While you seem to have quite another agenda on your mind, I would like to comment to what is at least that which you would have us believe is your intent. If you have only the best of intentions, then I apologize, but I do think it is fair of me to question this.
You assert, "Art is strictly a matter of opinion."
You seem to be proposing that when a person says, "x is art", what this person actually means by this statement is, "It is my opinion that x is art." However, I do not believe that your theory provides an adequate account of the meaning of the assertion, "x is art".
First, consider we have both a person, A, and a person, B. A asserts, "F is art". B responds, "You are incorrect; it is not the case that F is art."
It seems clearly that there is disagreement between person A and person B. Now, according to your theory, when A says, "F is art", what A actually means by this statement is, "It is my opinion that F is art." According to your theory, when B says, "...it is not the case that F is art", what B actually means by this statement is, "...it is my opinion that it is not the case that F is art."
However, this is clearly not what the disagreement is about. A certainly does not deny that it is the opinion of B that it is not the case that F is art. Likewise, B certainly does not deny that it is the opinion of A that F is art.
For us to accept your theory, we must, it seems, accept that there is in fact no disagreement between person A and person B in this scenario. At best, this seems incredibly counter-intuitive.
Yet, this is not all.
You also assert, "...and since everyone's opinion differs, there can be no definition."
I see no sufficient reason to assent to your claim that there can be no definition of what constitutes art. It may be quite difficult to produce a definition of what constitutes art that will be fully adequate, but from this we need not conclude, "...there can be no definition."
For example, I feel quite certain that the USB cable protruding from the front face of my mouse and extending to the USB port on the reverse of my laptop, is not art. In fact, I would go so far as to say I know it is the case that this USB cable is not art.
The statement, "This USB cable is art", is false.
If you wish to argue that this USB cable constitutes art, I will gladly do my best to give you a fair hearing, but I can not say I have high hopes for your convincing me.
If you are successful, however, a single fault on my part would, admittedly, do little to convince me. Following is a short list of additional statements you may begin work on if you are willing to put forth this effort cause me to see the truth of your claim.
It is not the case that the sock on my right foot is art. It is not the case that the sliced piece of untreated 2x4 holding open this window is art. It is not the case that this statement is art. It is not the case that the cardinality of the set {1, 2, 3} is art. It is not the case that the crushed mosquito on my wall is art. It is not the case that the fine trimming job I have done of my index finger finger-nail is art.
Am I utterly misguided? Is it not the case that I know these statements to be true?
"What kind of music will you be listening to when Radiohead has to work the day shift at the 7-11 just to make ends meat? Perhaps J.D. Salinger's work would have been better if he had worked full time as an accountant and only wrote on the weekends? By denying copyright protection, that is what you create, a rotting cesspool of a nation with diminished culture (art/music/literature/etc). You would surely stifle technological advancements, why would a software company even bother to invest their money in research if others can benefit from their work at a far-lesser cost?"
Although we are venturing further and further off topic, I would like to make a few comments about your assertions, implied and otherwise.
The question you might better answer is whether band X would probably have benefited the greater common good generally as much by producing and performing quality arrangements, were there no copyright laws.
The question you are answering is whether band X would probably have benefited the greater common good generally as much by producing and performing quality arrangements, were there no copyright laws, AND made as much money doing so.
The question you might better answer is whether the technological advancements made would probably benefit the greater common good generally as much, were there no copyright laws.
The question you are answering is whether the technological advancements made by PRIVATE individuals and PRIVATE corporations would probably benefit the greater common good as much, were there no copyright laws.
I do not believe I am being overly naieve by suggesting that from perhaps the dawn of civilization the greatest and most treasured philosophers, scientists, writers, theologians, saints, artists, and thespians, were what they were not because of a lust of financial gain and not because of hopes of fame, but above all because they found in themselves an unquenchable desire to bring these things about, to satiate it
How many of these individuals were largely unknown in their lifetimes? How many of these individuals were not published until after their death? Yet they persited as they were able.
This is a tradegy, but the solution need not be what you propose.
For, it is perhaps more so in these modern times that we as a society may together recognizze the value of these individuals, this drive, and these ideas to ourselves and to the greater establishment of humankind, and pool together our resources and focus our minds to further both their and our own endeavours, our hopes, and our dreams for a more equal society, and one with less pain.
That Bill Gates can push a button and have a wall in his home withdraw to reveal a 60" television is perhaps both a marvel and a wonder, but this does not advance our society. THIS, not what you suggest, may be found equally a rotting cesspool of a nation.
