Posts by CRConrad 288 posts • joined 12 Jun 2012
Right there in the question / answer / comment you're replying to, without any need to go to some profile page to investigate whether the user has any idiosyncratic wishes for how they wish to be addressed. (Quite possibly the site will even paste the user name into your reply for you, as part of a quote of what you're replying to if nothing else.)
The difference between "thee" and "thou" has fuck-all to do with respect, and if that dialectal adage is something older people actually believe around where you come from, they just don't get how English works (i.e. used to work).
"Thou" corresponds to "he"; "thee" to "him": He is an asshole, I'll punch him in the nose = Thou art an arse-hole, I shall thwack thee on the snout.
> I just pointed out that just because a day is arbitrarily important to some people doesn't make it important to everybody. Get over yourselves.
Which was a fucking unnecessary statement to begin with, because NOBODY EVER SAID it was supposed to be "important to everybody".
1) "Unlike"? The women's stories sound perfectly plausible. How do you know different?
2) "who they partner with to frame him"? He put himself in the picture with that guy, didn't he; arms around shoulders and everything?
3) But, hey, maybe he felt he had a lot in common with a guy who, according to your source, "has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse"...
(Bonus: Auf Englisch schreibt sich das Tier "weasel". HTH!)
...though, isn't it? And it's from a case that he wouldn't even be in if he hadn't repeatedly lost the ones arising from his previous bail skips and other bullshit.
So yeah, he lost. Repeatedly. Only now he's won a single, tiny, and possibly only temporary victory. Before that (and possibly again in the future), he lost. Repeatedly.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Where do you get this shit from?
One of them was a lefty political activist who hosted Assange in her home, and the other IIRC a friend or acquaintance of hers. Or perhaps another lefty political activist, from another town? Memory gets blurry... Anyway, one of them is now a minister or vicar or however Swedish prelates translate into English, and the other AFAIK still in politics. Possibly in the Riksdag (=Parliament), otherwise perhaps local city council or something; probably still for the Social Democrats.
One of them testified she woke up from him penetrating her. She could hardly have given consent in her sleep, could she? And apparently he has the same no-condom fixation as so many Anglophones, so of course he wasn't using one. She definitely hadn't consented to _that,_ not even the evening before when she had consented to sex (_then,_ not prospectively for the day after).
That anonymous cowards need to make up shit about "prostitutes" says pretty much all that needs to be said about how strong a case he had against the rape / sexual assault charges.
"Androgynous Cupboard" spouted:
I'm familiar with the MS playbook, but they're no longer the all-conquering behemoth they were - there's no M in FAANG.
Yes, exactly:
* You can't be conquering after you've already conquered everything.
* The smartest thing a huge predator can do is to keep a low profile; then the more gullible of the prey won't realise what a threat one is.
HTH, kiddo. Maybe still try a few more rodeos, mmkay?
Ah, so three eighths -- 37.5% -- of people shot by Yank police were black, just like 37.5% of the USian population in general is black? All fine and dandy, then, no over-representation at all... Except that far fewer than 37.5% of Yanks are black, so they do disproportionally often get killed by Yank cops.
People who downplay shit like this are the ones doing most of the "dividing our societies". People like, you know: You.
rototype writes:
I wouldn't have minded if the little dears had reported it straight away (ie whilst it was still connected to the disk) [ . . . ] As I mentioned I could get these out easily**, but I was told under no circumstances to do so until the culprit had been identified, and heir parents billedSo guess why they ripped them out in stead of calling you.
...IFF they'd followed the same procedure as in "Red Team" / "White-Hat Hacker" penetration testing: Cleared it with someone high up in the command chain (Greg K-H, or Linus?) beforehand. Just like at any company that conducts such a test the head of security (or if they are also being tested, the CTO / CEO or some such) is in the loop.
Then that person could have quietly followed the patches' path through the review process (they should of course be alerted to the specific intentionally-bugged ones through private communication) and stop them on some pretense -- perhaps just actually "finding" the bug themselves -- if they got too far. (And the "reveal" after the experiment was over would most probably have been received differently by the maintainers if it then came from that person.)
Without that, though, I can't see how it's legitimate.
– Now pay us!
– Naah, don't wanna. Betcha it doesn't even meet the specs.
– Show us where it fails the specs, or we'll sue you and then you'll have to pay us anyway, because you won't be able to show the court where it fails the specs... Because you didn't give us any specs.
From the article:
"The program's primary reliance on the contractor's monthly reports, often based on older data, has hindered program officials' timely decision making," said the GAOSo not actually agile at all, then.
Because if it were, the JPO would have had its people at the software contractor, participating in the work every day, in stead of relying on any damn monthly reports.
[Code contributed under GPL:] Qt continues to honor those licenses. Their account requirement is only for the binaries. You can still download and build the source yourself just as you've always been able to.Hm. If you can do that, then why couldn't you distribute the binaries you thus built? The GPL is usually perceived to only make distribution of source code, specifically, mandatory, but that's just because that's the form that is usually not available with the binaries.
But I think it works both ways: AFAICR the license actually covers "all forms of expression of the program", or some such, which AFAICS includes binary. That would make the account requirement a GPL violation, if the binaries you're distributing are ones you compile yourself from the freely available source code.
