Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Dave Searles on 11 Oct 2009 12:40 Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2009-10-10 21:05:32 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: >> On 2009-10-11, Raffael Cavallaro >> <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: >>> On 2009-10-10 11:50:36 -0400, Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> said: >>> >>>> I never read this garbage. The concept of a license is completely >>>> meaningless to me. >>> >>> But it doesn't matter what you consider meaningless because you don't >>> have the armed force of the state backing up your opinion. >> >> Right. But armed force can back *any* opinion whatsoever, right? > > But not legitimately. When it backs an opionion at odds with what the > majority wishes it is illegitimate. When it backs an opinion that > infringes the basic human rights of the minority it it illegitimate. > [rest deleted unread] The same applies to the U.S. government; it's so clearly a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business rather than representative of the people that your own argument against the legitimacy of the Iranian one applies equally to the U.S. one. And you won't find a more corporation-friendly piece of legislation in the US than the copyright act, except maybe for patent law. Even the fair use exemptions are carveouts for another industry: newspapers. Even the safe harbors in the DMCA are carveouts for yet another: ISPs and e-commerce companies like Google.
From: Evan I on 11 Oct 2009 13:58 Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> writes: > [rabid rant and defaming of character deleted] NO U
From: Nick Keighley on 11 Oct 2009 16:31 On 9 Oct, 19:34, Dave Searles <sear...(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > On 30 Sep, 08:29, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> The whole thread reminds me of a civil law class that I have taken > >> (IANAL, but it seemed -- and turned out to be -- interesting). It was > >> a course for non-law students, most had a mathematics/science > >> background. _All_ questions from the audience were like this, > >> students thinking that laws are like an algorithm that they can hack. > >> The professor was very understanding and actually stopped to explain > >> that legal systems don't work that way -- common sense is present in > >> both Common Law and continental European systems, and you can't expect > >> to get away with technical tricks like that. > > > in my country it used to illegal to trade on a sunday except for > > certain exceptions. A man who lived in my town wanted to sell > > furniture on a sunday but this was not one of the allowed exceptions. > > > Groceries were exempt. > > So he sold 200 ¤cy_unit carrots and gave away arm chairs. > > When it got to court the judge ruled this was not a genuine grocery > > sale but merely a device for circumventing the law. > > I don't know which is more ridiculous: the law in question, the method > of circumvention, or the judge actually upholding the obviously-bogus law.. > > In particular, where is the harm in selling furniture on a Sunday? Point > me to the victim, please. No victim, no crime. laws aren't written by computer programmers (thank goodness!). Oh,and the same guy then found that since he was trading in a National Park that souveniers were *also* exempt. So he tried selling souvenier arm chairs. When it got to court...
From: Don Geddis on 11 Oct 2009 16:30 Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote on Sun, 11 Oct 2009: > Ron Garret wrote: >> [says I'm a liar] > No, you are. > This is getting very tiresome. If you have run out of rational arguments and > all you have left are ad hominems in your ammo, maybe it's time you quit? How very odd, Dave. You take non-ad hominem text that someone posts, quote it and then "summarize" it with a new ad hominem summary, and then complain about the ad hominem text? That you generated yourself? Surely, if it bothers you, the simplest thing would be to simply stop yourself from generating the text that bothers you, wouldn't it? Or perhaps there's not a single entity in that body called "Dave". I'm reminded of Pink Floyd, "There's someone in my head, but it's not me." Is it possible that you're arguing with yourself, and the rest of us here are mere observers to the spectacle? -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don(a)geddis.org Never hunt rabbit with dead dog. -- Charlie Chan
From: Espen Vestre on 11 Oct 2009 17:16
Don Geddis <don(a)geddis.org> writes: > Or perhaps there's not a single entity in that body called "Dave". You're thinking of "Series Expansion" and "Seamus Mc Rae" now? -- (espen) |