 | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Like I said yesterday, I did try that last week: (URL) A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) So, if we had rules how would things get worse? Say we had a rule like: "No name calling permitted" - why would that be bad? Do you feel you have to retain the right to call me a "rhinoceros"{1} from time-to-time? Scott A {1} I rather like the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Why not? This assertion has been made in this and other antitrust trials but has not been justified. I see nothing wrong with it. It benefits everyone to get more efficient products. There are no barriers to entry, so dominance is due to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) What about the integration between OS and applications? Different market segments right? So why should one corporation be able to leverage its products in one segment as a direct consequence of its dominance in another segment? Cf Nestlé. No (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A modest proposal
|
|
(...) I'll give you a different proposal... I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone else does too... and I'll hew to that just as long as everyone else can hold out too. As soon as some regular slips up, (we'll (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) That's certainly the option I'd choose, though from a technical standpoint the most difficult to enforce. Plus the fact that I would tack on the addendum "ban each one from talking about the other"; as I've seen both mention the other in (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | rules
|
|
(...) I don't think formal debating rules will work, here. The set I'm familiar with are too formal (8 minutes for argument, 8 minutes for response, 4 minutes for rebuttal, 4 minutes for rebuttal response) since they're structured for face to face (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) The reason, fairly obviously, is that there are only two real offenders whose behavior requires the formal implementation of formal rules. Larry and you both contribute useful points to some debates, but far more often than not, your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) Perhaps there should be a "poll of polls". :) (...) Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost by doing that? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
|
(...) How about 1a. Ban both of them from replying to each other (at least as a trial measure)? Or, at least, a moratorium on the codependent "he's a liar, he's a squirmer" drivel... --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
|
(...) I am a libertarian. I can prove it: (URL) A FUT lugnet.off-topic.fun (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) To answer this question you first have to answer two related and subordinate questions: Is the function that this facility carries out itself constitutional? If not, then requiring ID or not is a moot question since the facility SHOULD be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Did you want me to dig up a price sheet for OS/370 circa 1976? It wasn't free. It cost more than you or I make. UNIX System V wasn't free. BSD was never free (California taxpayers and DARPA paid for it) Or did you mean PC operating systems? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Is it, therefore, unconstitutional that the government require ID checks prior to allowing admission into CDC labs, for instance? These are government property, ie: public property, are they not? Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) She has written a Second piece for the Guardian. Again the text is strongly worded, but well written. Before anyone reads it, what do these nations have in common: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69), Indonesia (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Thank you. (...) There is no market incentive to do so, though, given the regulatory shield. (...) Intent notwithstanding, this nevertheless tends to be the outcome. (...) You're starting in the middle. The company would never be allowed (by (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) Right to privacy. Right against unreasonable search and seizure.... Absent of being suspected of a specific crime there is no constitutional requirement to say who in particular you are if you are in a public place. Certainly private property (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
|
(...) Which every single piece of legislation I've ever seen (except for legislation REPEALING gun control law) does. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Horst, in future please don't trim the "who wrote what" lines away... if you cite some prose at 4 or 5 or 6 nest levels deep it's important to know who said what else you run the risk of severe misquoting. So the referenced post should have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom vs. Wellfare
|
|
(...) And you would hold that even if what they take away from you is pure luxury, whereas they need it to survive? Well, a humanistic attitude IMO goes a bit more towards enabling a decent life for everybody. It also does not contain a right to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
