I don't know VB that well, but PHP has plenty of genuine headaches within it: http://www.tnx.nl/php.html
So yes, while you can write decent programs in PHP, most good programmers (i.e. the ones who understand the problems) don't want to. Even accounting for good programmers who don't have a choice, you end up with a disproportionate amount of the underskilled in the remainder.
I don't know that I'd expect that much consistency. The actual effects are indirect, cosmic ray flux leads to climate change leads to decreased biodiversity leads to ecological collapse. I would expect large amounts of variation in the timing in any one of those steps, just due to their chaotic nature.
So, statistically speaking, the case loosens up quite a bit. I would need to see more evidence of the mechanisms to be persuaded one way or the other.
I don't understand how that's a bad thing, actually, whether Microsoft or Google do it.
Smaller companies are more nimble, they can afford to make mistakes or radically adjust product lines. At the end of the day the worst that happens is they burn through their VC. Google on the other hand has huge assets to lose, a reputation/brand to protect, and many avenues of business to keep employees focused on.
So, while Google *could* innovate by doing something new in house (Google Wave anyone?), they're more efficient when they let the little guy develop the market, and then purchase, refine, and integrate it when it becomes a plausible product. I understand how Slashdotters may not see anything but bare-handed engineering to be innovation, but business decisions can be as well.
And, yes, that means Google is a big company. They should man up and admit it, even if they are still youngsters.
Bullshit. There is certainly a class of behaviors which, while legally in your rights, are in bad taste or otherwise baiting, like insulting someone's mother. Would you then complain after getting socked in the face that you were just exercising your right to free speech? Doubtful. You would complain that the response was out of proportion to your incitement. And you would've been wiser not to incite in the first place.
I don't mean to say that there isn't such a thing as civil disobedience or trying to gain publicity for a cause, but sometimes being a jerk is just being a jerk. I don't think Sable in this case actually was "asking for it", nor do I think "it" amounted to that much, but if he were instead just mouthing off to the TSA drones, we should be able to say that he should've known better.
That is entirely untrue. Courts most certainly *do* care about the context of a situation and intent, especially in civil cases. Judges in general are fond of trying to arrive at a just and fair solution over obeying every legal technicality.
This is an especially long-standing argument when it comes to the Supreme Court. Look up "substantive due process".
You answered yourself. His readers liked the previous eight years' material, and were shocked and dismayed that he was a good journalist instead of the biased one they thought he was. Of course, they might actually think he _became_ biased.
Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, whose stable of contributors includes Froomkin, said late Thursday: "With the end of the Bush administration, interest in the blog also diminished. His political orientation was not a factor in our decision."
I don't really see the Constitutional mandate behind regulating substances in the first place (yes, yes, the commerce clause). I agree that the FDA is a useful thing, but surely we'd be 90% to solving the problem if we passed a law with the following statement:
The possession, sale, transport, or other use of a substance within a state shall not be subject to Federal prosecution or penalty if such act is not considered unlawful by that state's legislature.
Each state could patch the FDA's guidelines as it saw fit.
My guess: pulling tens of terawatts of energy out of the atmosphere will effect the climate.
Every watt goes back in. It's all thermal energy eventually. What you lose is the gradient of that energy (entropy increases). We're facilitating the movement of energy from one place to another to equalize thermal differences, which is in a nutshell what wind is in the first place.
I don't think there's any climate consequences. There may be some environmental consequences (life cycles that depend on high amounts of wind in certain places), but we have the same issue with hydroelectric dams and down-river areas. There is no foolproof way to interact with your environment, only less bad.
Interesting. Honestly I'm not familiar with the way Windows does it (and only partially OSX).
It does seem that DIRECT direct access to the FB is a Bad Idea. First of all, there's no such thing as a contiguous rectangular region (unless your rectangle is full screen width), so offering even the piece including your window gives you the chance to mess up the screen without X being able to know it has to redraw. Secondly it deprives X of being able to know what resources you want to use so it can manage the sum total of graphics memory intelligently (maybe you don't want it to?). Thirdly, that assumes that the video hardware offers a DMA'ed FB, which if you're doing compositing may not be the case since you're accessing the card in a 3D mode (I don't really know how that's commonly implemented in hardware).
After accepting that there has to be *some* layer of indirection, the question is how to transmit your resources (or your whole rectangular region) to X, not to the video card. So now we're talking about IPC, and some sort of fast memory copy. X (transparently) picks the fastest mechanism that's available, which in the local case is shared memory.
