The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.
I'm only going to concentrate on this part of your post as the rest goes into what are very well factual things but have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the 2nd ammendment.
"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."
You are correct on the beginning, but the ending is what really gives it a punch. This is a -SINGLE- sentence. The beginning nearly states why the following occurs. The 2nd half of the sentence states what actually is being guaranteed.
" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the -ONLY- "action" of the sentence.
Granted, I didn't write it, and it's meaning is still up for debate apparently but there are a few people out there that agree with my interpretation of it:
Thomas Jefferson:
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
George Washington:
"A free people ought to be armed." Speech Jan 7, 1790.
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787, in Jefferson, On Democracy , pg. 20 (S. Padover ed., 1939)
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)
James Madison:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.
Thomas Paine:
"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them," Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775)
Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)
Richard Henry Lee:
' A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788)
Alexander Hamilton:
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788
But I am against nuts with guns. Yep, I'm against it.
If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"
I don't think you actually read my post entirely. Please note the opening where I mention my gun-toting drug dealing cousin (with a felony!) has access to weapons easier than I do as a law abiding citizen.
He shot two men two months ago after a drug deal went bad.
Nuts do own guns, illegally. There is nothing I can realistically do to stop them from having them. However by being armed I can protect myself and those around me. Because I'm armed I raise the probability of a nut-job encountering an armed citizen when they want to commit armed robbery -- and they begin to think twice. If they knew every damned person in the city had a gun on them and that 99% of them were law abiding peaceful people do you really think they'd pull half the crap they do?
You don't have to thank me for protecting your freedom and livelyhood. I get enough satisfaction out of knowing that I'm doing my part while you whine and moan about it.
There are a myriad of firearm laws. Last I knew it was darned near 22,000 nationwide. It's a mess. Sure has done a heck of a lot to keep illegal guns off the street though. As a law abiding citizen I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally. Makes me feel real damn safe at night.
Ranting aside, laws generally apply to chemically propelled weapons. That leaves BB and pellet guns out of the regulations. The magnetic weapons are still slow enough and bulky enough that they're not under regulation yet. As soon as somebody gets one that works well and starts selling it though you can bet stink will hit the fan though.
While I'm not a fan of what he did Timothy McVeigh did build a weapon of sorts that was somewhat like a shotgun but fired a modified flare that would explode. It was meant to take down helicopters. The ATF went after him for a bit on this one, or at least confronted him I guess, even though it was prefectly legal to sell. Couldn't sell the explosive flares but empties with instructions on how to make shells were illegal.
"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.
Yes I'm a pro-2nd ammendment person. If you have a problem with that I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns if you think that will make the world a safer place.
Even cooler, you can probably tell how many generations away they are.
Unless they're from Kentucky, in which case a new generation may very well contain zero new genetic information. There's a way around everything.
Disclaimer: Yes, one side of my family does originate from Kentucky so if you're offended by this bugger off. An uncle of mine got a look at the family tree at a reunion once and sure enough, it didn't always branch where it should.
Sadly that sounds pretty typical of so many modern regulations. Ban cameras at public pools and the parents will no longer be able to take photos of their kids at play. But the pedaphiles, who already have plenty of screws loose, will continue to snap pictures... either hidden camera or at a distance with a telephoto lens.
Does anyone else notice the pattern with bans?
Pft... I'm a gun owner. Of course I see the patterns in bans.
Re:Mores law also is affecting buying decisions.
on
Technology Buying Slump
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The desktop == mainframe. They are no longer where the industry is and the embedded/pda/cell phone is the next IT revolution. They are still evolving and thats where I guess the new market is.
Nah, it's another history-repeats-itself problem. We're going back to the thin-client environment. PC support costs are growing out of control and managing all the problems involved in deploying corporate apps on them are getting higher and higher. We're going to hit another thin-client connects to "mainframe" environment pretty quickly.
Bandwidth across frame relays will become more and more neccessary and client machines will become more disposable. You'll get a base OS with your neccessary applications that are 'stock' on it anything special to that corp will be served up via a web-services type interface on a dumbed down client app or browser. No more pushing upgrades to systems -- you just update the logic at the backend and viola -- new app.
Just like when you'd hook up to the IBM mainframe ala 3270 terminal emulation and enter your work into a COBOL app -- which was before my time. It's rather exciting to me, as I've been thinking thin client apps since I started programming seriously, circa 1998:).
