4 ms·
> I've pointed this out publicly on numerous occations, in various technical forums, since the early 1980's. So far I haven't heard a word from any AT&T lawyers
by PopsiclePete 9y ago
> I've pointed this out publicly on numerous occations, in various technical forums, since the early 1980's. So far I haven't heard a word from any AT&T lawyers. Anyone have any idea why they are ignoring such a violation?
Ah, one of those people.
- wnoise 9y agoThose people who point out absurdities that almost everyone wants desperately to ignore?
- nobodyorother 9y agoImagine what a wonderful world it would be if someone took lawyers to task for every absurdity!
- habibalamin 9y agoWe'd have to do the same for developers. A program that does nothing is an absurdity. The equivalent function, `id`, is an absurdity. I'm sure I could think of more if I tried. ninjedit: I understand that they are a logical consequence of a reasonable way of doing things; my point is that law is basically the same (you could argue that a law is unreasonable, but a seemingly absurd law is not prima facie unreasonable).