

Unbelievable statements in GPL related case in the Supreme Court of Mauritius - gnufs
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/06/27/#20110627-gpl_surpreme_court_mauritius

======
ColinWright
Previously submitted, flagged dead:
<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>)

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
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
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
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
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>

~~~
Helianthus
I find that HN in general is getting prickly. The paranoia-posts about
becoming reddit are on the rise. The hacker news mindset is defensive and a
little elitist, which means that throwaway posts or posts made a little
thoughtlessly get quickly shunned.

Which is fine, actually, in moderation. But there's some sense in which it's
passe to be casual, it's uncool to be enthusiastic about HN, and in general we
can't just be chill with each other.

No more do I find this evident than how we make SNs green for newbs. It's
almost the definition of elitist. If we truly care _only_ about post quality,
it shouldn't matter whether someone is new.

But the 'circle-the-wagons' mentality leads to intentional alienation.

------
rbanffy
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.

