I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Judicial review is really kind of hard to avoid. First of all, the Federalist Papers made it clear that this was understood to be how things would be done. Second, when forcing something to be doee (or not done), the action is taken in court. Judicial review of a law is in reality the court deciding wehether or not it has authority to act as one party is demanding: if there is no Constitutional authority for the law, then any court action enforcing the law would exceed the powers granted the court in the Constitution . . .
THis becomes necessary becasue the COnstitution enshrines the Supreme COurt as the highest court. Other solutions are possible, though--instead of a Supreme COurt, we could use the Senate, a la the British House of Lords (in which it's actually a committee of Law Lords; the rest of the chamber just rubber stamps)--but that would require a different structure.
gnumeric still isn't ready for prime time. It's closer to complete, and it's nice that I can now resized cells and have this remembered, and use light borders (necessary on an 80 name gradesheet), but it segfaults just too often to use. I've *never* seen an excel this unstable (but then again, the last excel I used was 4.x:), and it even makes staroffice 5.2 look stable . . .
Uh, because staroffice sucks, too? THe question is whether or not it sucks as badly as microsofts.
Monday, it actually brought my system down (using the 2.4pre5 kernel). I selected two columns, copied, and my fingers slipped as I tried a paste-special. It may have tried to pasxte them overlapping the original, but it actually overloaded teh vuirtual memory and brought it down (I left it until morning to see if tit returned).
I've also crashed the same kernel by loading a file larger than vm into beav . . .
(and FreeBSD 3.0 could be crashed the same way by middle-clicking on a whole bunch of images at once in netscape).
There's no entitlement to use the company computer. THe simple solution for the company is "absolutely no personal use," at whcih point there is absolutely no objection available to the company reading anything on there.
The next step from here is the company offering limited yuse with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, don't take that limited use.
*nothing* in here suggested that companies could read email on personal accounts, or tap personal phones.
This is really about the company being able to control its assets.
>If someone is in an office, and receives an email from their doctor,
>giving them information about an appointment, that information should
>be private, as it is none of the company's business (at least in most cases).
1) then don't get it at work.
2) if it's just the time to come, and you go during office hours, it *is*
the company's business.
>The fact that the company owns and controls the vector that is being
>used to communicate the appointment is, in my opinion, irrelevant in
>any reasonable moral context. They may own the laptop, but they have no
>right to the proprietary information flowing between me and a third party.
??? And you get to decide what goes between the "do not look" veil? This
makes industrial espionage just too easy.
And again, you have no "right" to use the company's machines in this
manner anyway.
Why, how can you possibly not understand this. The computer is theree, therefore I'm entitled to privacy. In fact, I'm entitled to have my employer provide a computer to use for my personal matters during working hours. Not having one just isn't *fair*.
Furthermore, my employer has absolutely no right to question what I do with its property that it provides me. It's not like it has any right to control the use, nor that it amy get sued for my use of company property.
Why do they think I'm here? to do stuff for *them*???
Furthermore, I demand full privacy screens to protect me from them
monitoring me . . .
*********
Given that the employer has absolutely no obligation to allow personal use, there's no privacy issue. Personal use is only permitted on these terms. Don't like them?--demand your money back.
But the intrusiveness is the issue. I don't mind that I'm not able to make copies of my software for friends, or that I can't steal theirs.
I *do* mind having to find a floppy on my desk every time I want to use my word processor, and another for my spreadsheet, and another . . .
*especially* with a laptop!
ANd then there's those stupid "on page 17" schemes. My wife threw out my manual for Master of Orion with the newspapers. At least its multiple choice questions about something that's in the game as well (and you can reboot before the third try and take up a couple of turns back). But the boo, is nearly as big as my laptop . . .
Am I likely to buy another game from MPS? not on purpose . . .
Gee, if he'd figured that out a couple of years earlier . . .
Visicalc blew a fully owned market, monopoly beyond even microsofts, by refusign to sell on platforms it couldn't copy-protect (e.g., CP/M).
