I'd like to say that Reiser wasn't fooling anyone with his transparent drivel. Unfortunately, that's just not the case: he fooled a lot of people. There are probably some who will still claim that he's innocent.
What really needs to happen is that online harassment and bullying need to be considered the same sort of crime as their real-life counterparts. To make it a "special" crime all its own is unnecessary.
But something does need to be done about this. It's not just thinking of the children; these things are crimes in real life for a reason, and online should be no different.
When and if the candidate you like doesn't win, cry fraud at every opportunity, and don't stop insisting until you've proven it. When the candidate you like wins, insist that the vote is airtight and rock-solid.
Certainly many games can be improved through expressive motion controls, but all games? Yes. All games. Even Tetris could benefit from rotation and gestures.
Give me a break. Some games are played best with a gamepad, some are played best with a mouse, and some are played best with wii-style motion controls. The Wii's pointer easily substitutes for a mouse, and motion always beats gamepads.
There's no magic holy grail of game controllers that is perfect for everything. Perfect for all games? Perhaps not; improvement is always possible.
But better for all games? Not only can it happen, but it has already happened: we saw D-pads supplant joysticks and analog sticks supplant D-pads. Motion supplanting buttons is merely the next step.
Insinuating that game developers are stubborn and lazy just because they havent abandoned all other control schemes is asinine. Insinuating that game developers are stubborn and lazy because they have made no serious efforts to advance beyond the analog cookie cutter, however, is not asinine at all.
I hope that Nintendo takes the plunge and tells developers that they don't have to feel obligated to use motion controls. They've already done that, and the damage it's done to the Wii has been enormous.
I just rented the Wii port of Okami, and you can tell that the motion controls are just tacked on, and actually hinder gameplay (out side of the ability to really brush). It often feels like a gimmick, which detracts from game-play. Your lack of skill doesn't mean it's a gimmick. Take the plunge. Assuming you've actually played Okami, which I seriously doubt. You would not be saying this if you had given it a serious try.
Hell, some of Nintendo's own franchises don't even use motion control, like SSBB, to great effect. For which Sakurai should be fired and sued for malfeasance. How can Nintendo expect third-party developers to take motion seriously when firwt-party developers don't?
SSBB, like all other games, could have been far superior with expressive motion control. For Sakurai to not have used it, and not have forced it, is a crime against gaming.
Of course you could make it. But the fanbase would reject it out of hand, for exactly the reasons I claimed. The Wii fanbase is more tolerant of innovation and expressive controls, which is why it needs to happen there: otherwise it simply won't sell.
Of course it's a no-brainer, but people who call themselves hardcore will reject a game that does this as "undignified," so it's actually quite a risk to do something like this.
THE WII CONTROLLER IS NOT DESIGNED FOR ARCADE-STYLE FIGHTING GAMES. The Wii controller is designed for all games, and indeed: all games can be improved through expressive motion control. If only Nintendo would force this issue on developers who want to dip into the Wii's money pit, this would become more evident. As it is, their insistence on allowing developers to support CC/GC controls is just enabling a generation of kinesophobes to cling to their outdated habits.
Wii games need precisely two control options: take the plunge or play on another console.
your children won't have the same values as you. they will have my values, or your wife's values. so you don't represent a valid coherent belief system. simply because all belief systems must be defended, or even better, aggressively proselytized, in order to survive.
I think you've misunderstood something here. I do defend my values, and vehemently so. The point of my last post was to show how "tolerance" in its modern definitions cannot do this. To survive, it has to violate its own definitions, to become something quite different from what people tend to think it is.
Tolerance is far from the first value system in history to do this. The twentieth century showed us many other examples: communism, capitalism, and socialism all had to mutate, to become something else. None could survive in their "pure" forms. The same is true of modern notions of tolerance. You understand this part; what you don't seem to get yet is that the result is no longer what it originally was. It's something else entirely, something that I'm not sure has a name of its own yet.
if a belief system doesn't have a will to survive, if it won't exert action or even violence to defend itself, it will simply die, becauser some other belief system will act aggressively towards your belief system, and simply kill it, because it isn't defended.
And thus, tolerance dies.
