To describe it as "getting in the way" is a gross misrepresentation of the theory of computation and the theory of algorithms.
Yes, it does not really get in the way, much in the same way that OO does not really get in the way of algorithm analysis any more than imperative programming does. The real question is whether it is always a good idea to replace one abstraction with another, especially given that the replacement has greater problems with fidelity to the actual machine. More on that after I zoom in on your relevant statement:
nor is it generally the case that algorithms expressed in imperative languages are more efficient or easier to analyze than those expressed in functional languages.
It was never a question of whether it is more efficient or easier to analyze its running time. Again, it was a question of fidelity--does the abstraction faithfully model the actual implementation, and does discarding this abstraction in favor of a simpler-to-understand abstraction pose any real benefit to understanding? The problem, as the GGGP is pointing out, is that most systems in actual use are imperative in nature, and along with it comes assumptions that do not hold in functional languages, assumptions that can *hinder* understanding if students are not aware of them.
Also, as a side note, the Wikipedia article's assertion about false lower bounds is misleading. There are a variety of different delays associated with memory access, which may be address dependent (e.g. seek times on hard drives if you are using swap, cache misses, etc.). If these costs are polynomial in the amount of memory used by the program (assuming some sort of locality effects), then the algorithm will still be a polynomial time algorithm.
Actually it's not at all misleading--the article was talking about a specific machine model, and the assumption holds true for *that* model. On the other hand, your assumption that there are different delays in memory access (due to seek times and whatnot) *was* misleading--you are now effectively trading the RASP model for a more general one that does not assume constant access time to memory. Of *course* there's going to be a difference in the lower bound running time than in the RASP model, and depending on the actual difference you propose, it may or may not equalize it in memory access performance with that of the Turing machine. But that *still* doesn't mean that this alternate model is completely equivalent to that of the Turing machine--not in terms of running time complexity, because they depend on mechanisms that are *not* common between them. (For that matter, have you ever seen a real system that has *infinite* memory? The Turing machine assumes that.) The Church-Turing thesis, after all, only states that similar machines CAN compute the same decideable problems, not that they can compute them with the *same* running times.
Some abstraction must be fixed before an algorithm can be analyzed; a Turing machine is a convenient abstraction, but it is not the only such abstraction.
But is the actual proposed abstraction--functional instead of imperative--an adequate (not just "convenient") abstraction? I agree with the GGGP here -- in terms of algorithm complexity analysis, it is not, just as the Turing machine is not an adequate replacement of the RASP machine in terms of theoretical performance.
In fact, if you are talking C++ specifically, having access to the STL mostly eliminates having to write your own fundamental data structures for any type of data, so I spend even less time and space on boilerplate and more on implementing specific algorithms that work with my data types.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but the STL is mostly *not* based on an OOP mindset. Template programming is a different animal from object-oriented programming; it is in fact a counter-methodology to the use of inheritance and virtual methods that pure OOP prescribes (among other things).
In other words, you have been indirectly advocating the use of a mix of programming methodologies -- "the right tool for the right job", which is exactly the GP's point.
In simple terms, it states that "everything computable is computable by a Turing machine."
and it also says:
A limitation of Turing Machines is that they do not model the strengths of a particular arrangement well. For instance, modern stored-program computers are actually instances of a more specific form of abstract machine known as the random access stored program machine or RASP machine model... The RASP's finite-state machine is equipped with the capability for indirect addressing (e.g. the contents of one register can be used as an address to specify another register); thus the RASP's "program" can address any register in the register-sequence. The upshot of this distinction is that there are computational optimizations that can be performed based on the memory indices, which are not possible in a general Turing Machine; thus when Turing Machines are used as the basis for bounding running times, a 'false lower bound' can be proven on certain algorithms' running times (due to the false simplifying assumption of a Turing Machine). An example of this is binary search, an algorithm that can be shown to perform more quickly when using the RASP model of computation rather than the Turing machine model.
So, hmm... that clearly supports the argument of the GP:
Functional and logic programming get in the way of some aspects of algorithmic analysis too
But those giveaways are definitely not a sign of high morale in themselves
Nor are they a sign of low morale in themselves. But the post that was modded troll makes a point -- he's HAPPY with the toys and bonuses. Does that look like low morale to you? (Of course we don't know if he's really from google, but if I worked there myself I'd be pretty happy too with those bonuses.) Heck, it even points to a possibility that they are happy with the products of their OWN work so much that they like having those products as rewards -- if they had low morale, there's a high probability that they won't want to see those products ever again.
they are, in fact, something companies do when they need to boost morale.
