Well, I figure we both agree that there's probably no germs you could pick up in your own kitchen or bathroom that washing your hands wouldn't fix. But the idea that you should be exposed to germs so your immune system is strong is a dangerous one. I understand the theory and I agree to a certain extent (send your kids out to play in the dirt) -- but there are lots of germs that you plain don't want to get. They will make you sick, and it won't matter how "healthy" your immune system is.
As for the antimicrobials, I think telling people not to use them is silly -- because washing your hands regularly will do about the same job. As in, six of one, half a dozen of the other -- you're telling people not to do one thing while you're telling them to do something else that amounts to the same thing. I say, if people want to use Purel instead of Ivory, fine. Me, I find a 30 cent bar of soap stretches my money much further than a little bottle of alcohol gel, but to each his own.
One has to wonder, if Blizzard goes that far above and beyond requests of law enforcement and gives mountains of data in response to polite requests-- not even subpoenas-- how seriously do they take the privacy of *your* personal information?
Well, though people do tend to gloss over the fine details in things like EULAs and Terms of Service, it's not as if Blizzard is hiding anything from its users. From the WoW Terms of Use:
C. Blizzard may, with or without notice to you, disclose your Internet Protocol (IP) address(es), personal information, Chat logs, and other information about you and your activities: (a) in response to a request by law enforcement, a court order or other legal process; or (b) if Blizzard believes that doing so may protect your safety or the safety of others.
Blizzard gets a request from law enforcement, Blizzard hands over the info, simple as that. (And actually, if it were my company I'd probably have a similar policy. A "polite request" is just about the only contact I'd ever want to have with law enforcement, and the sooner they disappear from my life the better.)
Yeah, they will probably be confused by the extensive use of facts and stats in an orderly manner.
That's possible. So?
Moderation has been very strange lately. My earlier post wasn't meant to be funny. I was more trying to point out that anyone who believes that a computer-generated list of stats and figures can take the place of a human sports writer has probably never picked up an issue of Sports Illustrated.
People don't read sports writing to find out who won the game. It takes half a second to know who won the game. People read sports writing for other reasons. You don't have to be some kind of hyper-intellectual to enjoy reading about something.
Wired occasionally carries good stories, but this ain't one of them. It sounds portentous and should play well to all the anti-journalism reactionaries and self-styled media pundits, but really this is just flying cars and robot butlers.
It's important to note here that NewsScope isn't a news service like Reuters; rather, it's a targeted data stream for the finance industry. Its output is not meant to replace the work of human journalists. Its output is not even meant to be read by humans.
But leave it to Wired to come up with an angle like "NewsScope has started carrying stories written by machines." A writer less enamored with breathless futurism might instead say that NewsScope parses corporate financial statements and extracts relevant data points, which it then summarizes in a machine-readable format, stripping out all the excess verbiage and historical statements that aren't useful to automated trading software. It's somewhat analogous to a search spider, one that builds an index of finance news as it crosses the wire, making the data easier for third-party software to query.
This isn't the Master Control AI writing news stories, people. It's a product -- and probably a pretty valuable one if you're in that industry.
Similarly, TFA says the program that generates news stories based on stats was "rigged up" by some college students. Is it useful? Potentially. Is its output capable of replacing human sports journalists? Is it even publishable? There's no evidence that anybody even suggested that. How many of your college projects changed the world?
TFA goes on to talk about how reporters have been forced to pick through information by hand -- for example, reading volumes of PDFs -- and how much nicer it would be to have machine-readable data to query. Well, no kidding! You're not alone there, brother; I like Google, too.
And then, like so many breathless Wired article, this one evaporates:
Further out toward the horizon lies the prospect of intelligent systems that filter vast quantities of unstructured content, drawing inferences that can be formatted according to journalistic norms.
Uh-huh. Where can we find that horizon, precisely? And "formatted according to journalistic norms" -- what does that even mean? And then:
Along the way, of course, intelligent systems will need to start coping with the complexities of human language have so far confounded them, including idiom, metaphor and sarcasm.
"Of course," indeed. As Han Solo once said, "Well that's the real trick, isn't it?"
washing your hands with (regular) soap and hot water was almost no different than washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap in terms of killing bacteria.