And then there's GLX for 3D rendering, and XV for video, and newer extensions (EXA, which cairo uses by default) as the use-case arises.
How does Windows do it that is better? It can't possibly offer you direct hardware access, does it?
X was just not designed with personal computing in mind, it was designed to complement the mainframe model. The question is not how to achieve network-transparent GL but whether or not they should bother.
I actually agree with these statements, but I don't see why it matters. Even if network transparency weren't a design goal (and I can almost agree that it shouldn't be), the mere virtue of having asynchronous calls means you get it almost for free. There will always be some applications or use-cases that don't work on the network (games, video come to mind), but being able to do the IPC over TCP vs. Unix sockets is such a non-issue. Is there an architecture you have in mind that precludes network transparency?
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but you do realize OpenGL itself is a "client/server/unixy mess", no? It's based on an asynchronous model that has the capacity to be (and under GLX, is) network transparent. Also, its SGI origins.
You can have a successful and performant network-transparent raster-based graphics display layer. X isn't, but there's years of legacy and cruft that are to blame first and foremost before its fundamental architecture. DRM is a mess, certainly, one that is being PAINFULLY cleaned up currently, but I believe there's a lot of interesting and potentially successful directions it can take once that is done.
What would be nice if it wasn't Linux per se, but ANY combination of alternative x86 desktop OSes that made the assumption of Windows non-given.
I think it would be a mistake to be satisfied with Linux native software, or Linux native hardware drivers. What about the BSD users, the Open Solaris users, the interesting-experimental-academic-OS users? What is far more important are open specifications that let people with any OS they want interact with you. For hardware, publish the specs so the OS can write the drivers. For software, you could publish to a language with a good VM or interpreter and standard library (Java, Mono, Python). And don't forget that not every browser supports all those JS and DOM calls.
What would be really interesting to see is some sort of standardized ABI for running native apps. Wine in a way does this, but having MS in charge of the reference implementation is a recipe for failure (see also Mono, which is how many versions behind?). If we had something *like* Wine, with the ability to provide libraries in some sort of binary format, and the ability to translate windowing calls, audio, etc, to whatever the local desktop is, it would be tempting to people who design games, etc because they would be able to reach all of the x86 audience at once.
Konqueror file manager has been gutted and in its place you get the foisted, half functional Dolphin dressed up in a window that says Konqueror.
Can you provide some examples of things in Konqueror file management that you miss? I've been using KDE quite a long time, and I didn't really notice that much lost from Konqueror in the transition (granted I don't do that much file management there... or anywhere else at all for that matter). I would be curious to see what other people's use cases are though.
I like LXDE, and I think it's a good idea and appropriate for a large number of end-user use-cases. BUT, I also think there's value in having a library like Kdelibs that establishes a central way for apps to (for example) open internet-accessed files. Share the code for common functionality so there's only one set of bugs and they can be fixed easily.
Once you *have* a central "desktop-environment" library, it makes sense to use it for your desktop workflow apps as well (the KDE example being that the taskbar is now just a set of Plasma widgets). If it's done correctly, a minimally useful Desktop Environment sharing libraries with open apps can have very little memory footprint.
Therefore, I would find it difficult to value LXDE, given that I myself use a large number of KDE apps such as Amarok, Kopete, KMail (and hopefully soon K3B and KDevelop).
Kicker was removed in KDE4. If you have problems with the behavior of the Plasma widget that replaced it, file a new bug. If anything, you'll get more attention because there's a lot of Plasma guys now, and some of them care a lot about UIs and HID conventions (not to mention style).
Now, I get that end-users don't care about the implementation, and shouldn't have to know what piece of code is responsible for what, but you *are* using KDE's own internal bug-tracking system, which has to be flexible enough to deal with the needs of hundreds of developers, plus the range of experience of users of their system. If you use their bug-tracking web-interface, you must be aware that they categorize bugs based on pieces of KDE, and Kicker is no longer a piece of KDE.
Perhaps as a less-technically-inclined end-user, you should use your distro's own support mechanism, as they have more interest in "productizing" the Linux Desktop and making it user-friendly.
I think you're close to the actual problem. It's not that there's a large number of people that want it both ways; it's that there's one group of people that code for themselves, and a separate group of people that want Linux on the Desktop (tm) to succeed.