They figured this out far too late to save themselves.
While I'm at it, for those not old enough to remember, copy protection died a fast death somewhere around 1990. Copy protection was the norm, so even after you installed on your hard disk, you had to insert the install disk as a "key disk" on many progams (Microsoft business programs were a notable exception, iirc).
Then a magazine (MacWorld, I think) called for a flat-out boycott on any copy-protected software--and was heeded. About six months later, copy protection was the exception rather than the rule.
Novemer: whever the hell it is that owns amiga *this* week goes under.
December: six month delay announced.
January: Amiga rights sold to YAS (Yet Another Sucker)
February: 20 0\or 30 slashdot stories. 5 or 10 conflicting press releases, includign thatthe project is going fine, that it is in trouble, tht it's switching to Linux, that it's buying out BeOs, that WIndows has bot it, and that they're issuing QNX under the GPL.
No. A popular vote is the most democratic answer, not the only representative answer.
It is fundamental to the design of our system that some things are counted by state, and others by population. There would *be* no ratified constitution without providing this type of protection to the small states.
If you want to remove our protection, go form a separate union of large states, or we'll leave and form our own. But you're not going to get us to go along sith stripping us of the constitutional prerogatives that were used to get us to join.
The U.S. is *not* the goverment. *The* government is the set of state governments, which delegate their power to the feds--and can withdraw this.
Quite simply, to submit the small states to the tyranny of the majority by the large states violates our most fundamental principle, government by consent of the governed.
> We have the technology to accurately tabulate a popular vote,
WE also had the technology back when the EC was deliberately chosen over the popular vote: namely, the 0, allowing straightforward addition.
A popular vote for president now is just as bad an idea as it was in 1789.; The difference now is that the absolutely committed slates of electors is also a bad idea (thought not as bad a popular vote).
That's news to me, having run FreeBSD with an NE2000 for years . . .
Re:Lawyer: No! rights don't come *from* the 9th
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
Yes. Exactly. If you weren't replying to my post, I'd moderate you up:)
The problem is that too many people see government as the *source* of rights, rather than the protector of those rights . . .
Which leads to the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism--the classical liberal sees government as a necessary evil, while the modern libertarian tends to dispute the necessity (though as a group they seem to be swinging back).
Meanwhile, modern liberals (left-liberals?) and modern conservatives (center-right?) both tend to want to use government as a tool to their ends, the Constitution be damned (though the lips of conservatives frequently repeat the words of classic liberalism on small government, their actions tend to bely them). I've deliberately left the right wing out of the conservative block, as they don't even pay lip service to (classic) liberal thinking.
This also gives us the three groups currently sitting on the US Supreme Court: it's not liberal and conservative as commonly stated, but modern liberal, conservative, and classic liberal, with none of the three groups having a majority. The classic liberal block are the swing votes. Though frequently misidentified as part of the (nonexistant) conservative majority, the times they vote with the liberal block are quite predictible (at least to those of us that have read the Constitution:).
BTW, the classic liberal block is Scalia, Thomas, and (on his good days) Kennedy. When Scalia and Thomas split, it's usually because Scalia's knee jerks right over police safety (or something similar). Kennedy sometimes votes with the classic liberals, but about half the time he just joins the conservatives.
hawk, esq., fairly sure that noone could construe this as legal advice
The distinction, though . . .
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
Is that the speech you cite *should* be protected, and the anonymity is necessary to protect that speech.
On the other hand, I I want to falsely claim that Ralph Nader was paid by Ford to make up data about the Corvair, it should not be protected speech whether I sign my name or not: I should pay for the consequences of my misconduct eithe rway.
hawk, esq.
Lawyer: No! rights don't come *from* the 9th
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
We have the rights to start with. The 9th supposedly made it clear that failure to enumerate rights didn't stop them from existing.
However, this doesn't mean that *all* conceivable rights are protected by the 9th. It doesn't protect my right to throw peanut butter at ministers.
