What he didn't know was the strength of the anti-SCO backlash, and how there's a tendancy to spread anti-SCO FUD that's just as bad as anything Darl does.
Indeed, and what's more they're infringing on methods and processes of FUDding that are proprietary to Canopy. By publicly posting their FUD they've been pushing liability on to the end user and if you've been reading it, as it seems you have mister, then you owe us money. Buy a license now or I'll pass your name to our external legal counsel.
You seem to enjoy the old straw man, don't you. It's fun to attack the straw man when there's nothing else to go on.
What straw men do you feel I've presented?
My basis for my statements is the testimony of American soldiers I have read. No different from the testimony of the Pakistani man's father you have read.
I think you've confused me with someone else, possibly frost22. I have reached no conclusions. As stated repeatedly I don't even have a list of names. In fact I don't even know the total number of detainees. I'm happy to let the facts come out at trial, or I would be if it looked like there was likely to be any real trial.
NB For full context of Fnkmaster's comments, please see parent post (in case you missed it on the way here).
You then make an ad hominem attack against the sincerity of my belief in principles of justice for reasons that are beyond me.
Try reading your posts. Your first step is to take it that these people by virtue of something you've already decided they did are not entitled to the same safeguards as people accused of other offenses, yes or no?
I am certainly sincere in my belief that they deserve a hearing which they have not received.
But you've decided as a matter of fact that they've done the things they're accused of before this hearing starts and you're willing to limit the rights they have at this hearing on the basis of what you've already decided they've done.
I've said this three fucking times now, but you keep selectively quoting my posts and taking me out of context intentionally.
The whole context is there, right above my own posts, but this time I quoted everything you said. Apologies for breaking it into three parts, I don't know what's up with all these server errors.
If you accept the facts as I presented them, I don't think my conclusions about their ideological principles are unreasonable.
I don't accept your "facts", I have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. I do assert that facts are determined by following due processs, not before it starts.
Like I said, it may not be the case for every one of them
May it not be the case for any of them at all, or is there a minimum quota that have to get found guilty?
and they all deserve a legitimate hearing in a feasible and appropriate context where evidence and testimony can reasonably be gathered and presented.
So are your "facts" up for debate at this "legitimate hearing" or not?
Reply broken into multiple parts because I keep getting "internal server error" for any long post, and you object to me not providing full context.
Are you disputing the factuality of the circumstances under which the vast majority of these men were captured, or are you making an ideological point?
I do not know the circumstances under which the vast majority of them were captured, and I doubt very much that you do either but I'm willing to be convinced. Tell me more about them. I don't even have a list of names of the people you're talking about never mind basic information like whether they deny your accusations. All I'm doing is reserving judgment because at the moment I have no basis on which to do anything else. I've no idea what "ideological point" you think I'm making.
You can't cite the two exceptions and call that the rule.
Can you provide any counter-examples at all?
Most of the detainees were captured wondering around the mountains in groups of Arab foreigners with guns
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
I believe that perhaps 70-80% of them probably deserve to be locked up for the rest of their lives.
This is unbelievable. Do you have a list of names of these 70-80% and your reasons for believing they should be locked up or does that just seem like the right sort of number you'd like to see punished?
Yes, you'd like to see "some judicial process" that rubber stamps the verdict that you've made clear you've already arrived at.
I don't know how we should deal with people like the Guantanamo Bay detainees, except that we should have some sort of due process for them
But pending due process you're perfectly happy to announce that they are people who "picked up arms against the United States and were captured fighting" and are "religious ideologues who picked up arms against the concept of Western civilization" and have "demonstrated both a willingness to take up arms and an idelogical commitment to destruction of Western civilization"?
I doubt that "due process" means anything to you except as an empty feel-good phrase.
For examaple the speaker says 'Final 4' but the browser types 'Final for'. The software recognizes that 'for' is a common homophone and waits a *very* short time ( a second or two ) after the uttering of 'for' for *another* occurance of 'for', which would imply a correction.
Wouldn't it be more satisfying to have some sort of impact detector in the computer that could wait to be thumped, hard, to imply that it had got something wrong AGAIN? Actually I might patent that.
