Now hold on there a minute, big fella. What do you mean both sides of the story? There *is* only one side. The side The Law is on.
That's either naive or oversimplified. It implies that there is no arguing about whether or not the law is correct.
Can anybody say Patriot Act? The law might be the law but it is not--shouldn't be!--the end of debate on an issue and it doesn't mean the law is correct. (In fact, since laws can be declared unconstitutional it doesn't really even mean that the law is legal.) There is nothing wrong with publishing a piece that says, essentially, "the law is wrong" or "the law did not intend what it is being used for." You can argue whether or not the conclusion is correct, but let's not dismiss the idea.
Forbes may be wrong, Fax.com might be liable. The latter, at least, will play out in court. But Forbes made its position fairly clear on an issue. Right or wrong, that has to be worth something.
So the intent of an advertiser becomes much fuzzier. Where do you draw the line between those who it makes sense to want to keyword on the generic meaning (and it makes sense for them to do so) and those who specifically want to "leach" of the real Playboy?
Well, Playboy made sense of the generic meaning a long time ago and now it has become so prevelent that if you say "Playboy," nobody is going to run to their dictionary to find out. They are going to assume the magazine instantly. Shouldn't market saturation such as this play a part in whether or not the intent is to leech from Playboy? Ask ten of your friends, "What is Playboy?" I would be surprised if even one of them gave you a definition rather than saying something related to the magazine.
For what it's worth, a cursory glance at Google results for "Playboy" turns up 9/10 matches directly related to Playboy (the magazine) including their own websites in several countries. The one that did not was in a foreign language but from the looks of it, it was a warning about a virus that is somehow masquerading as having to do with Playboy. (A free picture? A warning? A free subscription? I don't know, some gimmic.) I didn't have time to dig deeper but I suspect I would have to dig fairly deep to find anybody--if there is anybody to find--not referring to the magazine. (And no, I'm not counting the AdWords since that is essentially what this case is about.)
Absolutely. However, I am skeptical that they would write that into a contract without at least the intention of making the movies. It may come to pass that they don't--maybe the next one flops so hard that nobody is willing to pay for it, or put the time into it, or whatever--but I believe that at least the intention exists as of the date that contract was written.
I'm told that this is how it works with McDonalds, so it may well work with others as well:
Simply put they are choking the competition. McDonalds' are built every half a block. It's not profitable. However, it chokes away the mom-and-pop and non-chain stores very quickly. Then it works on the small chain stores. It might work on Burger King and other big chains over time, but not as well.
Once the competition around the area is choked into non-existance, you close the less performing stores and have found yourself a corner on the market. You sacrifice some capital to gain market dominance in the area. The bigger the chain the easier and more readily they can take those losses, and for a longer time. Everybody has a point they have to say enough is enough. I think these stores are just hoping theirs is father down the road.
SCO claims they're going after companies with whom they've already had "unsuccessful" discussions. The lesson is clear; it's dangerous to even talk to these nut jobs. Better to discard their mail and not return their phone calls.
SCO: "Yo, we're sueing you."
IBM: "Bring it."
No, seriously, I think generally courts prefer that matters are resolved out of court. At the very least they typically want to see that you at least made an effort to rectify things out of court previous to a trial. Saying they had "unsuccessful" talks with people they are now sueing is probably some sort of "prerequisite." If nothing else it is PR: If the image--with the court, with the public, with anybody--is that your first instinct is to sue everybody in sight, it won't help you any.
I would tell you to crawl back under whatever rock you spawned from and die in your own filth, but that wouldn't be Christian of me.
Of course it wouldn't. And by adding that little addendum, of course, you're completely innocent. You didn't say any such thing, merely thought it out loud! You're a truly excellent Christian!
Perhaps you should worry about praying for your own salvation and improvement. You won't be much of a priest if you're going to be an ass at the first opportunity. Even if "provoked."
As for the "99.9% of Catholic priests who are all good, holy men," I will begin to believe that when your leaders aren't being dropped like stones for covering up molestations of children. And no, I DON'T mean moving the asshole to Rome instead. Until every one of them who ever touched a child is hung and the Catholic church admits its wrongdoing, admits their policy of covering it up--oops, that document WAS discovered!--admits that their "holier than thou" attitude, which you have just proven, is nothing but a sham, the Church has absolutely no moral or spiritual authority to ask for anybody's salvation but their own and they damn sure don't have the authority to offer any forgiveness but their own.
Until your entire religion drops its prejudices against women, against gays, against anybody who doesn't agree (going to hell if I'm not Catholic, eh?), you have no moral or spiritual authority to speak of my "prejudice" or anybody elsesr, and surely not to pretend it is in "God's name" or the interests of salvation that you do so.
Put your own house in order and then you can bitch and lecture about mine.
If you think this is hateful, just wait until I stop sticking to the facts and really throw my opinion of religion and Catholicism in particular in.
I can't tell if that was sarcastic or not. *laugh* I'll assume you were sincere.
Nah, truthfully, Catholicism played only a minor part in my coming not to believe. I stopped believing a long time ago (long before the sex abuse scandals, which ARE absolutely despicable) and examining parts of the Bible have only made my anti-religious temper worse.
Things just don't connect for me in (Christian) religion and the more I talk to people about it, the more I think I'm right. Nobody can even come up with the same story, for one; if I'm going to be wrong, I might as well be wrong this way! The entire concept of many religions, at its core, rubs me the wrong way.
If you believe, that's good. I hope you get something out of it that makes it valuable to me. Me, I don't, I never did.
Interesting that parent was modded as Interesting and not Insightful.
Because such actions reinforce stupid decisions by legal departments such as yours.
As opposed to refusing to give big, multi-billion dollar companies what they need to adopt linux? Oh, the horror! If somebody wants idemnification, what's the big deal? They're afraid. That is the problem, not what they want that will satitate their fear.
If it becomes standard that you cannot buy or use code without "indemnity" then you have made it impossible for an independent code writer to write a program and have people use it.
You do realize that this "slippery slope" explanation is one of the major logic errors, don't you? Who the hell said anything about "standard?" Who said HIS company will not happily buy other software without idemnification if some bastard company isn't threatening to sue them for doing so? Who said even if his company was that paranoid that the rest of the companies in the country would follow suit? "Standard" indeed.
This is irrelevant to open source, what you have pretty much said is that writing code is the realm of big business and that start-ups and free enterprise and just the desire to tell people about solutions you have figured out have become illegal.
