"killfile"?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DrDubious Jun 23, 2005 2:42 PM EDT |
Is he perhaps referring to the file one creates that lists people whose messages are not to be downloaded from usenet, commonly known as a killfile[1]? "File of people to be killed?" Where is this guy FROM? I wonder if he sued Microsoft over his copy of MS-DOS "Saying he was Bad and an Invalid".... [1] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/K/kill-file.html |
| sbergman27 Jun 23, 2005 3:01 PM EDT |
Read the whole filing. It's an absolute hoot. Either that, or it's very sad. It depends on your point of view. This is not the filing of someone who is happy and well. |
| dave Jun 24, 2005 5:58 AM EDT |
The humour continues to escalate as you reach the bottom. My favorite part is that he referred to slashdot as "far-right wing"! Ha! Now I know this guy is clueless. dave |
| PaulFerris Jun 24, 2005 8:16 AM EDT |
dave: man, did he really? I'll have to read this, my interest is piqued ... |
| PaulFerris Jun 24, 2005 8:37 AM EDT |
Yep, here we are, connecting Terrorism and Linux -- that's what this lawsuit connects, if you read it. Well, can't say that I didn't see that coming -- just use the word Terrorism and anything you don't like, and you can make a case for anything. I remember reading local newspaper stories right after 911 where a local (Massilon Ohio) hack football coach compared somebody critisizing him -- "It's just like 911 bla bla bla" he said. No, the Linux community and terrorism have nothing in common. A bad football game and the flying of planes into tall buildings in NY and the Pentagon don't either. But the way these things are being thrown together smacks of the way the Jews were made responsible for everything that was wrong with the Third Reich -- that's where this whole thing is going. No, folks, I don't think this lawsuit is a joke -- I think it's a political statement meant to be referenced in some piece of congressional legislation. Who cares if this guy is a nut-case or not -- this is a statement that's now part of a public record. It's like those things you used to see "I saw it on TV, it must be true." Think of your dimwitted congressional types -- not the ones that have the lights on -- the lackeys that are running about passing the likes of the DMCA and more. No, I'm not laughing, not anymore. --FeriCyde |
| SFN Jun 24, 2005 9:20 AM EDT |
"Think of your dimwitted congressional types -- not the ones that have the lights on -- the lackeys that are running about passing the likes of the DMCA and more." Argh! Sore spot! But I do have an example that illustrates this point rather nicely. A couple of months ago, I sent an email to my local congressman regarding the Trademark Dilution Revision Act. http://trademark.blog.us/blog/2005/03/14.html#a1628 I didn't hear from him for a couple of weeks so I figured my email got "filed". Then I got this. Quoting: Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 683, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. My initial impression was that he was just siding with business over individuals - sad and wrong but not unusual in politics. After a few re-reads, I started to think that maybe it's not that at all. It appears that he doesn't understand how this bill could affect citizens. If that is the case, I think it's safe to logically assume that he doesn't understand the basics of legal language. I'm not an attorney but having gotten screwed over a few times in my life (like most of us have), I can see ways in which one can used well-intentioned but poorly-written laws (not to mention well-written and poorly-intentioned ones) to their advantage and the disadvantage of others. So I email him back and try to explain to him in a decidedly rational fashion that the bill is deliberately vague, citing examples from the bill and using those examples to detail scenarios under which the bill could be used to squash the freedoms of individuals for the benefit of large companies. I'm sorry to say that my Congressman appears to have gone missing and the TDRA appears to be headed towards success. Getting back to the point now..... Remember the McDonald's hot coffee suit? The jury in that case awarded close to $3M to a woman for burning herself with hot coffee. Now let's say that Merkey's suit goes to court and the jury (remember, he is demanding a jury for this one) finds in his favor. Suddenly, precedence is set. From there it's just a few hops, skips and jumps to cranking down on our rights to use our computers in the manners we see fit. Now, WILL this happen? Probably not but only because some people refuse to laugh the matter off as the machinations of a nutcase. If we were to all say that this will never go anywhere because Merkey's cracked, we'd all be in for some freakishly rough times ahead. |
| tuxchick Jun 24, 2005 11:55 AM EDT |
Remember the McDonald's hot coffee suit? The jury in that case awarded close to $3M to a woman for burning herself with hot coffee. Just an aside here- that case is often cited as an example of a legal system gone mad. However if you read the facts of the case you learn that's not so. Here's the Mythbusters version: http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.h... Excerpt: "Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement." It doesn't mention it on the Mythbusters page, I read elsewhere that McDonald's kept the coffee that hot to slow people down so there would be fewer refills. I had a fight with Starbuck's over their too-hot coffee. When the server handed me the cup, the lid came off and a few drops - just a few little drops - splashed on my fingers, raising blisters. They offered me a bit of cash to shush and go away. I told them to stuff it unless part of the deal was lowering the temperature of the coffee. I don't know if they ever did, because there were some other folks who were trying to get a class-action suit going, so I let them have the hassle. Moral: don't believe popular media myths |
| SFN Jun 24, 2005 12:55 PM EDT |
Actually, I read that exact page as I was writing this. I wanted to verify that the McDonald's case involved a jury. I have to say, I'm not swayed. Yes, the coffee was hot. Unnecessarily hot, even. Sure, other people had told McDonald's their coffee was too hot. When your mother tells you the soup is hot and you sip it anyway and you burn yourself - badly even - is it your mom's fault? Is it her fault if your dad has been telling her for years, "woman, you always make the soup too hot!" Now if guy in the paper hat handed you what was supposed to be a cup of coffee but was actually a cup of battery acid, then you have a legitimate gripe. |
| number6x Jun 25, 2005 4:45 AM EDT |
The funny thing about the McDonald's case was that the Judge felt McDonald's was only partly responsible, so he wanted to set a small fine. He charged them one penny per cup of coffee sold at each McDonald's owned by McDonald's corporation for the period of one day. That way, to pay the fine, McDonald's would only have to raise the price of coffee by one cent for the period of one day. (o.k., a little longer to cover all the costs) This amount happened to work out to the biggest personal injury settlement ever in the history of the US. However, The judge's intention was for the fine to be modest. The fine was greatly reduced on appeal as well. |
| dinotrac Jun 25, 2005 8:37 AM EDT |
Number6x: The issue is reasonable expectation and duty of care. There is a difference between hot and dangerously hot. Coffee that is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns is dangerously hot -- certainly much to hot to drink. I think there's no serious complaint if the coffee spills, you shout "Ow" and you get mildly burned. If you get 3rd degree burns and need hospital care, something's amiss. What if we put it this way: Every time you gas your car, you are filling a tank with a highly volatile substance prone to explode if ignited in a closed space. Everybody can be expected to know that. Does that mean the car companies don't need to be careful about venting of fumes, location of gas tanks, etc? After all, you buy the car knowing that it will be a rolling explosive. |
| sbergman27 Jun 25, 2005 11:51 AM EDT |
One other point. Serving a dangerously hot (read, near boiling) liquid in the dining room is one thing. Handing it out a drive through window across to people in a car, hardly the most controlled dining environment, is another. Let he who has never sloshed coffee on himself while in a car cast the first cup. |
| PaulFerris Jun 25, 2005 5:58 PM EDT |
Quoting:Does that mean the car companies don't need to be careful about venting of fumes, location of gas tanks, etc? After all, you buy the car knowing that it will be a rolling explosive. Always knew you were a liberal. Next thing you'll be providing quotes for Al Jezeera... [FeriCyde ducks] |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!