[GTALUG] interesting new approach to forking

[Russell Reiter]

<SNIP PREVIOUS>
> But what of the software we don't know we're using, like
> the low-level stuff that moves our bits about the world: can I choose
> not to use that if it takes more than a reasonable effort to find out
> what it is?
>
> Wiser folks may of course refer me to the reply given in /Arkell v.
> Pressdram/.

Not at all. I'm always open to discussion. First of all a tort is an
UN-intentional breach of contract, from that point it all depends on
how you define low-level bits and reasonable.

In physics you can't just say fuck the low level bits, we'll fix it in
POST, that's media-speak, it just doesn't work that way in the real
world. In this case all the worlds not a stage and all the people
players etcetera etcera etcra etc ...

>From my perspective as a kind of blunt force hardware kind of guy, any
way you look at things, the pressing need is to clean up dirty power,
or build a shield against it. Truth is a kind of a higgs boson, first
it's there, then it's not there, then it's there again. Or is it the
other way round? When you rely so much on truth tables, shouldn't
accuracy be to the nth degree?

That is to the highest level of trust which could be further extended
rather than the lowest.

I forgot, are we talking about physics or law here? If it is truly
both, then the same ordered logic applies, doesn't it?

The fact that you know there is a Higgs Boson, is one you can't
reasonably deny in a court of law, can you? That's neither a
reasonable error or omission. I think it's best to be shielded from
that sort of thing, but I'm a hacker not a lawyer.

Russell