The federal government needs money to run; even were it only to maintain an army (although no conservative really feels that is all the government should do). It needs to obtain that money somehow. Better to tax people's income, then make a morallistic statement by taxing alcohol.
hat is "restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to, "you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad".
I like this point. Free has to mean consequenceless. (Obviously, not all forms of speech are free, such as slander, yelling "Fire", "fighting words", etc.) Over time, thanks in part to limiting the role of the government, corporations have become far more likely to restrict your freedom.
ut even that comes with a load of (all stupid) exceptions.
What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false?
Well, I know that newspapers would be protected if they did that. There's intent or some other consideration.
What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?
I don't believe defamation is anything other than the combination of libel(written) and slander(spoken). And opinion is protected. Only alleged facts matter.
IANAL, so double-check before expressing your opinions of XYZ.
Defamation IS constitutionally protected. Slander and libel are not, which are cases of untrue defamation with malicious intent (or reckless disregard or some other standard that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to sue over.) Also, those are torts, not civil matters. So, while you don't have a constitutional right to prevent me from obtaining compensation for you unfairly and (something akin to deliberately) maligning my reputation, you cannot go be sent to jail.
We're talking a company that still specializes in *board games*. You'd be about as lucky lecturing a buggy whip company on the potential of the horseless carriage.
Acutally, we're not. For instance, Hasbro includes WOTC and TSR. So Hasbro also includes the most famous paper and pencil RPG company, and the most famous CCG company. WOTC has been fairly good about using the web, and TSR is trying.
the likelihood of any bureaucratic solution even working is also damn low
Damn, I have to remember that the next time I use my GPS to direct me to the hotel I booked on the Internet (using electricity from the TVA), where I could look out on the historical Apollo launch site.
Before committing to Subversion:) you may want to check out Mercurial (think of it as git-done-properly)
I'm committed to CVS(NT) (mayhaps a bad choice) with TortoiseCVS as the client. If anyone can suggest an issue/defect/bug tacking solution that plays nicely with CVS, that would be great! We tried installing Mantis, but it was a bit too complex for our needs, people rarely used it.
Ideally, it could support multiple variants of the same project (same branch, but different inputs), and different levels of interaction (client, internal, etc.) But it has to be usable by non-technical staff.
But it's probably been that way for a very long time. I'd imagine that some illiterate peasant bog-farmer had more kids than, say, Sir Isaac Newton, for example. (don't know if that's actually true, but you see where I'm going, right?)
Well, the peasant was lucky if 2 of his 15 kids lived long enough to reproduce themselves.
And there's lots of evidence that there's a whole lot of brain development that happens in the first 5 years of life or so
I forgot that genes don't play a role after birth!
You go on to state that there can be an effect, but that could just imply what percentage of the genes potential is reached.
I went to see this in IMAX, a three hour drive from here. Don't waste your time if you're thinking of doing it. It looked no better than Iron Man, which I saw in a nice new theater, non-IMAX. This wasn't IMAX at a major science center, like in NYC or Baltimore, where the screens are massive - it was in a shopping-mall IMAX where the screen was no bigger than any other in the complex. Smaller, even, I think, then their best theatre. It had a very minor curvature, I think: this isn't fill-your-visual-field like I was expecting.
Doesn't this mean it's not worth driving to your IMAX theater for any movie; not it's not worth driving to any IMAX theater for any showing of the Dark Knight?
KDE 4.0 was stable libraries for people to learn with, and very new/unstable implementation of the libraries. KDE 4.1 was supposed to be a stable implementation of the already stable libraries.
Ummm... okay, so you can rewrite the article: KDE developers don't understand release version concept, confuse users with improper 4.0 version number, and gain a reputation for a buggy major release.
I forget who said that "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee." Sure, you can get paranoid about network design and control, and give the job to a committee. But that is going to be really clumsy.
It depends on how the committee is set up. If the committee only has to sign off that they understand what the person is doing, could take over if necessary, and the person is not capable of being really evil (technically restricted from it), but not that the solution is well-designed or state of the art, then I think it could work./p.
I mean, you're trying to be cute, but if you roll the die a thousand times hoping that NEXT TIME it'll wash your dishes instead of providing the information on one of the die's faces, you've touched upon what the GP is talking about.