Funny. By actually reading the grandfather post rather than fitting your conclusion to his writing, no such conclusion can be reached. What he said is that SCO's FUD has paniced his legal department into disallowing purchasing linux. The word "illegal" never entered his post, and it damn sure never said they would never buy a piece of software from anybody who wouldn't idemnify them.
But the next genius grad student who writes the "Linux-killer" operating system is going to be out of luck, as everybody who he shows it to is going to say "but you have no idemnity, so I'm going to have to stick with Linux..."
Yeah, because the entire world has abandoned linux in the face of this ever-so-terrifying SCO debacle. Everybody also drives green volvos. Oh? I can't make idiotic assumptions for everybody? I can't presume to understand the internal politics of every person and every corporation and every business in the world? Sorry. Thought you set a precedent!
Even people who think Linux is the end-all of software should realize that this means the death of applications for Linux from independent authors, since they cannot "idemnify" their code. And Windows fans should realize this means the death of all the Shareware and Freeware and open source software, and also the few remaining tiny software vendors, all of who cannot afford "idemnification" either.
Seriously. Put down the crack, take off the tinfoil hat and relax for a while. All software that doesn't come out of Redmond or Silicon Valley is not suddenly going to die and damn sure not because of a matter involving an operating system 96% of the world doesn't run and probably half of those don't even know exists.
I don't care if this action causes SCO to go bankrupt tomorrow, this is a bad precedent for Novell to do this.
Yeah. Protecting your customers is a terrible precedent. Any company offered to do that for me, I'd bust their nose.
You know what really scares the hell out of me? You got modded to +4 with absolutely no facts, a logical error, a half-assed grasp of what you're replying to, and a really bad, leap-as-far-as-you-can-leap conclusion about a matter the post you replied to never even discussed. Not because I care about your score or your karma, but because it means that your simply sounding confident was enough to get people to swallow YOUR FUD.
Wait. FUD. You don't want linux users protected. Are you sure you don't work for SCO?
If indeed their IP was so valuable, why didn't they make a concerted effort to prevent its free dissemination?
One could argue that the licensing fees and the lawsuits (and threats thereof) were a concerted effort to prevent its free dissemination. SCO sent out C&D orders, didn't they? I'm not sure how "they wouldn't tell us what we did wrong" would work from a legal standpoint if you simply ignored the C&D or stopped complying with it after a while. I don't know if the onus is on them to bring you into compliance or yours to comply or challenge the order.
But don't get me wrong. I hate SCO, I think the suits are a bunch of BS and I wish IBM or somebody would crack them over the head with a Tux stuffed full of jagged rocks.
(i somehow thought that was common in catholics.. it's not!?)
It is. One of the Seven Sacrements.
1. Baptism
2. Confirmation
3. Reconciliation
4. Communion
5. Holy Orders (when your calling in life is to molest a little boy, apparently)
6. Marriage (Matrimony)
7. Annointing of the sick
Should the case not be dismissed initially,(IANAL) the defendant could compel the infringing code via discovery, at which point same need only remove the infringing code from their copy of the kernel sources to render the case moot and void.
Moot, perhaps, but not void. In this hypothetical case, SCO could continue to sue for compensatory and punitive damages for having infringed on their code. Even if there were a legal loophole I'm not aware of that would allow your situation to take place (IANAL either), I doubt it would be true until every copy of linux in the world was updated to the new, non-infringing code. Since that is unlikely to happen in the near future--perhaps ever--SCO would continue to have the right to seek damages. Even if it did happen, I don't believe that merely coming into compliance precludes a lawsuit from moving forward. If I offered MP3s to people on Kazaa and took the songs down when I got sued, it doesn't mean the lawsuit drops. I am now in compliance, but the harm I caused is already done and I still broke the law.
True, I didn't think of the lawsuits. But even that seems to work--at least partly--in favor of investors who were too dumb to bail ship when the bubble bursts. It's almost win-win. They either pull out in time and keep their profits, (and/)or end up suing the company and hopefully recovering their losses. At least a part of them, even if they do end up holding the bag.
I congratulate you for being a day trader. It's a job I don't think I could ever live with. Too much pressure!
Why gullible? Stocks are about money. It doesn't matter to (most of) them whether or not this crap is legally sound, only whether or not it drives the stock price up. And it looks like it has.
If these investors sell at the right time, they will make an extremely tidy profit. I don't see that as gullible.
Also, a strong worded letter to your elected officials who did NOT vote against this bill would be better yet.
I wish that were true. I wrote a handul of my congressmen/senators about the Patriot Act a few months ago. (Specifically, Rep. Henry Hyde and Speaker Dennis Hastert, both powerful men from my state; Rep. Lipinski, the congressman for my district; and Senator Durbin, the democratic senator for my state.) I didn't even receive a form letter reply. Absolutely nothing, just silence. I suppose maybe that is to be expected from the republicans since I was less than complementary of the Act, but I at least expected a form letter sort of response from Durbin or especially Lipinski.
Would anyone here like to tear down my theory? If so, please avoid the obvious. The obvious being that not everybody uses encryption, Joe Sixpack could never figure out encryption, etc.
Awwwwww! No fun.
But seriously, if that can't be mentioned, let me first make another point. If the major problem with spam these days is open hosts, and we are ignoring issues of usability and general public acceptance, then it seems to me that the first thing we should do is put an end to zombied machines by getting everybody to secure their machines such that them being usable for spammers (and any other virus, worm, etc that floats around the 'Net) is a statistically non-existant issue. But I certainly digress.
Is there a problem with your theory? One potential problem I see--and I admit I am a novice in both the areas of spam and encryption--is the assumption of security if a valid key exists. I kind of liked the fee base, even if it might not be practical for general acceptance, but once a key exists and is verified, it is assumed to be valid and non-spam email?
1) What is to stop these zombied machines from simply examining a system and making use of the email encryption scheme available? If a spammer got hold of somebody else's valid key and used it maliciously, the email would be accepted as valid. Also, how can the victim of such misuse prove it was a malicious spyware-type program or worm that sent itself to the world rather than them sitting at a computer?
2) If a service such as SpamCop is used to report keys that should be blacklisted, how long would wide public support exist if they had to prove themselves innocent if something went wrong? Remember, this isn't like an email address where I could get a new one for free and with fairly minimal hassle; this is something I paid money for, money that while it may be small, is still my money and I wouldn't take kindly to having it taken away from me. Especially if I really didn't do anything wrong.
Assuming everything worked great, might it not also work too great? What about legitimate businesses with opt-in email listing? How could they not be marked as spam in the system? And how do we feel about things we agree to even if we don't like? I am reminded of comments previous about spyware and how most of the time they basically say they're going to install it in your EULA. What if a spam clause is put in instead? Is this spam or not?
