That's why, when browsing at work, you set up an ssh tunnel to an outside server running squid (or similar) and set your browser to use localhost as the proxy
Look for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages pretty soon
Yeah, I love that one. They might as well go the rest of the way and repeal the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which is what they are effectively trying to do.
Mandating judeo-christian heterosexual monogomous marriage IS a de-facto establishment of religion. There are MANY traditional marriage customs that are non-monogomous. Even some Xian sects (Mormons) don't believe in monogamy. Government's role in marrage should be limited to recognizing and recording existing unions. It's not government's role to sanction or approve unions, merely to recognize that permanent unions do exist between people and to ensure that all families enjoy equal protection under the law.
Pointing out the flaws in research is the essense of peer review and the scientific method. No research, no matter how respected the source, is above criticism.
So you need three things; time... a marketable idea,... and someone to sell it
You forgot the essential fourth thing: money to live on. If you're living in your parent's basement, you might be able to survive on peanuts while you build a business. If you have a family to support, then your options are much more limited. If your spouse / SO can support the family while you're building the business, that's great. But when you're the primary breadwinner, you have to do something to bring money in *now* so that the mortgage gets paid and the kids have food on the table. "Sponging off your family" is a kind of financing -- they're paying your living expenses so you can build your business.
Starting your own company takes money -- money to live off of and money to pay for the essentials needed to run a business. If you have enough money to live off of for a year or two, then starting your own company is a possibility; if you don't then you either need to find funding or find a job - either way you need to convince someone to give you money in exchange for your talent & ideas. Running a business as a second job is a whole lot different than making it your primary source of income.
It'd take a Constitutional amendment to change that
I wish. Lately, our government hasn't even bothered paying lip service to the Constitution except when it serves their own interests to do so. USA-PATRIOT and subsequent laws are so blatantly un-Constitutional as to make me sick. Secret trials? Warrantless secret searches? US Citizens held indefinately without charges and without access to a lawyer? Criminal defendants denied the right to confront their accusors, and not being allowed to call witnesses on their own behalf?
If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to overthrow Constitutional government, I'd say that they were pretty damn effective.
I was going to say the exact same thing. For landing a job, a cert is pretty much worthless compared to real experience. For a consulting company, the cert has value because it's a useful marketing tool for them (as are things like ISO 9001 or CMM certification for the organization).
Never pay for a cert yourself. If an employer values certification, they will pay for it; and those that don't value certs won't care if you have it or not.
A solution is obvious in this context if an engineer who has no knowlege of it is able to create it independently. Let's take the infamous laser-pointer-cat-toy patent. Anyone who has a cat knows most of them like to chase bright spots on the floor. (My old cat would go nuts chasing the refection off my watch crystal). If that person picks up a laser pointer, it won't take them long to say "hey, I bet my cat would go nuts over this".
It is very well designed, except for the database part
That's what happens when you let UI weenies design a system. Good systems architects design go back-to-front, not font-to-back. The UI should be the last thing you design.
Patents are supposed to be NON-OBVIOUS to a skilled practitioner of the art. One of the major problems is the large number of "no duh" patents being issued. (EG: Amazon one-click, laser pointer used as a cat toy)
Until the USPTO stops issuing frivolous patents for techniques that any third-year comp sci major could have derived independently, we're in for a bad time.
FWIW, specialized jargon & slang exists for the primary purpose of seperating "us" from "them". Doesn't matter if you're talking about military, hackers, SCAdians, or rappers -- every subculture uses language to differentiate themselves from the mainstream. Regardless of the psychological reasons behind it, it's still pretty silly when you think about it.
IIRC the M-1 Abrams uses a turbine engine runs on gasoline, not diesel. Anyway, if a container of diesel gets hit with a HEAT or APFSDS round it's going to make a really nice fireball.
I'm well aware of Jefferson's internal conflict and constitutional reservations regarding the Louisiana Purchase. However, considering that Jefferson *did* ultimately resolve the conflict in favor of making the purchase, I can only conclude that he ultimately felt that the treaty clause did in fact give him adequate (if questionable) authority to make a treaty to affect the purchase.
IMHO the main Constitutional issue was the money, not the land. I maintain that entering into a treaty with France to transfer land is clearly within the President's enumerated powers, however spending money without prior Congressional approval was clearly not. Jefferson obligated the US to spend a huge sum of money it did not have -- money which ultimately had to be borrowed from England at 6% interest. Jefferson put Congress in a very difficult position: they either had to give Jefferson the money thereby giving his actions tacit approval and diluting thier future authority; or they could deny him the money at the cost of committing political suicide (since the L.P. was extremely popular and indisputably in the country's best interests). Jefferson would have been in the clear with the L.P. if he had gone to Congress first to get the money.