A vocal population of enthusiasts and minority of coders is not going to have a visibly large effect on the developers who are happy just to scratch an itch and not worry about market-share. The answer, it seems, is for that population to get more of their own type coding, which is sort of exactly what the distros do (Red Hat developing NetworkManager, etc).
It takes time, and you have to accept the fact that you can't force the core devs of any particular project to give a damn about you.
You would have to declare it as an imported good, though, and pay import duties. In the US you pay no duties on currency, you only have to declare it for amounts above $10,000 (then the IRS looks at you more closely).
Crap 3D Video cards in laptops, and almost no benchmarks from the "classic" hardware review sites so you know how bad it sucks compared to a "real" GPU. (Thankfully the S3 Virge is gone from desktops, but laptops are still stuck with poor performance unless you pay an arm and a leg.)
That's thankfully improved greatly now that Intel's moved beyond their GMA 950 lines. Lack of hardware T+L was really murder, no vertex shaders, no hardware geometry... those features are coming up on 10 years old and we still saw laptops powered by this hardware as recent as a year ago.
My understanding of the situation is that Tomboy is in the "recommended" position of the two, that is, if you install Gnome and specify nothing else, Tomboy will get installed, along with Mono, instead of GNote.
That seems like a silly choice considering Tomboy+Mono is a larger size and runs on fewer architectures. I would've gone with GNote to at the very least save space on the install CD, and then let people who know they want it install Tomboy from the repositories.
Well, if the end goal is difficult-to-forge and reliable ID, surely the stricter Real ID requirements were better. After all, if a bartender scans your ID and it doesn't hit in the database, you can tell it's not a legit ID, regardless of how nice the physical document mimics real ones.
On top of that, having actual standards which the states apply to documentation they'll accept that establish your identity is a good thing. I realize there's a limit to how well we can check these things, but putting up a hurdle to providing a forged or stolen birth certificate would at least be a positive step toward ensuring that we know who these people are that are presenting their IDs to us.
To me, as a partial supporter of the concept (Real ID was WAY too far, but TFA suggests this compromise guts some important parts), I don't care about movements, I don't care about logging who does what where, and we shouldn't give the government that ability.
But the ability to say, YES, the State of Maryland vouches that I am Joe Shmuck, born on such and such a date, as verified by actual standards supported and depended on by our union as a whole, is a laudable goal. This isn't about surveillance, it's about preventing others from deceiving us about who they are. Identity theft, criminal pasts, etc.
It's a little more complicated than either you or GP make it out to be.
Google decided to go ahead and copy all these books digitally into their archive, and the Author's Guild sued on behalf of the works to which they *do* control the copyright (or at least the right to represent the authors in legal matters). Somewhere along the line the Author's Guild asked for the lawsuit to be promoted to a class-action, which means that the outcome of the suit is binding for all possible plaintiffs (in this case, authors).
Usually class-action lawsuits are good things (especially for the lawyers who get to prosecute the case, but also marginally for the little people involved). You and I don't have the resources to take on big tobacco, for example, but once somebody does, qualified people are in on that suit by default (usually with court-mandated notice and an opportunity to opt-out). I myself made a tiny bit of money out of the Best-Buy/MSN settlement where they were signing people up and charging them for Internet service without telling them.
So in this case the Author's Guild was granted by the court the right to represent all authors in this matter. Then they settled with Google, and the terms of the settlement were especially wide ranging. Then the judge involved ok'ed it, again with the traditional notices and opportunity to opt out.
So that's how it happened. It's shady as hell, but it's the way class-action suits work in this country, and entirely legit. Perhaps the judge involved in the case made some errors in judgement, I'm not educated enough on the matter to say.
Finally, regarding your monopoly claims, you're right but you're entirely off-topic. You don't have to have a monopoly to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. Dumping, just to offer one example, is pretty much always illegal, regardless of your market-share. The FTC has a bunch more information on their site. The DoJ is not necessarily off the mark looking into this case (they haven't even decided they have the grounds to file a suit yet, so any rush to judgement would be premature).
Technology? We have pretty good technology but that doesn't make us any less savage. No, I think when we finally get our chance at the stars we'll still have plenty of our own problems, and maybe if we're lucky, alien cultures will be similar enough to our own to recognize and empathize with that, and maybe even exchange some of their own cultural uniquenesses for our own.
