Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 424

by alexo (#47471465) Attached to: French Blogger Fined For Negative Restaurant Review

Justice cannot exist the law is so convoluted that a if a third party professional is required to help you understand it. Then it just becomes a competition to find out which professional is most cunning, rather than who is legally in the right.

If the judge is prejudiced against you for choosing not to use a lawyer, it's just a protection racket where everyone involved in law is scratching each others' backs.

Please mod parent up.

Comment: Re: Livin' in the USA (Score 1) 424

by alexo (#47468777) Attached to: French Blogger Fined For Negative Restaurant Review

isn't that exactly what happens here? the blogger had no lawyer and lost.

And that's why people hate lawyers.
They perpetuate a system that requires you to purchase justice. The more you pay, the more you get.
The actual facts and circumstances do not matter.

''Henry VI,'' Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73

Comment: Re:interesting times... (Score 1) 221

by alexo (#47379675) Attached to: IeSF Wants International Game Tournaments Segregated By Sex [Updated]

he says "but in reality it just hasn't happened. so we end up with segregated competitions"

My point is why is it a foregone conclusion that we end up with segregated competitions. Why can't we have integrated competitions and the woman just lose because they can't compete.

For the same reason we have weight categories in weightlifting and combat sports, the paralympics, etc.

When you were in grade school, did the 1st-graders compete against the 6th-graders?

Comment: Re:In violation of many Data Treaties (Score 1) 170

by alexo (#47378185) Attached to: Privacy Oversight Board Gives NSA Surveillance a Pass

The Canadian government has a loophole, the notwithstanding clause, to allow them to violate your constitutional rights.

Yes, they do.

However, seven of the ten provinces and two of the three territories have never used the power of override; nor has the federal parliament.
And while there have been a small number of abortive attempts to use it, all of them have either failed to materialize, were revoked, or proven to be unnecessary (as the respective laws were in line with the charter).

On the other hand, the USofA government lacks such a loophole yet continually violates the constitutional rights of the populace, with full complicity of the judiciary.

Which one do you prefer?

Comment: Re:Disclaimer? (Score 1) 346

by alexo (#47377261) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails

But if the email goes to someone who isn't a selfish, hostile asshat like you are, they will do as asked (emphasis mine) and delete the email. Don't assume that everyone is like you.

Let me answer for the OP.

When I get an email that was obviously not meant to be sent to me, and did not include any disclaimers, I will usually send a reply point out the mistake. If I'm in a good mood and have some free time, I could even try to deduce what the intended address should have been and include it in my reply.

If that email included a disclaimer, POLITELY PHRASED as a REQUEST (featuring words like "please" and "thank you"), I will usually do my best to comply because, hey, I'm a generally nice guy.

If, on the other hand, the disclaimer used DEMANDING or THREATENING language, or trying to assert non-existing legal rights, fuck them. Being a "hostile asshat" to bullies is a virtue.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis