You might be right that this is something to worry about. I hope for the sake of the world that there isn't a judge that could be convinced that a precedent should apply though. The format for coke can be used to reconstruct the entire sold product; that is hardly true of the format of a.doc file. I hope this distinction is/would be clear in the law.
This analogy between soda and file formats is completely flawed. The chemical formula for a soda is not comparable at all to a file format. Soda is not ever, necessary for any business function, and is drunk by one person, who buys that can of soda. A file format is often used for communication, is often necessary to be exchangable for many business functions, and is only a secondary product. That is, it's not what people pay for, but it's produced by something they pay for. The formula for a soda is used to produce the product itself.
Of course, this is not to say that I necessarily disagree with you; I think there are many things that the 'free market' won't work to decide, but it may work to decide this. I do like the point that an earlier poster raised about whether or not tax money should go towards any product which uses proprietary file formats.
Another good thing to do is to use some program like xrwits. It's a keyboard timer that tells you to take a break every (whatever you set it to) minutes. You can delay the break if you are in the middle of something, but it gets progressively more annoying. Of course it's entirely voluntary and you can kill it easily, but if you use it well it helps. I originally saw this recommended here.
Something that helped me personally was taking a yoga class - and probably any system of regular stretching that involves the wrists will have the same effect. Whatever gripes one may have about the pseudo-mysticism of things like yoga, it made a really noticable difference in the amount of pain I felt in everyday typing that semester (ah if only I could work up the self discipline to keep doing it regularly).
Ok, I guess I went somewhat overboard; sorry about that.
The point I was trying to make though (and hopefully I will present it in a less heated tone here) is that not much is truly created by a large corporation. You said that all these things were invented by Bell, the telephone monopoly. While it certainly can't be said that you are lying, I was just trying to point out that when you go look at the details, these things were just created by a bunch of individuals who had a neat idea, and happened to be in a position to implement it.
It is certainly true that they had bell's labs, resources, and the right environment. But I think this is different than really being created by a large company. There was no committee of faceless software engineers designing a specification before dozens of teams of programmers sat down and each implemented components which were then assembled. It was just a few people coding.
And you are right that there is a difference between one and three. I just think that the difference is nothing compared to the difference between either and 100, or whatever you might find behind the design team of a behemoth like microsoft word, which is the sort of thing that I envision when someone says that software was created by some company.
In fact I suspect even UNIX doesn't fall into this second category; I just don't know much about the details of its early creation.
I'm also not trying to claim that vi/linux/etc are original ideas, and neither are the three you cited, I would think. They're all solidly engineered programs, based on ideas that were not new then. I'm not even sure that the age of the lone inventor in its really idealized form (person in lab, no outside resources, no funding pressure, revolutionizing some field, etc) ever existed, but I certainly don't know my history of science well enough to debate that point.
But the era of people coming up with neat ideas (even if they're evolutions of older ideas) and happening to be in a position to have the resources to implement them, and doing so, in my opinion did exist, and probably still does.
I don't think it can be argued that the ideas behind UNIX/ed/awk became tied to bell labs. In fact, probably the only people who think of Bell labs when they look at, say, linux, probably have either been around for a while, or do a lot of unnecessary reading (me). So these people created or evolved ideas that moved out of the domain of the corporation that funded them, which is certainly something.
Most piano teachers make a point of teaching correct posture, arm position, etc. I started playing piano when I was about 7. Early during highschool when I was playing quite a bit, I started having serious wrist problems. I sat down with my piano teacher and she corrected some posture problems that I'd developed along the way. So one reason that it's not heard about, is that instructors (even if they don't know this is what they're doing) go out of their way to prevent it. People have been playing pianos (and have a lot more interactive learning experience of it) a lot longer than they've been typing on computer keyboards.
And I knew a guitar player in highschool who had serious CTS problems. He was probably the best jazz guitarist I ever met. So you probably just haven't met the right people. Also, you've probably been lucky enough never to have the combination of massive volume of playing and wrong posture that leads to such things. But as someone who experienced some and then averted significant wrist problems, I think you are completely wrong to say that it doesn't exist.
UNIX, I will grant you, was designed by a 'division of bell labs'. But really, one out of three? That's a pretty low accuracy rate. I guess if you sound authoritative enough people will believe and mod up.