All in all I like the system. And hey, even if there is a gaping hole somewhere we're both missing (even if I'm right about the issues I raise I consider them relatively minor), we do, as you say, have that extra security blanket of encryption. I've never been much of a tin foil hat person, but lately Ashcroft has been scaring the hell out of me!
It might work, if we avoid the obvious. It's unfortunate that we really can't, though. Still, I've begun encrypting my IM's and plan to check more deeply into doing so with my emails. Couldn't hurt to try... or at least help secure my little corner of the world.
I think that since RedHat is claiming damages for "unfair competition" (ie, filing lawsuit claims to damage a company's reputation, trade libel and tortious interferance) that a handful of instances of the matter harming RH would be sufficient. I suspect in terms of money--which isn't what RH is seeking as much as judgment--they would be after much larger punitive than compensatory damages. Mostly, however, I see this as an attempt to quash SCO's lawsuit claims, until they pony up in court, via an injunction.
Slashdot is simply a bad medium to go to for whether or not it is effecting anything, though. You're right in that a lot of people have said it has no effect but even a large portion of those said "my boss asked me [or corporate legal] about it, I said it was a joke, it's okay." That still effects decisions; the boss was simply convinced that the matter was safe to proceed.
I think the question should be "What value did the Director get from the book?"
Perhaps the better question is, is the book better off today than it was before the movies were made? Few, I think, could argue "no."
For one, the movies introduced dozens of people to the books. Some of them didn't even realize the movies were based on any book at first; I distinctly remember murmors of "how can they end it there?!" after the first LOTR movie in theaters on opening night. No such murmors after the second one. After the third one I expect to hear a lot of "wow" in its place. I have friends who considered themselves fans of fantasy literature but had never read Tolkein. I'd say roughly half of those now intend to pick up the books after the movies. If nothing else, the other half takes with them the impact of the movies whether they know that is Tolkein's impact or not.
Let's face it: The LOTR trilogy is the vastest, most ambitious epic movie series ever undertaken. New Line literally bet the farm that the series would succeed and they have not been disappointed. The sheer scale of the filming and editing is astonishing; the quality is superb. Nowhere in LOTR have I yet found myself going, "that CGI SUCKS!" like I did, for instance, in Matrix Reloaded. They have been exceptionally professional and their product exhibits that professionalism.
Did they capture every aspect of Tolkein's work? Absolutely not. There is no way they could, even in nine hours (10:30 with the extended editions) of movies. But I would argue that they have captured the most important part, the vastness of Tolkein's world. Tolkein is the father of fantasy literature not because his story is the best (that is subjective), or his characters the most relatable--many authors have created the same before him and after. Tolkein is the master because of the pure vastness of his creation. He created a world. He created species that fantasy authors today take for granted. He interwove into this world generations before the story ever took place to provide almost a detailed history of the world before the story ever begins. He even created languages.
All of these elements are present, if one looks for them, in the movies. The beauty of the Shire in Fellowship was breathtaking. The incredible stonework throughout both of the first two movies (and no doubt through the third) is indicative of a fantastic history. The vastness of the lands and the castles was staggering, and the scope of the battle in Two Towers was unprecedented--and from every indication, the battle in Return will put it to shame.
Throughout it all, Jackson also manages to properly portray the mood. I think he has done a fantastic job detailing the effect that the ring has had on Frodo and I think Gollum is pure brilliance. The music is perfectly appropriate to the scenes, often deep, base-dominated sounds that resonated through the audience and gave illustrated the feelings of vastness and hopelessness. The colors and scenary--or I should say, general lack thereof as the Fellowship breaks apart and moves closer to their dark goal--is crowning.
He didn't stay completely true to the books, of course. A lot was cut--that's expected--and some of the edges smoothed to make the cut scenes transparent. But he also took some plot points and invented or changed them to help illustrate concepts he felt needed better illustration. Some of the changes I didn't like, some I did; most of the changes I honestly don't care about. If that is something that somehow ruins the movies for someone, than that person is better of not watching the movies. Could aggrevate their heart condition. *eyeroll*
Point being, a very fine job was done. Not everything was done exactly according to the book, but I think Jackson did a wonderful job portraying the most important aspects of Tolkein's work and introducing it to a whole new generation of readers. And to answer your initial question -- "Was something essential to the written work captured and represented on the screen?" -- I would say yes. Most everything essential to the work was captured.
In the US, have you ever noticed that most of your government representatives are, to quote Dilbert, Dumb As Toast?
No. I've noticed that most of my representatives seem to be quite smart--generally average at worst. However they are put into unreasonable situations (sometimes by themselves!) which force them to make unreasonable statements and unreasonable decisions.
For some reason in politics, saving face seems to be the major issue. Some of the very Congressmen who voted for the Patriot Act, for instance, are now calling for its repeal. Will they ever say "we just wanted to show our support and we did stupid ass things to do so?" Nope. They'll complain that the powers are being abused and it wasn't intended for what it's used for. They'll pretend their secretaries told them it was a vote on going to Subway for lunch. Anything but admit they were idiots.
In a lot of ways, it reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister ("Baghdad Bob"). "The Americans are not here. We have destroyed the infidels army. That is not an American humvee in the background. I am not being taken into custody. They are not shutting off my camer--" It's not necessarily that he's a dumb person (he may be, I certainly don't know), but when even a smart person is forced to stand on a dumb platform they're going to take a fall. That would include supporting positions of your party that you might not, yourself, agree with. More often than not I think that is a major part of why politicans look stupid sometimes.
As for Bush? I hate him, but I'm going to be fair: I don't know if Bush is an idiot or just one of the world's worst public speakers. Using words such as "misunderestimate" three times in as many sentences leads me to believe the former, but eh.
I would guess very little can be accurate in "all cases" in situations like this, and I certainly have plenty of blame for Microsoft and other shoddy software developers that are a cause of a lot of completely innocent crashes, lock-ups, lags, etc., from the user's perspective. However, some blame does have to be assigned to the users.
In my family, both my brother and I are fairly geeky folks (I take the cake of course!). My parents? They're the sort who are afraid to even hook up their own computer hardware--and I'm not talking about internal stuff here. Why? Because they can't match up two pieces of the same color and connect them? Nah, because technology intimidates them for some reason--even the simplest tasks. Now my dad has an excuse: He's a printer, so he doesn't work with computers at all during the day. My mom, however, is a nurse and deals with computers all day, even if it just software for scheduling/patient records/referrals/etc and of course email.