About 5 seconds before I hit slashdot I wrote an email to my old high school physics teacher about a project I'm thinking of to use a model rocket to measure wind currents as the rocket decends.
It's been a -long- time since I launched a model rocket, but I was assuming that 2,000 feet would be -easy- and that 10,000 feet possible. Apparently not.
Heck, I should make an 'Ask Slashdot' about this one. Shoot rocket to insane heights (apparently) and measure what the wind is doing every 50-100 feet on the way down to make a nice graph of the airs for parachuting. Any takers? Lets assume I'd spend 600 dollars on equipment.
common sense to use WEP or some other serious form of protection for sensitive records like that.
You do realize that putting WEP on your WLAN is about as effective as putting 6 layers of duct-tape over your lock thinking that nobody with a key can get in now, right?
WEP is useless unless you want to keep people out that wouldn't spend 30 minutes or less trying to crack the key.
I felt like you did, sort of, until I read the parent post. Then I understood the whole deal... I think.
Both sides want to make a stink about this. Both sides think they're right... but nobody has a personal one-on-one problem here really. So, the pro-Linux crowd shows up, SCO joins in and a bigger "stink" is made in the public eye and both sides get attention. The individual participants can still be friendly though. You might as well have fun while you're out there, and there's certainly no point in making personal enemies while you're out there.
Ooo.. that brings a funny image to mind. A couple hundred coders in an all out brawl. Lens Crafters could make a -killing- if the instigated the fight!
I'm almost positive my Driver's License doesn't have my SSN tied to it. In fact I would presume that to be illegal. The SSN is supposed to be used only for social security. Granted, private industry has abused this and tied to all sorts of things for conveinence, but when the -STATE- government starts demanding it for licensing purposes I'll get worried.
I honestly can't rember if I had to give my SSN when I got my driver's license. I'm almost positive that I've never given it out when renewing plates or adding certifications to it.
I'm not horribly afraid of my SSN being released, but there is one thing I refuse to have it tied to: Firearms purchases. I bought my first two fiarms with a check, but they were pistols which had to be registered with the government anyway. That registration does -not- have my SSN on it either. In fact it doesn't even have my driver's license number on it. I'm in Michigan, YYMV.
When filling out the ATF required form for a background check there is a section where you can put your SSN in to "speed up your background check and insure accurate responses". I've never filled that darned thing in and there's no way I will. Assuming I'm not buying a pistol, which has to be reigstered anyway, I'll always pay cash for a rifle. You get a little bit of a weird look pulling out $1100 cash when buying an AR-15 but sure as shit there's somebody in that store that understands why you're doing it.
I don't care if my SSN is tied to my checking account, credit card accounts, employment history, etc. But I'll make damned sure it's not tied to my firearms. And yes, I smile inside whenever I see a video clip of Charleton Heston holding a flintlock rifle above is head shouting "from my cold dead hands!"
I gotta go, my AK-47 is telling me it's time for its cleaning.
This is not an isolated case. Take a look a steel tarifs, orange juice, and many other goods whose domestic producers have been loyal Bush lobbyists.
I'll bite.
Steel tarrifs are there for a reason. I don't know the current situation in detail, but when NAFTA hit Canada started sucking up the steel business. They were much cheaper than US counterparts. I know this because my own father (we're from Michigan) started buying Canadian steel products because of this. As far as I know the Canadian steel is so much cheaper because the production is subsidized by the government. Canada is a bit more socialist than the US so the taxpayers foot the bill in getting industries the help they need. Result is that it's cheaper for us than US products.
Things like NAFTA are fair only when employers are playing on the same ground across countries and that just doesn't happen in this economy. US employers are -strapped- with taxes that other countries just don't see and sure as hell aren't helped out by the government. Save the "what about Enron" combacks too -- I'm talking about good honest businesses. We're fucked in a global economy.
In a saturated market, the guys without college degrees are the first ones crossed off the list.
But the first ones -on- the list are the ones who already have an 'in' with the company. Personally, nothing beats having a good reputation and recomendations. I'm sitting in my job right now simply because I worked with some of the people that got into this place before and they really appreciated my skills. Before I got here I pulled a contract job through a recruiter that -still- calls me to make sure I'm not looking for work sometimes. After two months on the job my employer "bought" me from the contracting firm to hire me full time. He hadn't ever seen a client make a decision that fast before I guess.