Yes, but not in Google's case. It was an annual thing that they do. They've been documented to give away phones three years ago, and that was before the boom of Android. So the case that you are making, that it was intended to boost morale, is pretty weak compared to the alternate explanation.
Those are the steps of a business trying to improve morale, not the steps of a business with high morale.
Yes, sure, because a business gives raises and bonuses to improve morale, not to reward employees for hard work. And a business gives away gadgets to improve morale, not to improve their products by letting their own employees casually use them first hand. And a business does ALL of that to improve morale, not to follow through with their public promises when they take employees under their helm in the first place.
Similarly, my post here is a step I took to improve my karma, not to offer a valid disagreeing opinion.
The open-source developer mindset: "Surely someone who's even remotely interested will have time to help us. After all we've opened the source, right?"
The typical visitor's mindset: "This does not do what I need. I'll look for something else, or I'll make one myself."
From the "Initiative" link at the top of TFA select "FAQ". Since you couldn't be bothered to look at the site hosting TFA I'll post the relevant part of the FAQ to make it easy for you.
Yup, I couldn't be bothered to navigate the site maze hosting TFA. Doesn't make it wrong. Busy people have short attention spans. (And don't give me that "but you're on Slashdot, surely you don't have anything better to do" look! Stop! It burnnnnnns!)
See, if the interview STARTED with a recap of these three points, I would have read on and see how it could possibly be a good thing for me.
And you didn't have to repost the fluff paragraphs beyond point no. 3 either. If I were too busy I would think it's all TL;DR. If I want to know more, I'll click links, I'll even google it on my phone--but you gotta make me WANT to.
He was talking why *he* wants it, not why a regular user would want it.
There's Qt (the window library KDE uses) for Windows already. How is a full-blown KDE for Windows really needed if all he wants to do is to use KDE apps on Windows? But more importantly, why bother at all, what real benefits are there? (These are honest questions that may be asked by someone who's genuinely interested.)
The article could have been a good "elevator pitch" for people to want to explore the site more. Failed for me.
FTFA, the only statement close to answering the question is:
and we want to support free tools also on Windows (that's why we do KDE on Windows, right?)
Doesn't really answer *why* KDE for Windows is a good thing -- one is left thinking "there are already lots of free beer/speech tools for Windows, why add one more?"
Sure, you probably have an answer to that. My point is the article itself doesn't answer it, so "Read the article" is a boneheaded response.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but some priests can and do teach proper anthropology. My previous school has a full-fledged department of sociology and anthropology founded by a Jesuit.
I thought that was odd too, as there is no game actually named Wolfenstein. It is either Wolfenstein 3D or Return to Castle Wolfenstein. If they can type out the name of every Call of Duty iteration, how is it so hard to type out the name of RTCW properly?
Well, if you think I'm doing a PKW, it certain failed, hasn't it?:P Got "overrated" right off the bat. (Of course I didn't get "troll" or "flamebait"; it was a legitimate question.)
Honestly speaking, I did NOT actually know people used the term "Nigerian scam" to talk about scams originating elsewhere, or that it is somehow popular. I only read about the "Nigerian scheme" term online. People in my country just call it "panggagancho", from the Spanish "gancho" I guess.
Yes. If Native Americans were seen as equals, they would have to be respected. If they were seen as inferiors, they could be conquered.
You're attempting to confuse the intent with the side-effect of the intent. "Conquer" is the intent. "Offend" is the side-effect. They did NOT mean to offend (they weren't AWARE that they can offend the Native Americans--there was no record at the time that the term got past their own circles, and there was no notion of political correctness at the time to necessitate restraint). As I said, they weren't saying it as an *expletive* to the Native Americans at the time--they were *surreptitiously* saying it amongst themselves, protected by language barriers--so HOW exactly are they going to offend them with it? (And for your OWN sake, look the word up yourself, if only to appreciate that precision does not preclude multiple usages of the word.)
Exactly. That was MY point.
