That's a good point. Someone else registered clintonemail.com (along with wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com) with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.
> I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.
Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
There is an economic fix for this: remove the parts of the H1B that tie the person to a specific employer. That is, allow them to take any job. This would devalue it because the companies would have to pay them as much as an American would make or they'd simply jump ship after getting the visa. By making them more expensive, they could no longer be used as cheap replacements for an American.
But what will actually happen is that they will make the rules stricter and pretend that's a solution... even though it simply reinforces the status-quo, ensuring that H1Bs are good as cheap replacements for Americans.
It shouldn't be hard to understand--this is all about money. If you want employers to buy less, then H1Bs need to be more expensive.
> The problem is, how do you determine who's disadvantaged?
Money, as it can be used to obtain pretty much all other advantages.
> but when you start to look at it carefully there's all sorts of possible issues. Some families are better at budgeting than others, so a family with lower income might have more money available for the kids than a family with higher income
This is not an inequality that we can (or should) correct for. People who work harder have a natural advantage. It's not right to take that away, as doing so hurts everyone. It was by gaining enough advantages to live lives where people could spend their time studying things like science that we obtained what we have now. We would all be worse off without this.
> It's a lot easier to tell if somebody is from X or Y group than to determine their level of disadvantage and what's necessary to help equalize their opportunities.
I disagree both with the idea that it's easier and the idea that it advances any sort of good for society.
There's a stable solution for that: help everyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of what they were born as. This will fix the bias over time without creating new victims.
Somehow it never gets put forth as an option, because enough people are more interested in their self-interest than in equality for everyone.
In that case, you add x kg to the lighter side. But that's not at all what gets advocated. They advocate adding x kg to the X group or the Y group or whatever, rather than helping all disadvantaged people equally. If we always help those who are disadvantaged equally--regardless of whatever traits they were born with--the scales will tend towards balancing and the group interests will tend to be more aligned, as we're not deciding which groups are worthy or not worthy of society's support.
If we're always trying to figure out which group is or isn't disadvantaged based simply on group membership, rather than any observable facts, we trend towards a world where the group interests are in perpetual conflict. This is why equality cannot be achieved by perpetuating inequality against future generations. As shown, there's a way to address past inequality without creating new injustices that's stable over time.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where society decides that you have less rights than someone else because of how you were born. Anyone who advocates treating others as lesser due to how they were born is some kind of KKK-level scumbag in my book.
No, if you haven't registered the work, you're only able to get actual damages (which is something like your 'customary rates' but it depends on what you can prove) rather than statutory damages and attorney's fees. Actual damages are close to what you said, but statutory damages are not "punitive" damages at all.
Oh, and it so happens that you can register just before filing suit, but a registration that isn't timely doesn't have the same presumption of validity that it would if you were registering long before there was a lawsuit close on the horizon.
> One of the features of safety glass is that when it breaks there aren't (or many) pointy edges created.
Which kind of safety glass?
They were talking about windshields, those are laminated glass. That means you have two sheets of ordinary annealed glass (which DOES break into big, dagger-like sharp pieces) with a plastic sheet in between (which prevents those sharp pieces from going anywhere). Presumably, given an appropriate substrate, you could make laminate out of any glass-like sheet.
The other kind of safety glass is tempered. This causes the glass to be stressed along the edges so that when it does break, it breaks into a million tiny pieces (all of which are very, very sharp). It may also simultaneously pop, especially if hit along the edges. It's less dangerous because the pieces, while sharp, are simply too small to do any real damage even if, say, a piece explodes while you're holding it.
Source: I worked for a cut & temper operation, I've dealt with all kinds of glass.
You're part of an angry mob. I can almost hear the "rabble rabble rabble." Hate is ugly man and trying to pick some random person to vent your frustrations on is not cool. The Obama example is just to point out that your selection of targets is arbitrary.