But I have a lot of dice, no dish soap, and a stack of dirty dishes. Maybe if I roll d8s...
Opponents of this plan, including many women in scientific fields, say implementing sex-based quotas will actually be detrimental because it will communicate that the women can't compete on even terms with men and will be 'devastating' to the quality of science 'if every male-dominated field has to be calibrated to women's level of interest.'"
So they object because a) It will make it seem that women need a leg up, and b) they'll have to dumb down science to give women a leg up. I don't particularly believe the second, but if it is true, that would mean the first is just an accurate appraisal of reality.
I don't understand how it's possible to be locked out of a system that you have direct local access to
Because it's not a single computer. Its a distributed network. They can, and seem to be, working on each machine. But to get them all up and running is that many times the manhours.
Well then technically the legal argument is fine I will keep the records in RAM for as long as it last or until it is overwritten, basically boils down to your lawyers technical arguments versus theirs. The only data your are really legally required to keep is what will satisfy the relevant taxation departments.
No, the subpoena required that they make an additional copy of the record and ship it to the plaintiff. So both points are wrong.
And no, you cannot be an ass and deliver a RAM dump. It is not considered a huge burden to keep it in an easy to read manner.
IANAL but isn't there some recent laws/legal precedence that would actually expose them to MORE trouble if they didn't keep those records?
No, there was a recent ruling that a torrent site had to start keeping records in response to a subpoena.
IANAL, but I believe the issues was as follows. Basically, a subpoena cannot be used to force you to start keeping records you otherwise would not (otherwise, imagine the subpoenas over MS's coffee drank allocated to line of code), it can only force you to retain records you create anyway. The torrent site claimed that they never kept records. The plantiff claimed that they kept records in RAM for the purpose of actually running the torrent, and that recording those logs counted as a reasonable imposition for a subpoena.
I know of no libertarian, small "l" or big "L", who agrees it's alright for corporations to require drug tests.
Check out the great-aunt of your post. While I grant that libertarians tend to oppose government control of drugs, you are the first one I have heard of who does not think corporations should be able to drug test their employees. So you favor government regulation to accomplish this? Or by what means do you propose?
And what's wrong with that?
Because it forces people who are in desperate financial straights into a decision of their organs or foodstuffs. It seems unconscionable to force people to choose between those two. Most people believe in a "no one should starve" level of social net. Also, keep in mind the old Shakespearian "pound of flesh". What happens when you lose a kidney, half a liver, and a lung, as part of a bankrupcy?
We'd abolish the limited-liability shield laws to make corporate officers and stockholders fully responsible for a corporation's actions
That voids the concept of a corporation, which is that, due to my limited liability, I can invest only my money, but not my credit/honor/personal future in your idea, and limits access to capital. That combined with yourdesire to return to the gold stndard would destroy the economy.
This happens naturally in a free market; even in ours, with taxes and regulatory policies that encourage gigantism, it's quite rare for a company to stay in the biggest 500 for longer than twenty years.
Microsoft? The resurgence of AT&T? What new car companies have come along? Why do so many slashdotters complain about only 2 ISPs? Your point ignores barriers to entry.
Really though, the killer app of Linux is. Customization. For MS to get more marketshare, you need to be able to customize everything on it. From the kernel to the GUI.
You can customize an install. Obviously, you cannot customize a kernel, that's pretty much what defines an OS. But you can install your own shells if you so please. Oh, they may not be easy to find, but they are out there. And I chose not to install many components the last time I installed windows. Saved some space and annoyance.
I agree on virtual desktops though. And how about sandboxes as well?
Further, its just a warmed over I forgot my insert, I have to go back home:
And I didn't realize that until they defined "Laptop Drive of Shame" in paragraph 3. I assumed it was deleting all the porn you had viewed over the weekend on the drive in, before you plug in the laptop to give a presentation and see... well, that's actually a matter of personal taste.
Liberatarians are okay with corporations drug testing, possibly even DNA testing their employees. The fact that people are entering into voluntary contracts absolves libertarians from considering any aspect of it. The more extreme liberatarians are okay with the sale of human organs!
