So then you're saying that the 1st Amendment has a codicil in it somewhere saying that it doesn't apply to trolls and posters of flamebait? Can/. start SLAPPing
-1 posters?
I don't think the First Amendment voids the libel provisions of English common law. Of course, we seem to be in disagreement about whether this is libel or not. I think it's up to the court to determine whether the statement "X is a jackass" is harmful to person/company X, but in this case the defendant didn't show up, hence the default judgement.
If corporate America is allowed to go around SLAPPing private citizens with lawsuits for non-libelous, non-slanderous statements
Again, I don't think this is a clear-cut case of whether this is libel/slander or not.
If he had provided deep insight they might have had a real case against him
Why would have they had a case? If you make a statement, and support it with undisputable facts, wouldn't it be a lot harder for the company to win any suits they might file against you?
As for the letter, it's too late,
I understand that; my point was that instead of him merely claiming he never received the letter, he could have checked with the postal service, found out whether they delivered such a letter to him, and either say, "I'm a dumbass, I must have thrown the letter out with all my junk mail," or "The USPS has no record of such letter being sent and/or delivered. I have a good reason to appeal."
Plus, does anybody know what this guy said on his website?
He said that the CEO and his brother (vice-chairman or something) are liars, and that the brother would've been working at a fast-food place, had it not been for his relatives. Shall we say, -1 Troll?
Well, the article said that the guy who got the $450,000 fine claimed that one of the company's senior executives (and brother of the CEO), "if [...] was not a relative his job would consist of... 'Would you like fries with that?'" He also called them liars.
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case. On top of that, he claimed he never received a certified letter, when it's very, very easy to have USPS check whether such letter was delivered or not. I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
Actually, I seem to remember reading that Pioneer 10 didn't have on-board computers[...]
Well, what do you know. According to Intel, the Pioneer 10 had a 4004 on board. Neat. So, as the old joke goes, in 1972 it took an Intel 4004 to operate a deep-space probe. In 2002, it takes a GHz PIII to run Windows. Things have gone terribly wrong.
[...]and that is another example of writing bug-free code.
Actually, I seem to remember reading that Pioneer 10 didn't have on-board computers, as in 1969 it was impractical to build a radiation-shielded computer with the space and cost constraints of the Pioneer project.
I couldn't find a description of the Pioneer 10 hardware, so I could be wrong, though. I did find this page, which is a sort of an interesting piece about how they replaced the PDP-11 which was used to talk to the Pioneer.
Like actually bothering to translate your contact messages into various non-English languages. After all, when was the last time You, as a sysadmin, responded to an informative message to postmaster+AEA-your.org that was written in an Asian language?? I didn't think so...
Look, translating your messages in languages other than English is akin to translating your TCP/IP protocols to something else for each remote server you want to connect to. After all the purpose of common protocols is to have everybody agree on a common set of meaningful expressions used to interchange information.
...The squeaking gets louder... an enormous twenty-foot-high wooden rabbit is wheeled out of the undergrowth into the open space in front of the castle. The ENGLISH scuttle back into the undergrowth. The rabbit has a large red bow tied round it and a rather crudely written label, which reads "Pour votres amis Francais". The CHIEF TAUNTER looks at it, narrowing his eyes. Then he turns and leaves battlements.
CUT TO ARTHUR and COMPANY watching from the bushes. The main gate of the castle opens a little and the CHIEF TAUNTER's head sticks out, then another Froggie head, then another. They mutter to each other in French, look rather pleased, then rush out and start to pull the giant rabbit in.
CUT BACK TO ARTHUR and COMPANY behind some bushes watching.
ARTHUR
Now what happens?
BEDEVERE
Well now, Launcelot, Galahad, and I wait until nightfall and then leap out of the rabbit and take the French by surprise, not only by surprise but totally unarmed!
ARTHUR
Who... Who breaks out?
BEDEVERE
Er... We... Launcelot, Galahad, and I... Er... leap out of the rabbit and...
LAUNCELOT covers his eyes.
BEDEVERE
Look, if we were to build a large wooden badger...
It will take a little time before you like/love it and before you can work with the same efficiency (as before the change)...
So what you're saying is that we should load a bunch of Windows users on a space sailship, give them Linux only computers, and by the time they have figured out how to surf for intergalactic porn, they'd have reached their final destination?
Everyone seems blinded by the fact that this time it's microsoft who happens to be the victim. Doesn't anyone see that next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
Hey... if Microsoft doesn't release its source code, the terrorists have already won.
:-)
My guess is that the majority of happy/satisfied (they do exist, you know) Microsoft/Windows users didn't bother to write, while all of the angry linux zealots fired off diatribes.
My guess is that the majority of Windows users were too busy running ScanDisk on their crashed systems, while the "angry Linux zealots" were unhampered by technical difficulties and thusly had a lot more free time.