I've always thought that the "right" to anonymous speech was a bit strained. The notiion of free speech rights is really the right not to be silenced by the government for your opinion. If the speech would be defamatory had yopu attached your name to it, the claim to a right to anonynity is the rpretense. . . .
Then you need merely have a machine in the state with a modem and net access . . . The casino dials back the modem, which then runs a live relay by telnet or web . . .
is that you can change it to do that: You're quite free to take a horrible idea, and turn it into a worse one:)
For heven's sake, someone tell me that the first thing people are doing is creating a version with no desktop and separate *programs* rather than modules . . .
I'd really need to know what stops this from following the normal rules of mechanics before agreeing with that.
The only force available is ratially outward, yes. But normally, if force is applied other than the center of mass of an object, the accelleration is *not* in the same direction as the force vector.
I threw a tarball (uncompressed, thank God) onto a fat partition, then tried to recreate it as an extended rather than primary partition. Bad move; this overwrites both fats.
[lots of failed tries deleted]
I made a new partition there, dd'd it to a file, which gave me a 1.7G file. I then tried to load this with beav on a machine with 160M of ram, and 64M of swap.
It runs out of memory and goes away, hard. It answers pings, but that's it. This is repeatable.
I did the same thing to FreeBSD (3.0?) by middle-clicking on a whole bunch of images in netscape, causing many instances of netscape 3 and xv to launch . . .
I wish I could post a URL but a couple of years ago, AT&T sued one of its contractors over the slamming--they were more than a little unpleased about it . . .
Not that I have sympathy for anyone who contracts to telemarketers--I think that telemarketing should be a criminal offense, or that at the lest there should be a national don not call database, available in hashed form, and that calling anyone on the list for marketing purposes should be a crime.
WHile I"m at it, AT&T screwed things up even having them as my carrier. I have their 5c all day plan (just try to get my wife to wait for eveneing . ..). WHen I moved, I called to have the plan moved. They seized the new line, and billed at regular rates. This made about a $100 difference on the first month's bill. My first call to customer service got me an idiot, but when I called the next month, it was quickly corrected. I'd consider switching, but I have yet to see a plan that will cost less with my wife's calling habits . . . (It was a breakthrough when I got her below $100/month--while I was in poverty in graduate school).
While I'm grumping about AT&T, idiots, and gtraduate school: At Iowa State, the school *was* the local telco in student housing. This meant that the school got excellent (for the time) rates, as they were buying somewhere around 10,000 lines in a single transaction . . . They switched carriers partway through, adn we got 10c around the clock while the best deals were generally paying a monthly to get 10c at special hours. We got *3* calls from AT&T wanting to know why we switched--somehow they couldn't figure out that they lost all those lines in a single contract . . .
With more time to think, "tacking" certainly wasn't the right word to use, as this means progress upwind.
I'm really thinking more of steering. The solar wind will always be radially outward from the sun. I'm thinking in terms of gaining accelleration in the plain perpendicular to the local wind vector.
THe force vector will be radially outward. To knock off a dimension, assume that we stay in the plane of the solor system. If the vessel is off of the vector, displaced by an angle theta (where 0 would be on the vector), the accelleration breaks into Fcos(theta) away from the sun, and Fsin(theta) laterally.
As far as the filed, I don't mean making the field funny, but instead to spread out the unit in some way so that the field is generated away from the center of gravity of the entire vessel. This should give a similar ability to move outward.
There would still always be accelleration outward. HOwever, if it is possible to move the vessel far enough off center, it may be possible to move outward while accellerating against the direction of orbit, enough so that the orbit decays and the craft comes inward under the force of gravity.
hawk, who could have done the math for this in his sleep 15 years ago . . .
Slashdot Mirror
> I don't think it's bad to call a large package of different components that
>are meant to work together "Java".
hey, shouldng' that be GNU/Java?
[duck]
:)
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Judicial review is really kind of hard to avoid. First of all, the Federalist Papers made it clear that this was understood to be how things would be done. Second, when forcing something to be doee (or not done), the action is taken in court. Judicial review of a law is in reality the court deciding wehether or not it has authority to act as one party is demanding: if there is no Constitutional authority for the law, then any court action enforcing the law would exceed the powers granted the court in the Constitution . . .
