Once upon a time, my VP bought into a firm that had discovered a guaranteed-perfect compression algorithm: it would reduce the size of any data file, no exceptions.
Yeah, it's called rm, isn't it? You can even use the flags '-r' for recursive (compress the compression for even more savings) and '-f' for flatten (makes the result occupy even less space than before).
Run rm -rf from the root directory and just watch how much disk space frees up. Amazing!
I suppose it would be too much to hope that this applies to government departments. Like, say, the Department of Homeland Security...you know, just in case there are any personal data files there.
Correct; and, we do occasionally try to defuse the crackpots, it just doesn't usually work and it takes a lot of time. This story is one example!
I might be tempted to lump this into "dumb people are gonna be dumb." If something looks odd to someone, they'll come up with an explanation that makes sense to them. All you can do is sit them down and say "No, it's like this..."
If they're determined not to believe you, then there's not a lot that you can do. Easier for me to say that, as I don't have a board to run, but I suspect transparancy will reduce the...alternate theories that tend to rise in a vacuum. Whether the effort involved in opening the doors will equal the benefit of less clutter on the boards...well, one of life's little uncertainties.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. They are both making Slashdot better, and hyping their own site!
Okay, fair enough - and I forgot about the Law of Mixed Motives. I revert back to the suggestion of limits then. A post can only be moderated up to a certain score. Karma can only be increased to a certain level. It's not a stretch to say that the rewards provided by story submission can only be realised to a certain point.
Ultimately the question here is: should we intentionally make Slashdot worse, because a lot of our readers think that Google's PageRank algorithm is broken?
I don't think you need make Slashdot worse by ascribing limitations. People might be less inclined to submit if their rewards are limited, but if the threshold is set high enough that we're only talking about the extreme cases - the benefit of reduced noise drowning out the signal may be worth the payoff.
One other thing to note; the "Offtopic" moderation is there. I get moderator points fairly frequently (I meta moderate frequently), and I am consistantly encouraged to moderate up rather than down - and so I do. Perhaps the moderator guidelines might also be worth a revision.
This is something I strongly agree with. I think I understand where you're coming from - you don't want to clutter up the board with naval gazing; you don't want Slashdot to be about Slashdot. The problem is, by not addressing any of this, there's no theory except what the crackpots are able to come up with.
As for users who spam for articles and drive up their linked-to stats, I would suggest you approach the issue as one about the integrity of your board. Are these people contributing to Slashdot, or are they simply attempting to use it for their own website?
There's nothing wrong with setting a limit on how many links you get before no-follow tags are added. Set the threshold to one that will only really impact the 'article-spammers'. Or even go one further, and simply restrict the number of articles someone can have accepted.
Ultimately, though, I think your overriding concern should be the quality of Slashdot as a whole. There will always be off-topic screeds and such, but that this has become such a problem that has prompted you do address it en masse, then something should probably be done.
Start with discussion. If that doesn't work, then go structural.
If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or under the same circumstances.
Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.
Agreed, and this is how I think our discussion of this should proceed. I don't fault Microsoft's behaviour any more than I criticize what Yahoo did, or what other corps would do (I might hold Google to a slightly higher standard only because they proclaim their "do no evil" mantra).
If you do not wish them to do these things, punish them economically so that they don't consider this kind of behaviour in their economic interest - then they'll make different choices.
To cloak this around legal principles, considering Microsoft's track record, and considering their proactive actions in this matter, is smoke and mirrors at best - plain bull at worst.
Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices?
If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?
If they respected Chinese law and American law to the same degree, then they wouldn't have so enthusiastically pulled down the offending post, would they?
Not without a long, drawn out court fight.
Or could it be...just maybe...that this isn't about law & order, principles, or anything more noble than the pursuit of economic interests.
I seriously think that there are music execs out there who were hoping that a new format (downloaded music) would mean that we would all want to buy our entire music collections all over again, in spite of the fact that the power is in our own hands to convert files this time.
The music industry insists that we all should buy our music collections all over again. It's legal to copy the CDs for your own use - just as it's legal to copy DVDs for your own use.
That's why the laws to make it illegal to break encryption - it was a way around consumer rights. You can rip DVDs for your own use, but you can't break encryption, and the movies are encrypted.
This nonsense of attempting to DRM CDs is just the music industry trying to play catch-up. Trust me, I've ripped my 200+ CD collection, and the music industry would have me pay for every single song a second time.
I thought "making a standard" meant getting together with everybody else (or at least some approximation of that) and work things out together?
That's not the way Microsoft works. That's not the way Cisco works. That's not the way any dominant player in a space would be inclined to work (this principle seems to hold from technology all the way to geopolitics).
You actually think you can make this claim, and then promise to remain civil in the next paragraph or two? If this guy speaks for you, then I won't debate you, or even better, try for a discourse where the truth is the goal instead of merely winning debate points.
I do. I was not attempting to endorse what Professor Looney said - as it happens, I don't. What I was rejecting, as I attempted to explain, was the premise that the onus was on me to distance myself from these nutcases - I also said that a similar onus should not be placed on you.
I think a discussion would be better served by having us deal with what we say to each other. For me to condemn your argument or point of view, because there might be some notions in common with Jerry Falwell would be massively unfair, and counter-productive to the objective of a healthy exchange of ideas. For you to assume that this Kansas guy speaks for me is equally unfair.
I'd rather try for a dialog than a debate, but the debate structure is better than nothing if that's what you want.
I'm content either way. I wasn't thinking a debate in terms of being antagonistic or trying to "win" - merely as a conversational structure to present opposing points of view, and attempting to find the merits and deficiencies of each.
That first point is simply not negotiable - I don't waste time with people who come into the arguement already wanting to slap my face before they've even heard my views.
I have no desire to be disrespectful. I may not share your point of view, but I respect your right to have it...and while I do not respect Intelligent Design as a theory, I do not pass judgement on those who do.
No - that's my condition - I don't debate people who start off by expressing their intent to 'slap me in the face', period. No, I'm not paranoid, Yes I know it's only a metaphorical slap, but still, we can't have a debate because it takes two to tango, and I won't enter into a voluntary relationship with someone who expresses a prexisting desire to harm me.
This is the problem - I've expressed no such thing, and I don't have that feeling/desire/intent/will/whatever. You have drawn a link between me and this Professor that simply isn't there.
I'm not here to make YOU personally look bad either, nor to quote back (or misquote) what you say in an effort to convince all Slashdom that I won some intangible point here. I might be interested in proving you are wrong on some points, if in fact you are, but I see no reason to try to prove you didn't think, racinate, and judge, gather facts and engage in careful consideration, or otherwise do what all humans do at their best. You may be wrong, but very smart people have been wrong before, and very decent, honorable, and dedicated people have been wrong as well.
All of this, are sentiments we have in common. I think this could be a very interesting conversation, if you're willing.
You can swear you won't personally stoop to threatening me all you want, but what real difference does that make, if you then turn around and get quotes and references to bolster your arguements from people who do want to slap somebody's face, and never even notice that's where you are getting them from?
If you find me doing that, feel free to call me on it; but as I have not done so - how can I possibly respond to this?
Yes, you do have to account for how your opinions overlap or differ with the professor, at least to me, and on this sole point of motive.
In issuing my invitation, I laid down some rules - largely out of fear that you might be of a fundamentalist ilk; more interested in rhetoric than actual discussion - I have encountered people like that before.
As I did so, I failed to anticipate that you might worry about the same things regarding me. I should have more properly explained myself, and for tha
It stops being a persecution complex when the person who disagrees with you expresses a personal desire to slap you in the face
No it doesn't. The obessive need to seek out instances of persecution is what marks it as a complex, in my book. The mere fact that you can find some is meaningless. It's a big place, and if you look hard enough, you'll find people that don't like you.
To be clear, I do not wish to paint all IDers with this brush - I'm just remarking on the few that are out there (as there are with any closely held belief).
The "fundies" will milk this sort of behavior for all its worth (and Pat Robertson will doubtless milk it for far more), and if you want to speak out against their opinions, you will find you need to distance yourself from people whose moves are "unnecessarily antagonistic", or your ship will go down with theirs.
No I don't, and no I won't - and if I'm expected to account for some professor I hadn't previously heard of before I can credibly speak against I.D., - I mean, if we're setting the threshold that bloody low - then I've got a list of items that anyone who wishes to call themselves a Christian will have to speak to, as well...and trust me, the Christian will expire of age before they finish.