Foreign governments will tend to use Linux, and encourage their industries to use it, to avoid dependency on software from the evil USA?
Seriously though, governments would be well advised to avoid dependency on software so heavily subject to the control of any other country's government, it shouldn't depend on anti-American sentiment in particular.
I should hope that the 'Guilty until proven innocent' part only applies to proving the statement to be true, not that you never stated it in the first place.
Slander and libel are generally civil, not criminal, matters and as such issues of "guilt" and "innocence" do not arise. However, you are right in that the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff to establish that the statement was said and the defendant may then plead as a defense that the statement was in fact true, the burden being on the defendant to establish that it is. In both cases the burden is the "preponderance of evidence" level of a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial.
To prove that you never said something is... rather problematic. In fact it's quite impossible, unless the allegedly libelous statement is not capable of being spoken or written by humans.
This applies just as much to the "truth" of any allegation which is the reason for the burden being placed where it is. If I say that you eat babies then you're going to have a tough time proving that you haven't beyond just pointing out the lack of evidence that you have.
I personally see this as a Huge Growing Problem that will rival Email Spam and Virii/Worms in the coming months as a detriment to productivity/commerce/etc on the internet.
That's very nice but you still haven't identified what the Huge Growing Problem us or why it will be detrimental to anything. If a huge number of people do claim a relationship between the term "Miserable Failure" and Michael Moore (or George Bush, 1810c, Jesus Christ or even Ralph Yarro) then why shouldn't Google reflect that?
I can see concern about a single site being able to hijack search terms, that's a genuine problem imho, but if lots of people link a particular term with a particular subject, even if they do so consciously rather than subconsciously, then it seems entirely appropriate for it to show up in the search results.
Can you think of any harm that's been caused so far? If so then please give examples, or is it just that you envisage harm to come? If so then please give putative examples. I'd really like to understand your point.
"Anyone who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy should NOT use this service."
Why does everyone discriminate against us Canopy employees? Not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality was what their services appealing to begin with.
Many, if not most, people who think they are cultural relativists aren't for precisely this reason. It's all relative this and you can't judge me because relative that, until they are faced with women getting the clitorises cut off at birth, and wham, in come in the concrete standards and out goes the relativism.
That's nonsense. Saying "you can't judge me because..." isn't moral relativism at all. Moral relativism recognises (or supposes) that there is no OBJECTIVE criteria underlying such judgments. It very much does not deny that people make such judgments. To conclude that it's somehow wrong or inconsistent for a moral relativist to have their own moral standards or to enforce them on others is about as backwards as you can get.
But how important will famine, disease, and war be when 90% of the population has been wiped out by a massive asteroid and the effects after the collision?
War would still be a crucial issue. We cannot allow a mineshaft gap.
You oversimplify. The Australians will consider whether Australian law requires or permits his extradition to the US. That is a different question to whether the US courts consider themselves to have jurisdiction.
Just because the laws and courts of country A say that country B doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't mean that the laws and courts of country B have to agree.
The real question is: Do[es] the extradition treatie[s] between the US and Oz require or allow extradition in this case.
The morality or ethics of the answer is the question everyone here seems to be discussing.
How is your question more "real" than anyone else's?
Even if you think that whether he will be extradited matters more than whether he should be (and I don't agree that it does) that still wouldn't make the latter question non-"real".
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, if time wasn't flexible, how else would Arthur Dent be able to witness the end of the universe every evening at Milliways?
This is, of course, impossible.
True. I made damned sure my name wouldn't be mentioned when I bought the license. I even made them rewrite the contract to guarantee it.
That's why our new press releases call you by the codename "Meriadoc". Your secret's safe with us.
What he didn't know was the strength of the anti-SCO backlash, and how there's a tendancy to spread anti-SCO FUD that's just as bad as anything Darl does.
Indeed, and what's more they're infringing on methods and processes of FUDding that are proprietary to Canopy. By publicly posting their FUD they've been pushing liability on to the end user and if you've been reading it, as it seems you have mister, then you owe us money. Buy a license now or I'll pass your name to our external legal counsel.
