"Or they're using IE and some website has set their window to be fullscreen for them, which is the more common scenario in my experience."
You haven't met my boss have you? He's determined, for every webiste, to use each one of those 640 x 480 pixels. He paid for them, dammit, and by god he's gonna get his money's worth.
"Ya, trying to protect your country from attack/invasion isn't as important as keeping a probe going. Ya right, moron
If we get wiped off the face of the earth due to some wacko towelheads because we didn't take steps protect ourselves, its sort of irrelevant if the probe had funding or not."
"A four year delay does not seem that bad but its effect is culminative. Where we are now in terms of understanding what is out there and what we are doing out there is further pushed back."
Last time I checked the cosmos wasn't planning on going to the galactic equivalent of Bora Bora for a vacation. It'll still be there when we're ready.
"Sigh. Same old advice. Bigger heatsinks, bigger fans, slower speeds.. Each time I see an article like this, I hope that it's actually going to be about a silent PC - passive cooling, solid state storage. But no."
For much of his four-year career with the U.N. Drug Control Program, Cheickh Mohamed Tidyane Bangoura has been dogged by scandal.
Colleagues have accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism. The government of Ivory Coast, where he formerly was stationed, said it received so many complaints about his alleged misdeeds that it demanded his removal.
Are you saying the Post made up the accusations by the Cote D'Ivoire government and the accusations by his collegues?
"The article we're discussing makes it clear that the WP falsely accused him of acts, not just reporting that others made statements, "possibly" false, about his acts. Even if reporting "allegations", reporting ethics requires finding that they had some, or probable, basis in fact. The press has a lot of power, and responsibility to use it according to rules that have are clear to every professional journalist
The article we're discussing makes it clear that the WP falsely accused him of acts, not just reporting that others made statements, "possibly" false, about his acts. Even if reporting "allegations", reporting ethics requires finding that they had some, or probable, basis in fact. The press has a lot of power, and responsibility to use it according to rules that have are clear to every professional journalist
That is factually incorrect. What the Post stated was:
1) His career has been dogged by scandal
2) The government of the countryhe worked in received many complaints and asked tohave him removed.
3) His collegues have accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism.
In other words, they did not accuse him of anything but reported on what apparantly several others including government officials had accused him of. That's different from the Post accusing him.
Somebody in another post pointed out this wasn't information the Post found scribbled on a washroom wall, it was complaints by the government of the country he worked in and by collegues and that the Post are reporters who report facts as they are observed and not detectives. Theor obligation is to verify the fact as they are known by seeking corroboraton of a reported "fact" which they seem to have done.
This is consistant with my experience with the press. They won't report anything I say unless at least one other person (preferably more and preferably somebody recognized in the fiels crroborates what I said - having said that the Globe and Make still managed to get what I said 180 degrees out of phase, and equally so the message from my opponent. In other words they mixed up the positions of two people and got them backwards)
So again, for the 11th time on this page, what should the Post have done in this case? You have said the Post "lied" more than once.
So to my mind without knowing more than what I've read here it appears to me the Post reported on facts they understood by corroboration to be true at the time and that you have lied about the Post commtting, if I'm not mistaken, trade slander; ironic given the subject of this article.
"Hey, read the "Corrections" page sometime. Or just get a clue. What, you're bummed out that your WPO stock is down 10% from its 52 week high in December?"
I own not stock, period.
I've seen it mentioned several dozen times in this page that the Post "lied".
Not one person can or will explain how.
I thought I was asking a simple question: "The post reported an allegation. What were they supposed to do and how was this wrong".
"because the Post lied about him...
Especially when more people learned that they could hold the Post accountable for the lying it does all the time.."
What did the post lie about? Or are you just libeling them?
"A company payed an employee to post information that cost someone their job. This information was found to be baseless (this means that there was no reason to believe it). The company that paid to publish the "false" information made no attempt at correction or retraction, even after repeated requests."
The Post reported on allegations. The did not appear to be stating as fact he was guilty.
I don't see where the Post has any need to published what happened later. It would be nice perhaps, but show me how it's required.