Was I contesting that it was YOUR point? I was clarifying it and using it to explain my position so you see where I am getting at. Quoting that out of context shows that all you're doing is derailing the conversation. Let's put it back on track and point to the one thing your argument hinges on:
No `assumption that "no one is being offended"` was ever necessary for the term to become widespread
But you yourself have agreed that:
they STILL WOULD USE THE TERM because they considered those people who would be offended to be lesser
which is exactly the situation of "having an assumption that '*no one* is being offended'". (Is the obvious rhetoric lost on you? Okay, sure, I'll use "no one *important* is being offended", but only if you agree to use "Nigerian-type scam" yourself. See, I'm open-minded.)
You have not proven that Nigerians will NOT be offended when being attributed with a type of scam that did NOT originate from their country (as I've already pointed out, the method of this scam is different enough, same as the method of the Spanish Prisoner scam is different from the Nigerian scam), making it *sloppy* and *imprecise* to continue to throw around the term without the proper context. Furthermore it is definitely *inexcusable* to use the potentially politically-laden term in a LAW blog and other law literature (which is what I was pointing out in the first place!)
Oh genius oracle of all things past and future, please tell me more of what WILL happen, so that I may build my life around your omniscient predictions.
And that helps your argument.. how?
I need not say any more, seeing as is that you've descended to using outright scorn when I have been careful not to do so when addressing your points.
Let's see, is the tendency of the term to diminish the value of Nigerians, or to indicate that the type of scam originated in Nigeria?
Do you honestly think that the term "Indian giver" started with the intent to diminish the value of Native Americans? At THAT TIME the Europeans thought of them just as some race they can conquer. Their propensity to offend them did not stem from a direct WANT to offend but from a default mindset of not treating them as equals -- they uttered the term not as an expletive to the Native Americans, but as a description to fellow Europeans.
In fact, historical evidence suggests the originators of the phrase intended it to be offensive
Proof? There was no such thing as political correctness back then. Unless you can point me to an exact source that specifically says that it was meant to directly offend the race (which I honestly have not found), then "intended it to be offensive" is plain conjecture.
It doesn't change the point of using the phrase, which is to reference the origin of that type of scam
And if you are going to argue now that this scam was somehow different, then I refer you to an earlier post in this thread -- pointing out the differences of this particular scam with the original Nigerian scam:
The foreigner is seeking the victim to be a money collector, instead of a money distributor. E.g. the money comes FROM someone else and is sent TO the person doing the email exchange.
If this happened often enough (which it is starting to), should we now call this the Malaysian scam? Good luck dealing with them Malaysians then.
And back to you:
Calling this a Nigerian scam WAS NOT BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT A NIGERIAN WAS INVOLVED in this context.
On the contrary, by the use of inaccurate terms, you are propagating THAT EXACT mistaken belief to others who do not know the difference. Look around this article thread -- some posters didn't even KNOW that Malaysia was a different country and have mistakenly assumed that the scam DID originate from Nigeria. Of course they did not read the slashdot summary, but then if the term "Nigerian scam" was immediately clear to everyone that it did not originate from Nigeria, then they would NOT have posted those erroneous comments in the first place.
And by propagating the mistaken belief to those who do not know the difference, you are essentially being like one of the original utterers of the "Indian giver" phrase--you do not know what you are starting. In the future, people WILL mean it to offend, even as the percentage of these scams become less and less from Nigeria and more from other countries. You could stop that right now by simply saying this is just another "advance fee fraud". If you REALLY want to put a name to it, say "Nigeria-style" (as the official court records for this case say), in deference to the historical notion that it was popular in Nigeria for a while. But don't use a term that is clearly a misnomer -- that alone is proven by a good number of posts in Slashdot that got the mistaken belief, and who knows how much more in less intelligent forums?
So, then, who are you to judge that it is not derogatory to Nigerians to call any confidence tricks of that type as a "Nigerian" scam? It is precisely the assumption that "no one is being offended" which led to widespread careless use of the term "Indian giver".
Also, as in your argument, calling this a "Nigerian scam" was already based on a false belief in THIS context -- i.e., it was really a Malaysian that was involved, not a Nigerian. Just as the Europeans were the ones who went back on their words instead of the American Indians.
In legal circles, the language HAS to be technically correct. Otherwise you risk all sorts of things, from frivolous lawsuits to straining diplomatic ties.
This "Nigerian scam" identification comes from a law blog. That's why it's bothersome.
It's the equivalent of requesting your supermarket to stock up Scott's brand tissue (maybe it's cheaper) and they stock up on Kleenex instead, and the supermarket just shrugs it off saying "it's the same thing."