So why is it Apple being punished for following the agreement with the lawmaker when its the lawmaker who broke the rules. My only issue with this is how Apple must pay for Ireland's actions.It's Ireland that is being asked to rectify its transgression (and "punished" by being shown not to be able to make such anti competitive sweetheart deals in the future). Apple is not being" punished", just asked to pay the same taxes as any other corporation (that got the "ordinary" sweetheart deal from Ireland)
Oh jeez are you one of those who thought the EU stopped the next world war or something? Sorry if this is a shock to you but the EU isnt that old.You mean the world war that might have started, but didn't, thanks to the existence of rhe EU? Yeah, there were two of those in the 1970s, three in the eighties, and fourteen since then.
That is: You can't prove a hypothetical, doofus! The EU does and did exist, and there have been no world wars. Without the EU, there might have been -- you have no proof there wouldn't.
In that case, why should Ireland get to favourise telephone makers over other companies? Apple and many (most?) other phone makers also make computers; some of them make TVs and other consumer electronics. So Ireland would have to give all those the same rates. Some of those also make .... And so on, and on. In other words: All corporations work in the same economy, competing for the same money, so they're all connected; they all compete against each other. In the end, they'd either have to give all corps Apple's rates — or collect the same taxes from them as from everyone else.
Kind of the same with countries: They compete against each other for, in this instance, corporate regional headquarters; using things like favourable corporate tax rates. Thing is, though, if you're in a mutual support and cooperation club — like the EU — competing against your fellow members with outrageously low rates like this is an arsehole move. Ireland and all Irish should be ashamed of themselves. And the EU obviously should regulate tax rates.
While it's true that something was updated pretty recently, I'm not sure that's all there's to it. FWIW, I think I saw someone in a discussion thread — not here, I think; probably on HN — post a link to archive.org that showed he originally recanted on that in 2006 or thereabouts.
I've seen this claim repeatedly, both now and much more often back when he was first ousted. Thing is, though, that's exactly the form I've seen it in: Asking an unspecified number of unspecified women for some unspecified definition of "continually". No "Jane Doe says 'He asked me out seven / two / ninety-four[1] more times after I'd declined', and so do Jill Doe and Janet Doe". Nor even "a CS101 student in 1986" or "an organiser of Emacsfest 1994"in stead of names — NO actual first-hand claims to repeatedly asking after being turned down. I only saw ONE mention of him actually asking and being denied (attributed to something like "a CS305 student / undergraduate in 1989", IIRC); but as I understood that, it was just the once, no repeats.
(1: And which of those are continuous harassment? 94, sure, but two? Maybe she just had some other engagement the first time, so asking again, maybe even twice, is okay?)
So: Did YOU get any actual examples of this claimed "continual harassment", or did you see it in the same vaguely general format that is all I've seen? Because then, AFAICS, you're just repeating totally unsubstantiated hearsay — which, for all we know, could be malicious slander.
If this is true( sorry, not trying to call you a liar; but you are just a bloke saying something on the Internet, right?), it's the first concrete example of him behaving like an asshole. Everyone else I've seen saying that has only claimed "they know" he is. So, sure, incriminating... (Though I reserve the right to not yet call it conclusive.)
It's a bit like the wide-spread "constantly harassing women for sex" thing that you also mention: Here, you don't give any concrete example. Neither has anyone else in this most recent spate of condemnations. And no, this isn't (I hope, and think) a case of "If you'd read up on it, you'd know". I did follow all the links and read all the blog posts and whatnot, back when this first erupted in 2019. And nowhere did anyone mention what, exactly, this "constant harassment" was supposed to have consisted of — except ONE young (at the time) woman, whom he apparently asked out on a date sometime in the late 80s, early 90s (sorry, I forget; it's been over a year). From all I could gather, it went like this: He asked. She said no. And that was it. This gives rise to two questions: A) How the fuck is that "harassment"?!?, and B) Is this also what you were talking about? Because if it is (B, that is), then sorry, but no: AFAICS that's far from enough to make someone an un-person over.
Yet, Stallman decided to so-called "defend" Minsky by proposing that if he had slept with the girl, he would have been justified - implicitly asserting that is what happened.Nope. You're not reading his pedantic comment pedantically enough.
What he said was that if Minsky had slept with the girl, he might have been "justified" (namely if he didn't realise she was being coerced into it).
Which AFAICS is perfectly correct. (NB: Just "justified", not sensible or tasteful. I don't think RMS said anything either way on that; that was just not what his pedantic comment was being pedantic about.) Anyway, an "if" statement doesn't logically say anything about whether the antecedent for the conditional is true or not, so the overly-literal (possibly autistically)-logical RMS in all probability didn't mean to imply anything of the kind.
[The term "GNU/Linux"] ... implies that GNU code is required for a Linux system that respects user freedoms. This is not true. Almost all the most popular and required GNU programs have non-GNU alternatives. There are alternatives for libc, GCC, the core utils, and quite a few other things.Sure, there are alternatives -- but that only supports half your statement.
To support it fully, you'd have to show that these alternatives support user freedoms. A much harder nut to crack.
The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021