My beliefs do not. What you don't seem to understand is that I have rejected modern "tolerance" (in quotes because I'm attempting to use the common definition) for precisely the reasons you've been stating. And with that rejection, I am free to defend my beliefs again.
killing your belief system, in this analogy, means that it will impose upon your children or your grandchildren how to believe.
Perhaps, but that is not the work of a tolerant belief system. The moment tolerance chose to fight, it joined its enemy. You lost before you could even begin.
...and since you won't defend your beliefs from that type of activity...
But I will.
...your children or grandchildren will simply not believe as you believe. and your beliefs will perish from the earth.
I do worry about this, yes, and I believe the world will be a worse place for that. This would be why I defend my beliefs. In doing so, however, I have no choice but to reject modern notions of "tolerance," which would prohibit me from doing so.
your beliefs therefore are simply incompatible with reality, and are therefore pointless
You seem to think I've been talking about my beliefs all along. I have not. I've been talking about yours, or rather, what you claim your beliefs to be.
reality doesn't care about some sort of absolute right and wrong, as you assert.
I assert that it does, and that you are presenting a misinformed opinion as though it were fact.
the reality about the artificiality of human moral constructs works against your logic, it doesn't support your logic. you are attempting to hew closely to the indifference of reality towards human belief systems.
Only under assumption that morality is a thing to be constructed, rather than discovered. I believe the opposite.
except that human beliefs systems never needed reality to support them, and never will
Does it? I'm not so sure about that. But whether or not reality requires human belief to support it, humans require reality to support their belief systems. I believe this to be the fatal flaw in internalism.
if you understand the concept of memetics, that is, that the competition between ideas and their spread between humans and societies functions sort of like genetics and the darwinian struggle for survival, then what you represent is a failed mutation. a stillborn child.
Ah, memetics, and from there to Dawkins: a prominent atheist externalist, or
And thus, you prove my point. Tolerance is about abandoning absolutes, about removing conflict where it exists. As soon as you take on absolutes, as soon as you try to create or join a conflict, you are betraying the most basic principle of your beliefs.
now you are going to tell me, that someone somewhere thinks its good to hate black people. therefore, because someone out there believes that, i have to accomodate him. and if i don't, then i am just like him!
As long as it goes no further than beliefs, then yes. Taking on the tools and techniques of the intolerant is anathema to the truly tolerant.
this is what you are telling me
that his belief is equivalent to mine.
Not quite. He probably at least recognizes his hate for what it is.
just because it exists. i can't fight him, i can't condemn him, because, in your view, i'm just like him when i do that!
Not necessarily in my own personal views. But from the definition of tolerance, yes.
There are some among the tolerance movement who recognize this, and are trying to get away from the "tolerance" euphemism. Usually they try to replace "tolerant" versus "intolerant" with things like "more inclusive" versus "less inclusive" or "exclusive," and then they go about their intolerance as usual. At least it's less hypocritical.
so someone comes in the room: "i think muslims should be our slaves"
if i were to condemn him for that, i am automatically intolerant
OF HIS INTOLERANCE!
you sincerely believe that we are equivalent?!
Yes. Your targets are different, but you still seek to marginalize if not eliminate, to place yourselves above others. The proper response, according to tolerance, is to try and work this out between you.
in your world view, there is no value definition of what someone believes. or, there is in your wordlview: the only value definition is the effort one takes to defend their values. that that, that alone, makes one as bad as someone else, completely regardless of what they actually value!
You describe it a little more verbosely than I do. I'd phrase it as "Evil is not about what you want, but about what you are willing to do to get it." But yes, your description is a little simplistic but fairly accurate; you've got the basics.
therefore, in your world, the only person of any worth is someone who will not defend their values at all
Not quite. There's actually another conclusion that can come from this worldview. Up until now you've been assuming that "tolerance," as commonly defined, is a virtue. As long as you hold that assumption, then you do indeed come to a contradiction at this point: the only way to hold the virtue is to do nothing, and clearly that's not virtuous.
