Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Justice, Settlement, Cosmos

Slashback tonight with updates on the Supreme Court's take on takings, money available for unlucky DeskStar disk drive owners, Parliament's Jedi, and more. Read on for the details.

"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."

33 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Great news on Nvu by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its great to see Nvu (the Mozilla XHTML/HTML editor project) coming of age. A free XHTML able WYSIWYG editor is a tool many starting out building webpages could find useful, and begin to bring standards compliant design & creation in from the ground up, not just for professionals and those who choose to learn how to hand code clean and compliant code. I can only see this as a good step forward for compliant markup.

  2. Bummer by Pivot · · Score: 2, Informative

    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...

  3. Lost Liberty Hotel? by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Damn! Where do I invest? Sure sounds like poetic justice to me!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Funny
      And the "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café".

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The supreme court does not interpret law. The supreme court interprets the consitution and determines if a law is valid within the bounds set in the consitution. In this case, there has been a decent case made that the law in new london (which is in ct, not nj, by the way) impedes on a citizen's freedom from unlawful seizure (they've done nothing wrong but are having their house taken, unless you consider not making enough money to kick you into the next tax bracket 'wrong').

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    3. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by pthisis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The justices in the Dred Scott case were just interpreting the law too. It doesn't mean they made the right decision

      Yeah, but normally when a Supreme Court decision is overturned one of 2 things has happened
      1. A new constitutional change has been made
      2. The original decision was one that a single case (or at best, multiple cases decided by a single incarnation of the Court) decided, and the Court decides that the decision was incorrect.

      It's very unusual for the Court to overturn over a century of legal precedent in which multiple Courts have ruled the same way, unless there has been a legal or constitutional change.

      And in this case, we have decisions reaching back over a century authorizing the use of eminent domain power to sieze land for transfer to another private party. (e.g. Berman v. Parker, 1954; Luxon v. North River Bridge, 1894; Wayne County v. Hathcock, 1981). Overturning that would have been a much bigger deal than this decision, which simply affirmed the status quo.

      If you're interested in becoming a property owner, many states (e.g. Michigan) have their own laws in place to prevent such seizures, and have had those for decades--indeed, such state protections served the land owner in Wayne County v. Hathcock well, after it had been held that there was no US Constitutional protection.

      In short, I think such seizure suck. But there really isn't anything in the constitution preventing them, they were almost certainly anticipated by the Founding Fathers, they've been legitimate for years, and I don't understand why people are surprised by this ruling (which merely upholds the status quo) or particularly angry at this Court and not earlier ones that decided the same way.

      And the fastest place to fight this is probably in the state legislatures, though obviously a Constitutional amendment is always a possibility.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    4. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by mikeswi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People are surprised because Eminent Domain is meant to serve the public interest by taking property to build a highway or pipeline or something useful.

      These people's government just seized their property to hand it over to a corporation to build an office tower. The only interests being served there is someone's bank account.

      I applaud the effort to seize Souter's property. I doubt it will actually happen but I'm glad to see it. Maybe if those justices had been personally under threat of being sold into slavery themselves, the Dred Scott case would have turned out differently.

    5. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by pthisis · · Score: 2, Informative
      People are surprised because Eminent Domain is meant to serve the public interest by taking property to build a highway or pipeline or something useful


      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
    6. Re:Lost Liberty Hotel? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, that's not it. The Supreme Court does *interpret* the law. The reason that they have this power to declare laws "unconstitutional" is that they seized this power a number of years ago. There was a legal dispute and they declared some obscure law unconstitutional to set a precedent. They tried to give everyone involved what they wanted so no one would challenge their decision. The result is that the Supreme Court has this broad-ranging power that we see it exercise today.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  4. I love America! by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hell yeah, build a hotel on his land, this is america and those in power should be held to at least the same level as those they enforce the law upon!