THis becomes necessary becasue the COnstitution enshrines the Supreme COurt as the highest court. Other solutions are possible, though--instead of a Supreme COurt, we could use the Senate, a la the British House of Lords (in which it's actually a committee of Law Lords; the rest of the chamber just rubber stamps)--but that would require a different structure.
hawk, esq.
gnumeric still isn't ready for prime time. It's closer to complete, and it's nice that I can now resized cells and have this remembered, and use light borders (necessary on an 80 name gradesheet), but it segfaults just too often to use. I've *never* seen an excel this unstable (but then again, the last excel I used was 4.x :), and it even makes staroffice 5.2 look stable . . .
Uh, because staroffice sucks, too? THe question is whether or not it sucks as badly as microsofts.
Monday, it actually brought my system down (using the 2.4pre5 kernel). I selected two columns, copied, and my fingers slipped as I tried a paste-special. It may have tried to pasxte them overlapping the original, but it actually overloaded teh vuirtual memory and brought it down (I left it until morning to see if tit returned).
I've also crashed the same kernel by loading a file larger than vm into beav . . .
(and FreeBSD 3.0 could be crashed the same way by middle-clicking on a whole bunch of images at once in netscape).
Actually, I think it *was* resolved back when it was a serious theological question--though I forget the answer.
hawk
simple? I suppse this is.
There's no entitlement to use the company computer. THe simple solution for the company is "absolutely no personal use," at whcih point there is absolutely no objection available to the company reading anything on there.
The next step from here is the company offering limited yuse with conditions. If you don't like those conditions, don't take that limited use.
*nothing* in here suggested that companies could read email on personal accounts, or tap personal phones.
This is really about the company being able to control its assets.
>If someone is in an office, and receives an email from their doctor,
>giving them information about an appointment, that information should
>be private, as it is none of the company's business (at least in most cases).
1) then don't get it at work.
2) if it's just the time to come, and you go during office hours, it *is*
the company's business.
>The fact that the company owns and controls the vector that is being
>used to communicate the appointment is, in my opinion, irrelevant in
>any reasonable moral context. They may own the laptop, but they have no
>right to the proprietary information flowing between me and a third party.
??? And you get to decide what goes between the "do not look" veil? This
makes industrial espionage just too easy.
And again, you have no "right" to use the company's machines in this
manner anyway.
hawk, esq.
Why, how can you possibly not understand this. The computer is theree, therefore I'm entitled to privacy. In fact, I'm entitled to have my employer provide a computer to use for my personal matters during working hours. Not having one just isn't *fair*.
Furthermore, my employer has absolutely no right to question what I do with its property that it provides me. It's not like it has any right to control the use, nor that it amy get sued for my use of company property.
Why do they think I'm here? to do stuff for *them*???
Furthermore, I demand full privacy screens to protect me from them
monitoring me . . .
*********
Given that the employer has absolutely no obligation to allow personal use, there's no privacy issue. Personal use is only permitted on these terms. Don't like them?--demand your money back.
hawk, esq.
I don't use games that often :)
But the intrusiveness is the issue. I don't mind that I'm not able to make copies of my software for friends, or that I can't steal theirs.
I *do* mind having to find a floppy on my desk every time I want to use my word processor, and another for my spreadsheet, and another . . .
*especially* with a laptop!
ANd then there's those stupid "on page 17" schemes. My wife threw out my manual for Master of Orion with the newspapers. At least its multiple choice questions about something that's in the game as well (and you can reboot before the third try and take up a couple of turns back). But the boo, is nearly as big as my laptop . . .
Am I likely to buy another game from MPS? not on purpose . . .
:)
Gee, if he'd figured that out a couple of years earlier . . .
Visicalc blew a fully owned market, monopoly beyond even microsofts, by refusign to sell on platforms it couldn't copy-protect (e.g., CP/M).