Discard the assumption, however, and the contradiction vanishes. You do not stand for some kind of neutrality. You have taken a side in this conflict. Recognize it, and stand for it with pride, and while I may not be on the same side as you I would respect you as a foe. Preaching that it's something other than what it is, however, is silly at best and reprehensible at worst.
well genius, what does that say about the passion behind what that person actually values?
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing. Or perhaps the value itself is flawed; this is the path I've taken.
you're insane.
Not really. In the broadest sense, you could call me a moral externalist: someone who believes that morality comes from an external (possibly universal) source. You could contrast it with moral internalism: the belief that morality is internal to each individual. That is the conflict I choose to take my stand on, and I strongly suspect you are on the opposite side of it.
Do I hate internalists? No. Hell; I married one of the staunchest in
in the name of fighting exclusivity and those who spread "us" versus "them"
you see me committing the very crime i fight
my head asplode
how the hell do you arrive at that conclusion? Because ultimately, most forms of "intolerance" are merely different definitions of what is "good" and what is "evil." You do the same, defining "evil" as "defining evil" and advocating the same solution: marginalization.
no, seriously: in your mind, there is no conflict in this world between intolerant groups and tolerant groups in this world?
That's not quite it. In my mind, there is no conflict because one of the sides doesn't exist. "Tolerant groups" are merely those who have defined their Evil That Must Be Destroyed in a slightly unorthodox fashion -namely, anyone other than them who defines an Evil That Must Be Destroyed- and refuses to recognize this for what it is. Perhaps it just takes one to know one.
there is no conflict between tolerance and intolerance in this world?
Rather, that there cannot be conflict. The moment tolerance tries to set itself against intolerance, it eliminates itself by becoming its own enemy.
and, yes, you fight intolerance. how the hell does this become the same thing as intolerance?
Because you've begun your march to eliminate that which you define as "evil," exactly like The Other Side. You've become the very thing you fight against, complaining about the splinter in your enemy's eye without seeing the splinter in your own.
have even thought about the subject matter?
More than I think you understand. But it doesn't take all that much thought to see that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
i'll simply say this: if in your mind what i said turns into "lets kill all the muslims" then you haven't understood or read anything i said.
We understand perfectly. Your "tolerance" and "intolerance" are nothing more than euphemisms for "us" and "them": not at all unlike the so-called "intolerant" groups you mention. Your targets are different, but the hate remains.
There's very little you can do about this, to be honest. A determined person with that sort of access to a computer is only going to be defeated by someone with the same level and amount of access: your friend herself. You won't be able to keep up.
Nor, frankly, should you. This is a sign of some serious problems in that relationship. Your friend might be to blame, or her spouse might be to blame, or the concept of blame might not even apply; it's tough to tell with the little information here. But the solution here is communication: they need to hash this out between themselves, possibly with a mediator (who should not be you, by the way). The best way to defeat a keylogger is to make the other person not want to install it in the first place.
Forcing others to release their source can restrict competition, for example if the other source contains code under licenses that don't allow redistribution.
Then don't use the GPL'd code. Again, going back to the Pepsi vs. Coke example, they use different recipes and compete quite nicely. Nothing is stopping Skype from doing the same.
OK, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the whole purpose of antitrust legislation was to crack down on things that discourage competition.
What in the GPL discourages competition? Nothing. You can make your own competing programs all you want. You may not be able to use GPL'd code without also releasing your source, but this is irrelevant: no one complains when Coke doesn't let Pepsi use the Coke recipes.
Even if that were a legitimate complaint, however, it would still be irrelevant. There is plenty of competition, even among GPL'd software. Consider the myriad Linux distributions, to give an example of entire businesses that compete with one another despite using GPL'd products. If Skype wants to compete with Linux using some kind of "Skynux," they too are free to do so. All they have to do is comply with the license.
1) The Wii does not use the official Flash player. It uses a player coded by the Opera folks, which uses the latest specs released by Adobe: specs which correspond to Flash 7.0. Releasing the specs for the latest version is still a Very Good Thing, of course, but it's Opera, not Adobe, who will be updating the Wii player.
2) Re-hiring x86 ASM coders won't do the Wii any good, because the Wii doesn't use x86. It uses PowerPC.
