There is a continuing myth that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms, when in fact, the Supreme Court has long held otherwise. 1939 was the last time the high court even entertained a challenge to the government's power to regulate guns (U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 [1939]).
The essential words, "A well regulated Militia," were chosen with great purpose. As the Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The anti-gun-regulation proponents conveniently misconstrue the first half of the amendment and pretend that the second half is tells the whole story. They foolishly continue to debate a point that was settled and dismissed over 60 years ago.
"For the vast majority of people, price is way more important than quality."
The vast majority of people won't spend $200 (or even $20) on a useless box, and to the contrary, the box must ascend much higher on the "quality" scale before it will justify shelling out two c-notes. First look at the percentage of expected home computing functionality that these boxes deliver, and then consider the price. You should see that the vast majority of people are driven by the complex notion of value, not simply price, and that's why these things are selling.
"Basically what they're doing is trying to scare senior management into thinking that allowing employees unrestricted use of the net will cripple a company with viruses and lawsuits."
So what you're suggesting is that "senior management," the same people who have thus far had the insight to fund and open up internet access to employees with no statutory requirement to do so, the same people who have with few exceptions respected the email privacy of their employees even though they don't have to, that these are the same people who will now be scared off by somebody who "alerts" them to risks?
Who's the fool?
<bart
How 'bout 10Kg @ 3m/s in your face?
on
Robot Mine Smasher
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
That's a 10 kilogram hammer striking your face at 3 meters per second, after which you would ask, "Why was that so slow?"
I don't think so.
You may one day become a genuine skeptic if you can find a way to point that skeptical eye at your own uncritical thinking.
In fact, radioactive waste is shipped VERY safely. You probably don't REALLY want to know how it's done, but JUST IN CASE you're interested in LEARNING something, take a look at this link:
I live in downtown New York. A few thousand of my neighbors were killed a couple of months ago. By my definition, they were innocent people.
You are my neighbors too.
The people who killed my neighbors, and their supporters, share a common belief that we are an insult to God, an insult to the earth, and an insult to the "good" people of this earth. There appear to be a few thousand people around the world today who are willing to violently remove us from this earth, and a few hundred million who think that wouldn't be such a terrible thing.
For those of you neighbors who seek greater mutual understanding, please take more time to realize that your non-Muslim, Western thinking is offensive, and when people speak of "American arrogance," they are referring to your inability to realize the inferiority of your way of life.
We, our government, your government, are engaged now in a war; a struggle to eradicate the people who would eradicate us: me and you, my neighbors. Our motive for war is preservation of our lives, our hopes, our optimistic future. It is not hatred. It is not money. Your beliefs to the contrary reflect your own cynicism and lack of appreciation for the degree of humanity that we share: me, our government, and you, my neighbors.
Your concern for the innocent people of Somalia is reasonable. Your doubts about how genuine is our reasoning for cutting off their internet access is not.
Come on down to New York and visit us for a day, neighbor. Come join me in savoring the pain of the tens of thousands of relatives and friends of our dead neighbors. And please, don't pretend you're not one of the people who should be dead, because that's just your American arrogance rearing its ugly head.
There will be victims in this war, neighbors. I don't want it to be an innocent Somali. But I don't want it to be me either. And so, I choose to fight those who would kill me, who would kill you, my neighbors. And I seek solace in personal prayer, that I may be forgiven for choosing life, regretting that innocents will die as a result, but rejoicing in celebration of life with my neighbors.
To the Somali people, I apologize. But to you, neighbor, I make no apologies. I, we, the greater America, will defend you with no limit to our efforts, and you, my neighbor, must suffer this.
...those dot-com guys who were able to pull off inter-bizness transaction worth MILLIONS (okay, on paper). Remember: a good bizness begins with a good name (reference: "Dot-com Bizness Guide", page 1).
You're probably not a professor, definitely a student (at one time or another), possibly PHD, if not then envious of such.
While you profess the importance of WHAT you know, you really care about WHO you know, or in this case, where it came from.
You have studied alot. You know much. But you are a living example of the difference between knowledge and wisdom; between articulate and eloquent.
Why do I assert these things? Because in the face of a proposition wherein a large body of knowledge will be disseminated to the public, your point is that there exists an even larger body of knowledge, and you therefore trivialize the proposition.
