Linux.com

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Heh.... but at least they can write.

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

One person posted the reply he got back from the BBC, and it was basically: "We wrote what we wrote. We're sticking by it, and you can go soak your head." (with a British accent, of course.)

#

#

#

#

#

I think when intelligent youth are presented with the MS world, it's like a 2 year old being placed in front of a perfect house of cards. They can only think of knocking it down.

When presented with building Linux on a PC, and putting together a network, the more constructive wheels in their heads start turning.

As a moral crusade, I urge Linux people to wean computer-interested youth off MS. My own kids, however, don't give a hoot about how a computer really works.

#

#

#

#

#

A new email virus called MyDoom is spreading rapidly across the Internet through <A HREF="http://winnetmag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=41567" TITLE="winnetmag.com">UNIX</a winnetmag.com> mail servers, bringing with it a dangerous attachment that, when opened, can give attackers access to users' computers through an electronic backdoor.

Wrath of the geeks



If anyones anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source).

So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.



SCO is the big, bad company that violates one of their sacred principles, as they would see it.



***There's no proof, of course***, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.

They argued that Mr Dyke, the BBC's editor-in-chief, was blameless for the "defective" system of checks which failed to expose the mistakes made by reporter Andrew Gilligan.



Mr Dyke, they argued, had a long list of extra responsibilities, from " motivating staff " to handling budgets and could not have been expected to check Mr Gilligan's story which alleged that the Government inserted bogus material into the Iraq dossier.



Although editors traditionally accepted responsibility for their journalists' shortcomings, that did not mean Mr Dyke "could or should" have had any clue about the inaccuracies in the story.



The BBC submission said its governors did not have "direct management responsibility" although they did take "ultimate responsibility for the BBC in everything it does".



And it argued, astonishingly, that the governors were never asked to treat the deluge of demands for an apology made by Alastair Campbell or the Government as "a formal complaint".



<A HREF="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8875958?source=Evening%20Standard" TITLE="thisislondon.co.uk">Meanwhile</a thisislondon.co.uk> , in a separate legal submission, Gilligan attempted to claim that reporters should be allowed "a margin of error" to make mistakes.

On the BBC

BBC editorial system was 'defective'

BBC management failed to appreciate that Gilligan's notes did not support the most serious of his allegations

The BBC governors should have recognised the desire to protect its independence was not incompatible with investigating Mr Campbell's complaints, no matter what their tone

The BBC governors should have investigated further the differences between Gilligan's notes and his report, and that should have led them to question whether it was in the public interest to broadcast his report relying only on his notes

On Andrew Gilligan

Gilligan's report on Today programme that dossier was 'sexed up' by the government was a 'grave allegation'

Gilligan attacked integrity of government and Joint Intelligence Committee in Today broadcast

On the 45-minute claim: Gilligan's report did not distinguish between long-range battlefield and strategic weapons

Gilligan's allegation that government probably knew its 45-minute claim was wrong was unfounded - even if the claim is proved to be wrong in the future

Kelly did not tell Gilligan that the government knew the 45-minute claim was probably wrong

'I am satisfied he did not say the reason why it was not in the original document was that it came from one source and that the intelligence agencies did not believe it was necessarily true'

However, the Hutton report makes key points which the BBC and others cannot ignore. On whether the dossier had been sexed up, Lord Hutton's statement notes that it is a slang expression capable of more meanings than one. But he is clear that the allegation was unfounded because it gave listeners the impression that 'the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case'. This is a serious issue because, if the British government had indeed exaggerated the dossier in the way implied by the BBC report, it would have been guilty of knowingly misleading the public in its defence of military action against Iraq. Nothing less than the government's credibility was at stake in the face of the BBC report, and the Hutton inquiry leaves no one in any doubt about which version of events it has chosen to believe.



As for the BBC itself, the report found its editorial system defective. Among other things, Mr Gilligan had aired his report without editors having viewed a script of what he was going to say and having judged whether it should be approved. This was a serious lapse, and not only with the benefit of hindsight. In-house scrutiny by editors is an obvious way in which news organisations vet news for accuracy and preserve standards of probity in commentary. The BBC, precisely because its credibility gives it so much influence worldwide, should have ensured that the report stood up to editorial scrutiny. It has put new guidelines in place. Now, before any controversial report based on a single, unnamed source is transmitted senior editors have to review the contents, talk with the reporter and see the notes.

#

#

#

#