Being a nice guy, fun to work around, and knowing your shit really goes a -long- way if you ask me.
Miguel, et. al. are just a bunch of opportunists that are using Free Software and Free Software developers to make a quick buck.
I'm not familiar with Ximian's finances, but I don't reckon they're making a killing for zero effort here. Even if they are making good cash, they sure as hell deserve it! Have you -ever- seen Ximian's development stagnate? I haven't. They've been building up the release of XD2 for a while now, but all the work that's gone into Evolution and the Exchange connector is no small feat. The term "making a killing" usually implies that they're sitting back with the feet up watching the cash roll in from IP sales. That certainly isn't the case here.
Opportunists? Perhaps -- they certainly seized this opportunity and good for them. I'm not too up on Miguel or Nat's bios, but from what I recollect they're both in their 20's yet and have started a pretty big project. My hat's off to them.
As long as those GNOME fools continue down that insane path to hell that is.NET and Ximian is leading the way to "freedom by enslaving ourselves to MicroSoft Standards" there is no way I'm touching either GNOME or Ximian.
You can't be tied to MS standards if MS isn't providing any of the code here. So what if MS takes their.NET framework and breaks Mono compatiblity in a future release? They hang onto the old framework and go to work re-coding it and branch it off from there. They're just taking a smaller VM and the C# language spec and running with it. Good! As much as I like Java I'm glad there's some sort of competition in this area. Assuming that the.NET CLR stays smaller than the Java VM this is really going to push Sun into making a smaller VM with 1.5 IMHO. If.NET apps can be run atop a VM that's reasonably sized we might see more and more of theese in Linux build against GTK# which would port nicely to the MS sytem. GTK apps on Win32 aren't that bad really and I rather enjoy taking my Linux software over to them. Having the same -binary- run against GTK# on Win32 would be a huge bonus in getting more Free software apps running on Win32 and open up more room for migrating Win32 people over to Linux once they realize half their everyday apps run -NATIVELY- on Linux as well as Win32.
Actually, it looks like I'm doing okay. I'm watching the MRTG graphs every 5 minute update period and there's still some room left for outgoing bandwidth. Not much, but at least I'm not pegged at 100% just yet. Then again, maybe that steady line for a bit at 60KB/s means that my ISP itself is running a bit low on bandwidth.
I see 21 apache processes, so if you assume 70KB/s divided by 20, well, they're only getting 3.5KB/s each. However, the server itself is far from being maxed out. Just the bandwidth. I did something like this before and made sure I optimized my webserver a bit to handle such a situation before I posted it. You'll at least get a connection and an open handle to the file, albeit a slow download.
Okay, MRTG just updated and I'm maxed now at 78KB/s outgoing with 24 running apache processes and that Cisco router is blinking like crazy. Whoot!
It's not much, and the encoding seems rather horrible if you ask me, but I managed to snag a copy before the Slashdot effect took over. Their front page seems to be loading rather slowly now.
So, if you want to watch an AMD K6/2 400mhz go up in flames on a 768kbps DSL line. Here you go:
I wonder some times why there are sites complain that you need IE6 to view them, yet they work fine in Mozilla if you hack the response to mimic IE6. Lazy people I guess.
It's not really laziness, it's just backwards thinking due to lack of experience. A fair number of developers (read: 95% I've worked with) take the stance that every browser will do something different and that doing things differnet is horribly horribly wrong in the user's mind. So, they try and code defensively against this and only certify their sites with what they know works 100% the way they want it.
When coding for security (as in filtering user input) it's a good practice to only allow known good values through. When you're building an open system, such as the web though, you should assume that all rednerings are valid. You should only point out broken browsers when they are known bad.
I love asking people why the Gecko engine is just so darned hard to work with from a development point of view. Hardly ever do they have a good reason. To be honest, as a Gecko user/supporter I'm quite often the most knowledgable about it's downfalls. I'm also quite familiar with IE's oddities too becuase I know when IE is doing stuff it just plain shouldn't. I don't proclaim to known how kHTML works in detail, but I sure as heck wouldn't build a site that turned away somebody for using Konqueror or Safari (they do use kHTML, right?) just based on their User Agent header.