So you could look at it another way, then. If washing your hands gets rid of more bacteria than the supposed antimicrobial agent, then all the people complaining about the supposed evils of antimicrobial soaps are falling for a red herring. If antimicrobial agents aren't really what's getting rid of the bacteria, then antimicrobial agents can't be creating this race of super-bacteria that people suppose they are (or whatever the fear is about). Rather, they're just a marketing gimmick designed to sell soap. Ignore them and buy the soap that you think smells the best on your hands, or that lathers the best, or whatever other property of soap you desire. The antimicrobial agents may not be helping anything, but they're not really hurting anything, either.
If your immune system was up to snuff, getting some fecal matter and germs on you, in normal concentrations, would not bother you at all, OCD Boy.
Given that the fecal-oral route is a main method of transmission of everything from influenza to e. coli, hepatitis A, cholera, shigella, giardia, clostridium, cryptosporidium, typhoid, and various parasites, just for starters -- and many of these wouldn't exist if they couldn't complete their lifecycles by getting into your mouth via fecal contamination -- I'd say most infectious disease specialists would disagree with you. Some of these agents can get you very sick; a travel doctor once told me that you almost always recover from hepatitis A, but while you're ill you'll feel so awful you'll wish you were never born. Maybe it's just my OCD, but I went ahead and got the vaccine.
Then again, the nature of your statement leads me to wonder: Just what do you consider to be "normal concentrations" of feces on your hands?
Wash your hands, people, with soap. Don't worry about what kind of soap it is. The act of rubbing your hands together with a surfactant does more to remove germs from the surface of your skin than antimicrobial chemicals in soap do anyway.
I flew from Phoenix to San Francisco this morning and I didn't notice anything either. Nobody made reference to the incident in question. Nobody asked us to do anything out of the ordinary. On the plane, passengers used the lavatory when they needed to. This seems like a non-story to me (except, perhaps, for Air Canada passengers).
I am using a cut-down build of Windows 7 Professional on the Eee PC. I had to vLite it because the flash-based Eee PC's boot drive is only 4GB (no matter which configuration you buy). Is the OLPC's smaller than that?
Yes, swap is disabled. It didn't seem to confer any advantage, and there's not really any space on the flash drive for it, so off it goes.
I really do use it as my carry laptop, though. It does what I need it to do (which is MS Office, e-mail, and Web, pretty much).
BTW as someone who has used every version of every MSFT OS, including WinFlip and XP Embedded, putting MSFT anything on a flash based device is suicide because MSFT never made an OS that don't hit swap like there is no tomorrow
I have Windows 7 installed on my Eee PC 901. All solid-state drives. Runs fine. It's a little sluggish at times, but perfectly usable. In other words, the cyanide isn't working.
I find it amazing how bureaucracy has reached such levels that the costs of employing the bureaucratic machine are much, much higher than the costs of corruption that it's supposed to prevent.
Then it seems to me you picked an odd choice of userid.
Your post made me go back and read the article. And it's true -- this is one of the worst-written articles I have ever seen. Every paragraph is a mish-mosh of subject/verb confusion, mixed metaphors, redundant wording, run-ons, and just about every other mistake you could make. You cherry-picked the best example of the lot, but among other howlers we have:
The world was looking for the joiner of Novell's time-honored and rock-solid NetWare network operating system to be joined fully to Linux.
Technically, it arrived late in the 1990's, but its inclusion here is to remember the pain of the name.
The love/hate relationship becomes anchored with deep emotions about the merits/detractions of the devices they use-- through the lenses of operating systems.
Even a leopard can change its spots, sometimes as scar tissue.
A natively 'jailbroken' open phone will test carrier promises to just deliver wireless pipe.
Taken as a whole, TFA becomes a kind of demented poetry. Kudos to whatever maniac got it published.
The demonization of opioids and the stigmas attached to them make it extremely difficult for one to seek adequate pain management. This is even more troubling because when one is in pain, it is already difficult to muster up the strength to perform basic daily tasks, let alone go through the process of interviewing doctors and advocating for yourself to find someone who will treat you properly. It seems that O'Bannon was well acquainted with this, based on the fact that, according to the article, he was working on a screenplay called "The Pain Clinic".
There was an article in the New York Times magazine about this -- link here. If you have personal experience, maybe you're already familiar with it; I only mention it because I read it recently and thought it raised really important and interesting issues. Maybe it could be useful for people who are struggling with this problem.
I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip.
