For the last 15 years, the Vatican has been working on transferring many texts and artwork to a secure digital format in hopes of saving it for all future generations.
Most of the text that the project has successfully transferred (and a good majority of text that has not been transferred) is available here. You do have to fill out some forms and then the materials are copied and sent to you.
All jokes and criticisms aside, the Vatican possesses the majority of the world's greatest works of literature, art, and historical documentation. I hope that they make all of it available to the world very soon.
LOL. That's great! I need to use that with my team at work.
Yes, I am cranky. Haven't been sleeping well. My cell phone keeps ringing, 'cause our project launches in 4 days. So, I guess I'm slightly biased AGAINST cell phones and technology right now.
Actually, I thought my point was rather clear. If you missed it, let me clarify:
There is entirely too much dependency upon technology in society. Too many people have little to no patience, thus they demand everything, right now. We want faster cars, faster computers, faster meals, etc...
But of course that is an entirely different discussion altogether.
Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it.
"Over here" I suspect means Europe? We have the same situation in the US. But we have it two-fold. One, if you don't support Israel, then you're anti-semitic. Two, if you don't support the war on terrorism, then you're anti-american.
You can't win with everyone, nor should you try. German and French laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda are derived from fear and hatred of the past. No one in Europe wants another facist, murderer, yet Milosavic (sp) was pretty damn close, and no one did much to stop him. Oh the irony...
If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot.
Pretty much the same attitude here in the states. If you don't support the troops, then you're anti-american. If you don't support Israel then you're a nazi. If you don't support Cuban exiles, then you're a communist. Etc... All of it meaningless rhetoric. Problem is, if you get enough people spewing meaningless rhetoric, then it becomes opinion and soon after, policy.
But then we have great technical sites like/. to openly discuss these types of issues... damn, there's my bleeding-heart, liberal sarcasm again.
Nah. It's just another example of big business bureaucracy. Also, it's a prime example of people who don't "think at work.
I do think EBay doesn't care a whole lot about its customer base. Between this stupidity and the fact that EBay doesn't follow up on fraud complaints, it amazes me that they have grown to be sooooo huge.
People tend to speak LOUDER whilst speaking on a cell phone. In addition, people tend to be oblivios to those around them, hence they tend to not realise their being rude.
We survived 20,000 years without cell phones. Why is it now we cannot?
This invention is directed to data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals such as automated sales workstations, information dispensing networks and self-service banking systems. Specifically this invention is directed to a tool for augmentation of sales and marketing capabilities of travel agency personnel in conjunction with computerized airline reservation systems. This invention also relates to financial service application processing, and interactive delivery of informative, educational and recreational audio-visual programs to the home, school or office.
Interesting... the main focus of the primary patent is the Airline Reservation industry. The later patent adds the "Finacial Industry."
It should be interesting to see how this partnership group stands against a company like Oracle. Because, by this partnership's defined attack, Oracle is a prime target. And I know the Oracle folks have a ton of patents protecting their technology, which basically is the backbone of e-commerce.
In addition, Micorsoft's FrontPage is in direct violation of this patent. And we all know that Microsoft has its own wing at the patent office.
Should make for some serious attorney's fees for some lucky companies.
I do hope someone takes these clowns to court and challenges the incredibly flimsy patent upon which they rely.
And if they don't challenge an Oracle or Microsoft, maybe Oracle or Micorsoft should challenge them...
"Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."
For the most part this statement is true; except, insert artists for record companies.
I just noticed you labeled me as a "foe." I guess I'd better get busy earning that distinction.
tort the word is derived from torsion, to twist.
Ironically, the word "tort" is Norman French and means "wrong". Tort is a branch of common law concerned with redressing wrongs committed by one person against another.
Insurance companies WANT expensive tort rulings.
Just like automakers want car crashes and dentists like hockey. Right?
To be fair, I think you are partially correct. Insurance companies do like tort rulings, but given a choice would overwhelmingly prefer small rulings to expensive ones. Small rulings allow an insurance company to raise or cancel policies for an affected company and retain a small profit. While, large judgments threaten even a large insurance company's bottom line.
Further, an insurance company may raise policies across the board using a judgment as an excuse. Thus, making more profit.
Moving on...
I am judging by your spelling mistakes and syntax errors that you are still a little young and don't quite understand this shit.
Do I need to go here? Ummmm... yes.