If you work on a web development shop that actually cares about quality and somebody refuses to make X work with anything but IE please go ask them to lookup the official specs that define IE's way of doing it to be the true Right Way. If they don't, well, then go ask them to verify that all supported versions of IE actually do the same thing -- across all OSes, because we all know that IE comes in many many flavours. Oh, and make sure they test it on the Mac too -- 'cuz hey, it's IE also!
IE's not even a standard when you look at many different versions.
So, to make a long story short. Employers DO pay unemployment. It's just filetered through the govt.
Nay, employers don't pay unemployment -- we all pay unemployment. If my employer has to pay X dollars more a month per person that they have on staff that's a per-employee expense that's taking funds away from my salary. Personally I'd much rather have that cash on my paycheck so I can invest it how I wish for a rainy day.
Another semi-socialistic government program that I would rather see left by the wayside.
We just have to accept the fact that the freedom of using the hardware components we want and the software we want, all made by different people, will result in unexpected errors. I, for one, have come to grips with it.
Good to know that your "Comp Sci." courses are nothing more than a trade school embedded into a college/university. The study of computer science is going horribly astray if students are actually lead to beleive that there is no possible way that we will ever be able to make robust software cost effectively. That just buggers me to all heck.
The answer is out there (wow that sounds X-files-ish), but we just don't know it yet. Work is being done on the subject though and it would behoove you to put a little of your brain power toward it. Who knows -- you might stumble across the answer in 10 years! The idea that software just won't ever work right is probably the same feeling bridge builders had back when, well, however long at it was that we couldn't calculate a bridge's ability to hold stuff.
Right now software's best QA is having 10,000 virtual people hammering on a piece of software through automated tools. Would you want to drive across a bridge that's only QA was "well, we had 10,000 people jump on it for 3 hours -- it should be okay!".
We -will- get there, but as a college student, please, please don't assume that software that crashes is acceptable!
And no matter how perfect your program is, it's not going to survive a two year old stuffing pennies into the back of the power supply.
Somebody else already stole my rebuttal about multi-threaded apps not being 100% repeatable, so I'm going to follow up with something a bit more humorous.
I've already put this out here on Slashdot once before I think but it's a fun story and worth repeating I hope.
I had a wondeful prof. in college, a wise old sage, who had many a tale about the olden days of programming. While going over finite state machines (FSMs) he enchanted us with a story from his younger years about designing a FSM for an automatic teller machine (ATM, or "magic money machine" for those over 60).
The group dwelled over the problem set and studied the possible events that could occur from user input at any given time. They had a wonderful diagram that represented 100% of all possible situations at all time. They commenced on coding to the hardware designs and the code was finished. QA? Flawless. The men were masters of the ATM universe. Nobody could kill their software -- nobody! The hardware was solid, the client purchased and deployed. Life was good. It served for a long time and one day they get the report:
"Your ATM crashed."
"What?!" say the software engineers. "This is impossible! What could we have possibly NOT thought of? Our FSM is perfect!".
Well, some drunk-assed bastard stuck a McDonald's FishWich into the deposit slip one night. Apparently they didn't account for that one.
So, to this day, in honor of Professor Jorgensen, I have my own little personal Jorgensen's rule, which was the summary of his story:
"You can make it fool proof -- but you can't make it damn fool proof!"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm only going to concentrate on this part of your post as the rest goes into what are very well factual things but have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the 2nd ammendment.
"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."
You are correct on the beginning, but the ending is what really gives it a punch. This is a -SINGLE- sentence. The beginning nearly states why the following occurs. The 2nd half of the sentence states what actually is being guaranteed.
" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the -ONLY- "action" of the sentence.
Granted, I didn't write it, and it's meaning is still up for debate apparently but there are a few people out there that agree with my interpretation of it:
Thomas Jefferson:
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
George Washington:
"A free people ought to be armed." Speech Jan 7, 1790.
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787, in Jefferson, On Democracy , pg. 20 (S. Padover ed., 1939)
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)
James Madison:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.
Thomas Paine:
"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them," Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775)
Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)
Richard Henry Lee:
' A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)
Samuel Adams:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788)
Alexander Hamilton:
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788
I don't think you actually read my post entirely. Please note the opening where I mention my gun-toting drug dealing cousin (with a felony!) has access to weapons easier than I do as a law abiding citizen.
He shot two men two months ago after a drug deal went bad.