True, but it did offer a degraded experience (no 3-D; for some reason, these new 3-D processes require digital projection). It would have been more impressive if they called James Cameron and said, "Hey Jim, DRM is preventing our audiences from beholding the spectacle as your revolutionary 3-D movie re-invents cinema for all time," and Cameron said, "Damn it, screw the DRM then! Let it roll!"
Indeed. What was "surprising" to me was that this story appeared on Slashdot now. I have a friend who manages a movie theater that recently upgraded to digital projection, and believe me, this kind of glitch happens all the time. Often the digital delivery systems work flawlessly, but when they don't, it really pisses a lot of people off -- often because it costs them a lot of money in lost ticket sales. At least once or twice, my friend has had to get in his car and drive to the nearest studio distribution center to pick up a film copy of a movie that was supposed to be projected digitally -- because the old ways, at least, still work fine.
Well, if you read the source you cite, you'll notice that only the original camera negative has "up to" 6,000 lines. By the time the film is printed and shipped to the movie theater, that has been cut down to around 2,000 lines.
According to this Wiki source, modern digital projection systems have up to 2,100 lines. Also, digital movies don't degrade when they are projected like film does, the lamps in digital projectors are often brighter than the ones used in film projectors, and the image is more stable onscreen (because there is no film to jump around in the gate, as in a traditional projector) -- so the viewer's experience of digitally-projected movies can, in fact, be superior to that of traditional film.
So what's your point? From how I understand it, the first one is what Intel did. But even if it was the second one, I don't see how it's "a lot different." And even if we agree for argument's sake that is is a lot different, I don't see why it should be against the law, any more than it should be against the law for mechanics to refuse to work on Fords.
In the latter case, there is a deliberate effort to expend resources with the intention of harming your competitor.
I don't see that as being entirely clear. We're talking about an Intel compiler. AMD is free to write its own compiler; it chooses not to (to my knowledge). As I said before, Intel might be in a monopoly position in the chip market, but it does not have a monopoly on compilers. People who want their code to run on AMD CPUs could choose to compile their software with GCC, LLVM, MS C++, OpenWatcom, or whatever else might be out there.
You say Intel's compiler is sabotaging AMD. I could just as easily argue that Intel has sabotaged its own compiler. If customers bothered to test, they could just as easily say, "Hmm! When I compile with the Intel compilers, my binaries run like crap on AMD CPUs! Intel's compiler sucks."
Suppose Microsoft wrote a piece of software that ran on any x86 CPU, but it did a special check to see whether you were running Mac OS X. If it detected a Mac, the software would exit -- even though it otherwise could run. Jerk move? Sure. But should it be illegal?
Actually, FWIW a friend of mine went to mortuary school, and he said they seemed to make an extra-special effort in the first semester or so to weed out all the emo and Goth types who signed up just because they thought the classes would be super cool and icky.
Mortuary school is basically vocational training. When you have a job as a mortician, you are expected to be diligent, attentive to detail, and to maintain an attitude of respect and sensitivity to the feelings of the families of the deceased. Whether you're actually a violent person or not, expressing fantasies about death and violence and describing your embalming classes as "therapy" (i.e. you take pleasure in messing with the dead bodies) will probably be frowned upon by a mortuary school. It's just not the right attitude for the job.
Should you be kicked out for it? Maybe not. But any school would probably see it as a red flag and they'd make your life harder for it.
There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.
Is there? No seriously, is there?
In a sense, everything that I do that gives me competitive advantage impacts my competitors' businesses negatively. Like the earlier commenter said, why is it incumbent upon Intel to write a compiler that works equally well on their competitors' products?
Not disclosing that it doesn't work as well on Intel's competitors' products may be a sneaky trick, but it seems like there should be due diligence on the part of the people using the compiler. Intel does not have a monopoly on compilers. Last I heard, people use Intel compilers because they produce very good code. Cry me a river if Intel would like to produce good code for Intel processors and not others.
Don't get me wrong: I think Intel is being sneaky and underhanded. But I don't see it having done anything illegal, and I don't see how anything it has done should be illegal.