Its footprint was quite reasonable (unlike Netscape Communicator 4). It does a good job of rendering all web pages I visit, and faster too. We all pay the price when WWW innovations were being dictated only by a single browser, and I did not want to see yet another Geocities page with blink tags all over.
I can see where IE4 being offered free (and then being offered via Service Releases) would make Netscape unhappy.. but f*ck them, Netscape is just a terribly bloated pile of junk.
(seriously, I have MSE installed on all my computers, and i'm perfectly happy with the current method of acquisition, but this all looks way too familiar)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does not really get in the way, much in the same way that OO does not really get in the way of algorithm analysis any more than imperative programming does. The real question is whether it is always a good idea to replace one abstraction with another, especially given that the replacement has greater problems with fidelity to the actual machine. More on that after I zoom in on your relevant statement:
It was never a question of whether it is more efficient or easier to analyze its running time. Again, it was a question of fidelity--does the abstraction faithfully model the actual implementation, and does discarding this abstraction in favor of a simpler-to-understand abstraction pose any real benefit to understanding? The problem, as the GGGP is pointing out, is that most systems in actual use are imperative in nature, and along with it comes assumptions that do not hold in functional languages, assumptions that can *hinder* understanding if students are not aware of them.
Actually it's not at all misleading--the article was talking about a specific machine model, and the assumption holds true for *that* model. On the other hand, your assumption that there are different delays in memory access (due to seek times and whatnot) *was* misleading--you are now effectively trading the RASP model for a more general one that does not assume constant access time to memory. Of *course* there's going to be a difference in the lower bound running time than in the RASP model, and depending on the actual difference you propose, it may or may not equalize it in memory access performance with that of the Turing machine. But that *still* doesn't mean that this alternate model is completely equivalent to that of the Turing machine--not in terms of running time complexity, because they depend on mechanisms that are *not* common between them. (For that matter, have you ever seen a real system that has *infinite* memory? The Turing machine assumes that.) The Church-Turing thesis, after all, only states that similar machines CAN compute the same decideable problems, not that they can compute them with the *same* running times.
But is the actual proposed abstraction--functional instead of imperative--an adequate (not just "convenient") abstraction? I agree with the GGGP here -- in terms of algorithm complexity analysis, it is not, just as the Turing machine is not an adequate replacement of the RASP machine in terms of theoretical performance.
I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but the STL is mostly *not* based on an OOP mindset. Template programming is a different animal from object-oriented programming; it is in fact a counter-methodology to the use of inheritance and virtual methods that pure OOP prescribes (among other things).
In other words, you have been indirectly advocating the use of a mix of programming methodologies -- "the right tool for the right job", which is exactly the GP's point.
Hmm, Wikipedia says:
and it also says:
So, hmm... that clearly supports the argument of the GP:
So what's your point again?
But those giveaways are definitely not a sign of high morale in themselves
Nor are they a sign of low morale in themselves. But the post that was modded troll makes a point -- he's HAPPY with the toys and bonuses. Does that look like low morale to you? (Of course we don't know if he's really from google, but if I worked there myself I'd be pretty happy too with those bonuses.) Heck, it even points to a possibility that they are happy with the products of their OWN work so much that they like having those products as rewards -- if they had low morale, there's a high probability that they won't want to see those products ever again.
they are, in fact, something companies do when they need to boost morale.
Yes, but not in Google's case. It was an annual thing that they do. They've been documented to give away phones three years ago, and that was before the boom of Android. So the case that you are making, that it was intended to boost morale, is pretty weak compared to the alternate explanation.
Those are the steps of a business trying to improve morale, not the steps of a business with high morale.
Yes, sure, because a business gives raises and bonuses to improve morale, not to reward employees for hard work. And a business gives away gadgets to improve morale, not to improve their products by letting their own employees casually use them first hand. And a business does ALL of that to improve morale, not to follow through with their public promises when they take employees under their helm in the first place.
Similarly, my post here is a step I took to improve my karma, not to offer a valid disagreeing opinion.
I'm pretty sure by then you would also have gotten strange looks if you said you googled yourself.
Especially when you used the yahoo google portal.
"I Google myself on my Yahoo all the time!"
Send a patch, then :)
Yeah, that's the SECOND huge problem.
The open-source developer mindset: "Surely someone who's even remotely interested will have time to help us. After all we've opened the source, right?"
The typical visitor's mindset: "This does not do what I need. I'll look for something else, or I'll make one myself."
From the "Initiative" link at the top of TFA select "FAQ".
