No such thing. As the phrase goes, Yale men, Princeton boys, and Harvard scholars.

Did you read the rest of my post (the part that you didn't quote) where I addressed the actions that they should take, instead of just turning off autoreply?

Your tone seems to be that of disagreement, but your words recapitulate what I already said.

Regardless of the information density of his post, I disagree with his assertion that Hotmail should flip the 'autoreply' bit on these accounts. I do not think Hotmail wants to get involved in guessing whether or not someone intended to set any particular auto-reply message: "Surely, Mr. Jones, you didn't intend to drop an F-bomb in your auto-reply."

More to the point, these are hacked accounts. If you were going to take any action, *disabling* (even temporarily) the accounts and flagging them for forensic follow-up would strike me as more appropriate.

Your point is supported by the fact that the Christmas terrorist was the son of a banker, and well-educated. This is not someone who spent a life in poverty.

This is the correct response. Facebook use (and actively develop) APC, an opcode cache. In other words, they cache the compiled binaries created by PHP. So, the environmental impact of running PHP as opposed to something compiled is virtually 0, because nearly all calls are made to pre-compiled PHP opcode.

Someone sufficiently motivated can fight through the effects of OC, particularly if they have experienced it before and know how it affects them. Second, some people have no appreciable reaction to it.

I know I do - I've taken blasts to the face multiple times, and I can still draw and deliver reasonably accurate fire afterwards. It hurts like hell, but if you have the willpower, its completely doable. There is a difference between pain and impairment. The worst impairment is loss of visual acuity.

That sounds fine at first glance, but remember that Apple is the one who eagerly states they are ready to fight for their patents.

Si modifying a bit your scenario, the method of turning lead into gold is actually quite straightforward and obvious, with Nokia also arriving at it. But then the small company starts to bark; this Nokia sees as an entity not willing to "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" relations (remember any relations involves two entities, works both ways...)

I completely agree, and I think that what you're getting at is the "art" of science. Knowing how to develop good experimental procedures, deciding when the evidence is enough to convince you of X, etc. It's a deep and fascinating topic, and I am grateful that you started the discussion.

They should be met by compassionate denial - a non-condescending denial cushioned with the true caveat that what is known now is not the limit of what will be known in the future and we may, perhaps, be wrong.

There are real claims that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Because these people sincerely believe this, do you also believe that this occurred?

Real complaints do not imply that *what* they are complaining about is real.

(Assuming this is a sincere question; otherwise, I missed the joke.)

Squamous cell esophageal cancer is associated with the consumption of hot beverages. The evidence strongly suggests that the consumption of hot beverages is a causal factor in the development of squamous cell esophageal cancer. (Note that this is not adenocarcinoma, which is more prevalent in the US.) Nevertheless, taken to its extreme, the mantra "correlation is not causation" would cause one to refuse to acknowledge hot water as being causal for squamous esophageal cancer and, instead, continue seeking alternate explanations. Although I cannot read his mind, I am inferring that PylonHead is arguing for a balance between "correlation is not causation" and "after enough evidence and careful study, this correlation is actually due to causation."

In my opinion, the executive summary is that Craig Newmark values his notion of small, local communities more highly than he values money. I mean it in as cool and non-bleeding-heart a manner as possible.

He has the ability to direct the flow of visitors to his site to make money, or he has the ability to encourage what he sees as small, local communities basically unconnected to one another. He uses his site for the latter, and consequently forgoes substantial amounts of income. Sites that aggregate content or otherwise amalgamate the disconnected communities run afoul of his personal and, perhaps, business preferences.

Hate speech occupies the middle ground in terms of protection, it seems.

This just felt like one of those cracked.com articles all over digg, instead of a slashdot-worthy article. Sorry.

Or grab a torrent! http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/