They completely gloss over the fact that there may be only a few employers, all with mandetory drug testing, within a small area, someone may not have the financial means to leave that area, and may need to get a job quickly to survive. That is a form of coercion.
There is no difference if the government is one of those several major employers, except the government is required to respect more rights of their employees than private employers are.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to learn why. But it seems as though libertarians are only opposed to coercion if the government is doing it.
Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes.
Have you not seen US politics in the past 30 years? Reagan ran on lowering taxes, eliminating handouts, yada yada. So did both Bushes and Clinton. Compare that to Mondale who promised to raise taxes on the rich and suffered the greatest electoral defeat I'm aware of.
Also, how you can make the leap from government economic policy to freedom is something I never understood. The typically libertarian line (which I disagree with) is that economic coersion is okay, but the use of force is not. That's why it's okay for companies to drug test, but not the government.
but in all my years, I've never seen any employer show that level of wisdom in the interview process...gimme emacs and lemme show you how I really edit/create code in real life. if I fail that, then I'll accept whatever decision you make.
I had to interview candidates recently. I provided written out descriptions of test problems, but I sat them down in front of a development machine (we dictate IDE, etc.), with internet access. I was amazed at how few used it.
And I did make sure they knew they were allowed to. There was a huge inertia to answer the questions in the same format tehy were given.
No, we're talking Mythic Entertainment. It may now be a wholly owned subsidiar of EA, but the people in charge of it don't have access to all of EA's cash, and don't want to lose their fiefdom.
Slashdot Mirror
The federal government needs money to run; even were it only to maintain an army (although no conservative really feels that is all the government should do). It needs to obtain that money somehow. Better to tax people's income, then make a morallistic statement by taxing alcohol.
So, I have a right to privacy, as long as I don't do anything interesting. BTW, far better to get naked at a sorority party.
I like this point. Free has to mean consequenceless. (Obviously, not all forms of speech are free, such as slander, yelling "Fire", "fighting words", etc.) Over time, thanks in part to limiting the role of the government, corporations have become far more likely to restrict your freedom.
They don't seem stupid to me...
Well, I know that newspapers would be protected if they did that. There's intent or some other consideration.
I don't believe defamation is anything other than the combination of libel(written) and slander(spoken). And opinion is protected. Only alleged facts matter.
IANAL, so double-check before expressing your opinions of XYZ.
Defamation IS constitutionally protected. Slander and libel are not, which are cases of untrue defamation with malicious intent (or reckless disregard or some other standard that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to sue over.) Also, those are torts, not civil matters. So, while you don't have a constitutional right to prevent me from obtaining compensation for you unfairly and (something akin to deliberately) maligning my reputation, you cannot go be sent to jail.
Acutally, we're not. For instance, Hasbro includes WOTC and TSR. So Hasbro also includes the most famous paper and pencil RPG company, and the most famous CCG company. WOTC has been fairly good about using the web, and TSR is trying.
OSS - as annoying as MS products, but without the catharsis of hating a corporation.
Damn, I have to remember that the next time I use my GPS to direct me to the hotel I booked on the Internet (using electricity from the TVA), where I could look out on the historical Apollo launch site.
I'm committed to CVS(NT) (mayhaps a bad choice) with TortoiseCVS as the client. If anyone can suggest an issue/defect/bug tacking solution that plays nicely with CVS, that would be great! We tried installing Mantis, but it was a bit too complex for our needs, people rarely used it.
Ideally, it could support multiple variants of the same project (same branch, but different inputs), and different levels of interaction (client, internal, etc.) But it has to be usable by non-technical staff.
Well, the peasant was lucky if 2 of his 15 kids lived long enough to reproduce themselves.
I forgot that genes don't play a role after birth!
You go on to state that there can be an effect, but that could just imply what percentage of the genes potential is reached.
Doesn't this mean it's not worth driving to your IMAX theater for any movie; not it's not worth driving to any IMAX theater for any showing of the Dark Knight?
Ummm... okay, so you can rewrite the article: KDE developers don't understand release version concept, confuse users with improper 4.0 version number, and gain a reputation for a buggy major release.
It depends on how the committee is set up. If the committee only has to sign off that they understand what the person is doing, could take over if necessary, and the person is not capable of being really evil (technically restricted from it), but not that the solution is well-designed or state of the art, then I think it could work./p.
