I tell you, it's enough to turn anyone into a grouch.

The attack was led by Rear Admiral Cockburn. And you had to flee because of rain. Let's just say the whole thing was less than fabulous for your side.

Surely the crack editors here at Slashdot would ferret a fraud out in less than a heartbeat...

I only opened this article to read the ensuing Venture Bros. jokes, and no one managed to post any with +3 or better moderation. Reanimated corpse slugs could have done better. Slashdot, you've failed me for the... well, neither first nor last time... but you've still failed me.

Or just a good UI design. When you have to have 3 knobs for the heating system, 8 buttons & 3 knobs for the radio, 4 buttons for your GPS, etc. all in a fairly small space (center console) then, sure, it makes sense to provide tactile feedback.

On the other hand, if you can give the user 3-4 simple, intuitive buttons to select the option they want in 2 clicks, and then reduce most functions to 2 giant "UP" and "DOWN" buttons...

Could someone please tell me the title of the movie he's referencing so I could torrent it?

I thought civil matters required something like a 9-3 majority...

Here it is:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they got this judgment right. Relevant Massachusetts law says libel is untruthful or malicious statements against a person's character. Staples made statements that, while truthful, may well have been malicious due to the scope and context of their presentation.

Now a judge or jury will hear arguments from both sides. Previously, a judge had simply heard Staples say (paraphrasing) "nothing in this widely distributed e-mail that defamed the plaintiff was factually untrue, so these charges must be dismissed." This disregarded the fact that the e-mail describing Noonan's firing for violation of company policies was itself a violation of company policy, that the subtext of the message implied he had willfully violated company policy for his own profit when he maintains the violations were done in a combination of good faith and company-wide SOP that defied the letter of the written and largely un-enforced official policy, and that the context and timing of the firing as well as the inclusion of his name in the e-mail might lead those who read it to believe that Staples felt he had broken the law.

Seems that both parties acted immorally. Noonan simply wants his day in court to prove that Staples also acted illegally. His case DOES deserve to be heard, and Massachusetts probably DOES need to reexamine this law.

There are collapsing paradox waves at work here.

What if someone else opposed to hypocrisy is found to be a hypocrite?

Would you continue to advance your anti-hypocritical agenda, or abandon it on principle?

Great, now I've even confused myself.

Wait... what year is it?

Crap, I think I overslept for my high school class.