They figured this out far too late to save themselves.
While I'm at it, for those not old enough to remember, copy protection died a fast death somewhere around 1990. Copy protection was the norm, so even after you installed on your hard disk, you had to insert the install disk as a "key disk" on many progams (Microsoft business programs were a notable exception, iirc).
Then a magazine (MacWorld, I think) called for a flat-out boycott on any copy-protected software--and was heeded. About six months later, copy protection was the exception rather than the rule.
hawk, showing his age
He left out:
Novemer: whever the hell it is that owns amiga *this* week goes under.
December: six month delay announced.
January: Amiga rights sold to YAS (Yet Another Sucker)
February: 20 0\or 30 slashdot stories. 5 or 10 conflicting press releases, includign thatthe project is going fine, that it is in trouble, tht it's switching to Linux, that it's buying out BeOs, that WIndows has bot it, and that they're issuing QNX under the GPL.
March: YAS goes bankrupt
April: cycle starts again
May: Amiga fans remain undaunted
No. A popular vote is the most democratic answer, not the only representative answer.
It is fundamental to the design of our system that some things are counted by state, and others by population. There would *be* no ratified constitution without providing this type of protection to the small states.
If you want to remove our protection, go form a separate union of large states, or we'll leave and form our own. But you're not going to get us to go along sith stripping us of the constitutional prerogatives that were used to get us to join.
The U.S. is *not* the goverment. *The* government is the set of state governments, which delegate their power to the feds--and can withdraw this.
Quite simply, to submit the small states to the tyranny of the majority by the large states violates our most fundamental principle, government by consent of the governed.
hawk, a displaced Nevadan
> We have the technology to accurately tabulate a popular vote,
WE also had the technology back when the EC was deliberately chosen over the popular vote: namely, the 0, allowing straightforward addition.
A popular vote for president now is just as bad an idea as it was in 1789.; The difference now is that the absolutely committed slates of electors is also a bad idea (thought not as bad a popular vote).
hawk, esq.
>_ Because none of them could use my NE2000?
That's news to me, having run FreeBSD with an NE2000 for years . . .
Yes. Exactly. If you weren't replying to my post, I'd moderate you up :)
:).
The problem is that too many people see government as the *source* of rights, rather than the protector of those rights . . .
Which leads to the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism--the classical liberal sees government as a necessary evil, while the modern libertarian tends to dispute the necessity (though as a group they seem to be swinging back).
Meanwhile, modern liberals (left-liberals?) and modern conservatives (center-right?) both tend to want to use government as a tool to their ends, the Constitution be damned (though the lips of conservatives frequently repeat the words of classic liberalism on small government, their actions tend to bely them). I've deliberately left the right wing out of the conservative block, as they don't even pay lip service to (classic) liberal thinking.
This also gives us the three groups currently sitting on the US Supreme Court: it's not liberal and conservative as commonly stated, but modern liberal, conservative, and classic liberal, with none of the three groups having a majority. The classic liberal block are the swing votes. Though frequently misidentified as part of the (nonexistant) conservative majority, the times they vote with the liberal block are quite predictible (at least to those of us that have read the Constitution
BTW, the classic liberal block is Scalia, Thomas, and (on his good days) Kennedy. When Scalia and Thomas split, it's usually because Scalia's knee jerks right over police safety (or something similar). Kennedy sometimes votes with the classic liberals, but about half the time he just joins the conservatives.
hawk, esq., fairly sure that noone could construe this as legal advice
Is that the speech you cite *should* be protected, and the anonymity is necessary to protect that speech.
On the other hand, I I want to falsely claim that Ralph Nader was paid by Ford to make up data about the Corvair, it should not be protected speech whether I sign my name or not: I should pay for the consequences of my misconduct eithe rway.
hawk, esq.
We have the rights to start with. The 9th supposedly made it clear that failure to enumerate rights didn't stop them from existing.
However, this doesn't mean that *all* conceivable rights are protected by the 9th. It doesn't protect my right to throw peanut butter at ministers.