He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament
- stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign).
Really? Back in 1997, the representative of Microsoft in my home country, Bulgaria, had a an initiative against software "piracy" (I find this use of the word to be a particular travesty of language, hence the quotes). What they attempted to do is persuade the government to authorize law enforcement officials to search offices of private businesses and cease computer equipment which is declared by the Microsoft people to have unlicensed Microsoft software.
All this without due process of law or any of those pesky "civil liberties" that Microsoft, among others is trying so hard to eliminate. I think Microsoft is one of the greatest threats to democratic values in recent memory (possibly excluding the campaign against terrorism initiated by the hawks in the Republican administration).
Actually, evolution (survival of the fittest) in theory has been proven to be a theorem for at least 150 years, and that's more then any physic
theory ever will accomplish (well that would be if in case the all-be theory wont come around).
Except, of course, for Newton's laws, which have been around for 300 years.
1+1=2 is a theorem.
Incorrect. 1+1=2 is a set of symbols, which we have arbitrarily made up and declared certain semantic rules on. Since the semantic problem space is infinite, we can make up all sorts of other symbols and rules.
Survival of the fitest is a theorem.
Incorrect. Survival of the fittest is a speculation made by Charles Darwin. He does not propose a way to disprove his statement.
Gravity is a theory.
Incorrect. Gravity is a phenomenon initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth, which term is also used to describe similar phenomena of other celestial bodies and systems they form.
The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your
religous beliefs.
No, because science and religion are two different things -- there's the philosophy of scientific reasoning (outlined in Karl Popper's works), and there's religious faith. People who mix science with religion or religion with science are equally wrong.
Both are built upon faith.
And that's precisely what's wrong with Darwin's theories. He observed certain phenomena in nature, and based on what he knew about artificial selection, he speculated that similar processes must occur naturally.
However, he didn't know and didn't have the means to discover the mechanisms underlying the hypothesized natural selection. That's why his theory is not scientific -- it's a pure speculation, but it doesn't provide mechanisms, which can be falsified experimentally -- something essential to modern science.
For example, if I declare that natural selection is governed by some process on molecular level, describe the process and design an experiment which shows whether my hypothesis is correct, I'd be following a perfectly scientific route of reasoning. But all this Darwinists are not doing. What they are doing is mixing science with their beliefs. And this is wrong, m'kay?
Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning.
Why do you have to contrast faith with science? I think they are two halves of a whole, the spiritual essence of man and the reasoning essence. I think faith is not about "gullibility" (if that's a word), but rather the acknowledgement that we are imperfect and we strive towards an ideal, which we'll never reach, but through striving we become "better," however you want to interpret this.
And the fact of the matter is, regardless of how sophisiticated your weather prediction science is, you don't know what's going to happen to you tomorrow. Period. Life's like that -- you don't know whether you are going to be hit by a car tomorrow (God forbid!).
Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong.
But how can you say, how can you unbiasedly (now I'm making up words) determine what is wrong and what is right from some kind of an independent position? Are you God?
My understanding and one of the common grips about QNX for the desktop is that QNX is POSIX-like and not UNIX-like.
QNX 6.something is now available for download from QNX's web site -- I installed it last weekend and played around with it a little bit. It appears that most of the user utilities are taken from NetBSD, and the configuration file tree is structured very closely after BSD. The system library claims POSIX compiance, and the kernel claims conformance to the realtime POSIX API.
Heck, these so-called 'musicians' are not even artists. They don't make their music. They don't design their costumes or choreography. They just perform routines made by nameless individuals in the Ministry of Art.
I believe the cheap "entertainment" which the Party supplied to the masses was called prolefeed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. And the Ministry of Truth was in charge of entertainment, of course. Otherwise, you're making an excellent point.
I see similarities between Chinese people who read the People's Daily and westerners who watch CNN.
Hehe, that reminds of an old anecdote from days past. Khrushchev and Kennedy (or pick your favorite Cold War-era leaders) were once arguing about whose political system is better. Kennedy says, "In our country, every citizen is free to express their discontent with the government -- anybody can yell 'Down with Kennedy' in front of the White House!"
"Big deal," retorts Khrushchev. "Anybody in Russia can go to the Red Square, and yell 'Down with Kennedy,' as well!"
Well, there is no point. I'm sure that more people buy Britney Spears albums today, than they buy the heavenly Triple Concerto performed by Berliner Philharmoniker, Daniel Barenboim and Itzhak Perlman. Can I do something about it? No. Does it bother me? No. 300 years from now Beethoven will be the same timeless music.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to tell you, but coding isn't like writing a novel.
You're a VB "programmer," I presume?
Oh, THAT's why KDE and Gnome look more and more like Windows. Thanks for straightening it out... :-)
Wonder of Wonders. People outside the US have rights.