The names behind ed/qed and awk are some of the most recognized forces behind early development of computing systems. I mean, even the _article_ about qed was written by Dennis Ritchie. Perhaps not all _lone_ inventors, but there's not much difference for practical purposes between three and one.
Just because some things were created by people working for bell labs doesn't mean that they were created by the telephone monopoly.
> After that there has been virtually no progress in game strategy; all the improvement has been in hardware speed.
> Its a shame, considering that game playing is thought to be one of the easiest problem domains for AI.
I'm not very knowledgable about games specifically, but the impression that I got from my undergrad AI class a few semesters ago was that neither of these statements are true. There has been significant improvement in search techniques since 1962, and game playing is hard enough that it hasn't made a dent that is noticable to the general public. The problem of search is general to a lot of AI, not just games, so these things proceed at the same pace. Perhaps it's just that the domains that the public notices are ones where the statespace is small, but the active research problems (at least in multi-agent systems which is what I am familiar with) often seem to involve really massive statespaces, like games such as chess and go.
I also am pretty sure that the really competent game systems do considerably more than brute force. Chinook if it is the checker-player that I am thinking of has a massive endgame and opening game book, and a lot of heuristics for overall strategy. I don't think any really succesful chess player uses simple brute force either.
In short, saying that game playing is simple compared to other AI seems to me like the people at MIT before looking at vision, saying that they could have that problem solved in a few weeks. It's still wide open, and probably will be for an indefinite amount of time, along with games.
I know no one actually cares, since its funnier just to laugh at it, but 'like' is a perfectly normal discourse marker used for a variety of purposes. It is completely abnormal to speak without such things, and where I am from (new england) everyone 35 years old uses 'like' in conversational speech.
I agree...I also think things like the Wheel of Time series, and some of the David Eddings series spring to my mind as well. I may be in the minority but I think Wheel of Time is written to sell, and quite formulaic.
It works for me in rc1. However, I'm not actually convinced that this bug really allows someone to read files remotely. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how is this any different than just typing in the file's URL? Analysis with ethereal did not show any data going across the network other than filenames, as I looked around my filesystem using their demonstration.
Galeon is apparently a "better performing, less buggy browser", since it isn't affected by this:-).
Actually, it seems more like driving under the influence is illegal because people who (choose to) drive under the influence statistically do cause property damage and injury, and that there is proximate (direct) causal link between the two things. It is not as simple as being illegal because there is the potential for damage. Additionally the causal relation is meaningful only because it is between a choice or action and an effect, rather than some a priori state and an effect. (it is meaningless to talk about being human causing car accidents). It might be meaningful to talk about the choice of buying a car causing accidents, but this is some societally determined threshold for the statistics resulting in illegality. To talk about the morality (as opposed to illegality) of some choice that might cause deaths becomes a quite philosophical argument, and can be reduced to the choice of whether to kill yourself right now or not.
I think it is the causal link between a choice/action and a result that is really important here for illegality, rather than simple potential. There are a few other important distinctions that can be made between the two things you are attempting to compare, but since they haven't come up I will ignore them for now.
Oh I don't think it's really your fault or under your control that you made that mistake - as the link I gave suggests near the bottom of it, more or less all of Canada switched to near official use of 'inuit' because of the common belief (and pressure from Inuit political groups) that 'eskimo' did mean 'eater of raw meat'. I don't imagine you're alone among Canadians, and most Americans who know anything about the word probably believe the same.
Language myths like these have a strange way of spreading very easily, and being totally unkillable once they do. There is something very believable about strange claims about little known languages.
> I explained, that it essentially means "eater of raw meat".
This probably isn't true though so many people believe it that it might as well be. It in reality probably describes something to do with the lacing of a snowshoe, and is from the Algonquin language Montagnais rather than an Abenake dialect as was originally believed.
See more or less any online dictionary for more information, also some more detail at:
If you haven't dealt with Algonquin languages before, the 'Goddard' mentioned there is essentially the most reknown Algonquinist there is. If there is anyone who is able to correctly speak on things as difficult as dead Algonquin languages it is he.
Of course since the word is perceived as offensive already, there is little else we can do but treat it as offensive. Words such as Inuit are perhaps more accurate, anyways.