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    1. Re:I love America! by Romancer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:I love America! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear Board Of Selectmen,

      I don't live there (not that I want to). I don't pay taxes there (not that I would). I have no idea who you people are (neither does your constituents). I'm sure your area needs a new hotel (so does every other boondock in America). I'm sure taking the Supreme Court Justice's farmhouse wouldn't be a problem (he did approve that dandy decision). Yes, a brand new hotel is much better than a Wal-Mart (he might put dog poop on your table and set it on fire). It's a small price to be an American (it's not like anyone is going to Iraq).

      Sincerely,

      The /. Community

      P.S. Sorry about crashing your email server (but that's what you get for running an illegal copy of Windows). ;)

    3. Re:I love America! by Xyrus · · Score: 4, Informative

      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~
    4. Re:I love America! by chrisgeleven · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:I love America! by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right.. because I'm sure New Hampshirians (Hampshirites? Hampshirees?) just love getting letters from outsiders who want to tell them how to run their government, and this doesn't have the possibility to backfire at all.

      If you don't live in the town of Weare, these people aren't your representatives, and by trying to influence their decisions based on what you feel is right goes against everything a republic is supposed to be.

      I fully hope the land is reclaimed, but I'm sure the people who live there are fully capable of deciding on their own. If they wanted our opinion, they'd solicit it.

  5. As a supporter of Fair Use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I strongly believe the government should instigate a policy of Eminent Domain on Intellectual Property, not just Real Property.

    It would work like this: once a work reached a critical mass of popularity, the government would sieze it, pay the creator a reasonable sum, and make the work freely available for downloading and sharing.

    In this way, never again would a citizen of this great nation be subject to the stigma of not having seen/heard the latest hot movie/tv show/song. It would also encourage creativity with uses like mashups, re-edits, funny overdubs, etc.

    Support Fair Use!

  6. deskstar by songofthephoenix · · Score: 2, Informative
    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.

    A quick search on ebay reveals some of these drives going nice and cheap.

  7. Selectmen? Elect 'em! by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Informative
    > '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.

    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.

  8. Make it a chain... of 5 by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would be even better if they made a chain of hotels with locations in five cities.

  9. WebQuark? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just saw a demo of a WYSIWYG, drag & drop Web page editor, where you drag around page elements: real text (with associated styler/editor) sections, images, video windows, all scaleable/positionable/stylabe. HTML is seen/touched only on demand, not to layout. It's written in JavaScript, .NET and connects live to a SQLServer backend for its library, including saved pages. It all runs in an unmodified Internet Explorer, without ActiveX, Java or other client-installed SW. They say the update for FireFox is almost ready, just bugfixes - not a plugin.

    That's the kind of "HTML editor" I expected to see in common use literally a decade ago, by 1995. How come I don't see such things all over the place? Are they out there? Do I just need to get out more? Why aren't they a standard feature on every website with a content editing/creation feature for users?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:WebQuark? by dmaxwell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does it generate clean HTML or will web devs have to clean up after this tool as well?

    2. Re:WebQuark? by jarich · · Score: 3, Informative
      Does it generate clean HTML or will web devs have to clean up after this tool as well?

      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.

    3. Re:WebQuark? by Sheriff+Fatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    4. Re:WebQuark? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It's better than FrontPage which is saying quite a bit."

      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 .JS file (again, separating content and behaviour).

      Hope this helps ;-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  10. Or: One down, four to go. by Deathbane27 · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's how I was about to phrase my comment, but you beat me. :p

    New London should also elect new committee which would then sieze the homes of the former one. >:)

    --
    If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
  11. Cosmos 1 and failure by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Glenn Reynolds (i.e. the Instapundit) recently wrote a piece for Tech Central Station on the failure of the Planetary Society's Cosmos 1, which I thought was quite well-said. Here's a quote:

    http://techcentralstation.com/062905J.html

    Some might accuse [Planetary Society directory] Friedman of putting a Pollyannaish spin on things, but I'd say he's learned the most important lesson of all: It's hard to accomplish much if you're afraid to fail.