I've always thought that the "right" to anonymous speech was a bit strained. The notiion of free speech rights is really the right not to be silenced by the government for your opinion. If the speech would be defamatory had yopu attached your name to it, the claim to a right to anonynity is the rpretense. . . .
hawk, esq.
Then you need merely have a machine in the state with a modem and net access . . . The casino dials back the modem, which then runs a live relay by telnet or web . . .
hawk, a Nevada attorney (among other things)
is that you can change it to do that: You're quite free to take a horrible idea, and turn it into a worse one :)
For heven's sake, someone tell me that the first thing people are doing is creating a version with no desktop and separate *programs* rather than modules . . .
hawk
Brother Stallman will lead us in song.
."
All together now:
"GPL, GPL, uber alles . .
hawk, not trolling, but not entirely facetious, either
I'd really need to know what stops this from following the normal rules of mechanics before agreeing with that.
The only force available is ratially outward, yes. But normally, if force is applied other than the center of mass of an object, the accelleration is *not* in the same direction as the force vector.
hawk
I threw a tarball (uncompressed, thank God) onto a fat partition, then tried to recreate it as an extended rather than primary partition. Bad move; this overwrites both fats.
[lots of failed tries deleted]
I made a new partition there, dd'd it to a file, which gave me a 1.7G file. I then tried to load this with beav on a machine with 160M of ram, and 64M of swap.
It runs out of memory and goes away, hard. It answers pings, but that's it. This is repeatable.
I did the same thing to FreeBSD (3.0?) by middle-clicking on a whole bunch of images in netscape, causing many instances of netscape 3 and xv to launch . . .
These were both as a regular user, not root.
hawk
I wish I could post a URL but a couple of years ago, AT&T sued one of its contractors over the slamming--they were more than a little unpleased about it . . .
.). WHen I moved, I called to have the plan moved. They seized the new line, and billed at regular rates. This made about a $100 difference on the first month's bill. My first call to customer service got me an idiot, but when I called the next month, it was quickly corrected. I'd consider switching, but I have yet to see a plan that will cost less with my wife's calling habits . . . (It was a breakthrough when I got her below $100/month--while I was in poverty in graduate school).
Not that I have sympathy for anyone who contracts to telemarketers--I think that telemarketing should be a criminal offense, or that at the lest there should be a national don not call database, available in hashed form, and that calling anyone on the list for marketing purposes should be a crime.
WHile I"m at it, AT&T screwed things up even having them as my carrier. I have their 5c all day plan (just try to get my wife to wait for eveneing . .
While I'm grumping about AT&T, idiots, and gtraduate school: At Iowa State, the school *was* the local telco in student housing. This meant that the school got excellent (for the time) rates, as they were buying somewhere around 10,000 lines in a single transaction . . . They switched carriers partway through, adn we got 10c around the clock while the best deals were generally paying a monthly to get 10c at special hours. We got *3* calls from AT&T wanting to know why we switched--somehow they couldn't figure out that they lost all those lines in a single contract . . .
hawk
With more time to think, "tacking" certainly wasn't the right word to use, as this means progress upwind.
I'm really thinking more of steering. The solar wind will always be radially outward from the sun. I'm thinking in terms of gaining accelleration in the plain perpendicular to the local wind vector.
THe force vector will be radially outward. To knock off a dimension, assume that we stay in the plane of the solor system. If the vessel is off of the vector, displaced by an angle theta (where 0 would be on the vector), the accelleration breaks into Fcos(theta) away from the sun, and Fsin(theta) laterally.
As far as the filed, I don't mean making the field funny, but instead to spread out the unit in some way so that the field is generated away from the center of gravity of the entire vessel. This should give a similar ability to move outward.
There would still always be accelleration outward. HOwever, if it is possible to move the vessel far enough off center, it may be possible to move outward while accellerating against the direction of orbit, enough so that the orbit decays and the craft comes inward under the force of gravity.
hawk, who could have done the math for this in his sleep 15 years ago . . .