I get that you're mad, but it makes you really ugly inside. Tolerance is live and let live. What you spout is just another kind of hate. I know your justification, I hear it all the time, but ever notice that all the people saying it are haters? Are you just another hater? Hate everyone for not agreeing with you so you can feel superior? Another guy in the mob too scared to think for yourself?
Because that's what I'm seeing and I'd really like to see that change.
If you really want to know, here's the press releases from TEPCO which runs the plants. It's far more informative and far less alarmist than most of the reports going around. Yes, they are evacuating. Yes, there has been some unknown level of radiation leakage, but we don't know how bad it is just yet.
Those who want to review how the safety mechanisms of a BWR work should read this.
No kidding. They even plan to subpoena Slashdot (not to mention Twitter). I don't know what they'll get out of that except for a lot of "in soviet Russia" jokes, but I guess their lawyers like wasting their client's billable hours on fishing expeditions?
I suggest they try Googling that key. I don't know how many results they'll find, but I'm guessing there will be thousands, if not more. It's kind of futile to tell the judge that you need expedited discovery and such when the cat is not merely out of the bag, but halfway across the galaxy, isn't it? But hey, I guess you guys might see it differently. You could go send a million nastygrams to everyone who reads the news and rack up $200/hr. Fact is, I just hate Sony. I don't have a PS3 because I've been boycotting Sony since the time they infected people with that rootkit, so this hexadecimal number you're trying to censor is utterly worthless to me. I can't very well circumvent the protections on a device I'll never own, now, can I?
Google & Apple are C-Corps, which don't allow this tax loophole at all, so Steve Jobs can't save any money by pulling this trick. The comparison is not accurate.
He used his S-Corp to reclassify wages as investment income to avoid FICA taxes, paying himself $24,000 per year (i.e. factory worker wages) instead of a reasonable wage for a CPA. You can't do that in a C-Corp, because you'll have to pay the corporate taxes that S-Corps get to avoid.
He would have been fine if he'd paid himself even somewhat reasonable wages, but Google & Apple can't pull this particular trick at all. C-Corps use completely different tax loopholes.
> No, I did-- and assange isnt "this sort of thing", as he wasnt selling nuclear secrets
Also, the spy swap meant that we got something for letting them off the hook. Who, exactly, would Assange get swapped with?
You've never even tried to rebut the fact that it's an offense for which one can be executed, you've merely pointed out that they don't usually seek it.
Don't get me wrong, though. If they have to take it off the table to have him extradited, they will. But not before then.
> None of them citizens, not once their citizenship has been established.
The fact that you know all this and are arguing anyhow doesn't exactly repair your credibility, you know. I'd say it's a bit worse than grabbing the wrong link out of a set.
> Political support....from someone who isnt holding any office whatsoever right now? One or two people dont "much political support" make.
Would you prefer the quotes from the justice department mentioning that they have a task force working on this? Or how about the fact that there's an active investigation, as evidenced by the subpoenas to Twitter?
No, that doesn't mean they will execute him, but it does mean that there are people who'd like to. You won't find many out-and-out calls for assassination, but you will find plenty who wouldn't mind trying him in a death penalty case.
> If you are saying that crazy people will do crazy things, then I agree; but I dont get what that has to do with Assange, especially as he is in custody at the moment. Hes not likely to be randomly shot by some crazy person.
Right now? Probably not. If he's let free? That changes things.
> Are you SERIOUSLY defending the Rosenbergs? Or shoving honest-to-goodness Cold War spies in the same camp as Assange, who has been more of an embarrassment than a grave asset to an enemy?
I'm saying that this sort of thing can lead to executions. Did you not read my link text at all?
> Your second link, citizens in Gitmo, appears to be just plain wrong (unless wikipedia is incorrect)-- James Yee doesnt appear to have ever been held in Gitmo, but rather a brig in North Carolina, as he was in the armed forces at the time.