Nuts do own guns, illegally. There is nothing I can realistically do to stop them from having them. However by being armed I can protect myself and those around me. Because I'm armed I raise the probability of a nut-job encountering an armed citizen when they want to commit armed robbery -- and they begin to think twice. If they knew every damned person in the city had a gun on them and that 99% of them were law abiding peaceful people do you really think they'd pull half the crap they do?
You don't have to thank me for protecting your freedom and livelyhood. I get enough satisfaction out of knowing that I'm doing my part while you whine and moan about it.
There are a myriad of firearm laws. Last I knew it was darned near 22,000 nationwide. It's a mess. Sure has done a heck of a lot to keep illegal guns off the street though. As a law abiding citizen I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally. Makes me feel real damn safe at night.
Ranting aside, laws generally apply to chemically propelled weapons. That leaves BB and pellet guns out of the regulations. The magnetic weapons are still slow enough and bulky enough that they're not under regulation yet. As soon as somebody gets one that works well and starts selling it though you can bet stink will hit the fan though.
While I'm not a fan of what he did Timothy McVeigh did build a weapon of sorts that was somewhat like a shotgun but fired a modified flare that would explode. It was meant to take down helicopters. The ATF went after him for a bit on this one, or at least confronted him I guess, even though it was prefectly legal to sell. Couldn't sell the explosive flares but empties with instructions on how to make shells were illegal.
"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.
Yes I'm a pro-2nd ammendment person. If you have a problem with that I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns if you think that will make the world a safer place.
"Put a flag over her head and do it for your country!"
-- My brother, though I'm sure it's not originally his.
Unless they're from Kentucky, in which case a new generation may very well contain zero new genetic information. There's a way around everything.
Disclaimer: Yes, one side of my family does originate from Kentucky so if you're offended by this bugger off. An uncle of mine got a look at the family tree at a reunion once and sure enough, it didn't always branch where it should.
Pft... I'm a gun owner. Of course I see the patterns in bans.
Nah, it's another history-repeats-itself problem. We're going back to the thin-client environment. PC support costs are growing out of control and managing all the problems involved in deploying corporate apps on them are getting higher and higher. We're going to hit another thin-client connects to "mainframe" environment pretty quickly.
Bandwidth across frame relays will become more and more neccessary and client machines will become more disposable. You'll get a base OS with your neccessary applications that are 'stock' on it anything special to that corp will be served up via a web-services type interface on a dumbed down client app or browser. No more pushing upgrades to systems -- you just update the logic at the backend and viola -- new app.
Just like when you'd hook up to the IBM mainframe ala 3270 terminal emulation and enter your work into a COBOL app -- which was before my time. It's rather exciting to me, as I've been thinking thin client apps since I started programming seriously, circa 1998
About 5 seconds before I hit slashdot I wrote an email to my old high school physics teacher about a project I'm thinking of to use a model rocket to measure wind currents as the rocket decends.
It's been a -long- time since I launched a model rocket, but I was assuming that 2,000 feet would be -easy- and that 10,000 feet possible. Apparently not.
Heck, I should make an 'Ask Slashdot' about this one. Shoot rocket to insane heights (apparently) and measure what the wind is doing every 50-100 feet on the way down to make a nice graph of the airs for parachuting. Any takers? Lets assume I'd spend 600 dollars on equipment.
You do realize that putting WEP on your WLAN is about as effective as putting 6 layers of duct-tape over your lock thinking that nobody with a key can get in now, right?
WEP is useless unless you want to keep people out that wouldn't spend 30 minutes or less trying to crack the key.
Don't! It's probably got a Unix kernel in it. Beware the lawyers.
I felt like you did, sort of, until I read the parent post. Then I understood the whole deal... I think.
Both sides want to make a stink about this. Both sides think they're right... but nobody has a personal one-on-one problem here really. So, the pro-Linux crowd shows up, SCO joins in and a bigger "stink" is made in the public eye and both sides get attention. The individual participants can still be friendly though. You might as well have fun while you're out there, and there's certainly no point in making personal enemies while you're out there.
Ooo.. that brings a funny image to mind. A couple hundred coders in an all out brawl. Lens Crafters could make a -killing- if the instigated the fight!
I'm almost positive my Driver's License doesn't have my SSN tied to it. In fact I would presume that to be illegal. The SSN is supposed to be used only for social security. Granted, private industry has abused this and tied to all sorts of things for conveinence, but when the -STATE- government starts demanding it for licensing purposes I'll get worried.
