Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Justice, Settlement, Cosmos
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration ..." zarathud writes "Logan Darrow Clements has begun the application process to build a hotel on land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter. This could be allowed under Eminent Domain after the controversial 5-4 Kelo vs. New London ruling which Souter voted for. Justice Souter's home currently occupies the land. The planned hotel, to be called 'The Lost Liberty Hotel,' will include a public exhibit on the loss of American Freedom. 'This is not a prank,' said Clements, 'The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.'"
Call everyone Sir, just to be safe. Yesterday we posted an item about the first self-proclaimed Jedi in Parliament; here are two updates to the already-updated story. Americans (like me!) may still be baffled by the complications of the honorifics involved.
Stefan Magdalinski writes "If you want to link to the actual speech, then can I suggest you use our volunteer-run, open source, reimplementation of parliament's awful website?"
And reader Russell Dewhurst writes "All MPs (Members of Parliament) are called the Hon. Member for X... If the MP for Copeland were a Privy Councillor he would be the _Rt_ Hon (Right Honourable) Member for Copeland. So the original article was correct, and the correction was wrong, I'm afraid!"Thanks to everyone who's weighed in on this.
MozNews interviews Daniel Glazman, NVu Lead Dev bluephone writes "Now that NVu 1.0 has been officially released, we at MozillaNews asked Daniel Glazman to take some time to give us another interview to book-end our first interview with him, early in NVu's development. He was gracious as always, and fast! Read the interview for unavoidable laws, plans for the future of NVu and Daniel, and even news about his company's upcoming release."
Tom Clancy, eat my shorts. hydraa16 writes "The Cosmos 1 Solar Sail failed to reach orbit. This video shows its loading in a Russian Delta III Submarine, and its launch in the cold Barents Sea!"
If you accidentally blew up your DeskStar, the Empire will repay you. hardreset writes "Remember the day when the IBM 75GXP was the hot new drive? Then ... do you remember the day(s) it bit the dust? If you still have the serial number(s), you may be eligible for a $100/drive settlement from IBM. The settlement page is over here, claim form is here, and the Inquirer article is here. For those of you wearing tinfoil hats, you don't have to send in your drive. For those of you who work for IBM or live overseas, don't bother. If you're hoarding these drives, it might be a good payday!"
You'd have to pay me a lot to listen to the results. Kethinov writes "Because Trent Reznor's release of The Hand That Feeds was a spectacular success, he's decided to release more free musical source material for remixing and listening delight. The new release is another track off his new album With Teeth entitled Only. Interestingly, now he's offering multiple formats for the material instead of just Apple's Garageband format. So now non Apple users too can join the fun."
As always, people overseas don't get any compensation for crappy products...
I have two of these lying that has failed and one sitting in this computer which I am keeping a really close eye on...
A quick search on ebay reveals some of these drives going nice and cheap.
Your town may vary, but in many towns, the Board of Selectmen is elected. And if you didn't know that, neither do 99% of your fellow citizens.
What this means is that if three of them (or even if all five of 'em) don't vote to use the power of eminent domain (either because they think the planned redevelopment is a crock, or because they just don't care for Objectivists), it's entirely up to the citizens of Weare can choose whether or not their Selectmen are (or are not) worthy of re-election in a year or two.
I don't live in Weare. None of my business either way. But the Just Desserts Cafe sure sounds like a nice place for a bite to eat, should I be passing through the neighborhood.
E-mail in support of the economic benifits, please do some research and present as good an argument as possible in your e-mails.
Board of Selectmen for the towne of Weare:
Laura Buono, Chair Person
lbuono@weare.nh.gov
Leon Methot, Vice-Chair
lmethot@weare.nh.gov
Heleen Kurk
hkurk@weare.nh.gov
Joseph Fiala
jfiala@weare.nh.gov
Donna Osborne
dosborne@weare.nh.gov
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
I'm no HTML guru but it looks clean to me.
I've pulled it down and installed it for myself and my wife. It's not perfect but very decent. It's better than FrontPage which is saying quite a bit.
It has an annoying habit when you edit the raw HTML though... every time you save (CTRL-S), it switches to preview mode... quite annoying as I have a habit of saving after every line.
The link editor doesn't let you specify the target for the new link so you have to add it by hand...
But those are the only two complaints I have. Other than that, I think Nvu is the best HTML editor I've used.
Agile Artisans
Read O'Connor's dissent, Einstein, then meet me at the 7-11. Brains are on me.
The European Union requires that all consumer goods sold within the Union have at least a 2 year warranty on them. The US has much less strict standards (often none at all), and therefore companies can get away with offering short warranties.
Want Slashdot headlines on your site? Try SlashHead
Ironically enough, this is a smart economic move. Weare's beach is a fairly popular place in the summer, and few can forget the famous bike week.