Did Oracle rape and murder a young girl in 1990? I'm not saying it did, but it's been curiously silent on the matter. And if it doesn't plan to do so in the future, why hasn't it promised not to?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I figure we both agree that there's probably no germs you could pick up in your own kitchen or bathroom that washing your hands wouldn't fix. But the idea that you should be exposed to germs so your immune system is strong is a dangerous one. I understand the theory and I agree to a certain extent (send your kids out to play in the dirt) -- but there are lots of germs that you plain don't want to get. They will make you sick, and it won't matter how "healthy" your immune system is.
As for the antimicrobials, I think telling people not to use them is silly -- because washing your hands regularly will do about the same job. As in, six of one, half a dozen of the other -- you're telling people not to do one thing while you're telling them to do something else that amounts to the same thing. I say, if people want to use Purel instead of Ivory, fine. Me, I find a 30 cent bar of soap stretches my money much further than a little bottle of alcohol gel, but to each his own.
One has to wonder, if Blizzard goes that far above and beyond requests of law enforcement and gives mountains of data in response to polite requests-- not even subpoenas-- how seriously do they take the privacy of *your* personal information?
Well, though people do tend to gloss over the fine details in things like EULAs and Terms of Service, it's not as if Blizzard is hiding anything from its users. From the WoW Terms of Use:
C. Blizzard may, with or without notice to you, disclose your Internet Protocol (IP) address(es), personal information, Chat logs, and other information about you and your activities: (a) in response to a request by law enforcement, a court order or other legal process; or (b) if Blizzard believes that doing so may protect your safety or the safety of others.
Blizzard gets a request from law enforcement, Blizzard hands over the info, simple as that. (And actually, if it were my company I'd probably have a similar policy. A "polite request" is just about the only contact I'd ever want to have with law enforcement, and the sooner they disappear from my life the better.)
Yeah, they will probably be confused by the extensive use of facts and stats in an orderly manner.
That's possible. So?
Moderation has been very strange lately. My earlier post wasn't meant to be funny. I was more trying to point out that anyone who believes that a computer-generated list of stats and figures can take the place of a human sports writer has probably never picked up an issue of Sports Illustrated.
People don't read sports writing to find out who won the game. It takes half a second to know who won the game. People read sports writing for other reasons. You don't have to be some kind of hyper-intellectual to enjoy reading about something.
Wired occasionally carries good stories, but this ain't one of them. It sounds portentous and should play well to all the anti-journalism reactionaries and self-styled media pundits, but really this is just flying cars and robot butlers.
It's important to note here that NewsScope isn't a news service like Reuters; rather, it's a targeted data stream for the finance industry. Its output is not meant to replace the work of human journalists. Its output is not even meant to be read by humans.
But leave it to Wired to come up with an angle like "NewsScope has started carrying stories written by machines." A writer less enamored with breathless futurism might instead say that NewsScope parses corporate financial statements and extracts relevant data points, which it then summarizes in a machine-readable format, stripping out all the excess verbiage and historical statements that aren't useful to automated trading software. It's somewhat analogous to a search spider, one that builds an index of finance news as it crosses the wire, making the data easier for third-party software to query.
This isn't the Master Control AI writing news stories, people. It's a product -- and probably a pretty valuable one if you're in that industry.
Similarly, TFA says the program that generates news stories based on stats was "rigged up" by some college students. Is it useful? Potentially. Is its output capable of replacing human sports journalists? Is it even publishable? There's no evidence that anybody even suggested that. How many of your college projects changed the world?
TFA goes on to talk about how reporters have been forced to pick through information by hand -- for example, reading volumes of PDFs -- and how much nicer it would be to have machine-readable data to query. Well, no kidding! You're not alone there, brother; I like Google, too.
And then, like so many breathless Wired article, this one evaporates:
Further out toward the horizon lies the prospect of intelligent systems that filter vast quantities of unstructured content, drawing inferences that can be formatted according to journalistic norms.
Uh-huh. Where can we find that horizon, precisely? And "formatted according to journalistic norms" -- what does that even mean? And then:
Along the way, of course, intelligent systems will need to start coping with the complexities of human language have so far confounded them, including idiom, metaphor and sarcasm.
"Of course," indeed. As Han Solo once said, "Well that's the real trick, isn't it?"
This is nothing more than extracting stats and then placing them in pre-generated sentences.
In sports, this is okay.
Countless generations of sports writers and the enthusiasts who read their work would disagree with you.
washing your hands with (regular) soap and hot water was almost no different than washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap in terms of killing bacteria.