No, see, the fact that the stipulation is needed makes the initial concept relevant.
But the relevance is then negated by that stipulation. The fact that she dated a man who might have committed multiple murders could be considered relevant to a murder case. But that is not what happened. She dated a man who did not commit multiple murders, and this has no relevance at all.
If you say, "he claims to be a multiple murderer", that's relevant.
Not when the claims are false, it isn't.
So there's little evidence surrounding this guy's claimed multiple murders. There's also little evidence surrounding this case.
There is plenty of evidence. Much of it is circumstantial, but that does not negate its value as such.
That the guy provably turns out to be innocent of these claimed multiple murders, if that's the case, removes the doubt.
Ah, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. From a legal standpoint, the fact that this guy was not proven guilty means that he is innocent.
One could argue for the Scottish verdict at this point -a "not proven" acquittal distinct from "not guilty"- but US law doesn't recognize such a verdict at this point in time.
This other guy doesn't need to be convicted to place doubt on Reiser. There can be a reasonable doubt about both of them.
Could there be? Yes. Is there? No.
There can be a reasonable doubt that Nina Reiser is dead, I think.
I emphatically disagree. Some people do doubt her death, but they are being quite unreasonable about it.
That there's little reasonable doubt in the end is one thing. That you had stipulate proves that it's relevant, though. If it was not relevant, the stipulation would not be necessary.
The stipulation is what makes it irrelevant. If his wife had actually been dating a serial killer, then that would in fact be relevant to the case. But as things turned out, he was not a serial killer, and so the relevance goes right back out the window.
I realize you want to believe that Reiser is innocent. There are still people who want to believe that OJ is innocent. But there just isn't room for doubt here.
ReiserFS is as fundamental as the laws of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion?
Uh... no. ReiserFS is good, but no filesystem belongs in the same league as the laws of thermodynamics. Seriously; if you really believe that ReiserFS is that important, you should consider re-examining your beliefs as to why.
Oh, come on. Dating a confessed serial killer doesn't have a chance to create a reasonable doubt about someone's disappearance?
Only until the confession is proved to be not credible. For reasons that modern psychology has yet to understand, most people who confess to serial murders are actually innocent of the crimes they claim to have committed. Such appears to have been the case with this guy.
"irrelevant" means there's no way something makes a difference. To the contrary, I think you'd have to work very hard to dispel that doubt.
Fortunately for me, that work seems to have already been done.
I beg your pardon, but why is this trolling? I am merely pointing out what I believe is the real motivating force behind their actions, given Microsoft's past and current actions. I believe they want to cut up HTML so they can leave important bits out while still being able to claim compliance. What's trolling about that?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to say that Reiser wasn't fooling anyone with his transparent drivel. Unfortunately, that's just not the case: he fooled a lot of people. There are probably some who will still claim that he's innocent.
What really needs to happen is that online harassment and bullying need to be considered the same sort of crime as their real-life counterparts. To make it a "special" crime all its own is unnecessary.
But something does need to be done about this. It's not just thinking of the children; these things are crimes in real life for a reason, and online should be no different.
When and if the candidate you like doesn't win, cry fraud at every opportunity, and don't stop insisting until you've proven it. When the candidate you like wins, insist that the vote is airtight and rock-solid.
That's pretty much all there is to it.
What makes you so sure they aren't? Most of the added power over the previous generation is eaten up just by rendering in HD anyway.
All this talk of artfully story-entwined gameplay, yet no mention of Okami? Fail.
But better for all games? Not only can it happen, but it has already happened: we saw D-pads supplant joysticks and analog sticks supplant D-pads. Motion supplanting buttons is merely the next step. Insinuating that game developers are stubborn and lazy just because they havent abandoned all other control schemes is asinine. Insinuating that game developers are stubborn and lazy because they have made no serious efforts to advance beyond the analog cookie cutter, however, is not asinine at all.
SSBB, like all other games, could have been far superior with expressive motion control. For Sakurai to not have used it, and not have forced it, is a crime against gaming.
Of course you could make it. But the fanbase would reject it out of hand, for exactly the reasons I claimed. The Wii fanbase is more tolerant of innovation and expressive controls, which is why it needs to happen there: otherwise it simply won't sell.