:-)
You mean, there are other countries out there, besides the US?
So then you're saying that the 1st Amendment has a codicil in it somewhere saying that it doesn't apply to trolls and posters of flamebait? Can /. start SLAPPing
-1 posters?
I don't think the First Amendment voids the libel provisions of English common law. Of course, we seem to be in disagreement about whether this is libel or not. I think it's up to the court to determine whether the statement "X is a jackass" is harmful to person/company X, but in this case the defendant didn't show up, hence the default judgement.
If corporate America is allowed to go around SLAPPing private citizens with lawsuits for non-libelous, non-slanderous statements
Again, I don't think this is a clear-cut case of whether this is libel/slander or not.
If he had provided deep insight they might have had a real case against him
Why would have they had a case? If you make a statement, and support it with undisputable facts, wouldn't it be a lot harder for the company to win any suits they might file against you?
As for the letter, it's too late,
I understand that; my point was that instead of him merely claiming he never received the letter, he could have checked with the postal service, found out whether they delivered such a letter to him, and either say, "I'm a dumbass, I must have thrown the letter out with all my junk mail," or "The USPS has no record of such letter being sent and/or delivered. I have a good reason to appeal."
Plus, does anybody know what this guy said on his website?
He said that the CEO and his brother (vice-chairman or something) are liars, and that the brother would've been working at a fast-food place, had it not been for his relatives. Shall we say, -1 Troll?
Well, the article said that the guy who got the $450,000 fine claimed that one of the company's senior executives (and brother of the CEO), "if [...] was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'" He also called them liars.
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case. On top of that, he claimed he never received a certified letter, when it's very, very easy to have USPS check whether such letter was delivered or not. I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
Actually, I seem to remember reading that Pioneer 10 didn't have on-board computers[...]
Well, what do you know. According to Intel, the Pioneer 10 had a 4004 on board. Neat. So, as the old joke goes, in 1972 it took an Intel 4004 to operate a deep-space probe. In 2002, it takes a GHz PIII to run Windows. Things have gone terribly wrong.
[...]and that is another example of writing bug-free code.
Actually, I seem to remember reading that Pioneer 10 didn't have on-board computers, as in 1969 it was impractical to build a radiation-shielded computer with the space and cost constraints of the Pioneer project.
I couldn't find a description of the Pioneer 10 hardware, so I could be wrong, though. I did find this page, which is a sort of an interesting piece about how they replaced the PDP-11 which was used to talk to the Pioneer.
[...] Well there is of course some that is but it says in the license that we're not allowed to hang any M+ACQ- products.
:-)
Also have in mind that using rope to hang Microsoft may destroy ropes as a stable and consistent hanging platform.
Like actually bothering to translate your contact messages into various non-English languages. After all, when was the last time You, as a sysadmin, responded to an informative message to postmaster+AEA-your.org that was written in an Asian language?? I didn't think so...
Look, translating your messages in languages other than English is akin to translating your TCP/IP protocols to something else for each remote server you want to connect to. After all the purpose of common protocols is to have everybody agree on a common set of meaningful expressions used to interchange information.
IP and English are two such common sets.
CUT TO ARTHUR and COMPANY watching from the bushes. The main gate of the castle opens a little and the CHIEF TAUNTER's head sticks out, then another Froggie head, then another. They mutter to each other in French, look rather pleased, then rush out and start to pull the giant rabbit in.
CUT BACK TO ARTHUR and COMPANY behind some bushes watching.
ARTHUR
Now what happens?
BEDEVERE
Well now, Launcelot, Galahad, and I wait until nightfall and then leap out of the rabbit and take the French by surprise, not only by surprise but totally unarmed!
ARTHUR
Who... Who breaks out?
BEDEVERE
Er... We... Launcelot, Galahad, and I... Er... leap out of the rabbit and...
LAUNCELOT covers his eyes.
BEDEVERE
Look, if we were to build a large wooden badger...
It will take a little time before you like/love it and before you can work with the same efficiency (as before the change)...
So what you're saying is that we should load a bunch of Windows users on a space sailship, give them Linux only computers, and by the time they have figured out how to surf for intergalactic porn, they'd have reached their final destination?
Everyone seems blinded by the fact that this time it's microsoft who happens to be the victim. Doesn't anyone see that next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
:-)
Hey... if Microsoft doesn't release its source code, the terrorists have already won.
My guess is that the majority of happy/satisfied (they do exist, you know) Microsoft/Windows users didn't bother to write, while all of the angry linux zealots fired off diatribes.
My guess is that the majority of Windows users were too busy running ScanDisk on their crashed systems, while the "angry Linux zealots" were unhampered by technical difficulties and thusly had a lot more free time.
He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament - stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign).
