Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> wrote: > > Call me crazy, but I read the MS proposed settlement. Ok, I read it, > didn't get much from it, so read it again after reading this: [snip] > The proposed settlement makes LISP look easy to read. I thought most of it wasn't too hard to read, though I did print it out and read it on the couch rather than sitting in front of my computer. There's something about legalese that makes you want to bash your head through a CRT. Also, I needed to have the margins to write notes in.. I think I ended up taking about two hours to read through. I probably spent another two hours writing a response the next day (the notes were very helpful). Even though it's often a mess, legalese is written by humans and is meant to be read by humans. There's nothing really wrong with saying, "this is unreadable." There were some sentences in the document that seemed to by syntactic garbage, which made me examine them even more closely. Knowing that Microsoft and the DoJ went through the document line-by-line just makes me more suspicious of those confusing passages. -- _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Roads? Where we're going, / \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ we don't need roads. \_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __) [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20011210/a688b550/attachment.pgp