is that they rank attorneys."
Surely that is not the phrasing used
"Having a low ranking is not actionable; having an *artificially* low ranking due to incompetence or malice in the ranking system is."
Wow, that's a corrupt law. If its true, which it most likely isn't - like when people sue Google because they want a better rank. This is their rank, its not the word of god.
"The INPUTS are what determine if that numerical ranking produces factually incorrect information or is designed to penalize certain kinds of lawyers while claiming to be a "fair" system."
The ranking does not produce factually correct information, it represents how valuable the website think a laywer is - its their opinion. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Don't troll him.
"End of story."
Hell no. Down with the greedy bastards.
"This isn't about "blogging". It's about live/near-live coverage of an event by a person with press credentials - that is another critical point - without having paid to do so, like everyone else who provides such coverage has."
Which is the amoral part. One shouldn't have to pay for that, and if they don't like it: Don't play!
"I'm not sure how it is you're not getting this."
Heh, and I'm not sure how you aren't able to get this - perhaps I'm logical and you are a laywer?
" The input absolutely is relevant. If the criteria used for rating are flawed or subjective, then the output is of no value."
The output is still not relevant. It doesn't matter if you thin it has value or not, what matters is how they present it.
"This proves who are competent" could be a dangerous statement, whereas "According to our subjective criteria this person comes out on top" is probably fine.
"If there's a selection criteria giving precedent to lawyers from wealthier parts of cities, for example, that's a flawed input."
No, that's subjective input. Just like the Oscar for best movie is not for all movies made that year, but only a group of movies made. Doesn't mean its valueless, just means you need to know the conditions.
"If there's a system designed to penalize lawyers from certain geographic or ethnic backgrounds, that's a flawed criterion."
Subjectively chosen input.
"If the gender of the attorney results in a different score between two otherwise identical subjects, you've got an invalid data point. "
Subjectively chosen input.
"The output is simply a totaled numerical score derived from the values of the inputs--it's the criteria that determine whether the entire ranking process is appropriate."
From your point of view, others may find it perfectly fine.
"OK, I am a bit shrotsighted,"
And dyslexic.
What is worse is all those brain dead postings of viagra and other crap the amoral idiots insist on spamming us with.
Shooting spammers should be legal.
We'll grow eyes in 10 years, just hang in there.
Why don't people do something? Because they don't care. If you let them fight it out, eventually the problem will solve itself.
They need FLASH to show a jpg picture?! How lame is that.
"You assume that the inputs are all incontrovertible facts. That is not known."
No. Read what I write. It depends on what the site claims about the output, the input is not relevant.
"That depends wholly on what the criteria are."
No, not at all. Libel is if you publish something as fact which is infact a lie - so it depends on what they claimed.