I don't necessarily find this to be the only alternative, but I do believe it IS an alternative.
This potential problem is what came to my mind immediately as well. However, I do not think it will be as large of a problem as it may at first seem.
It seems, for example, that even bending the device once will result in *some* retention of that bent shape. This establishes what is minimally the initial lower threshold for registering an intentional 'bend'.
However, consider even the common household rubber band. Even if stretched to two or three times its originally length repeatedly, while there will be some net increase in its length at rest, that increase will be only a small fraction of the length it may be repeatedly extended to.
If the flexible portion of this device which is intended to register user input is composed of a similar, though certainly more durable substance, there should be relatively little concern of the device becoming non-functional due to any permanent retention of the extended shape, any time within its useful life.
It would, I suppose, just be a matter of identifying for that particular substance what threshold value for the registering of user input results in the best balance between registering only intentional bends and the corresponding net percentage retention of the extended or bent shape.
While this analogy should just be dropped, the GPL says that you may use the software however you wish. However, if you produce a derivative work AND distribute that work, then you must distribute it under the terms of the GPL. I think this should be dropped without spending another minute discussing copying public parks.
Now, to answer you, again, the purpose in the government funding and producing GPL licensed code is the same purpose that the FSF has in advocating the use, funding, and production of GPL licensed code.
This purpose is to promote the use, availability, AND extension of quality software libraries and applications available freely and openly to each and every member of society.
While these goals MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the BSD license and MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the public domain, the GPL specifically DOES always promote and advance these goals. And yes, it does so at the expense of those private individuals and corporations who wish for whatever reason to produce and distribute derivative works.
If these goals are just and fair and we wish to acheive them, then yes, the GPL is the license which best promotes them, and it seems, will best allow us as a society to acheive them.
Again, policies and programs like these are common place in our society and are held by a great many people to be both necessary and beneficial. This is, one would hope, why the laws in the U.S. and other countries reflect these ideals to a greater or lesser extent.
If you are strictly a Libertarian, then that is well and good I suppose, but if that is so then clearly are discussion will continue to be immensely unproductive, and there is therefore probably very little point in continuing it.
Do you find it unacceptable that some or even a large portion of the taxes you pay go to benefit others more greatly than yourself and possibly yourself not at all; these quite possibly being others who far fewer taxes than yourself?
If you do find this to be unacceptable, always or usually, then yes, you will very likely find the idea that software libraries and applications the development of which is funded by taxes, may sometimes or should always be released under and only under the GPL, to be unacceptable.
However, looking at current government programs and policies as enacted by lawmakers appointed by the people they are bound to represent, a great many people seem to disagree with you.
Isn't it the right if not perhaps the obligation of society to establish constraints and conditions under which individuals or corporations may be benefited or prosper such that the greater common good is served? More widespread availability of quality software applications and libraries is surely a greater common good than the benefit to a small number of particular private individuals and corporations who which to function under one particular business model. The GPL will usually, it seems, contribute to this greater good moreso than will any alternative. If private individuals or corporations wish to profit by extending and distributing this GPL licensed code, their doing so will, under the terms of the GPL, ensure that they contribute to this greater common good.
"Therefore, I believe it only fair that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from software developed with government dollars."
But the large number of government programs and policies, and citizens and lawmakers everywhere who support these programs and policies in many other cases do not act on this maxim.These people have indicated with their votes and with their support that they believe fairness and justice often is best served both when their tax money goes to support programs and policies which more greatly benefit individuals who have payed much less in taxes than themselves, and even also when their tax money goes to support programs and policies which greatly benefit others while benefiting themselves not directly at all. In fact, looking at a rundown of government programs, it seems that this must be the prevailing opinion in the U.S. and other countries.
Consider that a government agency produces or funds the production of some software application or library to be released under the terms of the GPL. If the software is of high quality and there is a demand for the functionality it provides, then others will desire to extend this functionality.
I believe that usually, if this software application or library is available only under the GPL, it will benefit, usually, the greater number of members of society to a greater extent. The GPL ensures that if any one company or individual wishes to improve this application or library and redistribute it for a profit of otherwise, that this action will, because of the terms of the GPL, generally enchance the quality of software available to each and every member of society, uncontrolled and independent of the control of a private individual or corporate entity.