The allegations apparantly existed, and the only way I can see the Post was at fault is if the allegations did not exist and that the Post made them up which does not appear to be the case.
How did the Post publish "false" information? Did the allegations suddenly not exist back then?
"This poor guy is just trying to get satisfaction from the Post - in the amount of 7,000 (canadian) dollars too"
This is a question not a comment.
I'm having a little difficulty with the court documents - I can't tell what they are in response too. All I can see is they're orders of the court.
The $7000 looks like it has something to do with respondants (posts) legal fees:
addendum re costs
[1] I have read and considered the submissions of the parties, and I have taken into account the factors set out in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[2] I find the respondent's bill of costs was eminently reasonable (an observation that can no longer be made with any degree of regularity).
[3] The motion to stay was equally reasonable.
[4]I agree that some consideration should be given to the novelty of the factual matrix (though not the law).
[5] Taking all these factors into consideration, I fix the costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,000.00 plus G.S.T. for a total of $7,490.00.
and that the original decision, let stand was for about $5.5M. No? Or is this a "QBVII" judgement "yeah, guilty, here's your two cents worth of damages you cretin".
I also liked this part: While the personal defendants have no connection to Ontario, the Post is a newspaper with an international profile, and its writers influence viewpoints throughout the English speaking world. I would be surprised if it were not insured for damages for libel or defamation anywhere in the world, and if it is not, then it should be.
I'm surprised the insrance companies aren't suing too.
"Nor me, and based on the content of the linked articles I'd have to side with Cheickh Bangoura on this one."
Why?
I'd buy that if they said he was guilty or stated factually that he was guilty as charged. But all the post did is report on allegations and that the UN had removed him on the basis of these allegations.
The only justification I can see for plaintiff winning is if the allegations didn't exist, not that the allegations turned out to not be true.
Did the Post not report of the facts of the matter as they were known to exist at the time? What should the Post have actually said in the normal course of their customary role of reporting world events?
I've read all the court material online and I can't see how this justifies plaintifft winning or a 5.5M settlement.
What the Post published looked like the facts of the matter as they were known at the time - that there were allegations.
Did I miss somehing? Were there not allegations?
If you believe this case was settled correctly then I ask you, what was the Post supposed to say? "Some guy in Africa doesn't work there any more. The UN did something" and that's about it?
Please point out what I'm missing here. What should the post have said?
"When I was a tad, we didn't have all these fancy newfangled languages. We were so poor, we were glad to have two bits to rub together. We had to make everything from bits. Why, I remember one time, I wanted a dog, so I made one from bits. He was a little buggy, but he was the best damn dog a boy from the bit-mill ever had. I wore my fingers to bloody nubs flicking toggle switches on that front panel. But I learned the value of hard work and perseverence. Not like you youngsters these days with your nancy keeyboards and you poofter mice."
You had bits? Why when we were kids we could only dream of bits. We had scraps of paper and fountain pens. But we were happy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Wouldn't it serve the best interests of the press to expose these people rather than protect them?"
Not if they would kill you.
"Don't sweat it - he's just trolling. "Investor" is not a bad word. Unlike, say, "lawyer"..."
Your lawyer is a bad word. Mine is great.
"I'm sorry, man, I just don't know what to make of this article."
It's the slashdot equivalent of Mad Magazine's "Spy vs. Spy".
('Cept it sounds more like "Moron vs. Moron")
"Or they're using IE and some website has set their window to be fullscreen for them, which is the more common scenario in my experience."
You haven't met my boss have you? He's determined, for every webiste, to use each one of those 640 x 480 pixels. He paid for them, dammit, and by god he's gonna get his money's worth.
Can I get one that just dims the ads?
"Ya, trying to protect your country from attack/invasion isn't as important as keeping a probe going. Ya right, moron
If we get wiped off the face of the earth due to some wacko towelheads because we didn't take steps protect ourselves, its sort of irrelevant if the probe had funding or not."
Welcome to slashdot Mr. President.
"A four year delay does not seem that bad but its effect is culminative. Where we are now in terms of understanding what is out there and what we are doing out there is further pushed back."
Last time I checked the cosmos wasn't planning on going to the galactic equivalent of Bora Bora for a vacation. It'll still be there when we're ready.
