Software Needs Philosophers

[Mumia W.]

Thanks to the great many people who has written to my ISP in support of
me. I'm sorry to say, it looks like they will be killing my account
anyhow. [...]

I'm sorry to see you go for now Xah, but I'll be doubly happy to see
your return

Dreamhost isn't the only hosting company. There are smarter hosting
companies that are able to see harassment for what it is.

Thank you and bye for a couple of weeks

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Thanks to the great many people who has written to my ISP in support of [...]

As to dreamhost my webhosting company canceling my account, i will try
to reason with them, and see what is the final outcome. They have the
legal right to kick me because in the contract that allowed them to do
so with 30 days advanced noticed and without cause. However, it is my
interest and my right, if they actually do kick me in the end, i'll try
to contact Electronic Frontier Foundation and Better Business bureau
for whatever advice or action i can solicit. Meanwhile, if you do know
a web hosting company that can take some 80 G of bandwidth/month for
less than $25 a month, please let me know! (i do hope if someone here
runs a hosting business and can host my site. I will certainly return
the favor.) [...]

Xah Lee wrote: [...]

I wrote some full detail here:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html

If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust,
please write to my web hosting provider (e-mail address removed)

Your help is appreciated. Thank you.

HOST - dreamhost.com / Liberality (Hosting, Basic Requirement)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/25618913752c457a

..

 

[=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Dra=BEen_Gemi=E6?=]

80 Gb/month ? He intends to write a lot of spam.....

DG

 

[Stormcoder]

He means Lisp macros. Lisp macros are nothing like the crippled C++
macros that people tend to think of.

 

[zzbunker]

Well, Software is the only industry that exists in a vaccum,
so it not only doesn't need philosophers, all it needs
is George Bush and tards Inc.

 

[zzbunker]

On the contrary, they will make a break-through possible. S/w patents
are not different from any other patents, and intellectual property is
not different from any other property; they all are designed to allow
one group of people to appropriate value created by other group of
people, and that's how they are perfect incentive. Once before the
stone age men have lived in a society without property, and we know
what it was worth of.

It is my personal belief that intellectual property, or - if you prefer
- protected knowledge will soon grow faster then public knowledge,
BECAUSE corpos will realize (and many already do) its potential to
secure their business. Then, the long-awaited boost in AI research will
be finally possible, though not in "public domain" knowledge.

It is obviously wiill, since it did that 2000 years ago, with
primeval mathema-retards like Euclid.

 

[Mallor]

Liar. You were never sorry when you troubled us with your posting
excrements in the past, you are not sorry now.

Liar. You are a net abuser, a kook and a troll. It has nothing to do
with your writings and style. It has everything to do with your
vialoation of netiquette, with you x-posting of off-topic messages,
with your trolling and kookery.

Liear. John asked people do do their duty as net citizens and to report
a serial net abuser.

Liar. Your whole usenet "career" is build around the posting of
off-topic messages.

Liar. You were getting out of hand for some time now.

People know very well about you, Xah Lee, the serial newsgroup abuser,
troll, liar, and kook.

More lies.

I appreciate the courage of John and friends to stand up against
someone who is out of control. You are not even affraid off accusing
John of a crime (harrasment) and starting a smear campaing on your web
site. You have sunken so low that you are fast approaching the earth's
metal core.

I know I'm coming late to the barbeque. In passing, I ask: do you have
an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
crimes? Because libel is a crime. It all depends on whether what you
state about Xah is provably true or not. I haven't followed his posts,
but when I hear someone chanting "abuser, troll, liar, kook!" I really
wonder about the accuser. Anyways, I suppose it's all "sport" until
one of you gets the lawyers involved.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every

 

[Erik Max Francis]

I know I'm coming late to the barbeque. In passing, I ask: do you have
an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
crimes? Because libel is a crime.

No, it is a tort.

 

[Philippa Cowderoy]

No, it is a tort.

Rather a lot depends on which legal system you're in, for a start.
Including the standards of proof and who the onus is on.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Rather a lot depends on which legal system you're in, for a start.
Including the standards of proof and who the onus is on.

Oh, no doubt. But I don't think there's any modern legal system in
which it's a crime, rather than a tort. Is there?

Anyway, it's certainly a tort in all relevant jurisdictions here.

 

[Philippa Cowderoy]

Oh, no doubt. But I don't think there's any modern legal system in which it's
a crime, rather than a tort. Is there?

I'm not aware of a current legal system where it's the case, but I don't
know the details of many of them.

 

[Mike Schilling]

I know I'm coming late to the barbeque. In passing, I ask: do you have
an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
crimes? Because libel is a crime. It all depends on whether what you
state about Xah is provably true or not.

I'm not aware of any definition of libel that includes "making statements
that are not provably true".

 

[Philippa Cowderoy]

I'm not aware of any definition of libel that includes "making statements
that are not provably true".

I believe UK law uses one that's close to it.

 

[Jürgen Exner]

I know I'm coming late to the barbeque.

That's why you are missing the history

In passing, I ask: do you
have an objective, impartial perspective on the subject of committing
crimes? Because libel is a crime. It all depends on whether what you
state about Xah is provably true or not. I haven't followed his
posts,

Had you done so, then you wouldn't ask this question.

jue

 

[Mike Schilling]

I believe UK law uses one that's close to it.

If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
priori provable.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
priori provable.

I think what he was getting at is that, unlike many jurisdictions,
writing something factually true is _not_ in and of itself a defense
against a libel suit in the UK.

As for the reverse side of the issue, in jurisdictions where it _is_ a
defense, if one were to accuse him of being a pedophile but couldn't
prove it, that would certainly be an actionable offense.

 

[EJP]

I'm not aware of a current legal system where it's the case, but I don't
know the details of many of them.

Many states have criminal as well as civil libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

 

[Philippa Cowderoy]

I think what he was getting at is that, unlike many jurisdictions, writing
something factually true is _not_ in and of itself a defense against a libel
suit in the UK.

It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true,
rather than on the claimant to show that it's false. I assume the "he"
refers to Brandon?

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Many states have criminal as well as civil libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

The idea of using Wikipedia to back up a legal point is rather amusing
.... but still, none of the relevant parties involved live in countries
which have any form of criminal libel.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

It is. However, the onus is on the defendant to show that it's true,
rather than on the claimant to show that it's false.

That also depends on the jurisdiction.

I assume the "he"
refers to Brandon?

No, I was referring to the person who he was replying to, i.e., you.