Best that we deal with the subject matter at it's value, and not have to wade through the muck that the crackpots on both sides spew. (Especially since, in my humble estimation, you've got more of 'em than I do.)
Personally, I'd debate some of your opinions on the actual topic of ID, but we're both too busy now discussing this meta-topic of what tactics are fair to use in that debate, so we can't
Sure we can. Go.
This is not a challenge, merely an invitation. My e-mail address is attached to this message, and you're free to use it.
I'm not inclined to debate it here on this forum, as this format suits well to a group discussion with large allowances for drift - but it does not suit a debate or conversation between two people.
If you want to kick off an exchange in e-mail, though, I'm interested under the following provisos:
It remains civil, though might become enthusiastic. This means that arguments, theories, and even debating techniques are fair game; but personal attacks are out. We should not expect to convince each other, but should only be interested in the exchange of ideas.
The debate is about I.D. (as you've suggested). It's not about evolution. A theory can stand on its merits or it can't.
The invitation is extended to you, not you and a hoarde of your friends. If I start getting letter-bombed - we're done.
I am an atheist (not a rule, but you should be aware). That does not mean I don't understand Christianity (I was raised Catholic, and have read the Bible...the whole thing).
Those are my conditions, and I don't think them unreasonable. If an interest is expressed, we can post the results in this thread when finished.
The complaint against it is that it's unfalsifiable... unfalsifiable and untestable. The two complaints against it are its unfalsifiability and untestability... and unverifiability. Our three complaints against it are that it's not falsifiable, not testable, not verifiable... and not provable... Among our complaints against it...
Well, bloody hell! I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition.
Isn't the complaint that everyone here on Slashdot makes against it that it's unfalsifiable- unable to be proved false?
I would hope not, because that's not a good argument. The issue is that it's not provable, testable, or in any way verifiable. There is no evidence - and that's a different issue than it being unfalsifiable.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as strong a claim to be the originator of the universe - and no one can conclusively prove otherwise.
If we were to run around, having to give credence to any wild-arsed statement that could not be verifiably debunked - well, school might be a lot more fun, admittedly, but I don't think the kids benefit from having to suffer our need to fight political battles with science.
If I.D. is religion - and it is - then you doun't get to debunk it in public school on the goverment dime.
It was a university - so it's not an issue of public money. That being said, this move did seem unnecessarily antagonistic.
I am (to put it gently) a critic of ID, but I would challenge it on its lack of merit, rather than feed the persecution complex of an inordinate number of its proponents.
It really has no place in any course, public or private. It has neither the credibility of science or the beauty of religion/mythology.
The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.
I'm not really opposed to granting law-enforcement the power to do surveillence on e-mail, traffic, or what-have-you - but it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.
If you think I'm a criminal and you want my ISP to disclose my e-mails then call a judge, present your evidence, get a warrant, collect the e-mails, notify me that I'm under investigation, and we're all set. The same as it works with everything else.
The hypocricy that comes with "we need to expand the law so the police have the same powers over this new-fangled technology thing" and "we must not extend the oversight principles while we're at it" is mind-boggling.
Truth is, you are not entitled to justice, you are entitled to due process. It is one of the inherent difficulties if the courts are to be truly fair, they can only hear your case and render their best judgement. This is anywhere and not just in the US.
The problem is (and the thrust of the article was) that the process is being subverted by the use of legal threats - many of which are unfounded.
For all the cases that the RIAA has initiated, I don't know of a single one that actually was decided at trial (someone please correct me if I am in error). They are all settled because the law is being used as a club, and the strategy used by attorneys and their clients is to intimidate the target into submission by claiming huge damages, and offering to settle for a relative pittance. The uses of the DMCA follow a similar pattern.
Numerous DMCA violations are sent to people overseas with no followthrough when they are refused compliance. It's looks like a fishing expedition.
It becomes less an issue of due process and more a case of economic bullying, using the law as a tool to that end. If the parties allegedly hurt by DMCA violations feel that the acts are criminal, why are so few complaintants interested in pursuing the matter at trial and sending the offender to jail? They certainly can afford such justice, and it would be a strong example to use.
Instead, over and over again, we see threats, borderline extortion, and a steady pattern of avoiding the courts and the kind of blind justice the application of due process should bring.
So I'll say it again; a legal system, not a justice system.