"Sigh. Same old advice. Bigger heatsinks, bigger fans, slower speeds.. Each time I see an article like this, I hope that it's actually going to be about a silent PC - passive cooling, solid state storage. But no."
WHAT?!? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
Some Macs are silent.
"many words was it? The site is now dead."
The fans failed.
I had a stock Athlon fan fail this week. Less than 4 mos old. The chip lasted about 8 minutes. *poof*.
Note to self: no matter how cheap you get the computer for, get a good fan.
"How do you even find a case that will fit 12 IDE drives?"
The answer, of course to any question that starts "where do yo find" is "ebay".
But...
Go to pricewatch.com. Click on "cases". They list them with up to 17 drive bays.
"A new release of Gnome got the front page, but a new release of OpenSSH doesn't? Someone's priorities are out of wack."
Gnome doesn't make the internet work, SSH does.
That is it's a significant tool for operations. Gnome is the moral equivalent of windows (for unix).
If there was no gnome, life would move on. If there was no SSH the net would break very quickly.
gname is a wonderfull thing, don't get me wrong. But ssh is important.
"OK, taking your question at face value: RTFA."
I read TFA. I also read this:
For much of his four-year career with the U.N. Drug Control Program, Cheickh Mohamed Tidyane Bangoura has been dogged by scandal.
Colleagues have accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism. The government of Ivory Coast, where he formerly was stationed, said it received so many complaints about his alleged misdeeds that it demanded his removal.
Are you saying the Post made up the accusations by the Cote D'Ivoire government and the accusations by his collegues?
"The article we're discussing makes it clear that the WP falsely accused him of acts, not just reporting that others made statements, "possibly" false, about his acts. Even if reporting "allegations", reporting ethics requires finding that they had some, or probable, basis in fact. The press has a lot of power, and responsibility to use it according to rules that have are clear to every professional journalist
The article we're discussing makes it clear that the WP falsely accused him of acts, not just reporting that others made statements, "possibly" false, about his acts. Even if reporting "allegations", reporting ethics requires finding that they had some, or probable, basis in fact. The press has a lot of power, and responsibility to use it according to rules that have are clear to every professional journalist
That is factually incorrect. What the Post stated was:
1) His career has been dogged by scandal
2) The government of the countryhe worked in received many complaints and asked tohave him removed.
3) His collegues have accused him of sexual harassment, financial improprieties and nepotism.
In other words, they did not accuse him of anything but reported on what apparantly several others including government officials had accused him of. That's different from the Post accusing him.
Somebody in another post pointed out this wasn't information the Post found scribbled on a washroom wall, it was complaints by the government of the country he worked in and by collegues and that the Post are reporters who report facts as they are observed and not detectives. Theor obligation is to verify the fact as they are known by seeking corroboraton of a reported "fact" which they seem to have done.
This is consistant with my experience with the press. They won't report anything I say unless at least one other person (preferably more and preferably somebody recognized in the fiels crroborates what I said - having said that the Globe and Make still managed to get what I said 180 degrees out of phase, and equally so the message from my opponent. In other words they mixed up the positions of two people and got them backwards)
So again, for the 11th time on this page, what should the Post have done in this case? You have said the Post "lied" more than once.
So to my mind without knowing more than what I've read here it appears to me the Post reported on facts they understood by corroboration to be true at the time and that you have lied about the Post commtting, if I'm not mistaken, trade slander; ironic given the subject of this article.
So how is it you justify your position?
"Hey, read the "Corrections" page sometime. Or just get a clue. What, you're bummed out that your WPO stock is down 10% from its 52 week high in December?"
I own not stock, period.
I've seen it mentioned several dozen times in this page that the Post "lied".
Not one person can or will explain how.
I thought I was asking a simple question: "The post reported an allegation. What were they supposed to do and how was this wrong".
"because the Post lied about him...
Especially when more people learned that they could hold the Post accountable for the lying it does all the time.."
What did the post lie about? Or are you just libeling them?
"If a newspaper or anybody else makes baseless accusations of serious crimes against somebody and refuses to retract them, surely that's illegal"
Did they make or report on "baseless accusations" ?