Of course it's a no-brainer, but people who call themselves hardcore will reject a game that does this as "undignified," so it's actually quite a risk to do something like this.
Wii games need precisely two control options: take the plunge or play on another console.
This is a game that could really have been improved through expressive motion control. But oh well; graphics are everything, right?
your children won't have the same values as you. they will have my values, or your wife's values. so you don't represent a valid coherent belief system. simply because all belief systems must be defended, or even better, aggressively proselytized, in order to survive.
I think you've misunderstood something here. I do defend my values, and vehemently so. The point of my last post was to show how "tolerance" in its modern definitions cannot do this. To survive, it has to violate its own definitions, to become something quite different from what people tend to think it is.
Tolerance is far from the first value system in history to do this. The twentieth century showed us many other examples: communism, capitalism, and socialism all had to mutate, to become something else. None could survive in their "pure" forms. The same is true of modern notions of tolerance. You understand this part; what you don't seem to get yet is that the result is no longer what it originally was. It's something else entirely, something that I'm not sure has a name of its own yet.
if a belief system doesn't have a will to survive, if it won't exert action or even violence to defend itself, it will simply die, becauser some other belief system will act aggressively towards your belief system, and simply kill it, because it isn't defended.
And thus, tolerance dies.
My beliefs do not. What you don't seem to understand is that I have rejected modern "tolerance" (in quotes because I'm attempting to use the common definition) for precisely the reasons you've been stating. And with that rejection, I am free to defend my beliefs again.
killing your belief system, in this analogy, means that it will impose upon your children or your grandchildren how to believe.
Perhaps, but that is not the work of a tolerant belief system. The moment tolerance chose to fight, it joined its enemy. You lost before you could even begin.
...and since you won't defend your beliefs from that type of activity...
But I will.
...your children or grandchildren will simply not believe as you believe. and your beliefs will perish from the earth.
I do worry about this, yes, and I believe the world will be a worse place for that. This would be why I defend my beliefs. In doing so, however, I have no choice but to reject modern notions of "tolerance," which would prohibit me from doing so.
your beliefs therefore are simply incompatible with reality, and are therefore pointless
You seem to think I've been talking about my beliefs all along. I have not. I've been talking about yours, or rather, what you claim your beliefs to be.
reality doesn't care about some sort of absolute right and wrong, as you assert.
I assert that it does, and that you are presenting a misinformed opinion as though it were fact.
the reality about the artificiality of human moral constructs works against your logic, it doesn't support your logic. you are attempting to hew closely to the indifference of reality towards human belief systems.
Only under assumption that morality is a thing to be constructed, rather than discovered. I believe the opposite.
except that human beliefs systems never needed reality to support them, and never will
Does it? I'm not so sure about that. But whether or not reality requires human belief to support it, humans require reality to support their belief systems. I believe this to be the fatal flaw in internalism.
if you understand the concept of memetics, that is, that the competition between ideas and their spread between humans and societies functions sort of like genetics and the darwinian struggle for survival, then what you represent is a failed mutation. a stillborn child.
Ah, memetics, and from there to Dawkins: a prominent atheist externalist, or
"i hate black people"
is intolerance. is evil. absolutely
And thus, you prove my point. Tolerance is about abandoning absolutes, about removing conflict where it exists. As soon as you take on absolutes, as soon as you try to create or join a conflict, you are betraying the most basic principle of your beliefs.
now you are going to tell me, that someone somewhere thinks its good to hate black people. therefore, because someone out there believes that, i have to accomodate him. and if i don't, then i am just like him!
As long as it goes no further than beliefs, then yes. Taking on the tools and techniques of the intolerant is anathema to the truly tolerant.
this is what you are telling me
that his belief is equivalent to mine.
Not quite. He probably at least recognizes his hate for what it is.
just because it exists. i can't fight him, i can't condemn him, because, in your view, i'm just like him when i do that!
Not necessarily in my own personal views. But from the definition of tolerance, yes.