Since you couldn't be bothered to look at the site hosting TFA I'll post the relevant part of the FAQ to make it easy for you.
Yup, I couldn't be bothered to navigate the site maze hosting TFA. Doesn't make it wrong. Busy people have short attention spans. (And don't give me that "but you're on Slashdot, surely you don't have anything better to do" look! Stop! It burnnnnnns!)
See, if the interview STARTED with a recap of these three points, I would have read on and see how it could possibly be a good thing for me.
And you didn't have to repost the fluff paragraphs beyond point no. 3 either. If I were too busy I would think it's all TL;DR. If I want to know more, I'll click links, I'll even google it on my phone--but you gotta make me WANT to.
He was talking why *he* wants it, not why a regular user would want it.
There's Qt (the window library KDE uses) for Windows already. How is a full-blown KDE for Windows really needed if all he wants to do is to use KDE apps on Windows? But more importantly, why bother at all, what real benefits are there? (These are honest questions that may be asked by someone who's genuinely interested.)
The article could have been a good "elevator pitch" for people to want to explore the site more. Failed for me.
Ehm... Read the article?
Oh right, this is Slashdot. Sorry, never mind.
FTFA, the only statement close to answering the question is:
and we want to support free tools also on Windows (that's why we do KDE on Windows, right?)
Doesn't really answer *why* KDE for Windows is a good thing -- one is left thinking "there are already lots of free beer/speech tools for Windows, why add one more?"
Sure, you probably have an answer to that. My point is the article itself doesn't answer it, so "Read the article" is a boneheaded response.
And yep TFA did qualify it as the largest subnormal double-precision number. Of course the journalist probably didn't know what that meant.
and priests teaching anthropology
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but some priests can and do teach proper anthropology. My previous school has a full-fledged department of sociology and anthropology founded by a Jesuit.
Granted, many Jesuits are known to be scientific thinkers.
I thought that was odd too, as there is no game actually named Wolfenstein. It is either Wolfenstein 3D or Return to Castle Wolfenstein. If they can type out the name of every Call of Duty iteration, how is it so hard to type out the name of RTCW properly?
Because they're referring to this game, not RTCW.
Yeah, I was surprised too. Out of touch with PC games for long.
They discovered an exploit to give us zero-day hours? And it's confirmed? W00t! Better call Stephen Hawking! ... oh.
The writer's wit... it's as cunning as a fox!
Well, if you think I'm doing a PKW, it certain failed, hasn't it? :P Got "overrated" right off the bat. (Of course I didn't get "troll" or "flamebait"; it was a legitimate question.)
Honestly speaking, I did NOT actually know people used the term "Nigerian scam" to talk about scams originating elsewhere, or that it is somehow popular. I only read about the "Nigerian scheme" term online. People in my country just call it "panggagancho", from the Spanish "gancho" I guess.
You're attempting to confuse the intent with the side-effect of the intent. "Conquer" is the intent. "Offend" is the side-effect. They did NOT mean to offend (they weren't AWARE that they can offend the Native Americans--there was no record at the time that the term got past their own circles, and there was no notion of political correctness at the time to necessitate restraint). As I said, they weren't saying it as an *expletive* to the Native Americans at the time--they were *surreptitiously* saying it amongst themselves, protected by language barriers--so HOW exactly are they going to offend them with it? (And for your OWN sake, look the word up yourself, if only to appreciate that precision does not preclude multiple usages of the word.)
Was I contesting that it was YOUR point? I was clarifying it and using it to explain my position so you see where I am getting at. Quoting that out of context shows that all you're doing is derailing the conversation. Let's put it back on track and point to the one thing your argument hinges on:
But you yourself have agreed that:
which is exactly the situation of "having an assumption that '*no one* is being offended'". (Is the obvious rhetoric lost on you? Okay, sure, I'll use "no one *important* is being offended", but only if you agree to use "Nigerian-type scam" yourself. See, I'm open-minded.)
You have not proven that Nigerians will NOT be offended when being attributed with a type of scam that did NOT originate from their country (as I've already pointed out, the method of this scam is different enough, same as the method of the Spanish Prisoner scam is different from the Nigerian scam), making it *sloppy* and *imprecise* to continue to throw around the term without the proper context. Furthermore it is definitely *inexcusable* to use the potentially politically-laden term in a LAW blog and other law literature (which is what I was pointing out in the first place!)
And that helps your argument.. how?