We should never play dead. Knowledge is its own reward.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know VB that well, but PHP has plenty of genuine headaches within it: http://www.tnx.nl/php.html
So yes, while you can write decent programs in PHP, most good programmers (i.e. the ones who understand the problems) don't want to. Even accounting for good programmers who don't have a choice, you end up with a disproportionate amount of the underskilled in the remainder.
I don't know that I'd expect that much consistency. The actual effects are indirect, cosmic ray flux leads to climate change leads to decreased biodiversity leads to ecological collapse. I would expect large amounts of variation in the timing in any one of those steps, just due to their chaotic nature.
So, statistically speaking, the case loosens up quite a bit. I would need to see more evidence of the mechanisms to be persuaded one way or the other.
I don't understand how that's a bad thing, actually, whether Microsoft or Google do it.
Smaller companies are more nimble, they can afford to make mistakes or radically adjust product lines. At the end of the day the worst that happens is they burn through their VC. Google on the other hand has huge assets to lose, a reputation/brand to protect, and many avenues of business to keep employees focused on.
So, while Google *could* innovate by doing something new in house (Google Wave anyone?), they're more efficient when they let the little guy develop the market, and then purchase, refine, and integrate it when it becomes a plausible product. I understand how Slashdotters may not see anything but bare-handed engineering to be innovation, but business decisions can be as well.
And, yes, that means Google is a big company. They should man up and admit it, even if they are still youngsters.
Bullshit. There is certainly a class of behaviors which, while legally in your rights, are in bad taste or otherwise baiting, like insulting someone's mother. Would you then complain after getting socked in the face that you were just exercising your right to free speech? Doubtful. You would complain that the response was out of proportion to your incitement. And you would've been wiser not to incite in the first place.
I don't mean to say that there isn't such a thing as civil disobedience or trying to gain publicity for a cause, but sometimes being a jerk is just being a jerk. I don't think Sable in this case actually was "asking for it", nor do I think "it" amounted to that much, but if he were instead just mouthing off to the TSA drones, we should be able to say that he should've known better.
There's still plenty of coal miners in the US, which is a particularly unsafe profession (both immediate and long-term risks).
Sir, I would like to introduce you to the Mainframe.
That is entirely untrue. Courts most certainly *do* care about the context of a situation and intent, especially in civil cases. Judges in general are fond of trying to arrive at a just and fair solution over obeying every legal technicality.
This is an especially long-standing argument when it comes to the Supreme Court. Look up "substantive due process".
You answered yourself. His readers liked the previous eight years' material, and were shocked and dismayed that he was a good journalist instead of the biased one they thought he was. Of course, they might actually think he _became_ biased.
FTFY. From the ombudsman blog:
Each state could patch the FDA's guidelines as it saw fit.
My guess: pulling tens of terawatts of energy out of the atmosphere will effect the climate.
Every watt goes back in. It's all thermal energy eventually. What you lose is the gradient of that energy (entropy increases). We're facilitating the movement of energy from one place to another to equalize thermal differences, which is in a nutshell what wind is in the first place.
I don't think there's any climate consequences. There may be some environmental consequences (life cycles that depend on high amounts of wind in certain places), but we have the same issue with hydroelectric dams and down-river areas. There is no foolproof way to interact with your environment, only less bad.
Interesting. Honestly I'm not familiar with the way Windows does it (and only partially OSX).
It does seem that DIRECT direct access to the FB is a Bad Idea. First of all, there's no such thing as a contiguous rectangular region (unless your rectangle is full screen width), so offering even the piece including your window gives you the chance to mess up the screen without X being able to know it has to redraw. Secondly it deprives X of being able to know what resources you want to use so it can manage the sum total of graphics memory intelligently (maybe you don't want it to?). Thirdly, that assumes that the video hardware offers a DMA'ed FB, which if you're doing compositing may not be the case since you're accessing the card in a 3D mode (I don't really know how that's commonly implemented in hardware).
After accepting that there has to be *some* layer of indirection, the question is how to transmit your resources (or your whole rectangular region) to X, not to the video card. So now we're talking about IPC, and some sort of fast memory copy. X (transparently) picks the fastest mechanism that's available, which in the local case is shared memory.
And then there's GLX for 3D rendering, and XV for video, and newer extensions (EXA, which cairo uses by default) as the use-case arises.
How does Windows do it that is better? It can't possibly offer you direct hardware access, does it?