Your point, however well-supported, is small-minded. You missed the essential proposition here, which is undeniably of extraordinary value.
The justifying theory was that "business rules" would reside with the data, in one place, and thereby avoid the hazards of duplicated logic across applications. The motives were: 1) by the database publishers to create a proprietary dependency upon their particular dialect of stored procedure language, and 2) by benchmark-driven dweebs who mistakenly think the incremental speed gains are material to customer satisfaction (they are not).
The reality is that few (none that I know) development shops will give up their preferred programming languages in favor of these more proprietary languages. SO, the value of isolating business rules in the database is not realized. BUT, the dweebs come home to roost again, as they insist on doing SOME of their coding in stored procedures under the guise of the previously mentioned excuses as well as any other forms of obfuscated logic that they may employ. And why? Because it's their idea of fun, whether they know it or not. And the cost? One more language in use, another skill set needed, more cross-training, another MAJOR blow to portability across SQL databases and the increased vendor-specific dependency that comes with it.
Score one for the database publishers. Score one for the geeks (they get their vice). Loss goes to The Company as their costs escalate unnecessarily.
In your zeal to slay Microsoft with your Java sword, you overstated your points. Junkpunch properly refuted them.
Point goes to Junkpunch. Show more restraint next time.
<bart
Dear God, I HATED IT!!!
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
At least if I'm gonna put up with the high-brow crap I should get some kind of an education. But this was a brand of Spielberg masturbation that went straight over my headband, only hitting square an audience enveloped in its own self-congratulatory ability to "get it."
I don't go to movies for a challenge, nor do I go to sleep; I go for entertainment. In this case I wasn't up to the challenge so I had to settle for the sleep, which royally SUCKS.
As an easy-to-please movie-goer, this was one of the most wasteful experiences I've ever had in my movie-viewing history.
Some years ago, I came into the position of regularly reviewing a type of contract in which attorneys invariably attached a rider with their disclaimers.
After reviewing the first contract, I was impressed by the attorney's disclaimer, and his insight into ways in which his client could be screwed. Surely, I had not foreseen those factors. The next contract had a similarly insightful disclaimer, although it pointed out very different issues to be disclaimed.
Having now reviewed scores of these contracts over many years, I have learned several things:
Every disclaimer was new and different from any prior disclaimer
Each disclaimer represented a particular way in which an attorney's client had previously been screwed
There are an infinite number of ways in which to screw somebody without violating the letter of a contract
All this gives way to an important truth about contracts: the words only stand up by the goodwill of the parties behind them, and similarly, cannot withstand the force of an able party who wants out. In the fast-paced exchange of internet communications, it amazes me that attorneys don't realize that their technical disclaimers zoom by without any real meeting of the minds, and therefore, create no basis for a meaningful contract.
That Scalia may not question that assumption is likely a result of his belief that such an inquiry is the responsibility of the legislature. Don't swallow the simplistic view that Scalia shares the conservative politic. Judicial restraint is his cause, and more constructively, his belief that the voice of the people should not be unduely overruled by a party of nine whose justification is not simply the words of the Constitution, but often very complex and contrived interpretations of said document.
I might be a liberal, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid.
Those pneumatic tubes are made of cast iron that has been oxidizing in New York's ground for over a century. Let's just say you COULD snake your cables through those corroded pipes, get past all the cracks and breaks, and make your way to where you want to go. Your destination had better be a post office, 'cause that's where those old babies take you. Seems to me, though, that unless you're expecting to move PAPER through your fibers, a phone company central office would be a much better bet for terminating your telecom lines.
Whoever said "there's one born every day" grossly underestimated the extent of the problem.
As I understand the question, the poster is looking for a web-based administration tool that allows a web-hosting customer to control the particular parts of services that users are typically allowed to control. Such configurables typically include the following services, restricted to the user's particular virtual domain:
E-mail forwards
Pop account creation/deletion
Default pop account designation
Autoresponder configuration
URL redirects
Does Microsoft offer such a utility that is well-suited for a webhosting facility? Am I missing something?
Either I'm ignorant, or you're what they call a reactionary.