In short, they're bothered because they don't think they understand the task and would much rather call me over to do it for them than actually learn to do it themselves. Now imagine them in an environment where they have to plug along on their own because a call to tech support is a waste of everybody's time and money. They'll be clicking all sorts of things which they have no idea how to use! Hell, at home my dad managed to install one of those little porn dancers on his computer. Those things are a bitch to track down! He insists he never clicked on anything to install it. Sure dad!
Point being, users do do stupid things. Some of it can be blamed on them not knowing things they probably shouldn't know, some of it can be blamed on them for not knowing things they probably should know. But a lot of things could be prevented by better educated users.
I'm sure I'll have a nice post full of blame for Microsoft later when the next stupid Microsoft issue comes up.
- a pretty major propulsion system to get a heavy ship headed to Mars at a high rate of speed, presumably nuclear
- getting a lot of mass into LEO in the first place
The goal SHOULD NOT be a round trip. The goal should be to start sending big unmanned cargo ships, carrying water, food, habitats, green houses and nuclear power plants to Mars and when they are arriving reliably send colonists on a fast one way trip to stay for the duration.
I've always been fascinated by the idea of colonizing other planets. However, to say that should be the first manned mission to a planet seems foolish to me. At the very least I would think we would need to send a sort of "exploratory mission" to make sure things exist on the planet the way we think they exist.
Preferably on whatever planet we one day colonize, we find a source of fresh water. Colonizing a planet without that seems counter-productive except for long-term research. The vast amount of water that even a single city on Earth uses makes it impractical and insanely expensive to set up a system in which water must be constantly delivered, at least in order to maintain any sort of lifestyle we're used to. And really, if we can't provide something resembling a "normal" life on a colonized planet, and the "colonization" amounts to only a scientific outpost, we have to weigh the costs of that colony against its benefits. Is the extra benefit of living there for a while worth the extra money it would take compared to occasional visits to pick up something to research?
And what of biological entities? As you probably know, the NASA folks are put through an extremely rigorous quarantine and "cleaning" (I can't think of the word right now) to ensure we neither bring any of our bacteria and such to another planet nor bring any from there back with us, if any such exist. Assuming we can say with any certainty that no life of any kind exists on Mars (or any planet) is a dangerous assumption. It is, after all, one of the questions that drives space exploration.
It seems that all of your ideas hinge upon a self-sustaining colony. We'd certainly better send some folks to investigate whether or not that is ever possible before we start sending settlers. I agree with you that our long term goal should be colonization of a planet (not Mars necessarily if it is not adequate), but that's a goal that should be significantly farther down the road. It might not ever be possible. Between the extreme temperatures, lack of water, etc, we might never find a planet we can colonize that is within our reach.
Revenge. Showing Darl and his little buddies that if you expect to play hardball with a company as big as IBM that you had better be prepared to play 'till the end.
IBM isn't a charity, you're right. But then again a company as big as they are no doubt has staff lawyers, so actually pursuing the case wouldn't be all that much more expensive than dropping it. And while you're also right that a dismissal and a settlement might be enough to dissuade others from trying similar tactics with IBM, a far stronger message is sent with a court victory, a much larger judgment and thousands of SCO investors going, "oh shit!" and pulling their money.
Lessons do need to be taught here. I'm pretty sure they will be taught, whether it is dismissed or not. SCO has repeatedly jabbed the sleeping lion with a stick. I don't think saying "nice kitty!" now is going to prevent the trouble they've gotten themselves into.
Either way, if the case is dismissed, I hope it is dismissed with prejudice. I don't want to see this all surfacing again a few months later when Darl decides his stocks need a little boost.
If you had read what I wrote, you would note that everything I said about CNN and Fox News was in illustrating that they are NOT the same as Slashdot. I never said they had anything to learn. Those are your words and they're ridiculous. They're completely different mediums. What works on one will not work on another.
Slashdot is not a niche site that only reports Kernal release
Where did I mention the world "kernal" and where did I say that my examples of Microsoft are the end-all be-all? I used them simply because they are the best known and most polar topic here. Slashdot is a niche site even if that niche is as broad as "news for nerds."
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF YOU COULD MAKE JOKES ABOUT FOX NEW'S SPIN (ON FOX NEWS) LIKE YOU CAN ON SLASHDOT???
You can bash CNN and Fox News the same way you do people here. And guess what? I'd tell you to change the fucking channel and stop whining the same way I'm telling you in the current context.
Sometimes a particular submitter keeps making the same mistakes OVER and OVER again.
Your bitching makes a world of difference I'm sure. And who says they're mistakes? That sounds awfully egotistical to me. But we'll get to that of course.
Don't you think public scrutany is an important part of an open discussion?
Absolutely. Scrutinize the article. Scrutinize their conclusions. Scrutinize other peoples scrutinizations. But I don't want to hear people complaining about spelling, or grammar, or the fact that a submitter asks questions or provides their conclusions or any number of the rest of the crap some people around here love to complain about. I want to hear about the ARTICLE. I want to hear opinions on the SUBJECT MATTER. That's why I read the articles, that's why I read the comments. Not to hear people piss and moan that it wasn't submitted to their specifications.
should we have to shut up, because you tolerate low standards?
You are either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. I happen to agree with some of the criticism. I happen to agree that editorializing should not be a part of the submission. But I do not agree that the submitters should be taken to task about it, least of all not where everybody else has to read the complaint about it.
Hell, if you and whomever else insists upon spouting off at the submitters, do it privately. They have a better chance of reading it, for one, and they will likely take it more seriously when they see you took the time to compose a reasonable e-mail stating your concerns rather than fingering the reply button and bitching. And, of course, it saves the rest of us from reading your complaints.
However, the bottom line is that I am not egotistical enough to assume my way must be the best way. Have you ever considered that the submitter might know full well that people think the way you do and simply disagree? Or not care? I wouldn't submit articles if people like you were going to mouth off every time they didn't agree with how I did it. If you're concerned about the integrity of the site, chew on that one for a while.
For the record, reply if you wish, but I have nothing further to say on the matter. I have wasted quite enough of my time on this thread already.
Slashdot Mirror
Now hold on there a minute, big fella. What do you mean both sides of the story? There *is* only one side. The side The Law is on.
That's either naive or oversimplified. It implies that there is no arguing about whether or not the law is correct.
Can anybody say Patriot Act? The law might be the law but it is not--shouldn't be!--the end of debate on an issue and it doesn't mean the law is correct. (In fact, since laws can be declared unconstitutional it doesn't really even mean that the law is legal.) There is nothing wrong with publishing a piece that says, essentially, "the law is wrong" or "the law did not intend what it is being used for." You can argue whether or not the conclusion is correct, but let's not dismiss the idea.