My bad. I copied quite a few links and should have given you the link to the US's own report on how many people don't actually belong in Gitmo.
> With your third link, you seem to be trying to make the point that, because a potential-not-even-yet-announced candidate for president has announced in a not-official-in-any-capacity that she thinks we should hunt obama, that this should therefore be treated as if it is official policy.
I was pointing out how much political support there was for something like that. They've already got a task force hunting for something to charge him with and I've already made the point that it's an executable offense (see point one, which you managed to completely miss).
> Your last link is REALLY classy-- youre buying into this whole "the gunman must have been following someone's rhetoric", even though there is NO indication that he was doing so.
I don't need to prove that the crazy guy was following anyone's rhetoric.
I just need to prove that there are a lot of crazy, angry people out there right now and we can all see that you can't say that no one would do such a thing.
Also, you obviously didn't read what his lawyers wrote: they cited that exact example. So maybe you disagree, but it's already part of the case.
> Nobody knows whether or not he listened to any particular radio shows, was a fan of Palin or even saw the map.
It's not unreasonable given that Rep. Giffords herself called Palin out on that very advertisement and reported harassment due to it.
Maybe this guy wasn't, but when there are so many crazy people who are talking about skipping right over the soap, ballot & jury boxes, well....
For the record, I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican. Although I have voted for both, I generally try to vote for the least crazy individuals.
That's getting fairly difficult these days. At some point, I'm going to have to resort to writing in my own name or something.
> "prominent figures have implied... that he should be executed" Uh huh... Since when did Palin start making policy decisions again?
One of the people Palin put under the cross-hairs in a political ad, Rep. Giffords, just got shot in Arizona. And I honestly don't think Palin intended that as a physical threat of violence, but she has tons of crazies as followers and was warned by Rep. Giffords that doing stuff like that is a bad idea for a person with as many crazy followers as her.
And you don't seriously think that someone, somewhere is crazy enough that they would shoot him when they pretty much have the support of the Republican party? Heck, they have the support of half the Democrats, too, it seems.
Yeah, on Groklaw, all "anons" are lumped together and frequently used as part of conspiracy theories because, hey, nobody knows who they are.
It's weird, because she appears to invent people to argue with instead of addressing their ideas.
No wonder she doesn't want a community site: she only wants silent partners. All the ones that became too well-known have had differences with her and been forced to move on. She's definitely not the type who can run a community, I will say that.
> You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.
Right. Nobody is claiming otherwise. They *are* saying that they're going to continue to complain about it until the people doing it stop.
They're free to do it. They're even free to delete it on their own site. But we're going to keep pestering you forever and ever and ever unless you stop.
> The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.
True, but we don't like either one. There's a big difference in how much I would hate eating tripe and how much I would hate eating dog poop. But I should expect people to complain about anyone serving either one to their guests. You can say, "I'm the host. It's my house/website/country and I can feed you tripe or dog crap if I want to," but that kind of misses the point. Nobody where they are, they don't want someone trying to feed them crap.
> Slashdot gets by because of the moderation and meta-moderation system.
But Slashdot still only needed to delete, what? Two posts? Ever. One from Microsoft and one from the CoS, as I recall. And then wrote stories about the deletion.
> The people who are investigated don't like it and will do anything they can to shut up or discredit Groklaw.
So she has every reason to be as transparent as possible, so that they have no material to discredit Groklaw. We'll know their lies are not true because of that transparency.
> It is also important to note that there has always been open invitations at Groklaw for Darl McBride, and other targets of investigation to post their side of things.
We saw how that worked when Jay Maynard came over. He put his side of the story on http://ibmvshercules.com/
For the record, I'm of the opinion that TurboHercules has sold out to Microsoft, but that doesn't implicate Jay. He was just stuck in the middle of all this, trying to defend his friends who helped him write the Hercules emulator when they formed the TurboHercules company.
> I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them.
It's better to fix one's faults than to delete them.