Ummm...you are ignoring Milberg's extraordinarily cynical modus operandi: class action lawsuits. While there ARE "lead plaintiffs" in these cases, Milberg specializes in using them as a vehicle for sweeping in HUGE classes of people who never chose to be plaintiffs. Milberg becomes the money-sucking proxy that multiplies its fees by every unsuspecting member of the class. By default, you have to actually take action (in the form of an explicit opt-out) in order to be excluded from the class.
I have, in my own history, found myself to be a plaintiff in a number of Milberg lawsuits, even though I thought EVERY SINGLE ONE was frivolous and contrary to my own interests.
Who's suing whom? Make no mistake about it...Milberg does the suing, and the lead plaintiffs are merely partners in crime.
bart
Slashdot Mirror
The essential words, "A well regulated Militia," were chosen with great purpose. As the Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The anti-gun-regulation proponents conveniently misconstrue the first half of the amendment and pretend that the second half is tells the whole story. They foolishly continue to debate a point that was settled and dismissed over 60 years ago.
<bart
"For the vast majority of people, price is way more important than quality."
The vast majority of people won't spend $200 (or even $20) on a useless box, and to the contrary, the box must ascend much higher on the "quality" scale before it will justify shelling out two c-notes. First look at the percentage of expected home computing functionality that these boxes deliver, and then consider the price. You should see that the vast majority of people are driven by the complex notion of value, not simply price, and that's why these things are selling.
...is being the one who has to pay for the content.
bart
Just because the bubble burst doesn't mean a lesson was learned.
...so that "quality" is lost on me.
I wrote to Slashdot asking for exactly that last week after another Katz post. Thanks for taking a shot.
So what you're suggesting is that "senior management," the same people who have thus far had the insight to fund and open up internet access to employees with no statutory requirement to do so, the same people who have with few exceptions respected the email privacy of their employees even though they don't have to, that these are the same people who will now be scared off by somebody who "alerts" them to risks?
Who's the fool?
<bart
I don't think so.
You may one day become a genuine skeptic if you can find a way to point that skeptical eye at your own uncritical thinking.
<bart
I haven't tested it under load, but I've installed and successfully tested PostgreSQL 7.1 under Cygwin on Windows 2000.
<bart
In fact, radioactive waste is shipped VERY safely. You probably don't REALLY want to know how it's done, but JUST IN CASE you're interested in LEARNING something, take a look at this link:
How waste is shipped safely
It may come as a surprise to you to find that the people who designed our nuclear infrastructure are neither stupid nor suicidal.
<bart
I live in downtown New York. A few thousand of my neighbors were killed a couple of months ago. By my definition, they were innocent people.
You are my neighbors too.
The people who killed my neighbors, and their supporters, share a common belief that we are an insult to God, an insult to the earth, and an insult to the "good" people of this earth. There appear to be a few thousand people around the world today who are willing to violently remove us from this earth, and a few hundred million who think that wouldn't be such a terrible thing.
For those of you neighbors who seek greater mutual understanding, please take more time to realize that your non-Muslim, Western thinking is offensive, and when people speak of "American arrogance," they are referring to your inability to realize the inferiority of your way of life.
We, our government, your government, are engaged now in a war; a struggle to eradicate the people who would eradicate us: me and you, my neighbors. Our motive for war is preservation of our lives, our hopes, our optimistic future. It is not hatred. It is not money. Your beliefs to the contrary reflect your own cynicism and lack of appreciation for the degree of humanity that we share: me, our government, and you, my neighbors.
Your concern for the innocent people of Somalia is reasonable. Your doubts about how genuine is our reasoning for cutting off their internet access is not.
Come on down to New York and visit us for a day, neighbor. Come join me in savoring the pain of the tens of thousands of relatives and friends of our dead neighbors. And please, don't pretend you're not one of the people who should be dead, because that's just your American arrogance rearing its ugly head.
There will be victims in this war, neighbors. I don't want it to be an innocent Somali. But I don't want it to be me either. And so, I choose to fight those who would kill me, who would kill you, my neighbors. And I seek solace in personal prayer, that I may be forgiven for choosing life, regretting that innocents will die as a result, but rejoicing in celebration of life with my neighbors.
To the Somali people, I apologize. But to you, neighbor, I make no apologies. I, we, the greater America, will defend you with no limit to our efforts, and you, my neighbor, must suffer this.
<bart
I'd be such d' man.