Forbes may be wrong, Fax.com might be liable. The latter, at least, will play out in court. But Forbes made its position fairly clear on an issue. Right or wrong, that has to be worth something.
So the intent of an advertiser becomes much fuzzier. Where do you draw the line between those who it makes sense to want to keyword on the generic meaning (and it makes sense for them to do so) and those who specifically want to "leach" of the real Playboy?
Well, Playboy made sense of the generic meaning a long time ago and now it has become so prevelent that if you say "Playboy," nobody is going to run to their dictionary to find out. They are going to assume the magazine instantly. Shouldn't market saturation such as this play a part in whether or not the intent is to leech from Playboy? Ask ten of your friends, "What is Playboy?" I would be surprised if even one of them gave you a definition rather than saying something related to the magazine.
For what it's worth, a cursory glance at Google results for "Playboy" turns up 9/10 matches directly related to Playboy (the magazine) including their own websites in several countries. The one that did not was in a foreign language but from the looks of it, it was a warning about a virus that is somehow masquerading as having to do with Playboy. (A free picture? A warning? A free subscription? I don't know, some gimmic.) I didn't have time to dig deeper but I suspect I would have to dig fairly deep to find anybody--if there is anybody to find--not referring to the magazine. (And no, I'm not counting the AdWords since that is essentially what this case is about.)
Can't you boys be a little more skeptical?
Absolutely. However, I am skeptical that they would write that into a contract without at least the intention of making the movies. It may come to pass that they don't--maybe the next one flops so hard that nobody is willing to pay for it, or put the time into it, or whatever--but I believe that at least the intention exists as of the date that contract was written.
I'm told that this is how it works with McDonalds, so it may well work with others as well:
Simply put they are choking the competition. McDonalds' are built every half a block. It's not profitable. However, it chokes away the mom-and-pop and non-chain stores very quickly. Then it works on the small chain stores. It might work on Burger King and other big chains over time, but not as well.
Once the competition around the area is choked into non-existance, you close the less performing stores and have found yourself a corner on the market. You sacrifice some capital to gain market dominance in the area. The bigger the chain the easier and more readily they can take those losses, and for a longer time. Everybody has a point they have to say enough is enough. I think these stores are just hoping theirs is father down the road.
SCO claims they're going after companies with whom they've already had "unsuccessful" discussions. The lesson is clear; it's dangerous to even talk to these nut jobs. Better to discard their mail and not return their phone calls.
SCO: "Yo, we're sueing you."
IBM: "Bring it."
No, seriously, I think generally courts prefer that matters are resolved out of court. At the very least they typically want to see that you at least made an effort to rectify things out of court previous to a trial. Saying they had "unsuccessful" talks with people they are now sueing is probably some sort of "prerequisite." If nothing else it is PR: If the image--with the court, with the public, with anybody--is that your first instinct is to sue everybody in sight, it won't help you any.
I would tell you to crawl back under whatever rock you spawned from and die in your own filth, but that wouldn't be Christian of me.
Of course it wouldn't. And by adding that little addendum, of course, you're completely innocent. You didn't say any such thing, merely thought it out loud! You're a truly excellent Christian!
Perhaps you should worry about praying for your own salvation and improvement. You won't be much of a priest if you're going to be an ass at the first opportunity. Even if "provoked."
As for the "99.9% of Catholic priests who are all good, holy men," I will begin to believe that when your leaders aren't being dropped like stones for covering up molestations of children. And no, I DON'T mean moving the asshole to Rome instead. Until every one of them who ever touched a child is hung and the Catholic church admits its wrongdoing, admits their policy of covering it up--oops, that document WAS discovered!--admits that their "holier than thou" attitude, which you have just proven, is nothing but a sham, the Church has absolutely no moral or spiritual authority to ask for anybody's salvation but their own and they damn sure don't have the authority to offer any forgiveness but their own.
Until your entire religion drops its prejudices against women, against gays, against anybody who doesn't agree (going to hell if I'm not Catholic, eh?), you have no moral or spiritual authority to speak of my "prejudice" or anybody elsesr, and surely not to pretend it is in "God's name" or the interests of salvation that you do so.
Put your own house in order and then you can bitch and lecture about mine.
If you think this is hateful, just wait until I stop sticking to the facts and really throw my opinion of religion and Catholicism in particular in.
You may proceed to moderate this as a troll.
I can't tell if that was sarcastic or not. *laugh* I'll assume you were sincere.
Nah, truthfully, Catholicism played only a minor part in my coming not to believe. I stopped believing a long time ago (long before the sex abuse scandals, which ARE absolutely despicable) and examining parts of the Bible have only made my anti-religious temper worse.
Things just don't connect for me in (Christian) religion and the more I talk to people about it, the more I think I'm right. Nobody can even come up with the same story, for one; if I'm going to be wrong, I might as well be wrong this way! The entire concept of many religions, at its core, rubs me the wrong way.
If you believe, that's good. I hope you get something out of it that makes it valuable to me. Me, I don't, I never did.
Interesting that parent was modded as Interesting and not Insightful.
Because such actions reinforce stupid decisions by legal departments such as yours.
As opposed to refusing to give big, multi-billion dollar companies what they need to adopt linux? Oh, the horror! If somebody wants idemnification, what's the big deal? They're afraid. That is the problem, not what they want that will satitate their fear.
If it becomes standard that you cannot buy or use code without "indemnity" then you have made it impossible for an independent code writer to write a program and have people use it.
You do realize that this "slippery slope" explanation is one of the major logic errors, don't you? Who the hell said anything about "standard?" Who said HIS company will not happily buy other software without idemnification if some bastard company isn't threatening to sue them for doing so? Who said even if his company was that paranoid that the rest of the companies in the country would follow suit? "Standard" indeed.
This is irrelevant to open source, what you have pretty much said is that writing code is the realm of big business and that start-ups and free enterprise and just the desire to tell people about solutions you have figured out have become illegal.
Funny. By actually reading the grandfather post rather than fitting your conclusion to his writing, no such conclusion can be reached. What he said is that SCO's FUD has paniced his legal department into disallowing purchasing linux. The word "illegal" never entered his post, and it damn sure never said they would never buy a piece of software from anybody who wouldn't idemnify them.
But the next genius grad student who writes the "Linux-killer" operating system is going to be out of luck, as everybody who he shows it to is going to say "but you have no idemnity, so I'm going to have to stick with Linux..."