> The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.
You lump all the anons together. Some were people who had their accounts deleted for ridiculous reasons. And then came back to help transcribe PDFs and whatnot, anyhow, after the abuse. Thing is, you don't know who they are, so you're treating them like they're all one person.
For the record, I never made an account, even though PJ asked me to once, because she thought I had good insight. But, frankly, you have no idea who the anons are, so I don't know how you can claim that they were "pretending to be a member of the community" when you have no idea who they are.
I note that you never actually consider the fact that they might be or have been members. Did you ever read AllParadox's rationale for leaving Groklaw? Or did you think he was the only such person?
> you start to sound very much like either a stupid friend of FOSS or a sly enemy.
And you start to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Not everyone is either friend or foe. I'm in favor of FOSS and against OOXML, Microsoft, software patents and deleting the posts of people who debate you instead of responding to them. I have submitted many stories to Slashdot over the years; you should be able to verify all of those statements by reading Googling those stories. I've also covered Groklaw. Before Groklaw was well-known, most of the Slashdot stories on Groklaw were written by me, personally.
Where does that leave me with respect to Groklaw? (Stupid?) friend or foe?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. Someone else registered clintonemail.com (along with wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com) with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.
> I seem to recall Governor Sarah Palin using her yahoo email account for official business and not ending up in jail
It's a pity they haven't enforced these things more strongly.
But all the politicians love hiding from accountability....
> I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.
Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.
If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.
There is an economic fix for this: remove the parts of the H1B that tie the person to a specific employer. That is, allow them to take any job. This would devalue it because the companies would have to pay them as much as an American would make or they'd simply jump ship after getting the visa. By making them more expensive, they could no longer be used as cheap replacements for an American.
But what will actually happen is that they will make the rules stricter and pretend that's a solution... even though it simply reinforces the status-quo, ensuring that H1Bs are good as cheap replacements for Americans.
It shouldn't be hard to understand--this is all about money. If you want employers to buy less, then H1Bs need to be more expensive.
It's funny.
Reading this just made me realize that Ashcroft took a stronger stand against spying than Obama has, if I judge only actions and not words.
> The problem is, how do you determine who's disadvantaged?
Money, as it can be used to obtain pretty much all other advantages.
> but when you start to look at it carefully there's all sorts of possible issues. Some families are better at budgeting than others, so a family with lower income might have more money available for the kids than a family with higher income
This is not an inequality that we can (or should) correct for. People who work harder have a natural advantage. It's not right to take that away, as doing so hurts everyone. It was by gaining enough advantages to live lives where people could spend their time studying things like science that we obtained what we have now. We would all be worse off without this.
> It's a lot easier to tell if somebody is from X or Y group than to determine their level of disadvantage and what's necessary to help equalize their opportunities.
I disagree both with the idea that it's easier and the idea that it advances any sort of good for society.
There's a stable solution for that: help everyone who is disadvantaged, regardless of what they were born as. This will fix the bias over time without creating new victims.
Somehow it never gets put forth as an option, because enough people are more interested in their self-interest than in equality for everyone.
In that case, you add x kg to the lighter side. But that's not at all what gets advocated. They advocate adding x kg to the X group or the Y group or whatever, rather than helping all disadvantaged people equally. If we always help those who are disadvantaged equally--regardless of whatever traits they were born with--the scales will tend towards balancing and the group interests will tend to be more aligned, as we're not deciding which groups are worthy or not worthy of society's support.
If we're always trying to figure out which group is or isn't disadvantaged based simply on group membership, rather than any observable facts, we trend towards a world where the group interests are in perpetual conflict. This is why equality cannot be achieved by perpetuating inequality against future generations. As shown, there's a way to address past inequality without creating new injustices that's stable over time.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a world where society decides that you have less rights than someone else because of how you were born. Anyone who advocates treating others as lesser due to how they were born is some kind of KKK-level scumbag in my book.
