Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Good for them. (Score 2) 160

by Sun (#46798319) Attached to: Declassified Papers Hint US Uranium May Have Ended Up In Israeli Arms

I've read the Samson option, and don't recall that particular strategy ever coming up there. Would you care to give a page number?

It is true (at least according to said book) that Israel let US spy satellites take photos of missiles ready for launch in 1973, to push the US to lift the weapons embargo on Israel, and again in 1991, to nudge the US to start doing something about Saddam firing ground to ground missiles at civilians. In both cases, however, I don't think anyone thought the missiles were aimed at European cities. It certainly doesn't say so in the book you refer to.

The threat of Israel nuking an Arab nation was enough to do the trick in both cases.

Shachar

Comment: Re:It was a "joke" back then (Score 2) 275

I actually think Jules Verne got a surprising number of things quite accurately. In fact, I seem to recall that his depiction of mid 20th century as less personal and more polluted got him into trouble with his publisher. He did not get all of the inventions 100% accurate, but he did have some pretty impressive hits as far as tone and atmosphere go.

Shachar

Comment: Re:where is the controversy? (Score 1) 641

by Sun (#46715421) Attached to: Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie

What I meant, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't as hard to understand as you make it out to be, is that you do not refrain from raising a true point merely because it seems to weaken your case.

If you do so, your best case is that you will be ignored, and your worst case is that you will be no more right than the people you are arguing with. Constraint yourself to making any and all relevant true points, and then pick up your opinion so that it is still correct. Otherwise, how do you know you are right?

Shachar

The longer you spend arguing with an idiot, the higher the chances he's doing the same thing.

Comment: Re:where is the controversy? (Score 1) 641

by Sun (#46714255) Attached to: Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie

TL;DR.

Seriously, though, I agree with your objectives, but not with your suggested methods.

I think the trend of never conceding anything for the sake of winning the argument is one that hurts our ability to conduct actual conversations. I also think that, when the numbers are tallied, it is a counter-productive one. People will see you as a zealot and disregard you. I refuse to participate in it.

Shachar

Comment: Re:where is the controversy? (Score 1, Insightful) 641

by Sun (#46711113) Attached to: Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie

The bible does not disagree with reality. Certain religious interpretation of religious concepts disagree with reality. It has been over two decades since the Vatican officially apologized for that particular incident, without the Pope renouncing God or the bible.

Rather than claim there is a fundemental conflict between religion and science, it would be more correct to say that there are some assholes who find modern times too confusing to keep up, and thus try to bring everyone back.

At least, that's the case for creationism. In this particular case, it might just be attention whoring.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Typical corporation bullshit (Score 2) 77

by Sun (#46673417) Attached to: British Domain Registrar Offers 'No Transfer Fees,' Charges Transfer Fee

A contract is binding once two things happen:
One party makes an offer
and
The other party accepts it.

There is no requirement for anything to be signed. As long as the registrar can prove that the you accepted their offer (say, by paying), and that you knew what the terms were (say, because they were posted on the web site, and linked to from the page in which you paid), you have a contract.

Now, obviously, in this case the terms were not available to you. Also, the advertisement is part of the registrar's offer, and is, therefor, as binding to it as the terms in the agreement. This entire thing is unethical, and at least seems to be illegal. Still, this is not because there is no contract.

And, again, IANAL.

Shachar

Comment: Re:Typical corporation bullshit (Score 1) 77

by Sun (#46671275) Attached to: British Domain Registrar Offers 'No Transfer Fees,' Charges Transfer Fee

At least here (Israel, but it inherited most of its laws from English law), there are, broadly (IANAL) two kinds of contracts. Time limited contracts, where both sides are bound by it for the duration of the contract, and unlimited contracts. For the second type, each side may terminate the contract at any point, for whatever reason, resulting in no more sanctions than the other side not being bound by the contract any more.

Since a domain registration contract is time bound, automatic exit is not guaranteed by law.

Shachar

P.s.
Obviously, this is not a complete list. For example, there are also sales contracts, which fall under neither category. Like I said, IANAL. For services, however, the above two are what you get.

Sh.

Comment: Re:Linus is being Linus. (Score 3, Interesting) 641

by Sun (#46662881) Attached to: Linus Torvalds Suspends Key Linux Developer

Blowing up at Andrew Tridgdell after he "reverse engineered" (i.e. - sent "help" on a telnet connection) the bitkeeper protocol, causing bitkeeper to withdraw support from the kernel.

Personally, I think bitkeeper were just waiting for an excuse to do that. Their business justification was quickly eroding. The needs of the kernel and the needs of their commercial customers were drifting apart. Supporting the kernel was becoming a liability, rather than an asset, to them. That's also the reason, I think, that they were so quick to withdraw all support after such a minor infraction.

Shachar

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...