<bart
...those dot-com guys who were able to pull off inter-bizness transaction worth MILLIONS (okay, on paper). Remember: a good bizness begins with a good name (reference: "Dot-com Bizness Guide", page 1).
<bart
Some guesses...
You're probably not a professor, definitely a student (at one time or another), possibly PHD, if not then envious of such.
While you profess the importance of WHAT you know, you really care about WHO you know, or in this case, where it came from.
You have studied alot. You know much. But you are a living example of the difference between knowledge and wisdom; between articulate and eloquent.
Why do I assert these things? Because in the face of a proposition wherein a large body of knowledge will be disseminated to the public, your point is that there exists an even larger body of knowledge, and you therefore trivialize the proposition.
Your point, however well-supported, is small-minded. You missed the essential proposition here, which is undeniably of extraordinary value.
<bart
...you fool.
<bart
The reality is that few (none that I know) development shops will give up their preferred programming languages in favor of these more proprietary languages. SO, the value of isolating business rules in the database is not realized. BUT, the dweebs come home to roost again, as they insist on doing SOME of their coding in stored procedures under the guise of the previously mentioned excuses as well as any other forms of obfuscated logic that they may employ. And why? Because it's their idea of fun, whether they know it or not. And the cost? One more language in use, another skill set needed, more cross-training, another MAJOR blow to portability across SQL databases and the increased vendor-specific dependency that comes with it.
Score one for the database publishers. Score one for the geeks (they get their vice). Loss goes to The Company as their costs escalate unnecessarily.
<bart
<bart
<bart
Point goes to Junkpunch. Show more restraint next time.
<bart
I don't go to movies for a challenge, nor do I go to sleep; I go for entertainment. In this case I wasn't up to the challenge so I had to settle for the sleep, which royally SUCKS.
As an easy-to-please movie-goer, this was one of the most wasteful experiences I've ever had in my movie-viewing history.
Spare yourself.
<bart
After reviewing the first contract, I was impressed by the attorney's disclaimer, and his insight into ways in which his client could be screwed. Surely, I had not foreseen those factors. The next contract had a similarly insightful disclaimer, although it pointed out very different issues to be disclaimed.
Having now reviewed scores of these contracts over many years, I have learned several things:
- Every disclaimer was new and different from any prior disclaimer
- Each disclaimer represented a particular way in which an attorney's client had previously been screwed
- There are an infinite number of ways in which to screw somebody without violating the letter of a contract
All this gives way to an important truth about contracts: the words only stand up by the goodwill of the parties behind them, and similarly, cannot withstand the force of an able party who wants out. In the fast-paced exchange of internet communications, it amazes me that attorneys don't realize that their technical disclaimers zoom by without any real meeting of the minds, and therefore, create no basis for a meaningful contract.<bart
I might be a liberal, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid.
<bart
Those pneumatic tubes are made of cast iron that has been oxidizing in New York's ground for over a century. Let's just say you COULD snake your cables through those corroded pipes, get past all the cracks and breaks, and make your way to where you want to go. Your destination had better be a post office, 'cause that's where those old babies take you. Seems to me, though, that unless you're expecting to move PAPER through your fibers, a phone company central office would be a much better bet for terminating your telecom lines.
Whoever said "there's one born every day" grossly underestimated the extent of the problem.
<bart
- E-mail forwards
- Pop account creation/deletion
- Default pop account designation
- Autoresponder configuration
- URL redirects
Does Microsoft offer such a utility that is well-suited for a webhosting facility? Am I missing something?Either I'm ignorant, or you're what they call a reactionary.
...or do you think Solaris sunglasses provide all the light in the world?
Ummm...you are ignoring Milberg's extraordinarily cynical modus operandi: class action lawsuits. While there ARE "lead plaintiffs" in these cases, Milberg specializes in using them as a vehicle for sweeping in HUGE classes of people who never chose to be plaintiffs. Milberg becomes the money-sucking proxy that multiplies its fees by every unsuspecting member of the class. By default, you have to actually take action (in the form of an explicit opt-out) in order to be excluded from the class. I have, in my own history, found myself to be a plaintiff in a number of Milberg lawsuits, even though I thought EVERY SINGLE ONE was frivolous and contrary to my own interests. Who's suing whom? Make no mistake about it...Milberg does the suing, and the lead plaintiffs are merely partners in crime. bart