Yeah, because the entire world has abandoned linux in the face of this ever-so-terrifying SCO debacle. Everybody also drives green volvos. Oh? I can't make idiotic assumptions for everybody? I can't presume to understand the internal politics of every person and every corporation and every business in the world? Sorry. Thought you set a precedent!
Even people who think Linux is the end-all of software should realize that this means the death of applications for Linux from independent authors, since they cannot "idemnify" their code. And Windows fans should realize this means the death of all the Shareware and Freeware and open source software, and also the few remaining tiny software vendors, all of who cannot afford "idemnification" either.
Seriously. Put down the crack, take off the tinfoil hat and relax for a while. All software that doesn't come out of Redmond or Silicon Valley is not suddenly going to die and damn sure not because of a matter involving an operating system 96% of the world doesn't run and probably half of those don't even know exists.
I don't care if this action causes SCO to go bankrupt tomorrow, this is a bad precedent for Novell to do this.
Yeah. Protecting your customers is a terrible precedent. Any company offered to do that for me, I'd bust their nose.
You know what really scares the hell out of me? You got modded to +4 with absolutely no facts, a logical error, a half-assed grasp of what you're replying to, and a really bad, leap-as-far-as-you-can-leap conclusion about a matter the post you replied to never even discussed. Not because I care about your score or your karma, but because it means that your simply sounding confident was enough to get people to swallow YOUR FUD.
Wait. FUD. You don't want linux users protected. Are you sure you don't work for SCO?
</pissy reply to baseless post modded to +4>
If indeed their IP was so valuable, why didn't they make a concerted effort to prevent its free dissemination?
One could argue that the licensing fees and the lawsuits (and threats thereof) were a concerted effort to prevent its free dissemination. SCO sent out C&D orders, didn't they? I'm not sure how "they wouldn't tell us what we did wrong" would work from a legal standpoint if you simply ignored the C&D or stopped complying with it after a while. I don't know if the onus is on them to bring you into compliance or yours to comply or challenge the order.
But don't get me wrong. I hate SCO, I think the suits are a bunch of BS and I wish IBM or somebody would crack them over the head with a Tux stuffed full of jagged rocks.
(i somehow thought that was common in catholics.. it's not!?)
It is. One of the Seven Sacrements.
1. Baptism
2. Confirmation
3. Reconciliation
4. Communion
5. Holy Orders (when your calling in life is to molest a little boy, apparently)
6. Marriage (Matrimony)
7. Annointing of the sick
See how well the catholics taught me?
Any wonder I've become an athiest? *eyeroll*
Should the case not be dismissed initially,(IANAL) the defendant could compel the infringing code via discovery, at which point same need only remove the infringing code from their copy of the kernel sources to render the case moot and void.
Moot, perhaps, but not void. In this hypothetical case, SCO could continue to sue for compensatory and punitive damages for having infringed on their code. Even if there were a legal loophole I'm not aware of that would allow your situation to take place (IANAL either), I doubt it would be true until every copy of linux in the world was updated to the new, non-infringing code. Since that is unlikely to happen in the near future--perhaps ever--SCO would continue to have the right to seek damages. Even if it did happen, I don't believe that merely coming into compliance precludes a lawsuit from moving forward. If I offered MP3s to people on Kazaa and took the songs down when I got sued, it doesn't mean the lawsuit drops. I am now in compliance, but the harm I caused is already done and I still broke the law.
True, I didn't think of the lawsuits. But even that seems to work--at least partly--in favor of investors who were too dumb to bail ship when the bubble bursts. It's almost win-win. They either pull out in time and keep their profits, (and/)or end up suing the company and hopefully recovering their losses. At least a part of them, even if they do end up holding the bag.
I congratulate you for being a day trader. It's a job I don't think I could ever live with. Too much pressure!
hope stock price rises as gullible investers...
Why gullible? Stocks are about money. It doesn't matter to (most of) them whether or not this crap is legally sound, only whether or not it drives the stock price up. And it looks like it has.
If these investors sell at the right time, they will make an extremely tidy profit. I don't see that as gullible.
Also, a strong worded letter to your elected officials who did NOT vote against this bill would be better yet.
I wish that were true. I wrote a handul of my congressmen/senators about the Patriot Act a few months ago. (Specifically, Rep. Henry Hyde and Speaker Dennis Hastert, both powerful men from my state; Rep. Lipinski, the congressman for my district; and Senator Durbin, the democratic senator for my state.) I didn't even receive a form letter reply. Absolutely nothing, just silence. I suppose maybe that is to be expected from the republicans since I was less than complementary of the Act, but I at least expected a form letter sort of response from Durbin or especially Lipinski.
If they're listening, I see no evidence of it.
Would anyone here like to tear down my theory? If so, please avoid the obvious. The obvious being that not everybody uses encryption, Joe Sixpack could never figure out encryption, etc.
Awwwwww! No fun.
But seriously, if that can't be mentioned, let me first make another point. If the major problem with spam these days is open hosts, and we are ignoring issues of usability and general public acceptance, then it seems to me that the first thing we should do is put an end to zombied machines by getting everybody to secure their machines such that them being usable for spammers (and any other virus, worm, etc that floats around the 'Net) is a statistically non-existant issue. But I certainly digress.
Is there a problem with your theory? One potential problem I see--and I admit I am a novice in both the areas of spam and encryption--is the assumption of security if a valid key exists. I kind of liked the fee base, even if it might not be practical for general acceptance, but once a key exists and is verified, it is assumed to be valid and non-spam email?
1) What is to stop these zombied machines from simply examining a system and making use of the email encryption scheme available? If a spammer got hold of somebody else's valid key and used it maliciously, the email would be accepted as valid. Also, how can the victim of such misuse prove it was a malicious spyware-type program or worm that sent itself to the world rather than them sitting at a computer?
2) If a service such as SpamCop is used to report keys that should be blacklisted, how long would wide public support exist if they had to prove themselves innocent if something went wrong? Remember, this isn't like an email address where I could get a new one for free and with fairly minimal hassle; this is something I paid money for, money that while it may be small, is still my money and I wouldn't take kindly to having it taken away from me. Especially if I really didn't do anything wrong.
Assuming everything worked great, might it not also work too great? What about legitimate businesses with opt-in email listing? How could they not be marked as spam in the system? And how do we feel about things we agree to even if we don't like? I am reminded of comments previous about spyware and how most of the time they basically say they're going to install it in your EULA. What if a spam clause is put in instead? Is this spam or not?