I honestly can't rember if I had to give my SSN when I got my driver's license. I'm almost positive that I've never given it out when renewing plates or adding certifications to it.
I'm not horribly afraid of my SSN being released, but there is one thing I refuse to have it tied to: Firearms purchases. I bought my first two fiarms with a check, but they were pistols which had to be registered with the government anyway. That registration does -not- have my SSN on it either. In fact it doesn't even have my driver's license number on it. I'm in Michigan, YYMV.
When filling out the ATF required form for a background check there is a section where you can put your SSN in to "speed up your background check and insure accurate responses". I've never filled that darned thing in and there's no way I will. Assuming I'm not buying a pistol, which has to be reigstered anyway, I'll always pay cash for a rifle. You get a little bit of a weird look pulling out $1100 cash when buying an AR-15 but sure as shit there's somebody in that store that understands why you're doing it.
I don't care if my SSN is tied to my checking account, credit card accounts, employment history, etc. But I'll make damned sure it's not tied to my firearms. And yes, I smile inside whenever I see a video clip of Charleton Heston holding a flintlock rifle above is head shouting "from my cold dead hands!"
I gotta go, my AK-47 is telling me it's time for its cleaning.
I'll bite.
Steel tarrifs are there for a reason. I don't know the current situation in detail, but when NAFTA hit Canada started sucking up the steel business. They were much cheaper than US counterparts. I know this because my own father (we're from Michigan) started buying Canadian steel products because of this. As far as I know the Canadian steel is so much cheaper because the production is subsidized by the government. Canada is a bit more socialist than the US so the taxpayers foot the bill in getting industries the help they need. Result is that it's cheaper for us than US products.
Things like NAFTA are fair only when employers are playing on the same ground across countries and that just doesn't happen in this economy. US employers are -strapped- with taxes that other countries just don't see and sure as hell aren't helped out by the government. Save the "what about Enron" combacks too -- I'm talking about good honest businesses. We're fucked in a global economy.
What ass clown moderated this up as 'Informative"!?
Cripes. I'll be looking for this one during meta-moderation.
8) Hop into a small plane, proceed to 5000 feet and jump out.
But the first ones -on- the list are the ones who already have an 'in' with the company. Personally, nothing beats having a good reputation and recomendations. I'm sitting in my job right now simply because I worked with some of the people that got into this place before and they really appreciated my skills. Before I got here I pulled a contract job through a recruiter that -still- calls me to make sure I'm not looking for work sometimes. After two months on the job my employer "bought" me from the contracting firm to hire me full time. He hadn't ever seen a client make a decision that fast before I guess.
Being a nice guy, fun to work around, and knowing your shit really goes a -long- way if you ask me.
Gotta love Slashdot... the only place where such a disclaimer isn't taken for granted.
I'm not familiar with Ximian's finances, but I don't reckon they're making a killing for zero effort here. Even if they are making good cash, they sure as hell deserve it! Have you -ever- seen Ximian's development stagnate? I haven't. They've been building up the release of XD2 for a while now, but all the work that's gone into Evolution and the Exchange connector is no small feat. The term "making a killing" usually implies that they're sitting back with the feet up watching the cash roll in from IP sales. That certainly isn't the case here.
Opportunists? Perhaps -- they certainly seized this opportunity and good for them. I'm not too up on Miguel or Nat's bios, but from what I recollect they're both in their 20's yet and have started a pretty big project. My hat's off to them.
You can't be tied to MS standards if MS isn't providing any of the code here. So what if MS takes their
Kudos, Ximian.
Actually, it looks like I'm doing okay. I'm watching the MRTG graphs every 5 minute update period and there's still some room left for outgoing bandwidth. Not much, but at least I'm not pegged at 100% just yet. Then again, maybe that steady line for a bit at 60KB/s means that my ISP itself is running a bit low on bandwidth.
I see 21 apache processes, so if you assume 70KB/s divided by 20, well, they're only getting 3.5KB/s each. However, the server itself is far from being maxed out. Just the bandwidth. I did something like this before and made sure I optimized my webserver a bit to handle such a situation before I posted it. You'll at least get a connection and an open handle to the file, albeit a slow download.
Okay, MRTG just updated and I'm maxed now at 78KB/s outgoing with 24 running apache processes and that Cisco router is blinking like crazy. Whoot!