So you could look at it another way, then. If washing your hands gets rid of more bacteria than the supposed antimicrobial agent, then all the people complaining about the supposed evils of antimicrobial soaps are falling for a red herring. If antimicrobial agents aren't really what's getting rid of the bacteria, then antimicrobial agents can't be creating this race of super-bacteria that people suppose they are (or whatever the fear is about). Rather, they're just a marketing gimmick designed to sell soap. Ignore them and buy the soap that you think smells the best on your hands, or that lathers the best, or whatever other property of soap you desire. The antimicrobial agents may not be helping anything, but they're not really hurting anything, either.
If your immune system was up to snuff, getting some fecal matter and germs on you, in normal concentrations, would not bother you at all, OCD Boy.
Given that the fecal-oral route is a main method of transmission of everything from influenza to e. coli, hepatitis A, cholera, shigella, giardia, clostridium, cryptosporidium, typhoid, and various parasites, just for starters -- and many of these wouldn't exist if they couldn't complete their lifecycles by getting into your mouth via fecal contamination -- I'd say most infectious disease specialists would disagree with you. Some of these agents can get you very sick; a travel doctor once told me that you almost always recover from hepatitis A, but while you're ill you'll feel so awful you'll wish you were never born. Maybe it's just my OCD, but I went ahead and got the vaccine.
Then again, the nature of your statement leads me to wonder: Just what do you consider to be "normal concentrations" of feces on your hands?
Wash your hands, people, with soap. Don't worry about what kind of soap it is. The act of rubbing your hands together with a surfactant does more to remove germs from the surface of your skin than antimicrobial chemicals in soap do anyway.
I flew from Phoenix to San Francisco this morning and I didn't notice anything either. Nobody made reference to the incident in question. Nobody asked us to do anything out of the ordinary. On the plane, passengers used the lavatory when they needed to. This seems like a non-story to me (except, perhaps, for Air Canada passengers).
I am using a cut-down build of Windows 7 Professional on the Eee PC. I had to vLite it because the flash-based Eee PC's boot drive is only 4GB (no matter which configuration you buy). Is the OLPC's smaller than that?
Yes, swap is disabled. It didn't seem to confer any advantage, and there's not really any space on the flash drive for it, so off it goes.
I really do use it as my carry laptop, though. It does what I need it to do (which is MS Office, e-mail, and Web, pretty much).
BTW as someone who has used every version of every MSFT OS, including WinFlip and XP Embedded, putting MSFT anything on a flash based device is suicide because MSFT never made an OS that don't hit swap like there is no tomorrow
I have Windows 7 installed on my Eee PC 901. All solid-state drives. Runs fine. It's a little sluggish at times, but perfectly usable. In other words, the cyanide isn't working.
I find it amazing how bureaucracy has reached such levels that the costs of employing the bureaucratic machine are much, much higher than the costs of corruption that it's supposed to prevent.
Then it seems to me you picked an odd choice of userid.
Your post made me go back and read the article. And it's true -- this is one of the worst-written articles I have ever seen. Every paragraph is a mish-mosh of subject/verb confusion, mixed metaphors, redundant wording, run-ons, and just about every other mistake you could make. You cherry-picked the best example of the lot, but among other howlers we have:
Taken as a whole, TFA becomes a kind of demented poetry. Kudos to whatever maniac got it published.
The demonization of opioids and the stigmas attached to them make it extremely difficult for one to seek adequate pain management. This is even more troubling because when one is in pain, it is already difficult to muster up the strength to perform basic daily tasks, let alone go through the process of interviewing doctors and advocating for yourself to find someone who will treat you properly. It seems that O'Bannon was well acquainted with this, based on the fact that, according to the article, he was working on a screenplay called "The Pain Clinic".
There was an article in the New York Times magazine about this -- link here. If you have personal experience, maybe you're already familiar with it; I only mention it because I read it recently and thought it raised really important and interesting issues. Maybe it could be useful for people who are struggling with this problem.
Uraguay. Not Uganda. You missed by about 6,000 miles. (Thanks, Wolfram Alpha!)
I think the main point is that their fall-back plan was a DRM-free acetate film strip.
True, but it did offer a degraded experience (no 3-D; for some reason, these new 3-D processes require digital projection). It would have been more impressive if they called James Cameron and said, "Hey Jim, DRM is preventing our audiences from beholding the spectacle as your revolutionary 3-D movie re-invents cinema for all time," and Cameron said, "Damn it, screw the DRM then! Let it roll!"