There were more then a few occasions I was repremanded for using improper language by a Capt. or Chief, and I don't mean explertitives
Which just goes to illustrate how fucked up the Navy is. Yes sir, master chief, sir; those thar vertical drywall thingies are bulkheads if you say they are, sir. When were're done here just I'll go down to the parking lot and cast off the bow line and hoist anchor so we can sail the BUILDING down the highway.
The only militarisms I carry in my vocabulary relates to firearms: a rifle, pistol, or shotgun if not refered to by it's proper name is always a *weapon*, never a *gun*. That probably comes from having been taught to shoot by my (ex-Marine) uncle, but it may have something to do with being a pedantic anal-retentive language snob:-)
I do not think that it is the Federal Government's role to tell a company how to sell its products beyond the point of fraud and tax evasion
You are correct that "regulate" means "make uniform". I'd argue "making uniform" includes "creating a level playing field" for everyone. As long as the law applies equally to all businesses, and gives no special favors nor penalties to any party, it passes Constitutional muster.
If you've read anything I've written, you'd know that I'm a very strict constructionist. I can't find anything unconstitutional about the Sherman Antitrust act or any similar legislature. To the contrary, my study of history has led me to believe that this is *exactly* the sort of legislation the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the commerce clause. If you study American history, you'll know that the founding fathers were very mistrustful of unfettered corporate power, which should be unsuprising when you consider the role the East India Company played in pre-Revolutionary America. Limiting the amount of power any one group or person could exert is the unifying theme of all Constitutional law.
Using financial coersion to force others to doing something they wouldn't do otherwise is just as wrong, and should be just as illegal, as using physical coersion to achieve the same ends. How is telling a company "do what I want or I'll cripple your business" any different than telling a person "do what I want or I'll break your legs"? Economic thuggery is still thuggery, and should be punished under the law. Congress has the power, the authority, and the responsibility to prevent the abuse of corporate and financial might.
Article II Section 2: "He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
I'd say that an agreement between two sovereign powers to transfer control of territory constitutes a treaty. Of course, the President can't spend money unless Congress gives it to him.
Unless they're trying to impress someone with how ate up they are, bluesuiters call it a bathroom or restroom as appropriate (or perhaps the shitter if feeling less formal)
Yeah, I went through the Lackland Summer Camp program (no offense). Considering I went Active Duty Air Force from the Army Reserve, I'd already been through real basic training.
["Ate up" is the USAF equivilent to "gung-ho", although it's generally not considered complimentary. I'm sure you can guess what's being eaten:-)]
Actually it's called comparing apples and oranges, or to be more technical, a false analogy.
The peer-to-peer debate centers around how far fair use extend.
This concerns elected officials enganging in unethical, if not criminal, conduct to further a political agenda.
They are totally different situations.
One of the things granted to Congress by the Constitution is the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is within the legitimate scope of Congressional authority to restict what any corporation may do as long as said corporation is directly involved in interstate commerce.
under a... limited government, the ability of those in power to abuse their powers would be limited
Which is exactly why the founding fathers wrote the Constitution the way they did. Congress and the President have no legitimate powers other than those explicitly granted to them by the Constitution (primarily in Article I section 8 for Congress and Article II Section 2 for the President). This is the principle of Enumerated Powers, which is the core of the oft-forgotten Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The fact that members of Congress and the President routinely usurp powers not granted to them (or even worse, explicitly denied to them) is criminal and is a direct violation of their oaths of office. The fact that we, the citizens of the US, have allowed them to do so without punishment, is shameful.
Notice the word good. There are plenty of reputable used hardware vendors on E-Bay who do offer waranties and service contracts on what they sell. If you want to know the service history, you email the seller and ask for the service tag number and look up it up for yourself on the vendor website.
If I needed a good database server for a client on a really tight budget, I'd buy them something like this used Quad 550 PIII Xeon over a $1000 homebrew white box any day. What kind of server can you build for $1000? For that money I could build a nice dual Athlon with an IDE RAID array (and no warranty other than at the component level) This would be a kick-ass workstation, a tolerable general-purpose file/web/mail/dns workgroup server, or a shitty database server. Most serious server applications are I/O bound, not CPU bound. A larger number of slower processors with a fast I/O subsystem is better for this kind of load.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why, when browsing at work, you set up an ssh tunnel to an outside server running squid (or similar) and set your browser to use localhost as the proxy
Mandating judeo-christian heterosexual monogomous marriage IS a de-facto establishment of religion. There are MANY traditional marriage customs that are non-monogomous. Even some Xian sects (Mormons) don't believe in monogamy. Government's role in marrage should be limited to recognizing and recording existing unions. It's not government's role to sanction or approve unions, merely to recognize that permanent unions do exist between people and to ensure that all families enjoy equal protection under the law.
Pointing out the flaws in research is the essense of peer review and the scientific method. No research, no matter how respected the source, is above criticism.