I need not say any more, seeing as is that you've descended to using outright scorn when I have been careful not to do so when addressing your points.
For some reason I ended up replying in the wrong place, but you can find my reply directly below this one. :)
Do you honestly think that the term "Indian giver" started with the intent to diminish the value of Native Americans? At THAT TIME the Europeans thought of them just as some race they can conquer. Their propensity to offend them did not stem from a direct WANT to offend but from a default mindset of not treating them as equals -- they uttered the term not as an expletive to the Native Americans, but as a description to fellow Europeans.
Proof? There was no such thing as political correctness back then. Unless you can point me to an exact source that specifically says that it was meant to directly offend the race (which I honestly have not found), then "intended it to be offensive" is plain conjecture.
Which was inaccurate to begin with. The Spanish Prisoner scam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Prisoner predates it by a century.
And if you are going to argue now that this scam was somehow different, then I refer you to an earlier post in this thread -- pointing out the differences of this particular scam with the original Nigerian scam:
If this happened often enough (which it is starting to), should we now call this the Malaysian scam? Good luck dealing with them Malaysians then.
And back to you:
On the contrary, by the use of inaccurate terms, you are propagating THAT EXACT mistaken belief to others who do not know the difference. Look around this article thread -- some posters didn't even KNOW that Malaysia was a different country and have mistakenly assumed that the scam DID originate from Nigeria. Of course they did not read the slashdot summary, but then if the term "Nigerian scam" was immediately clear to everyone that it did not originate from Nigeria, then they would NOT have posted those erroneous comments in the first place.
And by propagating the mistaken belief to those who do not know the difference, you are essentially being like one of the original utterers of the "Indian giver" phrase--you do not know what you are starting. In the future, people WILL mean it to offend, even as the percentage of these scams become less and less from Nigeria and more from other countries. You could stop that right now by simply saying this is just another "advance fee fraud". If you REALLY want to put a name to it, say "Nigeria-style" (as the official court records for this case say), in deference to the historical notion that it was popular in Nigeria for a while. But don't use a term that is clearly a misnomer -- that alone is proven by a good number of posts in Slashdot that got the mistaken belief, and who knows how much more in less intelligent forums?
So, then, who are you to judge that it is not derogatory to Nigerians to call any confidence tricks of that type as a "Nigerian" scam? It is precisely the assumption that "no one is being offended" which led to widespread careless use of the term "Indian giver".
Also, as in your argument, calling this a "Nigerian scam" was already based on a false belief in THIS context -- i.e., it was really a Malaysian that was involved, not a Nigerian. Just as the Europeans were the ones who went back on their words instead of the American Indians.
Would you tell someone that s/he's an "Indian giver" if a Native American is within earshot?
In legal circles, the language HAS to be technically correct. Otherwise you risk all sorts of things, from frivolous lawsuits to straining diplomatic ties.
This "Nigerian scam" identification comes from a law blog. That's why it's bothersome.
It's the equivalent of requesting your supermarket to stock up Scott's brand tissue (maybe it's cheaper) and they stock up on Kleenex instead, and the supermarket just shrugs it off saying "it's the same thing."
But the 419 scam *specifically* originates from Nigeria. After all it was named after the article number of the Nigerian criminal code.
The type of scam really is "Advance fee fraud" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_fraud. The Nigerian scam is only a subtype of this.
Besides, the court decision in question http://www.rhlaw.com/blog/californialitigationattorney/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/E049170A.doc specifically said "Nigeria-style email scam" instead of "Nigerian scam". Similarly, one cannot say this is a 419 scam, just a 419-type scam.
Anyway, the point is that this is poor reporting. The court decision exerted due diligence to be accurate in its wording; why not the blog article?
... when the article clearly says it was a Malaysian doing the fraud, and the funds are transferred to a Hong Kong bank?
It's not even close to Africa.
IE4 was actually pretty good.
Its footprint was quite reasonable (unlike Netscape Communicator 4). It does a good job of rendering all web pages I visit, and faster too. We all pay the price when WWW innovations were being dictated only by a single browser, and I did not want to see yet another Geocities page with blink tags all over.
I can see where IE4 being offered free (and then being offered via Service Releases) would make Netscape unhappy .. but f*ck them, Netscape is just a terribly bloated pile of junk.
(seriously, I have MSE installed on all my computers, and i'm perfectly happy with the current method of acquisition, but this all looks way too familiar)