Now, note that in this case the individual or corporation that is extending the functionality of the software with a mind to redistribute it is the one that does this additional work, and is the one that funds this additional work. However, as stated previously, very many people believe the government is free to act in a way so as to impose these conditions and constraints for the greater common benefit to society. While it is indeed the individual that contributes this additional work and provides this additional funding, society is, through its government, free to set the conditions and constraints under and by which private individuals and corporations are allowed to benefit and prosper.
I do not believe that the government is under any ethical obligation to, and do not believe that any such ethical obligation arises from fairness or justice, to benefit all individual members of society equally when doing so is at odds with benefiting the greater common good. That is, so long as we are concerned about benefiting. I am not suggesting, necessarily, that the government should do harm to, that is to do the opposite of benefit, some individuals for the benefit of the greater common good, although that may sometimes be required.
The ethical precept from which this proposal arises seems to be either an obligtion of the reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter, or a right possessed by the individual or entity criticized, to have its account of the facts of a matter considered. A law to bring about the satisfaction of this obligation or the obligations arising from this right might be appropriate if it is the case that without such a law one or more of these obliations will not be sufficiently satisfied or not sufficiently satisfied sufficiently often.
Do I have an ethical obligation as a reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter? If I do have such an obligation, it may arise perhaps from my status as an intellectual being, or perhaps from my status as a person and as a member of the moral community that desires just treatment of every member by every other member.
It seems that I do as a reader have such an obligation both to myself and to all other persons. Yet we might wonder whether the publisher of an account of the facts of a matter which constitutes a criticism of an individual or entity has an obligation on these grounds to provide for the satisfaction of my obligation. While it seems that the publisher does have an obligation to exercise due diligence in his or her research and does have an obligation not to knowingly decieve me, it does not seem that the publisher has an obligation to satisfy my obligation to consider an opposing account of the facts of the matter. It does not seem that the publisher is responsible for my own moral faults and shortcomings. It seems, rather, that when the publisher has satisfied the obligations of due diligence and of not knowingly deceiving me, that usually this is the extent of obligations of the publisher.
However, the publisher may yet have an obligation to publish an opposing account of the facts of a matter if the individual or entity criticized has a right to be heard and it usually befalls the publisher to satisfy the obligations arising from this right of the individual or entity criticized.
In the event that some entity or individual has been wronged by a publisher publishing a criticism of it, it does seem that in this case the individual or entity has a right to have its opposing account of the facts of the matter heard. However, if the criticism is just, then it seems that the individual or entity has no such right to be heard.
In cases where the criticism is unjust, can the obligations of the individual or entity that is wronged be satisfied sufficiently and sufficiently often by existing laws, perhaps laws pertaining to slander and libel?
I believe the answer is that existing laws are not sufficient to this task, and for just the reason that this policy or legislation is being proposed. Most private individuals and small corporate entities, 'the little guys', probably can not afford to pursue a slander or libel case against a wealthy private individual or large corporate entity in the event that the wealthy private individual or large corporate entity wrongs 'the little guy' by publishing an unjust criticism of it.
Yes, it is true that if I criticize a large corporate entity in print, I may be faced with publishing a large amount of untruthful propaganda containing claims which I do not have access to the resources necessary to research and refute.
However, I do not believe this would put me at any unfair advantage. If I do not have access to these resources because their origin is either questionable or secretive, then I have strong grounds for urging my readers to be highly suspect of the claims made about which this is true. If, alternatively, I do not have access to these resources because I do not have or am unwilling to take the amount of time that would be required to locate and study these resouces, it does not seem that I have any grounds to claim that I am wronged by being forced to publish the response to my criticism.
"This one is a great addition to the book shelf,, you all know how to do certain things in HTML/DHTML but this book clarifies nicely why you are actually doing it. Also, it introduces nice DOM concepts which WYSIWYG web designers might not have come across before."
While this statement may be true, the parent is surely not in a position to know one way or the other. He is deliberately trolling you for his own amusement (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=620 6820&pid=6206820&startat=&threshold=1&mode=thread& commentsort=0&op=Change), and has used this same comment template previously (http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67812&c id=6213534), only then to no avail.
I suggest moderating the parent down, or at least as humorous, although clearly the only humor intended was for him or her self at your expense.
Slashdot Mirror
While you seem to have quite another agenda on your mind, I would like to comment to what is at least that which you would have us believe is your intent. If you have only the best of intentions, then I apologize, but I do think it is fair of me to question this.
You assert, "Art is strictly a matter of opinion."