Starting your own company takes money -- money to live off of and money to pay for the essentials needed to run a business. If you have enough money to live off of for a year or two, then starting your own company is a possibility; if you don't then you either need to find funding or find a job - either way you need to convince someone to give you money in exchange for your talent & ideas. Running a business as a second job is a whole lot different than making it your primary source of income.
If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to overthrow Constitutional government, I'd say that they were pretty damn effective.
AFAIK, the "skilled practitioner" test *IS* the law (or at least it is supposed to be).
Never pay for a cert yourself. If an employer values certification, they will pay for it; and those that don't value certs won't care if you have it or not.
A solution is obvious in this context if an engineer who has no knowlege of it is able to create it independently. Let's take the infamous laser-pointer-cat-toy patent. Anyone who has a cat knows most of them like to chase bright spots on the floor. (My old cat would go nuts chasing the refection off my watch crystal). If that person picks up a laser pointer, it won't take them long to say "hey, I bet my cat would go nuts over this".
Until the USPTO stops issuing frivolous patents for techniques that any third-year comp sci major could have derived independently, we're in for a bad time.
FWIW, specialized jargon & slang exists for the primary purpose of seperating "us" from "them". Doesn't matter if you're talking about military, hackers, SCAdians, or rappers -- every subculture uses language to differentiate themselves from the mainstream. Regardless of the psychological reasons behind it, it's still pretty silly when you think about it.
IIRC the M-1 Abrams uses a turbine engine runs on gasoline, not diesel. Anyway, if a container of diesel gets hit with a HEAT or APFSDS round it's going to make a really nice fireball.
IMHO the main Constitutional issue was the money, not the land. I maintain that entering into a treaty with France to transfer land is clearly within the President's enumerated powers, however spending money without prior Congressional approval was clearly not. Jefferson obligated the US to spend a huge sum of money it did not have -- money which ultimately had to be borrowed from England at 6% interest. Jefferson put Congress in a very difficult position: they either had to give Jefferson the money thereby giving his actions tacit approval and diluting thier future authority; or they could deny him the money at the cost of committing political suicide (since the L.P. was extremely popular and indisputably in the country's best interests). Jefferson would have been in the clear with the L.P. if he had gone to Congress first to get the money.
The only militarisms I carry in my vocabulary relates to firearms: a rifle, pistol, or shotgun if not refered to by it's proper name is always a *weapon*, never a *gun*. That probably comes from having been taught to shoot by my (ex-Marine) uncle, but it may have something to do with being a pedantic anal-retentive language snob :-)
If you've read anything I've written, you'd know that I'm a very strict constructionist. I can't find anything unconstitutional about the Sherman Antitrust act or any similar legislature. To the contrary, my study of history has led me to believe that this is *exactly* the sort of legislation the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the commerce clause. If you study American history, you'll know that the founding fathers were very mistrustful of unfettered corporate power, which should be unsuprising when you consider the role the East India Company played in pre-Revolutionary America. Limiting the amount of power any one group or person could exert is the unifying theme of all Constitutional law.
Using financial coersion to force others to doing something they wouldn't do otherwise is just as wrong, and should be just as illegal, as using physical coersion to achieve the same ends. How is telling a company "do what I want or I'll cripple your business" any different than telling a person "do what I want or I'll break your legs"? Economic thuggery is still thuggery, and should be punished under the law. Congress has the power, the authority, and the responsibility to prevent the abuse of corporate and financial might.
I'd say that an agreement between two sovereign powers to transfer control of territory constitutes a treaty. Of course, the President can't spend money unless Congress gives it to him.
How do you get a picture of the money leaving your wallet at high speed?
Yeah, I went through the Lackland Summer Camp program (no offense). Considering I went Active Duty Air Force from the Army Reserve, I'd already been through real basic training. ["Ate up" is the USAF equivilent to "gung-ho", although it's generally not considered complimentary. I'm sure you can guess what's being eaten :-)]
The peer-to-peer debate centers around how far fair use extend.
This concerns elected officials enganging in unethical, if not criminal, conduct to further a political agenda.
They are totally different situations.
One of the things granted to Congress by the Constitution is the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is within the legitimate scope of Congressional authority to restict what any corporation may do as long as said corporation is directly involved in interstate commerce.
The fact that members of Congress and the President routinely usurp powers not granted to them (or even worse, explicitly denied to them) is criminal and is a direct violation of their oaths of office. The fact that we, the citizens of the US, have allowed them to do so without punishment, is shameful.
If I needed a good database server for a client on a really tight budget, I'd buy them something like this used Quad 550 PIII Xeon over a $1000 homebrew white box any day. What kind of server can you build for $1000? For that money I could build a nice dual Athlon with an IDE RAID array (and no warranty other than at the component level) This would be a kick-ass workstation, a tolerable general-purpose file/web/mail/dns workgroup server, or a shitty database server. Most serious server applications are I/O bound, not CPU bound. A larger number of slower processors with a fast I/O subsystem is better for this kind of load.