It is very rare that a native american tribe actually (historically) has a name for itself; hence so many of them are named by other tribes, resulting in persistant (sometimes true) rumors about the insulting nature of these names. (Most that are still around have of course adopted names from some source by now)
I'd assume that if they're 'rolling out a souped up search engine' they haven't yet rolled it out, and the site right now is not the rolled out version. I suppose, as you seem to be saying, by 'rolling out' they could mean simply removing the little 'beta' part of their logo. However, I doubt it.
And arguing about this is almost as silly as the posts I was originally complaining about.
Does no one read the article? They are rolling out a new version (which the article was about) tomorrow at 5pm PST! The site that is there now is using presumably months/years old technology. Anyone who's posted so far complaining about some search on Teoma is being fairly silly.
That said it doesn't sound like the new version will topple google either.
> What's the point about disposable mobiles anyway?
I can think of at least one reason for disposable mobiles that will be valid at least until there is some kind of global network with reasonable charges for operating out of your area. I went to the UK for a week recently and it would have been really convenient to have a mobile. I was visiting my girlfriend who is abroad for this year so has her own mobile, but if I was visiting on my own, say for a conference, or just for fun, it would've been very nice to have a mobile that worked in the UK for the week I was there.
For example, RyanAir managed to lose our luggage for a few days, and I don't know how we would've given them contact information without having a mobile with us, or easily been able to call the airport to see if it had shown up. I think you could come up with many other examples of how cost-effective disposable mobiles would be convenient to travellers.
>The article suggests that it's because the judges are biased.
I didn't get this impression. There are several pieces of reasoning that the article offers, and none of them directly point to the judges being biased. First, there are two sets of arbiters. One set receives the majority of business (i.e. is picked most often by complainents). The other (maybe just one company?) receives considerably less business (i.e. complainants don't often pick it). Cases in this second set are in fact still slanted statistically towards the complainant (I think ~60%), but considerably less so than the first set. This suggests that companies pick arbiters from the first set more often due to this very reason.
The article points out that there are significant statistical anomolies in selection of judges which is supposed to be random. The most extreme example was that something like 5 judges at one arbiter tried some very high percentage of the cases, of which 95% were won by the complainants.
In short, the article is not saying that judges are biased, but is pointing out that someone needs to look much more closely at the procedures required of the arbiters, and at the system of allowing the complainant to pick which arbiter they would like to use. I agree with you that there is not enough information to prove any bias, but I would not agree with the statement that the information in the article and study is not meaningful enough to suggest that a review/examination be done by a 3rd party. Some judges _may_ be biased, and this should be looked at. The system itself also may be inherently biased, and this should be examined as well.
The full quote is "Pico-review: visually brilliant. No plot, ten-second gimmick idea for character. McGee thinks he's going to make a movie out of this? Then again, I went to see Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within."
I'm not sure that indicates like.
> Doesn't get why you wouldn't want to have root access always on.
hmm, I don't think this is what he was saying. Rather, his normal login was in fact 'admin' on OSX, but it still made him type a password (his own password), and the method of figuring out how to type a password was nonintuitive. And he seems to have been fine with using 'su' to install software, except for some reason (hard to tell from what he says) it wasn't immediately clear that this was specifically necessary.
> Doesn't like font handling.
I think what he said is that he didn't like the font selection interface.
Where did you get the model for a pierson's puppeteer? Or did you invent it yourself? In any case that's a pretty original model to have. I have a few on my desk but they're just boring turtles.
> What you are saying is valid, but it misses the point.
Actually, what he says is not even valid. If anyone had bothered to read the link that Cliff helpfully posted, they would see that there are several things bash does not do, and several things that are 'implemented differently'. The following is taken from that page:
Things sh has that bash does not:
uses variable SHACCT to do shell accounting
includes `stop' builtin (bash can use alias stop='kill -s STOP')
`newgrp' builtin
turns on job control if called as `jsh'
$TIMEOUT (like bash $TMOUT)
`^' is a synonym for `|'
new SVR4.2 sh builtins: mldmode, priv
Implementation differences:
redirection to/from compound commands causes sh to create a subshell
bash does not allow unbalanced quotes; sh silently inserts them at EOF
bash does not mess with signal 11
sh sets (euid, egid) to (uid, gid) if -p not supplied and uid 100
bash splits only the results of expansions on IFS, using POSIX.2
field splitting rules; sh splits all words on IFS
sh does not allow MAILCHECK to be unset (?)
sh does not allow traps on SIGALRM or SIGCHLD
bash allows multiple option arguments when invoked (e.g. -x -v);
sh allows only a single option argument (`sh -x -v' attempts
to open a file named `-v', and, on SunOS 4.1.4, dumps core.