You seem to be proposing that when a person says, "x is art", what this person actually means by this statement is, "It is my opinion that x is art." However, I do not believe that your theory provides an adequate account of the meaning of the assertion, "x is art".
First, consider we have both a person, A, and a person, B. A asserts, "F is art". B responds, "You are incorrect; it is not the case that F is art."
It seems clearly that there is disagreement between person A and person B. Now, according to your theory, when A says, "F is art", what A actually means by this statement is, "It is my opinion that F is art." According to your theory, when B says, "...it is not the case that F is art", what B actually means by this statement is, "...it is my opinion that it is not the case that F is art."
However, this is clearly not what the disagreement is about. A certainly does not deny that it is the opinion of B that it is not the case that F is art. Likewise, B certainly does not deny that it is the opinion of A that F is art.
For us to accept your theory, we must, it seems, accept that there is in fact no disagreement between person A and person B in this scenario. At best, this seems incredibly counter-intuitive.
Yet, this is not all.
You also assert, "...and since everyone's opinion differs, there can be no definition."
I see no sufficient reason to assent to your claim that there can be no definition of what constitutes art. It may be quite difficult to produce a definition of what constitutes art that will be fully adequate, but from this we need not conclude, "...there can be no definition."
For example, I feel quite certain that the USB cable protruding from the front face of my mouse and extending to the USB port on the reverse of my laptop, is not art. In fact, I would go so far as to say I know it is the case that this USB cable is not art.
The statement, "This USB cable is art", is false.
If you wish to argue that this USB cable constitutes art, I will gladly do my best to give you a fair hearing, but I can not say I have high hopes for your convincing me.
If you are successful, however, a single fault on my part would, admittedly, do little to convince me. Following is a short list of additional statements you may begin work on if you are willing to put forth this effort cause me to see the truth of your claim.
It is not the case that the sock on my right foot is art.
It is not the case that the sliced piece of untreated 2x4 holding open this window is art.
It is not the case that this statement is art.
It is not the case that the cardinality of the set {1, 2, 3} is art.
It is not the case that the crushed mosquito on my wall is art.
It is not the case that the fine trimming job I have done of my index finger finger-nail is art.
Am I utterly misguided? Is it not the case that I know these statements to be true?
"What kind of music will you be listening to when Radiohead has to work the day shift at the 7-11 just to make ends meat? Perhaps J.D. Salinger's work would have been better if he had worked full time as an accountant and only wrote on the weekends? By denying copyright protection, that is what you create, a rotting cesspool of a nation with diminished culture (art/music/literature/etc). You would surely stifle technological advancements, why would a software company even bother to invest their money in research if others can benefit from their work at a far-lesser cost?"
Although we are venturing further and further off topic, I would like to make a few comments about your assertions, implied and otherwise.
The question you might better answer is whether band X would probably have benefited the greater common good generally as much by producing and performing quality arrangements, were there no copyright laws.
The question you are answering is whether band X would probably have benefited the greater common good generally as much by producing and performing quality arrangements, were there no copyright laws, AND made as much money doing so.
The question you might better answer is whether the technological advancements made would probably benefit the greater common good generally as much, were there no copyright laws.
The question you are answering is whether the technological advancements made by PRIVATE individuals and PRIVATE corporations would probably benefit the greater common good as much, were there no copyright laws.
I do not believe I am being overly naieve by suggesting that from perhaps the dawn of civilization the greatest and most treasured philosophers, scientists, writers, theologians, saints, artists, and thespians, were what they were not because of a lust of financial gain and not because of hopes of fame, but above all because they found in themselves an unquenchable desire to bring these things about, to satiate it
How many of these individuals were largely unknown in their lifetimes? How many of these individuals were not published until after their death? Yet they persited as they were able.
This is a tradegy, but the solution need not be what you propose.
For, it is perhaps more so in these modern times that we as a society may together recognizze the value of these individuals, this drive, and these ideas to ourselves and to the greater establishment of humankind, and pool together our resources and focus our minds to further both their and our own endeavours, our hopes, and our dreams for a more equal society, and one with less pain.
That Bill Gates can push a button and have a wall in his home withdraw to reveal a 60" television is perhaps both a marvel and a wonder, but this does not advance our society. THIS, not what you suggest, may be found equally a rotting cesspool of a nation.
I don't necessarily find this to be the only alternative, but I do believe it IS an alternative.
Interesting.
Actually, I hadn't thought about that. Of course I understand how and why they work, but it hadn't come to mind.