Indeed. What was "surprising" to me was that this story appeared on Slashdot now. I have a friend who manages a movie theater that recently upgraded to digital projection, and believe me, this kind of glitch happens all the time. Often the digital delivery systems work flawlessly, but when they don't, it really pisses a lot of people off -- often because it costs them a lot of money in lost ticket sales. At least once or twice, my friend has had to get in his car and drive to the nearest studio distribution center to pick up a film copy of a movie that was supposed to be projected digitally -- because the old ways, at least, still work fine.
Well, if you read the source you cite, you'll notice that only the original camera negative has "up to" 6,000 lines. By the time the film is printed and shipped to the movie theater, that has been cut down to around 2,000 lines.
According to this Wiki source, modern digital projection systems have up to 2,100 lines. Also, digital movies don't degrade when they are projected like film does, the lamps in digital projectors are often brighter than the ones used in film projectors, and the image is more stable onscreen (because there is no film to jump around in the gate, as in a traditional projector) -- so the viewer's experience of digitally-projected movies can, in fact, be superior to that of traditional film.
"Vastly" superior? That's a bold statement. Care to back it up?
So what's your point? From how I understand it, the first one is what Intel did. But even if it was the second one, I don't see how it's "a lot different." And even if we agree for argument's sake that is is a lot different, I don't see why it should be against the law, any more than it should be against the law for mechanics to refuse to work on Fords.
In the latter case, there is a deliberate effort to expend resources with the intention of harming your competitor.
I don't see that as being entirely clear. We're talking about an Intel compiler. AMD is free to write its own compiler; it chooses not to (to my knowledge). As I said before, Intel might be in a monopoly position in the chip market, but it does not have a monopoly on compilers. People who want their code to run on AMD CPUs could choose to compile their software with GCC, LLVM, MS C++, OpenWatcom, or whatever else might be out there.
You say Intel's compiler is sabotaging AMD. I could just as easily argue that Intel has sabotaged its own compiler. If customers bothered to test, they could just as easily say, "Hmm! When I compile with the Intel compilers, my binaries run like crap on AMD CPUs! Intel's compiler sucks."
Suppose Microsoft wrote a piece of software that ran on any x86 CPU, but it did a special check to see whether you were running Mac OS X. If it detected a Mac, the software would exit -- even though it otherwise could run. Jerk move? Sure. But should it be illegal?
What Intel did is sabotage.
What did Intel sabotage? Its own product?
Actually, FWIW a friend of mine went to mortuary school, and he said they seemed to make an extra-special effort in the first semester or so to weed out all the emo and Goth types who signed up just because they thought the classes would be super cool and icky.
Mortuary school is basically vocational training. When you have a job as a mortician, you are expected to be diligent, attentive to detail, and to maintain an attitude of respect and sensitivity to the feelings of the families of the deceased. Whether you're actually a violent person or not, expressing fantasies about death and violence and describing your embalming classes as "therapy" (i.e. you take pleasure in messing with the dead bodies) will probably be frowned upon by a mortuary school. It's just not the right attitude for the job.
Should you be kicked out for it? Maybe not. But any school would probably see it as a red flag and they'd make your life harder for it.
There is a difference between not optimising for a competitors processor and deliberately making performance worse for a competitors processor.
Is there? No seriously, is there?
In a sense, everything that I do that gives me competitive advantage impacts my competitors' businesses negatively. Like the earlier commenter said, why is it incumbent upon Intel to write a compiler that works equally well on their competitors' products?
Not disclosing that it doesn't work as well on Intel's competitors' products may be a sneaky trick, but it seems like there should be due diligence on the part of the people using the compiler. Intel does not have a monopoly on compilers. Last I heard, people use Intel compilers because they produce very good code. Cry me a river if Intel would like to produce good code for Intel processors and not others.
Don't get me wrong: I think Intel is being sneaky and underhanded. But I don't see it having done anything illegal, and I don't see how anything it has done should be illegal.
Did Oracle rape and murder a young girl in 1990? I'm not saying it did, but it's been curiously silent on the matter. And if it doesn't plan to do so in the future, why hasn't it promised not to?
Earlier URL notwithstanding, the link to Willis's rebuttal seems to have moved here.