Really? Back in 1997, the representative of Microsoft in my home country, Bulgaria, had a an initiative against software "piracy" (I find this use of the word to be a particular travesty of language, hence the quotes). What they attempted to do is persuade the government to authorize law enforcement officials to search offices of private businesses and cease computer equipment which is declared by the Microsoft people to have unlicensed Microsoft software.
All this without due process of law or any of those pesky "civil liberties" that Microsoft, among others is trying so hard to eliminate. I think Microsoft is one of the greatest threats to democratic values in recent memory (possibly excluding the campaign against terrorism initiated by the hawks in the Republican administration).
Actually, evolution (survival of the fittest) in theory has been proven to be a theorem for at least 150 years, and that's more then any physic theory ever will accomplish (well that would be if in case the all-be theory wont come around).
Except, of course, for Newton's laws, which have been around for 300 years.
1+1=2 is a theorem.
Incorrect. 1+1=2 is a set of symbols, which we have arbitrarily made up and declared certain semantic rules on. Since the semantic problem space is infinite, we can make up all sorts of other symbols and rules.
Survival of the fitest is a theorem.
Incorrect. Survival of the fittest is a speculation made by Charles Darwin. He does not propose a way to disprove his statement.
Gravity is a theory.
Incorrect. Gravity is a phenomenon initially observed by human beings on the planet Earth, which term is also used to describe similar phenomena of other celestial bodies and systems they form.
The same way that you refute the proof about evolution can be used to refute the proof of your religous beliefs.
No, because science and religion are two different things -- there's the philosophy of scientific reasoning (outlined in Karl Popper's works), and there's religious faith. People who mix science with religion or religion with science are equally wrong.
Both are built upon faith.
And that's precisely what's wrong with Darwin's theories. He observed certain phenomena in nature, and based on what he knew about artificial selection, he speculated that similar processes must occur naturally.
However, he didn't know and didn't have the means to discover the mechanisms underlying the hypothesized natural selection. That's why his theory is not scientific -- it's a pure speculation, but it doesn't provide mechanisms, which can be falsified experimentally -- something essential to modern science.
For example, if I declare that natural selection is governed by some process on molecular level, describe the process and design an experiment which shows whether my hypothesis is correct, I'd be following a perfectly scientific route of reasoning. But all this Darwinists are not doing. What they are doing is mixing science with their beliefs. And this is wrong, m'kay?
Let's just say that I think faith requires more gullibility than scientific reasoning.
Why do you have to contrast faith with science? I think they are two halves of a whole, the spiritual essence of man and the reasoning essence. I think faith is not about "gullibility" (if that's a word), but rather the acknowledgement that we are imperfect and we strive towards an ideal, which we'll never reach, but through striving we become "better," however you want to interpret this.
And the fact of the matter is, regardless of how sophisiticated your weather prediction science is, you don't know what's going to happen to you tomorrow. Period. Life's like that -- you don't know whether you are going to be hit by a car tomorrow (God forbid!).
Maybe some people can't fathom the notion that their religion may be wrong.
But how can you say, how can you unbiasedly (now I'm making up words) determine what is wrong and what is right from some kind of an independent position? Are you God?
Are you implying Microsoft is run by Klingon warriors?
My understanding and one of the common grips about QNX for the desktop is that QNX is POSIX-like and not UNIX-like.
QNX 6.something is now available for download from QNX's web site -- I installed it last weekend and played around with it a little bit. It appears that most of the user utilities are taken from NetBSD, and the configuration file tree is structured very closely after BSD. The system library claims POSIX compiance, and the kernel claims conformance to the realtime POSIX API.
Heck, these so-called 'musicians' are not even artists. They don't make their music. They don't design their costumes or choreography. They just perform routines made by nameless individuals in the Ministry of Art.
I believe the cheap "entertainment" which the Party supplied to the masses was called prolefeed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. And the Ministry of Truth was in charge of entertainment, of course. Otherwise, you're making an excellent point.
Emacs, meta-x tetris. Doesn't get any better than this
You forgot M-x pong. Tetris and Pong are enough to last you a lifetime.
I see similarities between Chinese people who read the People's Daily and westerners who watch CNN.
Hehe, that reminds of an old anecdote from days past. Khrushchev and Kennedy (or pick your favorite Cold War-era leaders) were once arguing about whose political system is better. Kennedy says, "In our country, every citizen is free to express their discontent with the government -- anybody can yell 'Down with Kennedy' in front of the White House!"
"Big deal," retorts Khrushchev. "Anybody in Russia can go to the Red Square, and yell 'Down with Kennedy,' as well!"
The point of all this? I forgot.
Well, there is no point. I'm sure that more people buy Britney Spears albums today, than they buy the heavenly Triple Concerto performed by Berliner Philharmoniker, Daniel Barenboim and Itzhak Perlman. Can I do something about it? No. Does it bother me? No. 300 years from now Beethoven will be the same timeless music.