It's not much, and the encoding seems rather horrible if you ask me, but I managed to snag a copy before the Slashdot effect took over. Their front page seems to be loading rather slowly now.
So, if you want to watch an AMD K6/2 400mhz go up in flames on a 768kbps DSL line. Here you go:
Raider's of the Lost Ark Remake Trailer
My ISP is so going to kill me...
No, File under: "Things not to say in prison."
It's not really laziness, it's just backwards thinking due to lack of experience. A fair number of developers (read: 95% I've worked with) take the stance that every browser will do something different and that doing things differnet is horribly horribly wrong in the user's mind. So, they try and code defensively against this and only certify their sites with what they know works 100% the way they want it.
When coding for security (as in filtering user input) it's a good practice to only allow known good values through. When you're building an open system, such as the web though, you should assume that all rednerings are valid. You should only point out broken browsers when they are known bad
I love asking people why the Gecko engine is just so darned hard to work with from a development point of view. Hardly ever do they have a good reason. To be honest, as a Gecko user/supporter I'm quite often the most knowledgable about it's downfalls. I'm also quite familiar with IE's oddities too becuase I know when IE is doing stuff it just plain shouldn't. I don't proclaim to known how kHTML works in detail, but I sure as heck wouldn't build a site that turned away somebody for using Konqueror or Safari (they do use kHTML, right?) just based on their User Agent header.
If you work on a web development shop that actually cares about quality and somebody refuses to make X work with anything but IE please go ask them to lookup the official specs that define IE's way of doing it to be the true Right Way. If they don't, well, then go ask them to verify that all supported versions of IE actually do the same thing -- across all OSes, because we all know that IE comes in many many flavours. Oh, and make sure they test it on the Mac too -- 'cuz hey, it's IE also!
IE's not even a standard when you look at many different versions.
Nay, employers don't pay unemployment -- we all pay unemployment. If my employer has to pay X dollars more a month per person that they have on staff that's a per-employee expense that's taking funds away from my salary. Personally I'd much rather have that cash on my paycheck so I can invest it how I wish for a rainy day.
Another semi-socialistic government program that I would rather see left by the wayside.
Good to know that your "Comp Sci." courses are nothing more than a trade school embedded into a college/university. The study of computer science is going horribly astray if students are actually lead to beleive that there is no possible way that we will ever be able to make robust software cost effectively. That just buggers me to all heck.
The answer is out there (wow that sounds X-files-ish), but we just don't know it yet. Work is being done on the subject though and it would behoove you to put a little of your brain power toward it. Who knows -- you might stumble across the answer in 10 years! The idea that software just won't ever work right is probably the same feeling bridge builders had back when, well, however long at it was that we couldn't calculate a bridge's ability to hold stuff.
Right now software's best QA is having 10,000 virtual people hammering on a piece of software through automated tools. Would you want to drive across a bridge that's only QA was "well, we had 10,000 people jump on it for 3 hours -- it should be okay!".
We -will- get there, but as a college student, please, please don't assume that software that crashes is acceptable!
Somebody else already stole my rebuttal about multi-threaded apps not being 100% repeatable, so I'm going to follow up with something a bit more humorous.
I've already put this out here on Slashdot once before I think but it's a fun story and worth repeating I hope.
I had a wondeful prof. in college, a wise old sage, who had many a tale about the olden days of programming. While going over finite state machines (FSMs) he enchanted us with a story from his younger years about designing a FSM for an automatic teller machine (ATM, or "magic money machine" for those over 60).
The group dwelled over the problem set and studied the possible events that could occur from user input at any given time. They had a wonderful diagram that represented 100% of all possible situations at all time. They commenced on coding to the hardware designs and the code was finished. QA? Flawless. The men were masters of the ATM universe. Nobody could kill their software -- nobody! The hardware was solid, the client purchased and deployed. Life was good. It served for a long time and one day they get the report:
"Your ATM crashed."
"What?!" say the software engineers. "This is impossible! What could we have possibly NOT thought of? Our FSM is perfect!".
Well, some drunk-assed bastard stuck a McDonald's FishWich into the deposit slip one night. Apparently they didn't account for that one.
So, to this day, in honor of Professor Jorgensen, I have my own little personal Jorgensen's rule, which was the summary of his story:
"You can make it fool proof -- but you can't make it damn fool proof!"