Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
then what good is it?
It's obviously still the best product in the world. Usually that's good enough for me.
Occam's Razor: "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Karl Menger's Law Against Miserliness (anti-razor): "Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy."
A simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.
Hanlon's Bane: "To make full use of people who have submitted to Hanlon's Razor, never admit to malice which can be explained as stupidity."
one falsehood in your post is enough to make the entire thing hogwash
Though I see this tried often, it just isn't true. Regardless of the merit of the specific post in question, you can't invalidate a post of any scope by invalidating a marginal point.
Easy workaround: Give them non-tradable stock?
That's why it's good that people from "outside" (well, a shareholding company) sued. If only it wasn't such an idiotic case. I'm not saying Hurd was doing everything right, but there are far more people out there who did really, really bad things, and no one sued then.
Why doesn't this whole suing people who fucked over the shareholders, fucked over the company itself, fucked over customers, government, environment, basically fucked over everyone except their close circle of "friends", and then the company and shareholders again via severance package-- why doesn't it happen much more often, as in every single time it's clear they did something against the law and morality, and still walk away with remuneration and the next executive job already in their pocket?
I would consider it a courtesy if Canonical actually asked me.
I beg your pardon? Software that phones home without telling you, even if it's free, has been the source of all kinds of deserved geek rage over the decades. How is this suddenly different?
Why don't you take the conditional to be a form of emphasis as I intended it ("even if he was stupid and careless" in the sense of "it doesn't matter that he was stupid and careless")?
If you did that, maybe you'd realize this isn't "much ado about nothing" as whether he changed his password is totally irrelevant to those questions and besides the point.