Insurance, by its nature, spreds the risk and the cost.
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle. (If you don't "get it," maybe you are still a little young and don't quite understand.)
The only ones with that money are huge companies, so you go work for them.
Me think you type good and should keep giving good advice to masses of reading people.
1.) You assume that such a state would have a reasonable number of volunteers in the National Guard.
Good point.
2.) You assume that the state in question doesn't have a State Guard that can't be federalized.
Point blank: there is no State that has a National Guard that can not be federalized.
I don't recall any negotiations of any sort. Hell, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in. The states that left the union didn't try to discuss things in Congress to decide the proper way to leave, they just took their toys and went home.
First, you're correct about South Carolina: the South Carlolina legislature perceived Lincoln's election as a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union, 3 short months before Lincoln was sworn in. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana followed in January and Texas in Feburary.
Second, you're wrong about negotiations: there were many, many hours, days, and months of negotiations between members of congress before Southern States picked up and left in January 1861. The last major effort was The Crittenden Compromise of 1860. (Read it here.)
The police do not protect people, they investigate crimes after the fact. They are not objective, they are agents of the prosecution
First, investigating crime and bringing an offender to justice is preventing crime (be it future crime).
Second, police presence alone prevents crime. Hence, the black and white cars, light bars, and uniforms, etc.
Third, what does objectivity have to do with anything? Police officers are not interpreters of the law. They enforce the law. There is no objectivity in law enforcement.
However, there is definitely objectivity in whom they arrest. You either obey the law or break the law.
Police officers are not perfect: they make mistakes. But, they work very hard, everyday, dealing with people that you and I are scared of or just plain don't want to deal with.
And as far as this idea of "private law enforcement": are you suggesting that private police officers would be more objective (i.e. they would decide what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore?) Possibly leading to one company "allowing" some citizens to do whatever they want to in order to keep a "contract"?
In a competitive environment the police would not be competing against each other, but for your business.
Not quite sure what you're trying to preach here, but it makes no sense. They won't be competing against each other, but will be competing for your business? Isn't that competing against each other? Standard capitalist business model? Who does the job best, wins contract?
Amazing.
I would love to visit and observe such a society. Definitely would provide me with an afternoon of laughter.
Scenario: you dial 10-10-220-911 (and you're automatically entered to win 2 tickets to the SuperBowl) and report someone breaking into your home. Your local private law enforcement company dispatches a unit to your home.
A rival private law enforcement company intercepts the call and dispatches a unit as well.
Company A and Company B law enforcement officers arrive at the same time. Outside your home, Company A officer begins to argue with Company B officer. Meanwhile, there is still an intruder in your home.
After hearing your continuous screams, Company A officer and Company B officer race each other to your front door. However, before entering your home, they take out their PDAs and verify that you have given their respective company permission to enter your home (given that both officers are private citizens, if they enter your home without permission they are trespassing: misdemeanor but, if they force entry then they are breaking and entering: felony).
After verifying a signed release form, Company A officer and Company B officer enter your home. Company A officer spots the intruder, pulls out his night-stick, clubs the intruder, and handcuffs him. Company B officer realizing that he may lose this job if he doesn't do something, pulls out his automatic and shoots the cuffed suspect dead.
I am purposefully not revealing my own ideals in this discussion. I am playing devil's advocate simply because I think most of the ideas presented are VERY GOOD on paper, but not feasible in American society.
It is my opinion that the American public is NOT very responsible, nor respectful. And I believe it nearly impossible to pull off a "Free State" or Libertarian State in the US.
Although, Minnesota did elect a past WWF Wrastling Star to run their government; so anything is possible.
We wouldn't be living under a "bully." We would be slaves to the bully. Any monopoly, be it cable TV or Law Enforcement is not a good idea. True competition and checks and balances are what keep us free from the individual bully with all the power.
One mind and one philosophy is NEVER good (with the exception of a platoon in combat).
The individual pays, either with insurance or cash on hand
You're not a libertarian, you're a capitalist. And a bad one at that.
Most fire departments are volunteer and do fund-raising.
Uh-huh. Yeah and that fund-raising covers what? The cost of water? Do some research before you make a statement like the above. Fire Departments are expensive. And they are staffed by some of the most highly-qualified and best trained people in society today. Volunteers and bake sales won't save your house or your family.
Police forces should be privatized.