On Solaris 2.4 and earlier versions, sh goes into an infinite
loop.)
sh exits a script if any builtin fails; bash exits only if one of
the POSIX.2 `special' builtins fails
well, the com version seems to be owned by sucks500.com, a bulliten board for complaining about things related to corporate america. Wholly appropriate considering that Vivendi probably bought this case. The version is owned by someone upset about a previous dispute that was arbitrated by WIPO, and has a fair amount of information relevent to this case (procedures, etc). Perhaps they would be interested in putting up information on other cases as well.
I have to wonder (conspiracy time) if WIPO wants to set up precedents to have these sites taken down, as well as ICANN itself removing anti-icann sites. (icannsucks.com is also owned by sucks500.com) In fact, there are a lot of people with a lot of money who would be happy if these sorts of sites were given more trouble than private individuals can reasonably deal with. It appears that the group which owns the two.com sites has resited some lawsuits, but how long can they last?
This is a pretty stupid attitude. Instead of looking for reasons why the article is awful, perhaps you could think for a second, and consider the fact that non-native speakers of english quite consistantly mix up tense, in precisely the way that occured in this article. In fact, until seeing your trollish post, I didn't even give any thought that it could be something else. I really doubt it's some sort of conspiracy to defraud the/. public.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right that this is something to worry about. I hope for the sake of the world that there isn't a judge that could be convinced that a precedent should apply though. The format for coke can be used to reconstruct the entire sold product; that is hardly true of the format of a .doc file. I hope this distinction is/would be clear in the law.
This analogy between soda and file formats is completely flawed. The chemical formula for a soda is not comparable at all to a file format. Soda is not ever, necessary for any business function, and is drunk by one person, who buys that can of soda. A file format is often used for communication, is often necessary to be exchangable for many business functions, and is only a secondary product. That is, it's not what people pay for, but it's produced by something they pay for. The formula for a soda is used to produce the product itself.
Of course, this is not to say that I necessarily disagree with you; I think there are many things that the 'free market' won't work to decide, but it may work to decide this. I do like the point that an earlier poster raised about whether or not tax money should go towards any product which uses proprietary file formats.
Another good thing to do is to use some program like xrwits. It's a keyboard timer that tells you to take a break every (whatever you set it to) minutes. You can delay the break if you are in the middle of something, but it gets progressively more annoying. Of course it's entirely voluntary and you can kill it easily, but if you use it well it helps. I originally saw this recommended here.
Something that helped me personally was taking a yoga class - and probably any system of regular stretching that involves the wrists will have the same effect. Whatever gripes one may have about the pseudo-mysticism of things like yoga, it made a really noticable difference in the amount of pain I felt in everyday typing that semester (ah if only I could work up the self discipline to keep doing it regularly).
Ok, I guess I went somewhat overboard; sorry about that.
The point I was trying to make though (and hopefully I will present it in a less heated tone here) is that not much is truly created by a large corporation. You said that all these things were invented by Bell, the telephone monopoly. While it certainly can't be said that you are lying, I was just trying to point out that when you go look at the details, these things were just created by a bunch of individuals who had a neat idea, and happened to be in a position to implement it.
It is certainly true that they had bell's labs, resources, and the right environment. But I think this is different than really being created by a large company. There was no committee of faceless software engineers designing a specification before dozens of teams of programmers sat down and each implemented components which were then assembled. It was just a few people coding.
And you are right that there is a difference between one and three. I just think that the difference is nothing compared to the difference between either and 100, or whatever you might find behind the design team of a behemoth like microsoft word, which is the sort of thing that I envision when someone says that software was created by some company.
In fact I suspect even UNIX doesn't fall into this second category; I just don't know much about the details of its early creation.
I'm also not trying to claim that vi/linux/etc are original ideas, and neither are the three you cited, I would think. They're all solidly engineered programs, based on ideas that were not new then. I'm not even sure that the age of the lone inventor in its really idealized form (person in lab, no outside resources, no funding pressure, revolutionizing some field, etc) ever existed, but I certainly don't know my history of science well enough to debate that point.
But the era of people coming up with neat ideas (even if they're evolutions of older ideas) and happening to be in a position to have the resources to implement them, and doing so, in my opinion did exist, and probably still does.
I don't think it can be argued that the ideas behind UNIX/ed/awk became tied to bell labs. In fact, probably the only people who think of Bell labs when they look at, say, linux, probably have either been around for a while, or do a lot of unnecessary reading (me). So these people created or evolved ideas that moved out of the domain of the corporation that funded them, which is certainly something.
Most piano teachers make a point of teaching correct posture, arm position, etc. I started playing piano when I was about 7. Early during highschool when I was playing quite a bit, I started having serious wrist problems. I sat down with my piano teacher and she corrected some posture problems that I'd developed along the way. So one reason that it's not heard about, is that instructors (even if they don't know this is what they're doing) go out of their way to prevent it. People have been playing pianos (and have a lot more interactive learning experience of it) a lot longer than they've been typing on computer keyboards.
And I knew a guitar player in highschool who had serious CTS problems. He was probably the best jazz guitarist I ever met. So you probably just haven't met the right people. Also, you've probably been lucky enough never to have the combination of massive volume of playing and wrong posture that leads to such things. But as someone who experienced some and then averted significant wrist problems, I think you are completely wrong to say that it doesn't exist.
AWK was created by three people, Aho, Weinberger, and Kernighan; they happened to do this at Bell Labs.
reference
Ed was in fact based on an earlier program QED, written at Berkeley by Butler Lampson and Peter Deutsch. And ed itself was written by Ken Thompson.
reference
UNIX, I will grant you, was designed by a 'division of bell labs'. But really, one out of three? That's a pretty low accuracy rate. I guess if you sound authoritative enough people will believe and mod up.
The names behind ed/qed and awk are some of the most recognized forces behind early development of computing systems. I mean, even the _article_ about qed was written by Dennis Ritchie. Perhaps not all _lone_ inventors, but there's not much difference for practical purposes between three and one.
Just because some things were created by people working for bell labs doesn't mean that they were created by the telephone monopoly.
I have AA working by default on my debian installation of mozilla rc2 and galeon whatever.
> After that there has been virtually no progress in game strategy; all the improvement has been in hardware speed.
> Its a shame, considering that game playing is thought to be one of the easiest problem domains for AI.
I'm not very knowledgable about games specifically, but the impression that I got from my undergrad AI class a few semesters ago was that neither of these statements are true. There has been significant improvement in search techniques since 1962, and game playing is hard enough that it hasn't made a dent that is noticable to the general public. The problem of search is general to a lot of AI, not just games, so these things proceed at the same pace. Perhaps it's just that the domains that the public notices are ones where the statespace is small, but the active research problems (at least in multi-agent systems which is what I am familiar with) often seem to involve really massive statespaces, like games such as chess and go.
I also am pretty sure that the really competent game systems do considerably more than brute force. Chinook if it is the checker-player that I am thinking of has a massive endgame and opening game book, and a lot of heuristics for overall strategy. I don't think any really succesful chess player uses simple brute force either.
In short, saying that game playing is simple compared to other AI seems to me like the people at MIT before looking at vision, saying that they could have that problem solved in a few weeks. It's still wide open, and probably will be for an indefinite amount of time, along with games.
I know no one actually cares, since its funnier just to laugh at it, but 'like' is a perfectly normal discourse marker used for a variety of purposes. It is completely abnormal to speak without such things, and where I am from (new england) everyone 35 years old uses 'like' in conversational speech.
I agree...I also think things like the Wheel of Time series, and some of the David Eddings series spring to my mind as well. I may be in the minority but I think Wheel of Time is written to sell, and quite formulaic.
But could you do that in 1994, which is when he started showing his 'demonstrations' to people?