No, if you haven't registered the work, you're only able to get actual damages (which is something like your 'customary rates' but it depends on what you can prove) rather than statutory damages and attorney's fees. Actual damages are close to what you said, but statutory damages are not "punitive" damages at all.
But don't take my word for it, read the actual law on the subject.
Oh, and it so happens that you can register just before filing suit, but a registration that isn't timely doesn't have the same presumption of validity that it would if you were registering long before there was a lawsuit close on the horizon.
> One of the features of safety glass is that when it breaks there aren't (or many) pointy edges created.
Which kind of safety glass?
They were talking about windshields, those are laminated glass. That means you have two sheets of ordinary annealed glass (which DOES break into big, dagger-like sharp pieces) with a plastic sheet in between (which prevents those sharp pieces from going anywhere). Presumably, given an appropriate substrate, you could make laminate out of any glass-like sheet.
The other kind of safety glass is tempered. This causes the glass to be stressed along the edges so that when it does break, it breaks into a million tiny pieces (all of which are very, very sharp). It may also simultaneously pop, especially if hit along the edges. It's less dangerous because the pieces, while sharp, are simply too small to do any real damage even if, say, a piece explodes while you're holding it.
Source: I worked for a cut & temper operation, I've dealt with all kinds of glass.
You're part of an angry mob. I can almost hear the "rabble rabble rabble." Hate is ugly man and trying to pick some random person to vent your frustrations on is not cool. The Obama example is just to point out that your selection of targets is arbitrary.
I get that you're mad, but it makes you really ugly inside. Tolerance is live and let live. What you spout is just another kind of hate. I know your justification, I hear it all the time, but ever notice that all the people saying it are haters? Are you just another hater? Hate everyone for not agreeing with you so you can feel superior? Another guy in the mob too scared to think for yourself?
Because that's what I'm seeing and I'd really like to see that change.
> And then for no damn reason at all, you bring Obama into it.
Has everyone forgotten 2008 already? I'll just leave this here.
If you really want to know, here's the press releases from TEPCO which runs the plants. It's far more informative and far less alarmist than most of the reports going around. Yes, they are evacuating. Yes, there has been some unknown level of radiation leakage, but we don't know how bad it is just yet.
Those who want to review how the safety mechanisms of a BWR work should read this.
No kidding. They even plan to subpoena Slashdot (not to mention Twitter). I don't know what they'll get out of that except for a lot of "in soviet Russia" jokes, but I guess their lawyers like wasting their client's billable hours on fishing expeditions?
I suggest they try Googling that key. I don't know how many results they'll find, but I'm guessing there will be thousands, if not more. It's kind of futile to tell the judge that you need expedited discovery and such when the cat is not merely out of the bag, but halfway across the galaxy, isn't it? But hey, I guess you guys might see it differently. You could go send a million nastygrams to everyone who reads the news and rack up $200/hr. Fact is, I just hate Sony. I don't have a PS3 because I've been boycotting Sony since the time they infected people with that rootkit, so this hexadecimal number you're trying to censor is utterly worthless to me. I can't very well circumvent the protections on a device I'll never own, now, can I?
Google & Apple are C-Corps, which don't allow this tax loophole at all, so Steve Jobs can't save any money by pulling this trick. The comparison is not accurate.
He used his S-Corp to reclassify wages as investment income to avoid FICA taxes, paying himself $24,000 per year (i.e. factory worker wages) instead of a reasonable wage for a CPA. You can't do that in a C-Corp, because you'll have to pay the corporate taxes that S-Corps get to avoid.
He would have been fine if he'd paid himself even somewhat reasonable wages, but Google & Apple can't pull this particular trick at all. C-Corps use completely different tax loopholes.
> No, I did-- and assange isnt "this sort of thing", as he wasnt selling nuclear secrets
Also, the spy swap meant that we got something for letting them off the hook. Who, exactly, would Assange get swapped with?