There are some among the tolerance movement who recognize this, and are trying to get away from the "tolerance" euphemism. Usually they try to replace "tolerant" versus "intolerant" with things like "more inclusive" versus "less inclusive" or "exclusive," and then they go about their intolerance as usual. At least it's less hypocritical.
so someone comes in the room: "i think muslims should be our slaves"
if i were to condemn him for that, i am automatically intolerant
OF HIS INTOLERANCE!
you sincerely believe that we are equivalent?!
Yes. Your targets are different, but you still seek to marginalize if not eliminate, to place yourselves above others. The proper response, according to tolerance, is to try and work this out between you.
in your world view, there is no value definition of what someone believes. or, there is in your wordlview: the only value definition is the effort one takes to defend their values. that that, that alone, makes one as bad as someone else, completely regardless of what they actually value!
You describe it a little more verbosely than I do. I'd phrase it as "Evil is not about what you want, but about what you are willing to do to get it." But yes, your description is a little simplistic but fairly accurate; you've got the basics.
therefore, in your world, the only person of any worth is someone who will not defend their values at all
Not quite. There's actually another conclusion that can come from this worldview. Up until now you've been assuming that "tolerance," as commonly defined, is a virtue. As long as you hold that assumption, then you do indeed come to a contradiction at this point: the only way to hold the virtue is to do nothing, and clearly that's not virtuous.
Discard the assumption, however, and the contradiction vanishes. You do not stand for some kind of neutrality. You have taken a side in this conflict. Recognize it, and stand for it with pride, and while I may not be on the same side as you I would respect you as a foe. Preaching that it's something other than what it is, however, is silly at best and reprehensible at worst.
well genius, what does that say about the passion behind what that person actually values?
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing. Or perhaps the value itself is flawed; this is the path I've taken.
you're insane.
Not really. In the broadest sense, you could call me a moral externalist: someone who believes that morality comes from an external (possibly universal) source. You could contrast it with moral internalism: the belief that morality is internal to each individual. That is the conflict I choose to take my stand on, and I strongly suspect you are on the opposite side of it.
Do I hate internalists? No. Hell; I married one of the staunchest in
you see me committing the very crime i fight
my head asplode
how the hell do you arrive at that conclusion? Because ultimately, most forms of "intolerance" are merely different definitions of what is "good" and what is "evil." You do the same, defining "evil" as "defining evil" and advocating the same solution: marginalization.
no, seriously: in your mind, there is no conflict in this world between intolerant groups and tolerant groups in this world?
That's not quite it. In my mind, there is no conflict because one of the sides doesn't exist. "Tolerant groups" are merely those who have defined their Evil That Must Be Destroyed in a slightly unorthodox fashion -namely, anyone other than them who defines an Evil That Must Be Destroyed- and refuses to recognize this for what it is. Perhaps it just takes one to know one.
there is no conflict between tolerance and intolerance in this world?
Rather, that there cannot be conflict. The moment tolerance tries to set itself against intolerance, it eliminates itself by becoming its own enemy.
and, yes, you fight intolerance. how the hell does this become the same thing as intolerance?
Because you've begun your march to eliminate that which you define as "evil," exactly like The Other Side. You've become the very thing you fight against, complaining about the splinter in your enemy's eye without seeing the splinter in your own.
have even thought about the subject matter?
More than I think you understand. But it doesn't take all that much thought to see that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
i'll simply say this: if in your mind what i said turns into "lets kill all the muslims" then you haven't understood or read anything i said.
We understand perfectly. Your "tolerance" and "intolerance" are nothing more than euphemisms for "us" and "them": not at all unlike the so-called "intolerant" groups you mention. Your targets are different, but the hate remains.
There's very little you can do about this, to be honest. A determined person with that sort of access to a computer is only going to be defeated by someone with the same level and amount of access: your friend herself. You won't be able to keep up.
Nor, frankly, should you. This is a sign of some serious problems in that relationship. Your friend might be to blame, or her spouse might be to blame, or the concept of blame might not even apply; it's tough to tell with the little information here. But the solution here is communication: they need to hash this out between themselves, possibly with a mediator (who should not be you, by the way). The best way to defeat a keylogger is to make the other person not want to install it in the first place.