And BTW, I know this is not an issue unique to the USA. You'll note from my e-mail I'm from Canada.
As for your sig...it occurs to me that someone who has a webpage on frequent spelling mistakes linked to with the phrase "Keep the reader focused on your ideas", well, wasn't particularly focused on my ideas in the first place.
Best of luck in your efforts to make the web a more gramatically pleasing place to be. You're going to need it.
As much as I admire the SETI project, and it's use of idle computing; using the time and power for climate issues and the search for other planets do seem more "useful" tasks.
Still...won't be quite the same as when some guys in my last job rigged another fellow's screen saver to flash that his computer had found an alien signal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's called rm, isn't it? You can even use the flags '-r' for recursive (compress the compression for even more savings) and '-f' for flatten (makes the result occupy even less space than before). Run rm -rf from the root directory and just watch how much disk space frees up. Amazing!
I suppose it would be too much to hope that this applies to government departments. Like, say, the Department of Homeland Security...you know, just in case there are any personal data files there.
Don't mention the war!
I might be tempted to lump this into "dumb people are gonna be dumb." If something looks odd to someone, they'll come up with an explanation that makes sense to them. All you can do is sit them down and say "No, it's like this..."
If they're determined not to believe you, then there's not a lot that you can do. Easier for me to say that, as I don't have a board to run, but I suspect transparancy will reduce the...alternate theories that tend to rise in a vacuum. Whether the effort involved in opening the doors will equal the benefit of less clutter on the boards...well, one of life's little uncertainties.
Fallacy of the excluded middle. They are both making Slashdot better, and hyping their own site!
Okay, fair enough - and I forgot about the Law of Mixed Motives. I revert back to the suggestion of limits then. A post can only be moderated up to a certain score. Karma can only be increased to a certain level. It's not a stretch to say that the rewards provided by story submission can only be realised to a certain point.
Ultimately the question here is: should we intentionally make Slashdot worse, because a lot of our readers think that Google's PageRank algorithm is broken?
I don't think you need make Slashdot worse by ascribing limitations. People might be less inclined to submit if their rewards are limited, but if the threshold is set high enough that we're only talking about the extreme cases - the benefit of reduced noise drowning out the signal may be worth the payoff.
One other thing to note; the "Offtopic" moderation is there. I get moderator points fairly frequently (I meta moderate frequently), and I am consistantly encouraged to moderate up rather than down - and so I do. Perhaps the moderator guidelines might also be worth a revision.
This is something I strongly agree with. I think I understand where you're coming from - you don't want to clutter up the board with naval gazing; you don't want Slashdot to be about Slashdot. The problem is, by not addressing any of this, there's no theory except what the crackpots are able to come up with.
As for users who spam for articles and drive up their linked-to stats, I would suggest you approach the issue as one about the integrity of your board. Are these people contributing to Slashdot, or are they simply attempting to use it for their own website?
There's nothing wrong with setting a limit on how many links you get before no-follow tags are added. Set the threshold to one that will only really impact the 'article-spammers'. Or even go one further, and simply restrict the number of articles someone can have accepted.
Ultimately, though, I think your overriding concern should be the quality of Slashdot as a whole. There will always be off-topic screeds and such, but that this has become such a problem that has prompted you do address it en masse, then something should probably be done.
Start with discussion. If that doesn't work, then go structural.
Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.
Agreed, and this is how I think our discussion of this should proceed. I don't fault Microsoft's behaviour any more than I criticize what Yahoo did, or what other corps would do (I might hold Google to a slightly higher standard only because they proclaim their "do no evil" mantra).
If you do not wish them to do these things, punish them economically so that they don't consider this kind of behaviour in their economic interest - then they'll make different choices.
To cloak this around legal principles, considering Microsoft's track record, and considering their proactive actions in this matter, is smoke and mirrors at best - plain bull at worst.
If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?
If they respected Chinese law and American law to the same degree, then they wouldn't have so enthusiastically pulled down the offending post, would they?
Not without a long, drawn out court fight.
Or could it be...just maybe...that this isn't about law & order, principles, or anything more noble than the pursuit of economic interests.
Yeah, that must be it.
"This OpenOffice story, which focused on a feature it had that MS Office didn't, was brought to you by Microsoft."
"Microsoft. We're gonna mess with your heads."