In the latter case, I disagree. In the former, I agree.
But show me the law that says they have to publish a retraction.
"Freedom of speech, doesn't implement the freedom of publishing a lie."
What was the lie they published?
"A company payed an employee to post information that cost someone their job. This information was found to be baseless (this means that there was no reason to believe it). The company that paid to publish the "false" information made no attempt at correction or retraction, even after repeated requests."
The Post reported on allegations. The did not appear to be stating as fact he was guilty.
I don't see where the Post has any need to published what happened later. It would be nice perhaps, but show me how it's required.
The allegations apparantly existed, and the only way I can see the Post was at fault is if the allegations did not exist and that the Post made them up which does not appear to be the case.
How did the Post publish "false" information? Did the allegations suddenly not exist back then?
"Yes the post maligned this guy."
How? Did the Post make up the allegations?
"This poor guy is just trying to get satisfaction from the Post - in the amount of 7,000 (canadian) dollars too"
This is a question not a comment.
I'm having a little difficulty with the court documents - I can't tell what they are in response too. All I can see is they're orders of the court.
The $7000 looks like it has something to do with respondants (posts) legal fees:
addendum re costs
[1] I have read and considered the submissions of the parties, and I have taken into account the factors set out in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[2] I find the respondent's bill of costs was eminently reasonable (an observation that can no longer be made with any degree of regularity).
[3] The motion to stay was equally reasonable.
[4]I agree that some consideration should be given to the novelty of the factual matrix (though not the law).
[5] Taking all these factors into consideration, I fix the costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,000.00 plus G.S.T. for a total of $7,490.00.
and that the original decision, let stand was for about $5.5M. No? Or is this a "QBVII" judgement "yeah, guilty, here's your two cents worth of damages you cretin".
I also liked this part:
While the personal defendants have no connection to Ontario, the Post is a newspaper with an international profile, and its writers influence viewpoints throughout the English speaking world. I would be surprised if it were not insured for damages for libel or defamation anywhere in the world, and if it is not, then it should be.
I'm surprised the insrance companies aren't suing too.
"Next is that you cannot keep online archives of things you reported on in the past if they could qualify for the above."
Under these premises archive.org would be in a whole heap of trouble.
"Nor me, and based on the content of the linked articles I'd have to side with Cheickh Bangoura on this one."
Why?
I'd buy that if they said he was guilty or stated factually that he was guilty as charged. But all the post did is report on allegations and that the UN had removed him on the basis of these allegations.
The only justification I can see for plaintiff winning is if the allegations didn't exist, not that the allegations turned out to not be true.
Did the Post not report of the facts of the matter as they were known to exist at the time? What should the Post have actually said in the normal course of their customary role of reporting world events?
I've read all the court material online and I can't see how this justifies plaintifft winning or a 5.5M settlement.
What the Post published looked like the facts of the matter as they were known at the time - that there were allegations.
Did I miss somehing? Were there not allegations?
If you believe this case was settled correctly then I ask you, what was the Post supposed to say? "Some guy in Africa doesn't work there any more. The UN did something" and that's about it?
Please point out what I'm missing here. What should the post have said?
"When I was a tad, we didn't have all these fancy newfangled languages. We were so poor, we were glad to have two bits to rub together. We had to make everything from bits. Why, I remember one time, I wanted a dog, so I made one from bits. He was a little buggy, but he was the best damn dog a boy from the bit-mill ever had. I wore my fingers to bloody nubs flicking toggle switches on that front panel. But I learned the value of hard work and perseverence. Not like you youngsters these days with your nancy keeyboards and you poofter mice."
You had bits? Why when we were kids we could only dream of bits. We had scraps of paper and fountain pens. But we were happy.
"After i read Learning Perl and doing test scripts, i felt like i was a real programmer in my gut"
I had a reaction in my gut too. But not the same one you had. Fortuneately, since the creation of ICANN I've kept a bucket near my desk at all times.
" I have yet to come across a task that couldn't be implemented fairly easily in Perl."
Write all of Unix from scratch on a PDP 11/20.
I'll wait.