Thank you
You seem to enjoy the old straw man, don't you. It's fun to attack the straw man when there's nothing else to go on.
What straw men do you feel I've presented?
My basis for my statements is the testimony of American soldiers I have read. No different from the testimony of the Pakistani man's father you have read.
I think you've confused me with someone else, possibly frost22. I have reached no conclusions. As stated repeatedly I don't even have a list of names. In fact I don't even know the total number of detainees. I'm happy to let the facts come out at trial, or I would be if it looked like there was likely to be any real trial.
NB For full context of Fnkmaster's comments, please see parent post (in case you missed it on the way here).
You then make an ad hominem attack against the sincerity of my belief in principles of justice for reasons that are beyond me.
Try reading your posts. Your first step is to take it that these people by virtue of something you've already decided they did are not entitled to the same safeguards as people accused of other offenses, yes or no?
I am certainly sincere in my belief that they deserve a hearing which they have not received.
But you've decided as a matter of fact that they've done the things they're accused of before this hearing starts and you're willing to limit the rights they have at this hearing on the basis of what you've already decided they've done.
I've said this three fucking times now, but you keep selectively quoting my posts and taking me out of context intentionally.
The whole context is there, right above my own posts, but this time I quoted everything you said. Apologies for breaking it into three parts, I don't know what's up with all these server errors.
If you accept the facts as I presented them, I don't think my conclusions about their ideological principles are unreasonable.
I don't accept your "facts", I have no way of knowing whether they are true or not. I do assert that facts are determined by following due processs, not before it starts.
Like I said, it may not be the case for every one of them
May it not be the case for any of them at all, or is there a minimum quota that have to get found guilty?
and they all deserve a legitimate hearing in a feasible and appropriate context where evidence and testimony can reasonably be gathered and presented.
So are your "facts" up for debate at this "legitimate hearing" or not?
Reply broken into multiple parts because I keep getting "internal server error" for any long post, and you object to me not providing full context.
Are you disputing the factuality of the circumstances under which the vast majority of these men were captured, or are you making an ideological point?
I do not know the circumstances under which the vast majority of them were captured, and I doubt very much that you do either but I'm willing to be convinced. Tell me more about them. I don't even have a list of names of the people you're talking about never mind basic information like whether they deny your accusations. All I'm doing is reserving judgment because at the moment I have no basis on which to do anything else. I've no idea what "ideological point" you think I'm making.
You can't cite the two exceptions and call that the rule.
Can you provide any counter-examples at all?
Most of the detainees were captured wondering around the mountains in groups of Arab foreigners with guns
And your evidence for this is what, exactly?
I believe that perhaps 70-80% of them probably deserve to be locked up for the rest of their lives.
This is unbelievable. Do you have a list of names of these 70-80% and your reasons for believing they should be locked up or does that just seem like the right sort of number you'd like to see punished?
Yes, you'd like to see "some judicial process" that rubber stamps the verdict that you've made clear you've already arrived at.
I don't know how we should deal with people like the Guantanamo Bay detainees, except that we should have some sort of due process for them
But pending due process you're perfectly happy to announce that they are people who "picked up arms against the United States and were captured fighting" and are "religious ideologues who picked up arms against the concept of Western civilization" and have "demonstrated both a willingness to take up arms and an idelogical commitment to destruction of Western civilization"?
I doubt that "due process" means anything to you except as an empty feel-good phrase.
You mean like googles tool bar?
Yes, except it's already there when you buy your computer.
It's based in hardware, and is drenched in encryption and intelligent process control.
You forgot to mention that the silicon is mixed with fairy dust to make it 107% tamperproof.
For examaple the speaker says 'Final 4' but the browser types 'Final for'. The software recognizes that 'for' is a common homophone and waits a *very* short time ( a second or two ) after the uttering of 'for' for *another* occurance of 'for', which would imply a correction.
Wouldn't it be more satisfying to have some sort of impact detector in the computer that could wait to be thumped, hard, to imply that it had got something wrong AGAIN? Actually I might patent that.
Does this mean I am going to adds like: "If you use open source you are supporting terrorism!" popping up on TV again.