You've never even tried to rebut the fact that it's an offense for which one can be executed, you've merely pointed out that they don't usually seek it.
Don't get me wrong, though. If they have to take it off the table to have him extradited, they will. But not before then.
> None of them citizens, not once their citizenship has been established.
You mean because they made one of them renounce his citizenship?
The fact that you know all this and are arguing anyhow doesn't exactly repair your credibility, you know. I'd say it's a bit worse than grabbing the wrong link out of a set.
Interestingly, there are wikileaks connections even there.
> Political support....from someone who isnt holding any office whatsoever right now? One or two people dont "much political support" make.
Would you prefer the quotes from the justice department mentioning that they have a task force working on this? Or how about the fact that there's an active investigation, as evidenced by the subpoenas to Twitter?
No, that doesn't mean they will execute him, but it does mean that there are people who'd like to. You won't find many out-and-out calls for assassination, but you will find plenty who wouldn't mind trying him in a death penalty case.
> If you are saying that crazy people will do crazy things, then I agree; but I dont get what that has to do with Assange, especially as he is in custody at the moment. Hes not likely to be randomly shot by some crazy person.
Right now? Probably not. If he's let free? That changes things.
> Are you SERIOUSLY defending the Rosenbergs? Or shoving honest-to-goodness Cold War spies in the same camp as Assange, who has been more of an embarrassment than a grave asset to an enemy?
I'm saying that this sort of thing can lead to executions. Did you not read my link text at all?
> Your second link, citizens in Gitmo, appears to be just plain wrong (unless wikipedia is incorrect)-- James Yee doesnt appear to have ever been held in Gitmo, but rather a brig in North Carolina, as he was in the armed forces at the time.
My bad. I copied quite a few links and should have given you the link to the US's own report on how many people don't actually belong in Gitmo.
> With your third link, you seem to be trying to make the point that, because a potential-not-even-yet-announced candidate for president has announced in a not-official-in-any-capacity that she thinks we should hunt obama, that this should therefore be treated as if it is official policy.
I was pointing out how much political support there was for something like that. They've already got a task force hunting for something to charge him with and I've already made the point that it's an executable offense (see point one, which you managed to completely miss).
> Your last link is REALLY classy-- youre buying into this whole "the gunman must have been following someone's rhetoric", even though there is NO indication that he was doing so.
I don't need to prove that the crazy guy was following anyone's rhetoric.
I just need to prove that there are a lot of crazy, angry people out there right now and we can all see that you can't say that no one would do such a thing.
Also, you obviously didn't read what his lawyers wrote: they cited that exact example. So maybe you disagree, but it's already part of the case.
> Nobody knows whether or not he listened to any particular radio shows, was a fan of Palin or even saw the map.
It's not unreasonable given that Rep. Giffords herself called Palin out on that very advertisement and reported harassment due to it.
Maybe this guy wasn't, but when there are so many crazy people who are talking about skipping right over the soap, ballot & jury boxes, well....
For the record, I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican. Although I have voted for both, I generally try to vote for the least crazy individuals.
That's getting fairly difficult these days. At some point, I'm going to have to resort to writing in my own name or something.
> This is so much hyperbole it is not even funny.
Right, because we've never executed people for this sort of thing before. And, even though we'd put innocent US citizens in Gitmo, there's no way we'd do that to someone who isn't even a US national, neatly sidestepping all that "fair trial" nonsense by labeling him as some kind of "enemy combatant" or whatever.
And, even though we have politicians calling for Julian Assange to be assassinated, there's no way that anyone would ever even think of taking them seriously. Ever.
That's total hyperbole, right? Nobody here is that crazy... right?
That... doesn't mesh with what we know of Clouthier's opinions.
> If his *own* government wants to give him up and ship him here that really sounds like an issue for him, his countrymen, and *his* government.