X was just not designed with personal computing in mind, it was designed to complement the mainframe model. The question is not how to achieve network-transparent GL but whether or not they should bother.
I actually agree with these statements, but I don't see why it matters. Even if network transparency weren't a design goal (and I can almost agree that it shouldn't be), the mere virtue of having asynchronous calls means you get it almost for free. There will always be some applications or use-cases that don't work on the network (games, video come to mind), but being able to do the IPC over TCP vs. Unix sockets is such a non-issue. Is there an architecture you have in mind that precludes network transparency?
Not being a client/server/unixy mess.
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but you do realize OpenGL itself is a "client/server/unixy mess", no? It's based on an asynchronous model that has the capacity to be (and under GLX, is) network transparent. Also, its SGI origins.
You can have a successful and performant network-transparent raster-based graphics display layer. X isn't, but there's years of legacy and cruft that are to blame first and foremost before its fundamental architecture. DRM is a mess, certainly, one that is being PAINFULLY cleaned up currently, but I believe there's a lot of interesting and potentially successful directions it can take once that is done.
Don't discount X yet.
What would be nice if it wasn't Linux per se, but ANY combination of alternative x86 desktop OSes that made the assumption of Windows non-given.
I think it would be a mistake to be satisfied with Linux native software, or Linux native hardware drivers. What about the BSD users, the Open Solaris users, the interesting-experimental-academic-OS users? What is far more important are open specifications that let people with any OS they want interact with you. For hardware, publish the specs so the OS can write the drivers. For software, you could publish to a language with a good VM or interpreter and standard library (Java, Mono, Python). And don't forget that not every browser supports all those JS and DOM calls.
What would be really interesting to see is some sort of standardized ABI for running native apps. Wine in a way does this, but having MS in charge of the reference implementation is a recipe for failure (see also Mono, which is how many versions behind?). If we had something *like* Wine, with the ability to provide libraries in some sort of binary format, and the ability to translate windowing calls, audio, etc, to whatever the local desktop is, it would be tempting to people who design games, etc because they would be able to reach all of the x86 audience at once.
Konqueror file manager has been gutted and in its place you get the foisted, half functional Dolphin dressed up in a window that says Konqueror.
Can you provide some examples of things in Konqueror file management that you miss? I've been using KDE quite a long time, and I didn't really notice that much lost from Konqueror in the transition (granted I don't do that much file management there... or anywhere else at all for that matter). I would be curious to see what other people's use cases are though.
I like LXDE, and I think it's a good idea and appropriate for a large number of end-user use-cases. BUT, I also think there's value in having a library like Kdelibs that establishes a central way for apps to (for example) open internet-accessed files. Share the code for common functionality so there's only one set of bugs and they can be fixed easily.
Once you *have* a central "desktop-environment" library, it makes sense to use it for your desktop workflow apps as well (the KDE example being that the taskbar is now just a set of Plasma widgets). If it's done correctly, a minimally useful Desktop Environment sharing libraries with open apps can have very little memory footprint.
Therefore, I would find it difficult to value LXDE, given that I myself use a large number of KDE apps such as Amarok, Kopete, KMail (and hopefully soon K3B and KDevelop).
Kicker was removed in KDE4. If you have problems with the behavior of the Plasma widget that replaced it, file a new bug. If anything, you'll get more attention because there's a lot of Plasma guys now, and some of them care a lot about UIs and HID conventions (not to mention style).
Now, I get that end-users don't care about the implementation, and shouldn't have to know what piece of code is responsible for what, but you *are* using KDE's own internal bug-tracking system, which has to be flexible enough to deal with the needs of hundreds of developers, plus the range of experience of users of their system. If you use their bug-tracking web-interface, you must be aware that they categorize bugs based on pieces of KDE, and Kicker is no longer a piece of KDE.
Perhaps as a less-technically-inclined end-user, you should use your distro's own support mechanism, as they have more interest in "productizing" the Linux Desktop and making it user-friendly.
I think you're close to the actual problem. It's not that there's a large number of people that want it both ways; it's that there's one group of people that code for themselves, and a separate group of people that want Linux on the Desktop (tm) to succeed.
A vocal population of enthusiasts and minority of coders is not going to have a visibly large effect on the developers who are happy just to scratch an itch and not worry about market-share. The answer, it seems, is for that population to get more of their own type coding, which is sort of exactly what the distros do (Red Hat developing NetworkManager, etc).