Nope, you won't have TV at Guantanamo Bay.
Foreign governments will tend to use Linux, and encourage their industries to use it, to avoid dependency on software from the evil USA?
Seriously though, governments would be well advised to avoid dependency on software so heavily subject to the control of any other country's government, it shouldn't depend on anti-American sentiment in particular.
I should hope that the 'Guilty until proven innocent' part only applies to proving the statement to be true, not that you never stated it in the first place.
... rather problematic. In fact it's quite impossible, unless the allegedly libelous statement is not capable of being spoken or written by humans.
Slander and libel are generally civil, not criminal, matters and as such issues of "guilt" and "innocence" do not arise. However, you are right in that the burden of proof is generally on the plaintiff to establish that the statement was said and the defendant may then plead as a defense that the statement was in fact true, the burden being on the defendant to establish that it is. In both cases the burden is the "preponderance of evidence" level of a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" of a criminal trial.
To prove that you never said something is
This applies just as much to the "truth" of any allegation which is the reason for the burden being placed where it is. If I say that you eat babies then you're going to have a tough time proving that you haven't beyond just pointing out the lack of evidence that you have.
I personally see this as a Huge Growing Problem that will rival Email Spam and Virii/Worms in the coming months as a detriment to productivity/commerce/etc on the internet.
That's very nice but you still haven't identified what the Huge Growing Problem us or why it will be detrimental to anything. If a huge number of people do claim a relationship between the term "Miserable Failure" and Michael Moore (or George Bush, 1810c, Jesus Christ or even Ralph Yarro) then why shouldn't Google reflect that?
I can see concern about a single site being able to hijack search terms, that's a genuine problem imho, but if lots of people link a particular term with a particular subject, even if they do so consciously rather than subconsciously, then it seems entirely appropriate for it to show up in the search results.
Can you think of any harm that's been caused so far? If so then please give examples, or is it just that you envisage harm to come? If so then please give putative examples. I'd really like to understand your point.
What with Canopy representatives on their board of directors and all.
I can personally reassure you on behalf of Trolltech that Canopy has no influence in our day to day management.
Don't knock it until you've tried it. They write to you and send pics and it's awesome.
Damn. From the information page:
"Anyone who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy should NOT use this service."
Why does everyone discriminate against us Canopy employees? Not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality was what their services appealing to begin with.
Many, if not most, people who think they are cultural relativists aren't for precisely this reason. It's all relative this and you can't judge me because relative that, until they are faced with women getting the clitorises cut off at birth, and wham, in come in the concrete standards and out goes the relativism.
That's nonsense. Saying "you can't judge me because..." isn't moral relativism at all. Moral relativism recognises (or supposes) that there is no OBJECTIVE criteria underlying such judgments. It very much does not deny that people make such judgments. To conclude that it's somehow wrong or inconsistent for a moral relativist to have their own moral standards or to enforce them on others is about as backwards as you can get.
"MSN has always been meant to be an AOL-killer"
I'm sorry, but how is this a problem?
It's been a problem for Microsoft because it hasn't worked. Don't think it's been a problem for anyone else. What makes you think it's a problem?
Lets call a spade a spade. It is "Unauthorised file copying and distribution"
It's "Illegal file copying and distribution". Someone somewhere generally authorises it, they just don't have legal authority to.
There's a company that already offers insurance against just these risks, for a one time price of only $699!
But how important will famine, disease, and war be when 90% of the population has been wiped out by a massive asteroid and the effects after the collision?
War would still be a crucial issue. We cannot allow a mineshaft gap.
You oversimplify. The Australians will consider whether Australian law requires or permits his extradition to the US. That is a different question to whether the US courts consider themselves to have jurisdiction.
Just because the laws and courts of country A say that country B doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't mean that the laws and courts of country B have to agree.
The real question is:
Do[es] the extradition treatie[s] between the US and Oz require or allow extradition in this case.
The morality or ethics of the answer is the question everyone here seems to be discussing.
How is your question more "real" than anyone else's?
Even if you think that whether he will be extradited matters more than whether he should be (and I don't agree that it does) that still wouldn't make the latter question non-"real".