His own government is the Australian government, not Sweden or the UK. And Australia is in no position to hand him over to anyone right now.
> "prominent figures have implied... that he should be executed" Uh huh... Since when did Palin start making policy decisions again?
One of the people Palin put under the cross-hairs in a political ad, Rep. Giffords, just got shot in Arizona. And I honestly don't think Palin intended that as a physical threat of violence, but she has tons of crazies as followers and was warned by Rep. Giffords that doing stuff like that is a bad idea for a person with as many crazy followers as her.
And you don't seriously think that someone, somewhere is crazy enough that they would shoot him when they pretty much have the support of the Republican party? Heck, they have the support of half the Democrats, too, it seems.
Yeah, on Groklaw, all "anons" are lumped together and frequently used as part of conspiracy theories because, hey, nobody knows who they are.
It's weird, because she appears to invent people to argue with instead of addressing their ideas.
No wonder she doesn't want a community site: she only wants silent partners. All the ones that became too well-known have had differences with her and been forced to move on. She's definitely not the type who can run a community, I will say that.
> You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.
Right. Nobody is claiming otherwise. They *are* saying that they're going to continue to complain about it until the people doing it stop.
They're free to do it. They're even free to delete it on their own site. But we're going to keep pestering you forever and ever and ever unless you stop.
> The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.
True, but we don't like either one. There's a big difference in how much I would hate eating tripe and how much I would hate eating dog poop. But I should expect people to complain about anyone serving either one to their guests. You can say, "I'm the host. It's my house/website/country and I can feed you tripe or dog crap if I want to," but that kind of misses the point. Nobody where they are, they don't want someone trying to feed them crap.
> Slashdot gets by because of the moderation and meta-moderation system.
But Slashdot still only needed to delete, what? Two posts? Ever. One from Microsoft and one from the CoS, as I recall. And then wrote stories about the deletion.
> The people who are investigated don't like it and will do anything they can to shut up or discredit Groklaw.
So she has every reason to be as transparent as possible, so that they have no material to discredit Groklaw. We'll know their lies are not true because of that transparency.
> It is also important to note that there has always been open invitations at Groklaw for Darl McBride, and other targets of investigation to post their side of things.
We saw how that worked when Jay Maynard came over. He put his side of the story on http://ibmvshercules.com/
For the record, I'm of the opinion that TurboHercules has sold out to Microsoft, but that doesn't implicate Jay. He was just stuck in the middle of all this, trying to defend his friends who helped him write the Hercules emulator when they formed the TurboHercules company.
> I'm not saying Groklaw is without flaws but I am saying that the deletion of posts that are designed to discredit the site is not one of them.
It's better to fix one's faults than to delete them.
> The deleted posts lack transparency because they are almost always anonymous and they are almost always by someone pretending to be a member of the community who is not.
You lump all the anons together. Some were people who had their accounts deleted for ridiculous reasons. And then came back to help transcribe PDFs and whatnot, anyhow, after the abuse. Thing is, you don't know who they are, so you're treating them like they're all one person.
For the record, I never made an account, even though PJ asked me to once, because she thought I had good insight. But, frankly, you have no idea who the anons are, so I don't know how you can claim that they were "pretending to be a member of the community" when you have no idea who they are.
I note that you never actually consider the fact that they might be or have been members. Did you ever read AllParadox's rationale for leaving Groklaw? Or did you think he was the only such person?
> you start to sound very much like either a stupid friend of FOSS or a sly enemy.
And you start to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Not everyone is either friend or foe. I'm in favor of FOSS and against OOXML, Microsoft, software patents and deleting the posts of people who debate you instead of responding to them. I have submitted many stories to Slashdot over the years; you should be able to verify all of those statements by reading Googling those stories. I've also covered Groklaw. Before Groklaw was well-known, most of the Slashdot stories on Groklaw were written by me, personally.
Where does that leave me with respect to Groklaw? (Stupid?) friend or foe?