This is the real point. There is nothing that amazes me more than the number of clearly unconstitutional laws that get passed.
I can't figure out if it is because lawmakers are ignorant, or if they just don't give a damn.
(Aren't congresscritters required to swear on oath that they will obey the Constitution? (or is that just the president?) Can't somebody hold them to this.)
Scientific peer review says "this is right" or "this is wrong."
Slashdot moderation says "this is worth reading" or "this is not worth reading."
Actually, scientific peer review is closer to Slashdot peer review than you think. Reviewers are asked to judge whether the paper they are reviewing is a new, interesting, or non-trivial contribution to the subject (i.e., is it "worth reading". True, reviewers will also reject papers if there are flaws, but a reviewer cannot decide by him/herself whether the paper is "right" or "wrong"; only more research can decide that.
And of course, there are usually outlets for the "crackpots": there are many (too many?) journals, and a lesser one may accept what a major one rejects. And now there are online preprint archives as well.
IDG doesn't "have to do this". Attacking anyone who uses in any way the phrase "for dummies" with potential legal threats isn't ethical behavior; the fact that (under trademark law) they might lose their rights if they don't is not a good excuse.
IDG's lawyers should behave responsibly; if that means they lose their trademark, too bad!
What should really happen, of course, is that the trademark law should be changed so that trademarks don't have to be defended so aggresively.
There's a good rebuttal to the study this Economist article is based on at the Introducing the Dvorak Keyboard site. This is worth a read; it shows that the anti-Dvorak studies may be flawed themselves, among other things.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's another ...
e-text of the Lord of the Rings. But it seems to have mutated a bit
> I'm pretty sure it's an Asimov story, but I
> can't recall the title.
Yes, it is a short story called "The Dead Past",
by Asimov.
Maybe he means that what his shares are worth could fill a shotglass.
This is the real point.
There is nothing that amazes me more than the number of clearly unconstitutional laws that get passed.
I can't figure out if it is because lawmakers are ignorant, or if they just don't give a damn.
(Aren't congresscritters required to swear on oath that they will obey the Constitution? (or is that just the president?) Can't somebody hold them to this.)
Slashdot moderation says "this is worth reading" or "this is not worth reading."
Actually, scientific peer review is closer to Slashdot peer review than you think. Reviewers are asked to judge whether the paper they are reviewing is a new, interesting, or non-trivial contribution to the subject (i.e., is it "worth reading". True, reviewers will also reject papers if there are flaws, but a reviewer cannot decide by him/herself whether the paper is "right" or "wrong"; only more research can decide that.
And of course, there are usually outlets for the "crackpots": there are many (too many?) journals, and a lesser one may accept what a major one rejects. And now there are online preprint archives as well.
IDG doesn't "have to do this". Attacking anyone who uses in any way the phrase "for dummies" with potential legal threats isn't ethical behavior; the fact that (under trademark law) they might lose their rights if they don't is not a good excuse.
IDG's lawyers should behave responsibly; if that means they lose their trademark, too bad!
What should really happen, of course, is that the trademark law should be changed so that trademarks don't have to be defended so aggresively.
But bad laws shouldn't excuse bad bahavior.
(A 2 yr. Dvorak typist.)