All in all I like the system. And hey, even if there is a gaping hole somewhere we're both missing (even if I'm right about the issues I raise I consider them relatively minor), we do, as you say, have that extra security blanket of encryption. I've never been much of a tin foil hat person, but lately Ashcroft has been scaring the hell out of me!
It might work, if we avoid the obvious. It's unfortunate that we really can't, though. Still, I've begun encrypting my IM's and plan to check more deeply into doing so with my emails. Couldn't hurt to try... or at least help secure my little corner of the world.
Percentage of statistics made up on the spot to support whatever claim the author wishes to support: 95.
I think that since RedHat is claiming damages for "unfair competition" (ie, filing lawsuit claims to damage a company's reputation, trade libel and tortious interferance) that a handful of instances of the matter harming RH would be sufficient. I suspect in terms of money--which isn't what RH is seeking as much as judgment--they would be after much larger punitive than compensatory damages. Mostly, however, I see this as an attempt to quash SCO's lawsuit claims, until they pony up in court, via an injunction.
Slashdot is simply a bad medium to go to for whether or not it is effecting anything, though. You're right in that a lot of people have said it has no effect but even a large portion of those said "my boss asked me [or corporate legal] about it, I said it was a joke, it's okay." That still effects decisions; the boss was simply convinced that the matter was safe to proceed.
Just a few thoughts.
I think the question should be "What value did the Director get from the book?"
Perhaps the better question is, is the book better off today than it was before the movies were made? Few, I think, could argue "no."
For one, the movies introduced dozens of people to the books. Some of them didn't even realize the movies were based on any book at first; I distinctly remember murmors of "how can they end it there?!" after the first LOTR movie in theaters on opening night. No such murmors after the second one. After the third one I expect to hear a lot of "wow" in its place. I have friends who considered themselves fans of fantasy literature but had never read Tolkein. I'd say roughly half of those now intend to pick up the books after the movies. If nothing else, the other half takes with them the impact of the movies whether they know that is Tolkein's impact or not.
Let's face it: The LOTR trilogy is the vastest, most ambitious epic movie series ever undertaken. New Line literally bet the farm that the series would succeed and they have not been disappointed. The sheer scale of the filming and editing is astonishing; the quality is superb. Nowhere in LOTR have I yet found myself going, "that CGI SUCKS!" like I did, for instance, in Matrix Reloaded. They have been exceptionally professional and their product exhibits that professionalism.
Did they capture every aspect of Tolkein's work? Absolutely not. There is no way they could, even in nine hours (10:30 with the extended editions) of movies. But I would argue that they have captured the most important part, the vastness of Tolkein's world. Tolkein is the father of fantasy literature not because his story is the best (that is subjective), or his characters the most relatable--many authors have created the same before him and after. Tolkein is the master because of the pure vastness of his creation. He created a world. He created species that fantasy authors today take for granted. He interwove into this world generations before the story ever took place to provide almost a detailed history of the world before the story ever begins. He even created languages.
All of these elements are present, if one looks for them, in the movies. The beauty of the Shire in Fellowship was breathtaking. The incredible stonework throughout both of the first two movies (and no doubt through the third) is indicative of a fantastic history. The vastness of the lands and the castles was staggering, and the scope of the battle in Two Towers was unprecedented--and from every indication, the battle in Return will put it to shame.
Throughout it all, Jackson also manages to properly portray the mood. I think he has done a fantastic job detailing the effect that the ring has had on Frodo and I think Gollum is pure brilliance. The music is perfectly appropriate to the scenes, often deep, base-dominated sounds that resonated through the audience and gave illustrated the feelings of vastness and hopelessness. The colors and scenary--or I should say, general lack thereof as the Fellowship breaks apart and moves closer to their dark goal--is crowning.
He didn't stay completely true to the books, of course. A lot was cut--that's expected--and some of the edges smoothed to make the cut scenes transparent. But he also took some plot points and invented or changed them to help illustrate concepts he felt needed better illustration. Some of the changes I didn't like, some I did; most of the changes I honestly don't care about. If that is something that somehow ruins the movies for someone, than that person is better of not watching the movies. Could aggrevate their heart condition. *eyeroll*
Point being, a very fine job was done. Not everything was done exactly according to the book, but I think Jackson did a wonderful job portraying the most important aspects of Tolkein's work and introducing it to a whole new generation of readers. And to answer your initial question -- "Was something essential to the written work captured and represented on the screen?" -- I would say yes. Most everything essential to the work was captured.
Your mileage may vary.
In the US, have you ever noticed that most of your government representatives are, to quote Dilbert, Dumb As Toast?
No. I've noticed that most of my representatives seem to be quite smart--generally average at worst. However they are put into unreasonable situations (sometimes by themselves!) which force them to make unreasonable statements and unreasonable decisions.
For some reason in politics, saving face seems to be the major issue. Some of the very Congressmen who voted for the Patriot Act, for instance, are now calling for its repeal. Will they ever say "we just wanted to show our support and we did stupid ass things to do so?" Nope. They'll complain that the powers are being abused and it wasn't intended for what it's used for. They'll pretend their secretaries told them it was a vote on going to Subway for lunch. Anything but admit they were idiots.
In a lot of ways, it reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister ("Baghdad Bob"). "The Americans are not here. We have destroyed the infidels army. That is not an American humvee in the background. I am not being taken into custody. They are not shutting off my camer--" It's not necessarily that he's a dumb person (he may be, I certainly don't know), but when even a smart person is forced to stand on a dumb platform they're going to take a fall. That would include supporting positions of your party that you might not, yourself, agree with. More often than not I think that is a major part of why politicans look stupid sometimes.
As for Bush? I hate him, but I'm going to be fair: I don't know if Bush is an idiot or just one of the world's worst public speakers. Using words such as "misunderestimate" three times in as many sentences leads me to believe the former, but eh.
Is that really user related in all cases, though?
I would guess very little can be accurate in "all cases" in situations like this, and I certainly have plenty of blame for Microsoft and other shoddy software developers that are a cause of a lot of completely innocent crashes, lock-ups, lags, etc., from the user's perspective. However, some blame does have to be assigned to the users.
In my family, both my brother and I are fairly geeky folks (I take the cake of course!). My parents? They're the sort who are afraid to even hook up their own computer hardware--and I'm not talking about internal stuff here. Why? Because they can't match up two pieces of the same color and connect them? Nah, because technology intimidates them for some reason--even the simplest tasks. Now my dad has an excuse: He's a printer, so he doesn't work with computers at all during the day. My mom, however, is a nurse and deals with computers all day, even if it just software for scheduling/patient records/referrals/etc and of course email.