Yeah, but the Slashdot Article is 1.4 times longer, so it's not as duped as you think...
The music industry insists that we all should buy our music collections all over again. It's legal to copy the CDs for your own use - just as it's legal to copy DVDs for your own use.
That's why the laws to make it illegal to break encryption - it was a way around consumer rights. You can rip DVDs for your own use, but you can't break encryption, and the movies are encrypted.
This nonsense of attempting to DRM CDs is just the music industry trying to play catch-up. Trust me, I've ripped my 200+ CD collection, and the music industry would have me pay for every single song a second time.
That's not the way Microsoft works. That's not the way Cisco works. That's not the way any dominant player in a space would be inclined to work (this principle seems to hold from technology all the way to geopolitics).
It's the Microsoft way...
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
"No I don't, and no I won't"
You actually think you can make this claim, and then promise to remain civil in the next paragraph or two? If this guy speaks for you, then I won't debate you, or even better, try for a discourse where the truth is the goal instead of merely winning debate points.
I do. I was not attempting to endorse what Professor Looney said - as it happens, I don't. What I was rejecting, as I attempted to explain, was the premise that the onus was on me to distance myself from these nutcases - I also said that a similar onus should not be placed on you.
I think a discussion would be better served by having us deal with what we say to each other. For me to condemn your argument or point of view, because there might be some notions in common with Jerry Falwell would be massively unfair, and counter-productive to the objective of a healthy exchange of ideas. For you to assume that this Kansas guy speaks for me is equally unfair.
I'd rather try for a dialog than a debate, but the debate structure is better than nothing if that's what you want.
I'm content either way. I wasn't thinking a debate in terms of being antagonistic or trying to "win" - merely as a conversational structure to present opposing points of view, and attempting to find the merits and deficiencies of each.
That first point is simply not negotiable - I don't waste time with people who come into the arguement already wanting to slap my face before they've even heard my views.
I have no desire to be disrespectful. I may not share your point of view, but I respect your right to have it...and while I do not respect Intelligent Design as a theory, I do not pass judgement on those who do.
No - that's my condition - I don't debate people who start off by expressing their intent to 'slap me in the face', period. No, I'm not paranoid, Yes I know it's only a metaphorical slap, but still, we can't have a debate because it takes two to tango, and I won't enter into a voluntary relationship with someone who expresses a prexisting desire to harm me.
This is the problem - I've expressed no such thing, and I don't have that feeling/desire/intent/will/whatever. You have drawn a link between me and this Professor that simply isn't there.
I'm not here to make YOU personally look bad either, nor to quote back (or misquote) what you say in an effort to convince all Slashdom that I won some intangible point here. I might be interested in proving you are wrong on some points, if in fact you are, but I see no reason to try to prove you didn't think, racinate, and judge, gather facts and engage in careful consideration, or otherwise do what all humans do at their best. You may be wrong, but very smart people have been wrong before, and very decent, honorable, and dedicated people have been wrong as well.
All of this, are sentiments we have in common. I think this could be a very interesting conversation, if you're willing.
You can swear you won't personally stoop to threatening me all you want, but what real difference does that make, if you then turn around and get quotes and references to bolster your arguements from people who do want to slap somebody's face, and never even notice that's where you are getting them from?
If you find me doing that, feel free to call me on it; but as I have not done so - how can I possibly respond to this?
Yes, you do have to account for how your opinions overlap or differ with the professor, at least to me, and on this sole point of motive.
In issuing my invitation, I laid down some rules - largely out of fear that you might be of a fundamentalist ilk; more interested in rhetoric than actual discussion - I have encountered people like that before.
As I did so, I failed to anticipate that you might worry about the same things regarding me. I should have more properly explained myself, and for tha
No it doesn't. The obessive need to seek out instances of persecution is what marks it as a complex, in my book. The mere fact that you can find some is meaningless. It's a big place, and if you look hard enough, you'll find people that don't like you.
To be clear, I do not wish to paint all IDers with this brush - I'm just remarking on the few that are out there (as there are with any closely held belief).
The "fundies" will milk this sort of behavior for all its worth (and Pat Robertson will doubtless milk it for far more), and if you want to speak out against their opinions, you will find you need to distance yourself from people whose moves are "unnecessarily antagonistic", or your ship will go down with theirs.