Just the second link on a Google search produced such a device for "tactical" use, which, it says, is capable of clearly pickup up even a whisper here
While these are rather expensive, perhaps the price would be significantly lower if mass produced at the rate mobile phones and PDAs are.
That would be quite nifty.
This potential problem is what came to my mind immediately as well. However, I do not think it will be as large of a problem as it may at first seem.
It seems, for example, that even bending the device once will result in *some* retention of that bent shape. This establishes what is minimally the initial lower threshold for registering an intentional 'bend'.
However, consider even the common household rubber band. Even if stretched to two or three times its originally length repeatedly, while there will be some net increase in its length at rest, that increase will be only a small fraction of the length it may be repeatedly extended to.
If the flexible portion of this device which is intended to register user input is composed of a similar, though certainly more durable substance, there should be relatively little concern of the device becoming non-functional due to any permanent retention of the extended shape, any time within its useful life.
It would, I suppose, just be a matter of identifying for that particular substance what threshold value for the registering of user input results in the best balance between registering only intentional bends and the corresponding net percentage retention of the extended or bent shape.
While this analogy should just be dropped, the GPL says that you may use the software however you wish. However, if you produce a derivative work AND distribute that work, then you must distribute it under the terms of the GPL. I think this should be dropped without spending another minute discussing copying public parks.
Now, to answer you, again, the purpose in the government funding and producing GPL licensed code is the same purpose that the FSF has in advocating the use, funding, and production of GPL licensed code.
This purpose is to promote the use, availability, AND extension of quality software libraries and applications available freely and openly to each and every member of society.
While these goals MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the BSD license and MIGHT sometimes be acheived under the public domain, the GPL specifically DOES always promote and advance these goals. And yes, it does so at the expense of those private individuals and corporations who wish for whatever reason to produce and distribute derivative works.
If these goals are just and fair and we wish to acheive them, then yes, the GPL is the license which best promotes them, and it seems, will best allow us as a society to acheive them.
Again, policies and programs like these are common place in our society and are held by a great many people to be both necessary and beneficial. This is, one would hope, why the laws in the U.S. and other countries reflect these ideals to a greater or lesser extent.
If you are strictly a Libertarian, then that is well and good I suppose, but if that is so then clearly are discussion will continue to be immensely unproductive, and there is therefore probably very little point in continuing it.
Do you find it unacceptable that some or even a large portion of the taxes you pay go to benefit others more greatly than yourself and possibly yourself not at all; these quite possibly being others who far fewer taxes than yourself?
If you do find this to be unacceptable, always or usually, then yes, you will very likely find the idea that software libraries and applications the development of which is funded by taxes, may sometimes or should always be released under and only under the GPL, to be unacceptable.
However, looking at current government programs and policies as enacted by lawmakers appointed by the people they are bound to represent, a great many people seem to disagree with you.
Isn't it the right if not perhaps the obligation of society to establish constraints and conditions under which individuals or corporations may be benefited or prosper such that the greater common good is served? More widespread availability of quality software applications and libraries is surely a greater common good than the benefit to a small number of particular private individuals and corporations who which to function under one particular business model. The GPL will usually, it seems, contribute to this greater good moreso than will any alternative. If private individuals or corporations wish to profit by extending and distributing this GPL licensed code, their doing so will, under the terms of the GPL, ensure that they contribute to this greater common good.
"Therefore, I believe it only fair that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from software developed with government dollars."
But the large number of government programs and policies, and citizens and lawmakers everywhere who support these programs and policies in many other cases do not act on this maxim.These people have indicated with their votes and with their support that they believe fairness and justice often is best served both when their tax money goes to support programs and policies which more greatly benefit individuals who have payed much less in taxes than themselves, and even also when their tax money goes to support programs and policies which greatly benefit others while benefiting themselves not directly at all. In fact, looking at a rundown of government programs, it seems that this must be the prevailing opinion in the U.S. and other countries.
Consider that a government agency produces or funds the production of some software application or library to be released under the terms of the GPL. If the software is of high quality and there is a demand for the functionality it provides, then others will desire to extend this functionality.
I believe that usually, if this software application or library is available only under the GPL, it will benefit, usually, the greater number of members of society to a greater extent. The GPL ensures that if any one company or individual wishes to improve this application or library and redistribute it for a profit of otherwise, that this action will, because of the terms of the GPL, generally enchance the quality of software available to each and every member of society, uncontrolled and independent of the control of a private individual or corporate entity.