It takes time, and you have to accept the fact that you can't force the core devs of any particular project to give a damn about you.
You would have to declare it as an imported good, though, and pay import duties. In the US you pay no duties on currency, you only have to declare it for amounts above $10,000 (then the IRS looks at you more closely).
Sounds like a foolish proposition.
Crap 3D Video cards in laptops, and almost no benchmarks from the "classic" hardware review sites so you know how bad it sucks compared to a "real" GPU. (Thankfully the S3 Virge is gone from desktops, but laptops are still stuck with poor performance unless you pay an arm and a leg.)
That's thankfully improved greatly now that Intel's moved beyond their GMA 950 lines. Lack of hardware T+L was really murder, no vertex shaders, no hardware geometry... those features are coming up on 10 years old and we still saw laptops powered by this hardware as recent as a year ago.
My understanding of the situation is that Tomboy is in the "recommended" position of the two, that is, if you install Gnome and specify nothing else, Tomboy will get installed, along with Mono, instead of GNote.
That seems like a silly choice considering Tomboy+Mono is a larger size and runs on fewer architectures. I would've gone with GNote to at the very least save space on the install CD, and then let people who know they want it install Tomboy from the repositories.
Well, if the end goal is difficult-to-forge and reliable ID, surely the stricter Real ID requirements were better. After all, if a bartender scans your ID and it doesn't hit in the database, you can tell it's not a legit ID, regardless of how nice the physical document mimics real ones.
On top of that, having actual standards which the states apply to documentation they'll accept that establish your identity is a good thing. I realize there's a limit to how well we can check these things, but putting up a hurdle to providing a forged or stolen birth certificate would at least be a positive step toward ensuring that we know who these people are that are presenting their IDs to us.
To me, as a partial supporter of the concept (Real ID was WAY too far, but TFA suggests this compromise guts some important parts), I don't care about movements, I don't care about logging who does what where, and we shouldn't give the government that ability.
But the ability to say, YES, the State of Maryland vouches that I am Joe Shmuck, born on such and such a date, as verified by actual standards supported and depended on by our union as a whole, is a laudable goal. This isn't about surveillance, it's about preventing others from deceiving us about who they are. Identity theft, criminal pasts, etc.
The problem is a gigantic lack of first or second party games
You want me to make games? Really?
It's a little more complicated than either you or GP make it out to be.
Google decided to go ahead and copy all these books digitally into their archive, and the Author's Guild sued on behalf of the works to which they *do* control the copyright (or at least the right to represent the authors in legal matters). Somewhere along the line the Author's Guild asked for the lawsuit to be promoted to a class-action, which means that the outcome of the suit is binding for all possible plaintiffs (in this case, authors).
Usually class-action lawsuits are good things (especially for the lawyers who get to prosecute the case, but also marginally for the little people involved). You and I don't have the resources to take on big tobacco, for example, but once somebody does, qualified people are in on that suit by default (usually with court-mandated notice and an opportunity to opt-out). I myself made a tiny bit of money out of the Best-Buy/MSN settlement where they were signing people up and charging them for Internet service without telling them.
So in this case the Author's Guild was granted by the court the right to represent all authors in this matter. Then they settled with Google, and the terms of the settlement were especially wide ranging. Then the judge involved ok'ed it, again with the traditional notices and opportunity to opt out.
So that's how it happened. It's shady as hell, but it's the way class-action suits work in this country, and entirely legit. Perhaps the judge involved in the case made some errors in judgement, I'm not educated enough on the matter to say.
Finally, regarding your monopoly claims, you're right but you're entirely off-topic. You don't have to have a monopoly to engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior. Dumping, just to offer one example, is pretty much always illegal, regardless of your market-share. The FTC has a bunch more information on their site. The DoJ is not necessarily off the mark looking into this case (they haven't even decided they have the grounds to file a suit yet, so any rush to judgement would be premature).
Undoing mods to post this, but...
What makes you think they're so much better?
Technology? We have pretty good technology but that doesn't make us any less savage. No, I think when we finally get our chance at the stars we'll still have plenty of our own problems, and maybe if we're lucky, alien cultures will be similar enough to our own to recognize and empathize with that, and maybe even exchange some of their own cultural uniquenesses for our own.
We should never play dead. Knowledge is its own reward.