Forcing others to release their source can restrict competition, for example if the other source contains code under licenses that don't allow redistribution.
Then don't use the GPL'd code. Again, going back to the Pepsi vs. Coke example, they use different recipes and compete quite nicely. Nothing is stopping Skype from doing the same.
OK, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the whole purpose of antitrust legislation was to crack down on things that discourage competition.
What in the GPL discourages competition? Nothing. You can make your own competing programs all you want. You may not be able to use GPL'd code without also releasing your source, but this is irrelevant: no one complains when Coke doesn't let Pepsi use the Coke recipes.
Even if that were a legitimate complaint, however, it would still be irrelevant. There is plenty of competition, even among GPL'd software. Consider the myriad Linux distributions, to give an example of entire businesses that compete with one another despite using GPL'd products. If Skype wants to compete with Linux using some kind of "Skynux," they too are free to do so. All they have to do is comply with the license.
Two problems with this post:
1) The Wii does not use the official Flash player. It uses a player coded by the Opera folks, which uses the latest specs released by Adobe: specs which correspond to Flash 7.0. Releasing the specs for the latest version is still a Very Good Thing, of course, but it's Opera, not Adobe, who will be updating the Wii player.
2) Re-hiring x86 ASM coders won't do the Wii any good, because the Wii doesn't use x86. It uses PowerPC.
No, see, the fact that the stipulation is needed makes the initial concept relevant.
But the relevance is then negated by that stipulation. The fact that she dated a man who might have committed multiple murders could be considered relevant to a murder case. But that is not what happened. She dated a man who did not commit multiple murders, and this has no relevance at all.
If you say, "he claims to be a multiple murderer", that's relevant.
Not when the claims are false, it isn't.
So there's little evidence surrounding this guy's claimed multiple murders. There's also little evidence surrounding this case.
There is plenty of evidence. Much of it is circumstantial, but that does not negate its value as such.
That the guy provably turns out to be innocent of these claimed multiple murders, if that's the case, removes the doubt.
Ah, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. From a legal standpoint, the fact that this guy was not proven guilty means that he is innocent.
One could argue for the Scottish verdict at this point -a "not proven" acquittal distinct from "not guilty"- but US law doesn't recognize such a verdict at this point in time.
This other guy doesn't need to be convicted to place doubt on Reiser. There can be a reasonable doubt about both of them.
Could there be? Yes. Is there? No.
There can be a reasonable doubt that Nina Reiser is dead, I think.
I emphatically disagree. Some people do doubt her death, but they are being quite unreasonable about it.
That there's little reasonable doubt in the end is one thing. That you had stipulate proves that it's relevant, though. If it was not relevant, the stipulation would not be necessary.
The stipulation is what makes it irrelevant. If his wife had actually been dating a serial killer, then that would in fact be relevant to the case. But as things turned out, he was not a serial killer, and so the relevance goes right back out the window.
I realize you want to believe that Reiser is innocent. There are still people who want to believe that OJ is innocent. But there just isn't room for doubt here.
ReiserFS is as fundamental as the laws of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion?
Uh... no. ReiserFS is good, but no filesystem belongs in the same league as the laws of thermodynamics. Seriously; if you really believe that ReiserFS is that important, you should consider re-examining your beliefs as to why.
Oh, come on. Dating a confessed serial killer doesn't have a chance to create a reasonable doubt about someone's disappearance?
Only until the confession is proved to be not credible. For reasons that modern psychology has yet to understand, most people who confess to serial murders are actually innocent of the crimes they claim to have committed. Such appears to have been the case with this guy.
"irrelevant" means there's no way something makes a difference. To the contrary, I think you'd have to work very hard to dispel that doubt.
Fortunately for me, that work seems to have already been done.
You don't find the fact that his wife had dated a confessed serial killer at all odd? (Not Reiser but the other guy that confessed to several murders)
Odd? Maybe. Relevant? No.
I beg your pardon, but why is this trolling? I am merely pointing out what I believe is the real motivating force behind their actions, given Microsoft's past and current actions. I believe they want to cut up HTML so they can leave important bits out while still being able to claim compliance. What's trolling about that?