Now, note that in this case the individual or corporation that is extending the functionality of the software with a mind to redistribute it is the one that does this additional work, and is the one that funds this additional work. However, as stated previously, very many people believe the government is free to act in a way so as to impose these conditions and constraints for the greater common benefit to society. While it is indeed the individual that contributes this additional work and provides this additional funding, society is, through its government, free to set the conditions and constraints under and by which private individuals and corporations are allowed to benefit and prosper.
I do not believe that the government is under any ethical obligation to, and do not believe that any such ethical obligation arises from fairness or justice, to benefit all individual members of society equally when doing so is at odds with benefiting the greater common good. That is, so long as we are concerned about benefiting. I am not suggesting, necessarily, that the government should do harm to, that is to do the opposite of benefit, some individuals for the benefit of the greater common good, although that may sometimes be required.
I support this policy.
The ethical precept from which this proposal arises seems to be either an obligtion of the reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter, or a right possessed by the individual or entity criticized, to have its account of the facts of a matter considered. A law to bring about the satisfaction of this obligation or the obligations arising from this right might be appropriate if it is the case that without such a law one or more of these obliations will not be sufficiently satisfied or not sufficiently satisfied sufficiently often.
Do I have an ethical obligation as a reader to consider an opposing account of the facts of a matter? If I do have such an obligation, it may arise perhaps from my status as an intellectual being, or perhaps from my status as a person and as a member of the moral community that desires just treatment of every member by every other member.
It seems that I do as a reader have such an obligation both to myself and to all other persons. Yet we might wonder whether the publisher of an account of the facts of a matter which constitutes a criticism of an individual or entity has an obligation on these grounds to provide for the satisfaction of my obligation. While it seems that the publisher does have an obligation to exercise due diligence in his or her research and does have an obligation not to knowingly decieve me, it does not seem that the publisher has an obligation to satisfy my obligation to consider an opposing account of the facts of the matter. It does not seem that the publisher is responsible for my own moral faults and shortcomings. It seems, rather, that when the publisher has satisfied the obligations of due diligence and of not knowingly deceiving me, that usually this is the extent of obligations of the publisher.
However, the publisher may yet have an obligation to publish an opposing account of the facts of a matter if the individual or entity criticized has a right to be heard and it usually befalls the publisher to satisfy the obligations arising from this right of the individual or entity criticized.
In the event that some entity or individual has been wronged by a publisher publishing a criticism of it, it does seem that in this case the individual or entity has a right to have its opposing account of the facts of the matter heard. However, if the criticism is just, then it seems that the individual or entity has no such right to be heard.
In cases where the criticism is unjust, can the obligations of the individual or entity that is wronged be satisfied sufficiently and sufficiently often by existing laws, perhaps laws pertaining to slander and libel?
I believe the answer is that existing laws are not sufficient to this task, and for just the reason that this policy or legislation is being proposed. Most private individuals and small corporate entities, 'the little guys', probably can not afford to pursue a slander or libel case against a wealthy private individual or large corporate entity in the event that the wealthy private individual or large corporate entity wrongs 'the little guy' by publishing an unjust criticism of it.
Yes, it is true that if I criticize a large corporate entity in print, I may be faced with publishing a large amount of untruthful propaganda containing claims which I do not have access to the resources necessary to research and refute.
However, I do not believe this would put me at any unfair advantage. If I do not have access to these resources because their origin is either questionable or secretive, then I have strong grounds for urging my readers to be highly suspect of the claims made about which this is true. If, alternatively, I do not have access to these resources because I do not have or am unwilling to take the amount of time that would be required to locate and study these resouces, it does not seem that I have any grounds to claim that I am wronged by being forced to publish the response to my criticism.
In fact, if the
And clearly I need to learn how to post links. Sorry about that.
"This one is a great addition to the book shelf,, you all know how to do certain things in HTML/DHTML but this book clarifies nicely why you are actually doing it. Also, it introduces nice DOM concepts which WYSIWYG web designers might not have come across before."
0 6820&pid=6206820&startat=&threshold=1&mode=thread& commentsort=0&op=Change), and has used this same comment template previously (http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67812&c id=6213534), only then to no avail.
While this statement may be true, the parent is surely not in a position to know one way or the other. He is deliberately trolling you for his own amusement (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=62
I suggest moderating the parent down, or at least as humorous, although clearly the only humor intended was for him or her self at your expense.