No I don't, and no I won't - and if I'm expected to account for some professor I hadn't previously heard of before I can credibly speak against I.D., - I mean, if we're setting the threshold that bloody low - then I've got a list of items that anyone who wishes to call themselves a Christian will have to speak to, as well...and trust me, the Christian will expire of age before they finish.
Best that we deal with the subject matter at it's value, and not have to wade through the muck that the crackpots on both sides spew. (Especially since, in my humble estimation, you've got more of 'em than I do.)
Personally, I'd debate some of your opinions on the actual topic of ID, but we're both too busy now discussing this meta-topic of what tactics are fair to use in that debate, so we can't
Sure we can. Go.
This is not a challenge, merely an invitation. My e-mail address is attached to this message, and you're free to use it.
I'm not inclined to debate it here on this forum, as this format suits well to a group discussion with large allowances for drift - but it does not suit a debate or conversation between two people. If you want to kick off an exchange in e-mail, though, I'm interested under the following provisos:
Those are my conditions, and I don't think them unreasonable. If an interest is expressed, we can post the results in this thread when finished.
Your move.
Well, bloody hell! I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition.
I would hope not, because that's not a good argument. The issue is that it's not provable, testable, or in any way verifiable. There is no evidence - and that's a different issue than it being unfalsifiable.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as strong a claim to be the originator of the universe - and no one can conclusively prove otherwise.
If we were to run around, having to give credence to any wild-arsed statement that could not be verifiably debunked - well, school might be a lot more fun, admittedly, but I don't think the kids benefit from having to suffer our need to fight political battles with science.
It was a university - so it's not an issue of public money. That being said, this move did seem unnecessarily antagonistic.
I am (to put it gently) a critic of ID, but I would challenge it on its lack of merit, rather than feed the persecution complex of an inordinate number of its proponents.
It really has no place in any course, public or private. It has neither the credibility of science or the beauty of religion/mythology.
What if the Free Software Foundation took the same language trick and changed their name to the French Software Foundation?
Sounds good in theory, but I gotta tell ya, from what I see capitalism relies on no such thing. It does fine withtout it.
I'm not really opposed to granting law-enforcement the power to do surveillence on e-mail, traffic, or what-have-you - but it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.
If you think I'm a criminal and you want my ISP to disclose my e-mails then call a judge, present your evidence, get a warrant, collect the e-mails, notify me that I'm under investigation, and we're all set. The same as it works with everything else.
The hypocricy that comes with "we need to expand the law so the police have the same powers over this new-fangled technology thing" and "we must not extend the oversight principles while we're at it" is mind-boggling.
Why Does Beta Last So Long?
Sometimes, the universe is pretty cool.
The problem is (and the thrust of the article was) that the process is being subverted by the use of legal threats - many of which are unfounded.
For all the cases that the RIAA has initiated, I don't know of a single one that actually was decided at trial (someone please correct me if I am in error). They are all settled because the law is being used as a club, and the strategy used by attorneys and their clients is to intimidate the target into submission by claiming huge damages, and offering to settle for a relative pittance. The uses of the DMCA follow a similar pattern.
Numerous DMCA violations are sent to people overseas with no followthrough when they are refused compliance. It's looks like a fishing expedition.
It becomes less an issue of due process and more a case of economic bullying, using the law as a tool to that end. If the parties allegedly hurt by DMCA violations feel that the acts are criminal, why are so few complaintants interested in pursuing the matter at trial and sending the offender to jail? They certainly can afford such justice, and it would be a strong example to use.
Instead, over and over again, we see threats, borderline extortion, and a steady pattern of avoiding the courts and the kind of blind justice the application of due process should bring.
So I'll say it again; a legal system, not a justice system.
And BTW, I know this is not an issue unique to the USA. You'll note from my e-mail I'm from Canada.
Agreed. To use a phrase I heard some time ago; it's how we ended up with a legal system instead of a justice system.
As for your sig...it occurs to me that someone who has a webpage on frequent spelling mistakes linked to with the phrase "Keep the reader focused on your ideas", well, wasn't particularly focused on my ideas in the first place.
Best of luck in your efforts to make the web a more gramatically pleasing place to be. You're going to need it.
Still...won't be quite the same as when some guys in my last job rigged another fellow's screen saver to flash that his computer had found an alien signal.
sigh