But I have a lot of dice, no dish soap, and a stack of dirty dishes. Maybe if I roll d8s...
So they object because a) It will make it seem that women need a leg up, and b) they'll have to dumb down science to give women a leg up. I don't particularly believe the second, but if it is true, that would mean the first is just an accurate appraisal of reality.
Because it's not a single computer. Its a distributed network. They can, and seem to be, working on each machine. But to get them all up and running is that many times the manhours.
No, the subpoena required that they make an additional copy of the record and ship it to the plaintiff. So both points are wrong.
And no, you cannot be an ass and deliver a RAM dump. It is not considered a huge burden to keep it in an easy to read manner.
No, there was a recent ruling that a torrent site had to start keeping records in response to a subpoena.
IANAL, but I believe the issues was as follows. Basically, a subpoena cannot be used to force you to start keeping records you otherwise would not (otherwise, imagine the subpoenas over MS's coffee drank allocated to line of code), it can only force you to retain records you create anyway. The torrent site claimed that they never kept records. The plantiff claimed that they kept records in RAM for the purpose of actually running the torrent, and that recording those logs counted as a reasonable imposition for a subpoena.
Check out the great-aunt of your post. While I grant that libertarians tend to oppose government control of drugs, you are the first one I have heard of who does not think corporations should be able to drug test their employees. So you favor government regulation to accomplish this? Or by what means do you propose?
Because it forces people who are in desperate financial straights into a decision of their organs or foodstuffs. It seems unconscionable to force people to choose between those two. Most people believe in a "no one should starve" level of social net. Also, keep in mind the old Shakespearian "pound of flesh". What happens when you lose a kidney, half a liver, and a lung, as part of a bankrupcy?
That voids the concept of a corporation, which is that, due to my limited liability, I can invest only my money, but not my credit/honor/personal future in your idea, and limits access to capital. That combined with yourdesire to return to the gold stndard would destroy the economy.
Microsoft? The resurgence of AT&T? What new car companies have come along? Why do so many slashdotters complain about only 2 ISPs? Your point ignores barriers to entry.
You can customize an install. Obviously, you cannot customize a kernel, that's pretty much what defines an OS. But you can install your own shells if you so please. Oh, they may not be easy to find, but they are out there. And I chose not to install many components the last time I installed windows. Saved some space and annoyance.
I agree on virtual desktops though. And how about sandboxes as well?
And I didn't realize that until they defined "Laptop Drive of Shame" in paragraph 3. I assumed it was deleting all the porn you had viewed over the weekend on the drive in, before you plug in the laptop to give a presentation and see... well, that's actually a matter of personal taste.
Liberatarians are okay with corporations drug testing, possibly even DNA testing their employees. The fact that people are entering into voluntary contracts absolves libertarians from considering any aspect of it. The more extreme liberatarians are okay with the sale of human organs!
They completely gloss over the fact that there may be only a few employers, all with mandetory drug testing, within a small area, someone may not have the financial means to leave that area, and may need to get a job quickly to survive. That is a form of coercion.
There is no difference if the government is one of those several major employers, except the government is required to respect more rights of their employees than private employers are.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to learn why. But it seems as though libertarians are only opposed to coercion if the government is doing it.
Have you not seen US politics in the past 30 years? Reagan ran on lowering taxes, eliminating handouts, yada yada. So did both Bushes and Clinton. Compare that to Mondale who promised to raise taxes on the rich and suffered the greatest electoral defeat I'm aware of.
Also, how you can make the leap from government economic policy to freedom is something I never understood. The typically libertarian line (which I disagree with) is that economic coersion is okay, but the use of force is not. That's why it's okay for companies to drug test, but not the government.
I had to interview candidates recently. I provided written out descriptions of test problems, but I sat them down in front of a development machine (we dictate IDE, etc.), with internet access. I was amazed at how few used it.
And I did make sure they knew they were allowed to. There was a huge inertia to answer the questions in the same format tehy were given.
No, we're talking Mythic Entertainment. It may now be a wholly owned subsidiar of EA, but the people in charge of it don't have access to all of EA's cash, and don't want to lose their fiefdom.