It works for me in rc1. However, I'm not actually convinced that this bug really allows someone to read files remotely. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how is this any different than just typing in the file's URL? Analysis with ethereal did not show any data going across the network other than filenames, as I looked around my filesystem using their demonstration.
:-).
Galeon is apparently a "better performing, less buggy browser", since it isn't affected by this
Actually, it seems more like driving under the influence is illegal because people who (choose to) drive under the influence statistically do cause property damage and injury, and that there is proximate (direct) causal link between the two things. It is not as simple as being illegal because there is the potential for damage. Additionally the causal relation is meaningful only because it is between a choice or action and an effect, rather than some a priori state and an effect. (it is meaningless to talk about being human causing car accidents). It might be meaningful to talk about the choice of buying a car causing accidents, but this is some societally determined threshold for the statistics resulting in illegality. To talk about the morality (as opposed to illegality) of some choice that might cause deaths becomes a quite philosophical argument, and can be reduced to the choice of whether to kill yourself right now or not.
I think it is the causal link between a choice/action and a result that is really important here for illegality, rather than simple potential. There are a few other important distinctions that can be made between the two things you are attempting to compare, but since they haven't come up I will ignore them for now.
Oh I don't think it's really your fault or under your control that you made that mistake - as the link I gave suggests near the bottom of it, more or less all of Canada switched to near official use of 'inuit' because of the common belief (and pressure from Inuit political groups) that 'eskimo' did mean 'eater of raw meat'. I don't imagine you're alone among Canadians, and most Americans who know anything about the word probably believe the same.
Language myths like these have a strange way of spreading very easily, and being totally unkillable once they do. There is something very believable about strange claims about little known languages.
> I explained, that it essentially means "eater of raw meat".
This probably isn't true though so many people believe it that it might as well be. It in reality probably describes something to do with the lacing of a snowshoe, and is from the Algonquin language Montagnais rather than an Abenake dialect as was originally believed.
See more or less any online dictionary for more information, also some more detail at:
here
If you haven't dealt with Algonquin languages before, the 'Goddard' mentioned there is essentially the most reknown Algonquinist there is. If there is anyone who is able to correctly speak on things as difficult as dead Algonquin languages it is he.
Of course since the word is perceived as offensive already, there is little else we can do but treat it as offensive. Words such as Inuit are perhaps more accurate, anyways.
It is very rare that a native american tribe actually (historically) has a name for itself; hence so many of them are named by other tribes, resulting in persistant (sometimes true) rumors about the insulting nature of these names. (Most that are still around have of course adopted names from some source by now)
I'd assume that if they're 'rolling out a souped up search engine' they haven't yet rolled it out, and the site right now is not the rolled out version. I suppose, as you seem to be saying, by 'rolling out' they could mean simply removing the little 'beta' part of their logo. However, I doubt it.
And arguing about this is almost as silly as the posts I was originally complaining about.
Does no one read the article? They are rolling out a new version (which the article was about) tomorrow at 5pm PST! The site that is there now is using presumably months/years old technology. Anyone who's posted so far complaining about some search on Teoma is being fairly silly.
That said it doesn't sound like the new version will topple google either.
> What's the point about disposable mobiles anyway?
I can think of at least one reason for disposable mobiles that will be valid at least until there is some kind of global network with reasonable charges for operating out of your area. I went to the UK for a week recently and it would have been really convenient to have a mobile. I was visiting my girlfriend who is abroad for this year so has her own mobile, but if I was visiting on my own, say for a conference, or just for fun, it would've been very nice to have a mobile that worked in the UK for the week I was there.
For example, RyanAir managed to lose our luggage for a few days, and I don't know how we would've given them contact information without having a mobile with us, or easily been able to call the airport to see if it had shown up. I think you could come up with many other examples of how cost-effective disposable mobiles would be convenient to travellers.
>The article suggests that it's because the judges are biased.
I didn't get this impression. There are several pieces of reasoning that the article offers, and none of them directly point to the judges being biased. First, there are two sets of arbiters. One set receives the majority of business (i.e. is picked most often by complainents). The other (maybe just one company?) receives considerably less business (i.e. complainants don't often pick it). Cases in this second set are in fact still slanted statistically towards the complainant (I think ~60%), but considerably less so than the first set. This suggests that companies pick arbiters from the first set more often due to this very reason.