In short, they're bothered because they don't think they understand the task and would much rather call me over to do it for them than actually learn to do it themselves. Now imagine them in an environment where they have to plug along on their own because a call to tech support is a waste of everybody's time and money. They'll be clicking all sorts of things which they have no idea how to use! Hell, at home my dad managed to install one of those little porn dancers on his computer. Those things are a bitch to track down! He insists he never clicked on anything to install it. Sure dad!
Point being, users do do stupid things. Some of it can be blamed on them not knowing things they probably shouldn't know, some of it can be blamed on them for not knowing things they probably should know. But a lot of things could be prevented by better educated users.
I'm sure I'll have a nice post full of blame for Microsoft later when the next stupid Microsoft issue comes up.
- a pretty major propulsion system to get a heavy ship headed to Mars at a high rate of speed, presumably nuclear - getting a lot of mass into LEO in the first place
Actually right now the future seems to be ion engines, not nuclear, for long-term missions because it is lighter and far more feul efficient. Light reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/exploration/fut urespaceflight/ionengines.shtml.
The goal SHOULD NOT be a round trip. The goal should be to start sending big unmanned cargo ships, carrying water, food, habitats, green houses and nuclear power plants to Mars and when they are arriving reliably send colonists on a fast one way trip to stay for the duration.
I've always been fascinated by the idea of colonizing other planets. However, to say that should be the first manned mission to a planet seems foolish to me. At the very least I would think we would need to send a sort of "exploratory mission" to make sure things exist on the planet the way we think they exist.
Preferably on whatever planet we one day colonize, we find a source of fresh water. Colonizing a planet without that seems counter-productive except for long-term research. The vast amount of water that even a single city on Earth uses makes it impractical and insanely expensive to set up a system in which water must be constantly delivered, at least in order to maintain any sort of lifestyle we're used to. And really, if we can't provide something resembling a "normal" life on a colonized planet, and the "colonization" amounts to only a scientific outpost, we have to weigh the costs of that colony against its benefits. Is the extra benefit of living there for a while worth the extra money it would take compared to occasional visits to pick up something to research?
And what of biological entities? As you probably know, the NASA folks are put through an extremely rigorous quarantine and "cleaning" (I can't think of the word right now) to ensure we neither bring any of our bacteria and such to another planet nor bring any from there back with us, if any such exist. Assuming we can say with any certainty that no life of any kind exists on Mars (or any planet) is a dangerous assumption. It is, after all, one of the questions that drives space exploration.
It seems that all of your ideas hinge upon a self-sustaining colony. We'd certainly better send some folks to investigate whether or not that is ever possible before we start sending settlers. I agree with you that our long term goal should be colonization of a planet (not Mars necessarily if it is not adequate), but that's a goal that should be significantly farther down the road. It might not ever be possible. Between the extreme temperatures, lack of water, etc, we might never find a planet we can colonize that is within our reach.
True, but I've never had to submit a hair sample for a drug test.
Why?
Revenge. Showing Darl and his little buddies that if you expect to play hardball with a company as big as IBM that you had better be prepared to play 'till the end.
IBM isn't a charity, you're right. But then again a company as big as they are no doubt has staff lawyers, so actually pursuing the case wouldn't be all that much more expensive than dropping it. And while you're also right that a dismissal and a settlement might be enough to dissuade others from trying similar tactics with IBM, a far stronger message is sent with a court victory, a much larger judgment and thousands of SCO investors going, "oh shit!" and pulling their money.
Lessons do need to be taught here. I'm pretty sure they will be taught, whether it is dismissed or not. SCO has repeatedly jabbed the sleeping lion with a stick. I don't think saying "nice kitty!" now is going to prevent the trouble they've gotten themselves into.
Either way, if the case is dismissed, I hope it is dismissed with prejudice. I don't want to see this all surfacing again a few months later when Darl decides his stocks need a little boost.
Azghoul, you are my new hero.
Good to see somebody here can actually debate properly without resorting to insults or fallacies.
Thanks for taking out the trash for the rest of us reasonable folks.
If you had read what I wrote, you would note that everything I said about CNN and Fox News was in illustrating that they are NOT the same as Slashdot. I never said they had anything to learn. Those are your words and they're ridiculous. They're completely different mediums. What works on one will not work on another.
Slashdot is not a niche site that only reports Kernal release
Where did I mention the world "kernal" and where did I say that my examples of Microsoft are the end-all be-all? I used them simply because they are the best known and most polar topic here. Slashdot is a niche site even if that niche is as broad as "news for nerds."
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF YOU COULD MAKE JOKES ABOUT FOX NEW'S SPIN (ON FOX NEWS) LIKE YOU CAN ON SLASHDOT???
You can bash CNN and Fox News the same way you do people here. And guess what? I'd tell you to change the fucking channel and stop whining the same way I'm telling you in the current context.
Sometimes a particular submitter keeps making the same mistakes OVER and OVER again.
Your bitching makes a world of difference I'm sure. And who says they're mistakes? That sounds awfully egotistical to me. But we'll get to that of course.
Don't you think public scrutany is an important part of an open discussion?
Absolutely. Scrutinize the article. Scrutinize their conclusions. Scrutinize other peoples scrutinizations. But I don't want to hear people complaining about spelling, or grammar, or the fact that a submitter asks questions or provides their conclusions or any number of the rest of the crap some people around here love to complain about. I want to hear about the ARTICLE. I want to hear opinions on the SUBJECT MATTER. That's why I read the articles, that's why I read the comments. Not to hear people piss and moan that it wasn't submitted to their specifications.
should we have to shut up, because you tolerate low standards?
You are either missing my point or choosing to ignore it. I happen to agree with some of the criticism. I happen to agree that editorializing should not be a part of the submission. But I do not agree that the submitters should be taken to task about it, least of all not where everybody else has to read the complaint about it.
Hell, if you and whomever else insists upon spouting off at the submitters, do it privately. They have a better chance of reading it, for one, and they will likely take it more seriously when they see you took the time to compose a reasonable e-mail stating your concerns rather than fingering the reply button and bitching. And, of course, it saves the rest of us from reading your complaints.
However, the bottom line is that I am not egotistical enough to assume my way must be the best way. Have you ever considered that the submitter might know full well that people think the way you do and simply disagree? Or not care? I wouldn't submit articles if people like you were going to mouth off every time they didn't agree with how I did it. If you're concerned about the integrity of the site, chew on that one for a while.
For the record, reply if you wish, but I have nothing further to say on the matter. I have wasted quite enough of my time on this thread already.