Do I need to go here again? Yes. Again you're preaching "if you have the cash, you have the service."
Don't have cash or insurance. Sorry but your house must burn.
Don't have the cash. Sorry can't arrest your nighbor for molesting your daughter.
Don't have the cash. Sorry can't use this road to get your wife to the hospital.
Hospitals and law enforcement should be corporately run
You're joking right? Private law enforcement? Excuse me, while I take a moment to stop laughing. I don't mean to be rude, nor sarcastic, but that is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time.
Private Law Enforcement. What happens when the CEO of your law enforcement company decides he doesn't like you living in his neighbor and arrests you? Are you going to fight him in corporate court?
Like it or not, there is a definite need for a central government to protect you from foreign aggression, maintain internal order (i.e. law enforcement), and to administrate the courts. That is what this country was founded upon. Of course in the last 260 years it has veered way off track and now we have TOO MANY laws. Too much bureaucracy. But does that mean we must resort to the opposite end of the spectrum? The other extreme?
Add some safe guards to your plan before attempting your utopian idea. Else, you might find yourself working for one individual who owns the police, fire, library, courts, and is your "elected" official.
Again that sounds really nice. However, what happens when your town is hit by a tornado and you require emergency assistance? Do people have to "pay-as-they-go" for each emergency service? What if you require federal assistance?
Slashdot Mirror
For the last 15 years, the Vatican has been working on transferring many texts and artwork to a secure digital format in hopes of saving it for all future generations.
Most of the text that the project has successfully transferred (and a good majority of text that has not been transferred) is available here. You do have to fill out some forms and then the materials are copied and sent to you.
All jokes and criticisms aside, the Vatican possesses the majority of the world's greatest works of literature, art, and historical documentation. I hope that they make all of it available to the world very soon.
This is rather alarmist and quite an over-reaction.
:)
Let's wait for some case documents or the court's decision before jumping on the "Microsoft is out to rule the world" bandwagon.
The more they tighten their graip, the more syste^H^H^H companies will slip through their fingers.
LOL!
Nobel Prize in Crankiness
LOL. That's great! I need to use that with my team at work.
Yes, I am cranky. Haven't been sleeping well. My cell phone keeps ringing, 'cause our project launches in 4 days. So, I guess I'm slightly biased AGAINST cell phones and technology right now.
Uhhh, is that a trick question?
Agreed. It surely would have sucked to have gone over a cliff instead of flying JetBlue to Vegas 2 weeks ago.
What's your point?
Actually, I thought my point was rather clear. If you missed it, let me clarify:
There is entirely too much dependency upon technology in society. Too many people have little to no patience, thus they demand everything, right now. We want faster cars, faster computers, faster meals, etc...
But of course that is an entirely different discussion altogether.
Maybe you should walk.
LOL. Uhh...yeah, ok.
I would gladly donate some free "geek" time to a worthy charitable project.
I definitely understand why you posted Anon.
/. to openly discuss these types of issues... damn, there's my bleeding-heart, liberal sarcasm again.
Thing is, you absolutely CAN'T touch those anti-racism/antisemitism/whatever laws. It's a very, very touchy issue over here, and some organisations [uejf.org] will scream bloody murder if you ever even want to open the debate about it.
"Over here" I suspect means Europe? We have the same situation in the US. But we have it two-fold. One, if you don't support Israel, then you're anti-semitic. Two, if you don't support the war on terrorism, then you're anti-american.
You can't win with everyone, nor should you try. German and French laws prohibiting Nazi propaganda are derived from fear and hatred of the past. No one in Europe wants another facist, murderer, yet Milosavic (sp) was pretty damn close, and no one did much to stop him. Oh the irony...
If you want to open the debate then you're obviously a racist antisemitic extreme-right wing nazi and should be dragged out and shot.
Pretty much the same attitude here in the states. If you don't support the troops, then you're anti-american. If you don't support Israel then you're a nazi. If you don't support Cuban exiles, then you're a communist. Etc... All of it meaningless rhetoric. Problem is, if you get enough people spewing meaningless rhetoric, then it becomes opinion and soon after, policy.
But then we have great technical sites like
How the HELL do you legitimize the slaughter of three million people?
Huh?
That attack came out of nowhere...
Nah. It's just another example of big business bureaucracy. Also, it's a prime example of people who don't "think at work.
