5 ms·

Unbelievable statements in GPL related case in the Supreme Court of Mauritius

34 points by gnufs 15y ago

ColinWright 15y ago
Previously submitted, flagged dead: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704322 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704322 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, The Life of Reason (1905-1906) Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense (Copied from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana) ADDED IN EDIT: OK, since I'm getting downvotes for this (as I write it's at -1) perhaps I'd better expand on it to explain my reasoning. Firstly, this item is a repeat submission. It was submitted earlier, and so there is some earier "discussion" to reference. I thought it would be of value to point that out. I especially thought it would be of value since it that discussion seems to highlight some concerns about the item in question. Rather than simply repeat them here, I thought it better to point to it over there. The quotation was intended to point out a problem with items like this getting flagged. Several times in the past I've seen items get flagged dead, only to be submitted repeatedly, then flagged dead each time. Deleting the items by having them flagged dead just means that the same thing is submitted over and over again, and hence came to mind the given quotation. Paraphrased: If you delete things, you can't learn from them, leading to the potential for repeating the same errors over and over. I thought people would find that interesting, relevant, and potentially a useful tidbit. So downvote me if you will, but at least understand that my intention was to add value.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  It seems to me that the flagging was due to the title of the old article. I can't see the title since it's dead, but it appears that the old title implied that the supreme court said those things. This title does not imply that, so there's no need to flag this one.
  - ColinWright 15y ago
    The title in the previous submission was: Unbelievable statements in GPL related case in the Supreme Court of Mauritius That looks pretty similar to me. As far as I can tell, all details of the previous submission are identical. Additionally, my comment was not a call to flag this one, it was information. So I don't know why I was getting down-voted. <shrug> Lately there seem to be more and HN readers whose behaviour I just don't understand.
    - mquander 15y ago
      I didn't downvote you because I don't understand your point. Presumably you're not saying that nobody should flag posts, because someone might post them again; I don't think that makes sense. Are you saying that the dupe detection system should be better? Or that flagged posts should be visible or searchable in some way? Or are you just saying that you like this post and you don't think anyone should flag it? Personally, I don't think it's a big problem, although I'd really like a cleverer dupe detection mechanism. It's true that people tend to just re-submit the same links without searching, and that happens even when a post is not flagged -- there are often two active threads for a single topic on the front page. Flagging still acts to discourage a post, and the chance that someone will resubmit is just how it goes.
      - ColinWright 15y ago
        To explain: Spam certainly should be flagged - no question. The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting, but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine. But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that way we learn from history. I thought that would be clear. Clearly it wasn't. I hope it's clearer now. <rant> As a programmer and mathematician I'm accustomed to being brief and succinct, letting my code or my readers get the point without having to expand it excessively. It seems to me that such was once possible on HN, but that now one's point must be written out in exquisite detail to avoid drive-by downvotes from people who don't bother to try to figure out the meaning. This isn't a dig at you - you didn't down-vote, and you did ask. To my mind that makes you one of the more valuable (potential) contributors. Indeed, I see that you have more karma and a higher average than I do. That supports my initial impression. I'm just getting a bit fed up with having to write so much of what I think is obvious. Maybe I'm just having a bad day. </rant>
losethos 15y ago
Let me remind you that bearing false witness, in any way, including implied false witness such as slander, is breaking a commandment of the Lord.
rbanffy 15y ago
I believe the correct word for lying under oath is "perjury". The person who filed that deposition should not only be corrected, but also arrested. If you don't know what you are saying, you have no business instructing a supreme court.

34 points by gnufs 15y ago

Previously submitted, flagged dead: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704322 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2704322 "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, The Life of Reason (1905-1906) Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense (Copied from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana) ADDED IN EDIT: OK, since I'm getting downvotes for this (as I write it's at -1) perhaps I'd better expand on it to explain my reasoning. Firstly, this item is a repeat submission. It was submitted earlier, and so there is some earier "discussion" to reference. I thought it would be of value to point that out. I especially thought it would be of value since it that discussion seems to highlight some concerns about the item in question. Rather than simply repeat them here, I thought it better to point to it over there. The quotation was intended to point out a problem with items like this getting flagged. Several times in the past I've seen items get flagged dead, only to be submitted repeatedly, then flagged dead each time. Deleting the items by having them flagged dead just means that the same thing is submitted over and over again, and hence came to mind the given quotation. Paraphrased: If you delete things, you can't learn from them, leading to the potential for repeating the same errors over and over. I thought people would find that interesting, relevant, and potentially a useful tidbit. So downvote me if you will, but at least understand that my intention was to add value.

bryanlarsen 15y ago
It seems to me that the flagging was due to the title of the old article. I can't see the title since it's dead, but it appears that the old title implied that the supreme court said those things. This title does not imply that, so there's no need to flag this one.
- ColinWright 15y ago
  The title in the previous submission was: Unbelievable statements in GPL related case in the Supreme Court of Mauritius That looks pretty similar to me. As far as I can tell, all details of the previous submission are identical. Additionally, my comment was not a call to flag this one, it was information. So I don't know why I was getting down-voted. <shrug> Lately there seem to be more and HN readers whose behaviour I just don't understand.
  - mquander 15y ago
    I didn't downvote you because I don't understand your point. Presumably you're not saying that nobody should flag posts, because someone might post them again; I don't think that makes sense. Are you saying that the dupe detection system should be better? Or that flagged posts should be visible or searchable in some way? Or are you just saying that you like this post and you don't think anyone should flag it? Personally, I don't think it's a big problem, although I'd really like a cleverer dupe detection mechanism. It's true that people tend to just re-submit the same links without searching, and that happens even when a post is not flagged -- there are often two active threads for a single topic on the front page. Flagging still acts to discourage a post, and the chance that someone will resubmit is just how it goes.
    - ColinWright 15y ago
      To explain: Spam certainly should be flagged - no question. The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting, but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine. But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that way we learn from history. I thought that would be clear. Clearly it wasn't. I hope it's clearer now. <rant> As a programmer and mathematician I'm accustomed to being brief and succinct, letting my code or my readers get the point without having to expand it excessively. It seems to me that such was once possible on HN, but that now one's point must be written out in exquisite detail to avoid drive-by downvotes from people who don't bother to try to figure out the meaning. This isn't a dig at you - you didn't down-vote, and you did ask. To my mind that makes you one of the more valuable (potential) contributors. Indeed, I see that you have more karma and a higher average than I do. That supports my initial impression. I'm just getting a bit fed up with having to write so much of what I think is obvious. Maybe I'm just having a bad day. </rant>

losethos 15y ago

Let me remind you that bearing false witness, in any way, including implied false witness such as slander, is breaking a commandment of the Lord.

rbanffy 15y ago

I believe the correct word for lying under oath is "perjury". The person who filed that deposition should not only be corrected, but also arrested. If you don't know what you are saying, you have no business instructing a supreme court.