    The history of success in all sorts of endeavors -- including the early days of space travel, when we were making rapid progress -- is a history of repeated failures. I don't think it's a coincidence that when the failure rate declined, so did our rate of progress. You learn from failure, and you learn from trying lots of different things. Unfortunately, fear of failure -- like fear in general -- is contagious. But fortunately, so is bravery. When people act unafraid of failure, other people may pick up on the message.

    The Planetary Society's mission was, really, a failure: It was supposed to test solar sails, and it never got the chance. But, simply by happening, and by having the Planetary Society emerge with its head bloody, but unbowed, it accomplished something useful by opening up (metaphorical) space for others to try risky but low-cost approaches without worrying too much about the fallout. And that's good.

    Because, as I've noted before, when you're not afraid of failure you can try lots of different things and figure out what works best. If you're afraid of failing, on the other hand, you build huge, process-laden, documentation-heavy, behemoths that -- in a way -- are already failures before they ever start because they're too hard to change and improve, and because they don't generate enough useful knowledge to allow further progress. (See, e.g., the Space Shuttle program).

    The Planetary Society's launch, despite Lou Friedman's views, failed. But the approach it embodied is the only approach that's likely to achieve substantial success in the long run. And that's a kind of success in itself. Let's hope that we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future.

  12. Take That Farmhouse... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the Supreme Court Justice's farmhouse can be taken to build a hotel, it won't be long before the Earth is replaced with a Galatic Freeway.

  13. Maybe this is a victory of sorts? by otter42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had the idea that we should found a small community and then declare copyrighted works public domain. Now of course you couldn't do that for everything, since major corps like Disney would shit lawyers on you, but you could declare eminent domain on all copyrighted works over 20 years-old. if anyone complains, you "reinstate" their copyright. For a fee.

    The economic claim is not only simple, but real. Imagine now you can scan and digitally print those old photos of your grandparents, you can archive old books and movie, and you can adapt and derive with impunity. That's one magnificent cottage industry just waiting to be formed.

    So maybe this USC decision will actually have a silver lining. Without doing anything quite so ridculous and doomed to failure as traing to seize a Supreme Court justice's house.

    --
    www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
  14. Re:Not Always by numark · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  15. Impeach the surpream court by bluGill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many people do not realize that supream court justices can be impeached.

    Section. 2.

    Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Section. 3

    Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
    Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Section. 1.

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Amendment V

    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 offence 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.

    Since clearly those 5 justices cannot read, congress has a duty to remove them from their office. I know many of you don't like the idea of Bush choosing 5 justices (perhaps more, there are rumors of retirement), but that is better than letting these 5 sit on then court. Write your congressmen and make it so.

    Actually they don't need to be removed from office, just a reminder that the constitution governs this land may be enough.

    1. Re:Impeach the surpream court by (H)elix1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      You know, I would love to think I could interpret that to mean exactly like it sounds, but after seeing how

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

      is implemented, I'm not hopeful...
  16. Impeach'em or change the court system. by nlinecomputers · · Score: 2, Informative
    IF YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR POINT, GO AFTER THE REPRESENTATIVES OF NEW JERSEY WHO MADE A LAW THAT ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.


    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.
  17. Nobody will win a claim by nilbog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    IBM will end up paying out maybe less then 5 claims. And here's why:

    Q. What if I no longer have a receipt or any other supporting documentation?

    A. You must produce a receipt or other supporting documentation evidencing the purchase of an eligible 75GXP hard disk drive, or you will not receive any Settlement Benefits.

    Well let's see. I bought my deskstar in 2000, let me grab my file for that year... Ah yes, it's here under D, next to the receipt for that donut I bought.

    Seriously I will be impressed if anyone can provide the required "supporting documentation." How lame is it to win a lawsuit that will apply to almost nobody?

    Crappy thing is, I seriously have a stack of these deskstars sitting here. My last one went bad not even two weeks ago.

    --
    or else!