I do think EBay doesn't care a whole lot about its customer base. Between this stupidity and the fact that EBay doesn't follow up on fraud complaints, it amazes me that they have grown to be sooooo huge.
People tend to speak LOUDER whilst speaking on a cell phone. In addition, people tend to be oblivios to those around them, hence they tend to not realise their being rude.
We survived 20,000 years without cell phones. Why is it now we cannot?
This invention is directed to data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals such as automated sales workstations, information dispensing networks and self-service banking systems. Specifically this invention is directed to a tool for augmentation of sales and marketing capabilities of travel agency personnel in conjunction with computerized airline reservation systems. This invention also relates to financial service application processing, and interactive delivery of informative, educational and recreational audio-visual programs to the home, school or office.
Interesting... the main focus of the primary patent is the Airline Reservation industry. The later patent adds the "Finacial Industry."
It should be interesting to see how this partnership group stands against a company like Oracle. Because, by this partnership's defined attack, Oracle is a prime target. And I know the Oracle folks have a ton of patents protecting their technology, which basically is the backbone of e-commerce.
In addition, Micorsoft's FrontPage is in direct violation of this patent. And we all know that Microsoft has its own wing at the patent office.
Should make for some serious attorney's fees for some lucky companies.
I do hope someone takes these clowns to court and challenges the incredibly flimsy patent upon which they rely.
And if they don't challenge an Oracle or Microsoft, maybe Oracle or Micorsoft should challenge them...
the US patent office announced today that indeed, their collective heads are up their collective arses.
"Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."
For the most part this statement is true; except, insert artists for record companies.
regaining some of the money and property that was unjustly stolen from them
Sure... returning to exploit the Chinese population and in the process making huge sums for themselves and the Communist leadership.
Oh the brave and courageous ex-patriot Taiwanese!
I just noticed you labeled me as a "foe." I guess I'd better get busy earning that distinction.
tort the word is derived from torsion, to twist.
Ironically, the word "tort" is Norman French and means "wrong".
Tort is a branch of common law concerned with redressing wrongs committed by one person against another.
Insurance companies WANT expensive tort rulings.
Just like automakers want car crashes and dentists like hockey. Right?
To be fair, I think you are partially correct. Insurance companies do like tort rulings, but given a choice would overwhelmingly prefer small rulings to expensive ones. Small rulings allow an insurance company to raise or cancel policies for an affected company and retain a small profit. While, large judgments threaten even a large insurance company's bottom line.
Further, an insurance company may raise policies across the board using a judgment as an excuse. Thus, making more profit.
Moving on...
I am judging by your spelling mistakes and syntax errors that you are still a little young and don't quite understand this shit.
Do I need to go here? Ummmm... yes.
Insurance, by its nature, spreds the risk and the cost.
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle. (If you don't "get it," maybe you are still a little young and don't quite understand.)
The only ones with that money are huge companies, so you go work for them.
Me think you type good and should keep giving good advice to masses of reading people.
Out.
1.) You assume that such a state would have a reasonable number of volunteers in the National Guard.
Good point.
2.) You assume that the state in question doesn't have a State Guard that can't be federalized.
Point blank: there is no State that has a National Guard that can not be federalized.
I don't recall any negotiations of any sort. Hell, South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in. The states that left the union didn't try to discuss things in Congress to decide the proper way to leave, they just took their toys and went home.
First, you're correct about South Carolina: the South Carlolina legislature perceived Lincoln's election as a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union, 3 short months before Lincoln was sworn in. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana followed in January and Texas in Feburary.
Second, you're wrong about negotiations: there were many, many hours, days, and months of negotiations between members of congress before Southern States picked up and left in January 1861. The last major effort was The Crittenden Compromise of 1860. (Read it here.)
The police do not protect people, they investigate crimes after the fact. They are not objective, they are agents of the prosecution
First, investigating crime and bringing an offender to justice is preventing crime (be it future crime).
Second, police presence alone prevents crime. Hence, the black and white cars, light bars, and uniforms, etc.
Third, what does objectivity have to do with anything? Police officers are not interpreters of the law. They enforce the law. There is no objectivity in law enforcement.
However, there is definitely objectivity in whom they arrest. You either obey the law or break the law.
Police officers are not perfect: they make mistakes. But, they work very hard, everyday, dealing with people that you and I are scared of or just plain don't want to deal with.
And as far as this idea of "private law enforcement": are you suggesting that private police officers would be more objective (i.e. they would decide what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore?) Possibly leading to one company "allowing" some citizens to do whatever they want to in order to keep a "contract"?
In a competitive environment the police would not be competing against each other, but for your business.
Not quite sure what you're trying to preach here, but it makes no sense. They won't be competing against each other, but will be competing for your business? Isn't that competing against each other? Standard capitalist business model? Who does the job best, wins contract?
Amazing.
I would love to visit and observe such a society. Definitely would provide me with an afternoon of laughter.
Scenario: you dial 10-10-220-911 (and you're automatically entered to win 2 tickets to the SuperBowl) and report someone breaking into your home. Your local private law enforcement company dispatches a unit to your home.
A rival private law enforcement company intercepts the call and dispatches a unit as well.
Company A and Company B law enforcement officers arrive at the same time. Outside your home, Company A officer begins to argue with Company B officer. Meanwhile, there is still an intruder in your home.
After hearing your continuous screams, Company A officer and Company B officer race each other to your front door. However, before entering your home, they take out their PDAs and verify that you have given their respective company permission to enter your home (given that both officers are private citizens, if they enter your home without permission they are trespassing: misdemeanor but, if they force entry then they are breaking and entering: felony).
After verifying a signed release form, Company A officer and Company B officer enter your home. Company A officer spots the intruder, pulls out his night-stick, clubs the intruder, and handcuffs him. Company B officer realizing that he may lose this job if he doesn't do something, pulls out his automatic and shoots the cuffed suspect dead.
Both companies bill you.
Which company did a better job?
I am purposefully not revealing my own ideals in this discussion. I am playing devil's advocate simply because I think most of the ideas presented are VERY GOOD on paper, but not feasible in American society.
It is my opinion that the American public is NOT very responsible, nor respectful. And I believe it nearly impossible to pull off a "Free State" or Libertarian State in the US.
Although, Minnesota did elect a past WWF Wrastling Star to run their government; so anything is possible.
Merit?
We wouldn't be living under a "bully." We would be slaves to the bully. Any monopoly, be it cable TV or Law Enforcement is not a good idea. True competition and checks and balances are what keep us free from the individual bully with all the power.
One mind and one philosophy is NEVER good (with the exception of a platoon in combat).
The individual pays, either with insurance or cash on hand
You're not a libertarian, you're a capitalist. And a bad one at that.
Most fire departments are volunteer and do fund-raising.
Uh-huh. Yeah and that fund-raising covers what? The cost of water? Do some research before you make a statement like the above. Fire Departments are expensive. And they are staffed by some of the most highly-qualified and best trained people in society today. Volunteers and bake sales won't save your house or your family.
Police forces should be privatized.
Do I need to go here again? Yes. Again you're preaching "if you have the cash, you have the service."
Don't have cash or insurance. Sorry but your house must burn.
Don't have the cash. Sorry can't arrest your nighbor for molesting your daughter.
Don't have the cash. Sorry can't use this road to get your wife to the hospital.
Don't have the cash. Sorry, you can't live here.
Hospitals and law enforcement should be corporately run
You're joking right? Private law enforcement? Excuse me, while I take a moment to stop laughing. I don't mean to be rude, nor sarcastic, but that is the most asinine thing I've heard in a long time.
Private Law Enforcement. What happens when the CEO of your law enforcement company decides he doesn't like you living in his neighbor and arrests you? Are you going to fight him in corporate court?
Like it or not, there is a definite need for a central government to protect you from foreign aggression, maintain internal order (i.e. law enforcement), and to administrate the courts. That is what this country was founded upon. Of course in the last 260 years it has veered way off track and now we have TOO MANY laws. Too much bureaucracy. But does that mean we must resort to the opposite end of the spectrum? The other extreme?
Add some safe guards to your plan before attempting your utopian idea. Else, you might find yourself working for one individual who owns the police, fire, library, courts, and is your "elected" official.
Couple more things:
One, who pays for emergency services (i.e. fire, police, emt)?
Second, who pays for emergency services training?
I applaud your efforts to "better" society, but at the same time wonder how much thought has been put into the "Free State" idea?
Again that sounds really nice. However, what happens when your town is hit by a tornado and you require emergency assistance? Do people have to "pay-as-they-go" for each emergency service? What if you require federal assistance?