The article points out that there are significant statistical anomolies in selection of judges which is supposed to be random. The most extreme example was that something like 5 judges at one arbiter tried some very high percentage of the cases, of which 95% were won by the complainants.
In short, the article is not saying that judges are biased, but is pointing out that someone needs to look much more closely at the procedures required of the arbiters, and at the system of allowing the complainant to pick which arbiter they would like to use. I agree with you that there is not enough information to prove any bias, but I would not agree with the statement that the information in the article and study is not meaningful enough to suggest that a review/examination be done by a 3rd party. Some judges _may_ be biased, and this should be looked at. The system itself also may be inherently biased, and this should be examined as well.
troll, but I'll bite...
> Likes American McGee's Alice.
The full quote is "Pico-review: visually brilliant. No plot, ten-second gimmick idea for character. McGee thinks he's going to make a movie out of this? Then again, I went to see Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within."
I'm not sure that indicates like.
> Doesn't get why you wouldn't want to have root access always on.
hmm, I don't think this is what he was saying. Rather, his normal login was in fact 'admin' on OSX, but it still made him type a password (his own password), and the method of figuring out how to type a password was nonintuitive. And he seems to have been fine with using 'su' to install software, except for some reason (hard to tell from what he says) it wasn't immediately clear that this was specifically necessary.
> Doesn't like font handling.
I think what he said is that he didn't like the font selection interface.
Where did you get the model for a pierson's puppeteer? Or did you invent it yourself? In any case that's a pretty original model to have. I have a few on my desk but they're just boring turtles.
> What you are saying is valid, but it misses the point.
Actually, what he says is not even valid. If anyone had bothered to read the link that Cliff helpfully posted, they would see that there are several things bash does not do, and several things that are 'implemented differently'. The following is taken from that page:
Things sh has that bash does not:
uses variable SHACCT to do shell accounting
includes `stop' builtin (bash can use alias stop='kill -s STOP')
`newgrp' builtin
turns on job control if called as `jsh'
$TIMEOUT (like bash $TMOUT)
`^' is a synonym for `|'
new SVR4.2 sh builtins: mldmode, priv
Implementation differences:
redirection to/from compound commands causes sh to create a subshell
bash does not allow unbalanced quotes; sh silently inserts them at EOF
bash does not mess with signal 11
sh sets (euid, egid) to (uid, gid) if -p not supplied and uid 100
bash splits only the results of expansions on IFS, using POSIX.2
field splitting rules; sh splits all words on IFS
sh does not allow MAILCHECK to be unset (?)
sh does not allow traps on SIGALRM or SIGCHLD
bash allows multiple option arguments when invoked (e.g. -x -v);
sh allows only a single option argument (`sh -x -v' attempts
to open a file named `-v', and, on SunOS 4.1.4, dumps core.
On Solaris 2.4 and earlier versions, sh goes into an infinite
loop.)
sh exits a script if any builtin fails; bash exits only if one of
the POSIX.2 `special' builtins fails
well, the com version seems to be owned by sucks500.com, a bulliten board for complaining about things related to corporate america. Wholly appropriate considering that Vivendi probably bought this case. The version is owned by someone upset about a previous dispute that was arbitrated by WIPO, and has a fair amount of information relevent to this case (procedures, etc). Perhaps they would be interested in putting up information on other cases as well.
I have to wonder (conspiracy time) if WIPO wants to set up precedents to have these sites taken down, as well as ICANN itself removing anti-icann sites. (icannsucks.com is also owned by sucks500.com) In fact, there are a lot of people with a lot of money who would be happy if these sorts of sites were given more trouble than private individuals can reasonably deal with. It appears that the group which owns the two .com sites has resited some lawsuits, but how long can they last?
This is a pretty stupid attitude. Instead of looking for reasons why the article is awful, perhaps you could think for a second, and consider the fact that non-native speakers of english quite consistantly mix up tense, in precisely the way that occured in this article. In fact, until seeing your trollish post, I didn't even give any thought that it could be something else. I really doubt it's some sort of conspiracy to defraud the /. public.
That should be 'pidgin', not 'pidgen', I believe.