My guess is Souter really isn't making much use of that land, and having a new hotel would increase tourism to the area. This would increase jobs and encourage growth as well.
There's also several nearby ski-resorts, so the place could be popular in winter as well (I've only been there in the warmer months so I don't know).
What applies to one applies to all.
~X~
~X~
Except that's not true. The cases I cited go back over a century with private->private transfers. That's always been part of eminent domain. The earliest one did deal with a bridge, but it was taking it from one private operator to give to another to increase revenues. It wasn't building a new bridge or anything. The others were seizures of private land to give to commercial developers (stores, etc) or manufacturers (GM plant).
I can see not liking that, but it shouldn't be a surprise. And it's not the place of the Court to write new public policy.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Actually, both are true.
Going back over a century sets you up in the late 1800s. You use the more recent court cases, and are correct in using them. You have the case law.
However, the Consitution is the underlying principle here, and eminant domain, as addressed in the 5th amendment, was understood at the time had a fairly clear understanding circa the 1790s. I won't say it was common law, but it was well established as seizure of private property for the state aka public or government use. In fact, I think private property for private use is expropriation, which is explicitly not allowed by the 4th and 5th amendments.
The 5th amendment was really only adding the condition that such seizure had to have just compensation, not expressedly saying that such seizure were legal. They were already understood as being such (as well as limited to private to public transitions).
It is not surprising people still believe this because, after all, it's spelled out in the constitution by both the limited wording of the compensation clause, as well as the protections of their property as spelled out in the 4th and 5th amendment to protect their own lands.
Your thinking of the wrong Weare.
Weare, NH is a small town near Henniker, NH in the western part of the state.
Weirs Beach is a popular tourist attraction, but it is near Lake Winnipesaukee in the eastern part of the state.
Well the problem is that they shouldn't ever had that power to begin with. They are prohibited it.
Article IV Section 2 Paragraph 1
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Pair that with the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note the wording, the powers and protections are guaranteed to THE PEOPLE not the STATES.
And also note the 9th and 10th Amendments which should lock this up.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no way that one can call forcing someone to sell land just so that another can buy it can be called Public Use. A hotel, my home, the 7-11 are all private lands not public. They can take my land for a park or a freeway but not for a shopping mall. Everyone knows that yet the justices ruled against it anyway. When Judges are that out of control and that unafraid to invent law then it's time to remove them from office. It's time to pass new laws about HOW judges hold office. The constitution does not set term limits, or a lack there of, for the courts. We can pass new laws limiting terms of Judges or even require them to be elected officials as they are in many states. We are NOT stuck with them. It's time to remove them.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Interesting concept. Something like the mandatory licensing the FTC sometimes requires when a large company wants to buy a competitor.
IANAL, but I don't think you'd have to go as far as using eminent domain action to revoke IP privileges. Copyrights or patents are privileges granted by the government (nominally for the public good) and can be revoked without the taking of property (which is otherwise constitutionally protected).
Stick with target, but use the XHTML Frameset DTD instead.
-- Open Source: It's mad, but you don't have to work here to help.
"It's better than FrontPage which is saying quite a bit."
;-)
.JS file (again, separating content and behaviour).
;-)
Really? I dunno if Frontpage has improved beyond recognition over the last couple of years, but last time I looked at it the phrase "better then Frontpage" said nothing at all .
"The link editor doesn't let you specify the target for the new link so you have to add it by hand..."
The TARGET attribute of links has been deprecated according to XHTML 1.0 Strict - this is part of an effort to separate content, presentation and behaviour.
Instead, you should code a normal link to the destination, but add a javascript event handler that disables the link and opens a new window with the same link in it.
This way, browsers that don't understand javascript follow the link like normal, but javascript-aware ones execute the javascript instead.
The "sanctioned" solution to this problem is as follows:
<a href="http://link-destination" onclick="window.open('http://link-destination'); return false;">pop-up link</a>
The HREF attribute allows non-javascript (or just people using "open link in new window") to open the link correctly.
The onclick event handler grabs control in javascript-aware browsers, and opens a new window.
Returning false from the event handler prevents the onclick event from "succeeding", so the parent browser window doesn't also follow the HREF link.
The upshot of this is that this code degrades gracefully to a normal link for non-JS browsers, but for JS browsers it opens the link in a new window and leaves the current window at the same location. Oh yeah, and you can also still see the link destination in the status bar when mouseovering (mousing-over?) it. (Yay! Pet hate!)
As a final refinement (as I always do), instead of calling window.open() directly you could just call a javascript function that takes the URL, windowname and chrome settings, and calls window.open() itself. This allows you precise control over the window settings without cluttering up your code, and moves more of the javascript logic out of your HTML file and into a separate
Hope this helps
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself