Marshall. But of course nobody would cite somebody that set aside a judicial decision, when trying to make their case in court:) It's only the Executive who would refer to the Jackson precedent, and in this day and age they probably wouldn't get away with it.
"John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it now if he can." -- President Andrew Jackson, historical precedent and general all-around tough guy.
They only have interest in people that are
doing really bad stuff (as in illegal enough to catch the FBI's attention in the first place).
Right. Like civil rights leaders, maybe? That's pretty bad and illegal, we can't have that kind of stuff going on. I wouldn't quite call Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a "fucktard", though, although he was called worse I'm sure:)
Do you suppose you could just move to some other society where people appreciate fascists a little more, and leave the rest of us with our liberties intact? I'm sure Big Brother would be happy to keep you safe, as long as you put your faith in Him. We'll see whose society really lasts longer.
So why is there so much fighting in the West Bank? Isn't the Zionist occupation the Will of Allah? Shouldn't the upright man submit to the Will of Allah, and cease resistance immediately?
I think you're very carefully picking and choosing what your god is saying in order to justify your own beliefs and actions. Which is normal; millions of people do this every day. But I don't want to live in a society where I have to justify everything I do to someone else's god.
But it's not just my right, right? How about your right to not be stuck supporting a religion that you disagree with? Just because you agree with the current state-sponsored religion doesn't mean that you always will, nor are there any guarantees that such a religion won't morph into something you find objectionable in the future. Unless you uncategorically accept as your God the gods of anyone who might end up in power, you should be concerned right along with me. Being offended is the least of my worries, really (and I don't necessarily agree that I even have a right "not to be offended" - that concept seems to have caused more harm than good in the last 20 years of jurisprudence). Supporting someone else's genocidal or psychotic idea of a Higher Being is much closer to the top of my worrying list.
Frankly, if the U.S. appeared to be less over-the-top fundamentalist Christian in our dealings with the world, and just based our foreign policy on secular concerns like more enlightened nations do, we would probably be better respected throughout the world. I imagine we would decrease our exposure to Islamic fundamentalism if it were less clear to the world that the U.S. is a bastion of Protestant Christian fundamentalism.
Sure, there's going to be some USA hatred one way or the other, based on other issues like power and money. But it's one less argument against us if our President George "Cowboy" Bush doesn't go around calling things a crusade. We don't have to make it any easier for religious leaders of the Middle East to incite hatred of U.S. citizens. Heck, they don't have state-sponsored religious schools in Pakistan, unlike in the USA.
The only reason that I could think of would be if they thought Sigma was dependent enough on their code that stopping coding would leave Sigma high and dry. But that's a pretty roundabout way to get back at somebody. I'm going to guess that there are other legal machinations going on right now that they haven't mentioned that contributed to the decision to stop (publicly) coding at the moment.
If these guys are real hackers, they have their own private copy that they're still working on. Whenever this is resolved, expect a huge jump in Xvid functionality:)
Yeah, it's especially a pain to read (this is common to Windows too) "Press OK to do blah, or Cancel to do this other thing", neither of which are really OKing or Canceling anything. There must be a ton of people out there who are too lazy to label their buttons appropriately.
Or if that is too difficult to label, then maybe the scenario the user is being asked to understand is too complex in the first place? I think a lot of these situations are made more difficult for the user precisely because they are condensed down to OK/Cancel or Yes/No questions.
Actually, Best Buy droids around here will tell you that they are in fact illegal. I don't even know why I asked, and I'm not sure if that's the corporate line or if the droid I talked to was just very stupid or ignorant.
Yeah, I love it when ads use a song that really means the exact opposite thing. My current favorite example is the GAP ad (might be Ralph Lauren or some other damn preppie clothes, I can't keep track) showing happy American people wearing jeans, flags, etc. The song lyric is "Some folks are born, made to wave the flag...", from the song Fortunate Son by John Fogerty. The tune is of course about fair-weather patriots; the exact opposite meaning from the one intended by the ad itself.
Don't these ad agencies ever think about more than one or two bars of the jingles they plan to use? What a bunch of morons.
The general theory on entrapment is that you can provide the opportunity for someone to commit a crime (leaving your car unlocked, etc.) but you can't try to talk them into it or get them to do something that they wouldn't have done without your coercion. Someone must really commit the crime of their own free will in order to be culpable.
Bush seems to operate on the theory that if he acts like a damn cowboy yahoo from Texas every time he opens his mouth, the other nations of the world will be too confused to figure what he's really after until he's mostly there. Thus the U.S.' even-more-schizophrenic-than-normal foreign policy recently.
Plus, he's keeping Paul O'Neill because he's the only other person in the administration who's more likely to make embarrassing public statements than the President is. O'Neill single-handedly crippled the economy of Brazil a couple weeks ago - he makes regular super-villains look pretty tame by comparison.
No, I don't hate America, but I'm pretty fed up with the people that are giving Americans a bad name at the moment.
The point is not what you knew it came with; the point is whether or not the EULA gives you the right to get a refund for part of your purchase if you don't want it. For a while EULAs allowed this, and so there was nothing unethical or jackass-like about asking for it. Now that the EULA doesn't entitle you to a refund, it would be stupid to ask for one, I agree.
The Linux kernel, at least, doesn't hew exactly to the POSIX spec; read various posts by Linus on Kernel Traffic or on the lkml to see why he doesn't see strict POSIX conformance as the highest-priority goal.
In practice, Linux is POSIX-compliant enough. It's almost to the point where interoperability with Linux and GNU software is more the standard than POSIX itself is.
I'm pretty sure that Futurama would have done just fine where it was (leading off a decent Sunday evening of TV (really the only good TV on Sunday nights usually)) if it was actually run at that time, rather than some damn football game being on almost every weekend. Here's a hint, FOX programming folks: if football runs late every weekend, then it's going to run late this weekend too. Plan for it, OK? Past a certain point, even gross incompetence counts as malice.
Dammit, I still miss My So-Called Life too:) Mmmmm, Claire Danes...
The joke is that it didn't always say "except by the consumer". For a while it was just "not to be removed under penalty of law." In fact, I think I ripped off one that said that. Thus the fear of The Man coming after you, etc.
In that world, we can reverse-engineer anything you do as closed source and distribute it. In that world, once we've got your source code (disgruntled employee, maybe?) it can legally spread around the world.
If the market is shrinking but Redhat looks to be the best positioned to take advantage of it under the new circumstances, then they are going to look more valuable. Combined with increasing relative market share (which usually allows you to increase your profit margin somewhat) that spells business growth.
Frankly, nobody's going to be able to compete with Microsoft in the software industry the way it is now. If you want to have a successful software business at the moment, you can either play by Microsoft's rules, or try to change the rules. The alternatives are essentially zero business growth for everyone except for Microsoft at present, or the potential for growth for some smaller players once Microsoft is no longer the king of the hill. The only way to any increase in revenue for anybody but Microsoft is to try to upset the whole apple cart, and see how things fall out. There are no other potential business plans; so when evaluating Redhat's plan you can't compare against what would be a good business plan in a normal (non-monopoly-driven) market.
Offtopic: interestingly, whenever I describe someone upsetting Microsoft, I keep hearing "when the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives". I feel quite like a cut-rate Marxist haranguing on a street corner:) Perhaps the meme of waiting for that Revolution isn't the healthiest for our industry; after all, when the Revolution did come, it was co-opted by a coup pretty soon thereafter...
"Comes the Revolution, you'll eat strawberries and cream and you'll like it!
Can anybody honestly say that they didn't know a person said "fuck" or "shit" at that point, or waved around an inappropriate part of their anatomy? I'm really not sure what censoring those things is accomplishing; it's patently clear (in some cases, moreso than in the original unedited version) what's going on.
In that particular scene the naked body was having sex with the German officer, though. Although I agree with the point you're trying to make. I wouldn't show that movie to young kids because of all the people being exterminated in it; sex is the least of ones' worries when watching that movie:)
Slashdot Mirror
Marshall. But of course nobody would cite somebody that set aside a judicial decision, when trying to make their case in court :) It's only the Executive who would refer to the Jackson precedent, and in this day and age they probably wouldn't get away with it.
Presumably it's a safely-draped Justice this time. Can't be championing any nudity, now can we, John? :)
"John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it now if he can." -- President Andrew Jackson, historical precedent and general all-around tough guy.
Right. Like civil rights leaders, maybe? That's pretty bad and illegal, we can't have that kind of stuff going on. I wouldn't quite call Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a "fucktard", though, although he was called worse I'm sure :)
Do you suppose you could just move to some other society where people appreciate fascists a little more, and leave the rest of us with our liberties intact? I'm sure Big Brother would be happy to keep you safe, as long as you put your faith in Him. We'll see whose society really lasts longer.
Riiiiight.
So why is there so much fighting in the West Bank? Isn't the Zionist occupation the Will of Allah? Shouldn't the upright man submit to the Will of Allah, and cease resistance immediately?
I think you're very carefully picking and choosing what your god is saying in order to justify your own beliefs and actions. Which is normal; millions of people do this every day. But I don't want to live in a society where I have to justify everything I do to someone else's god.
Well, it's unattainable if they get slashdotted, though. Which is often the case when /. links to a small group's web site.
But it's not just my right, right? How about your right to not be stuck supporting a religion that you disagree with? Just because you agree with the current state-sponsored religion doesn't mean that you always will, nor are there any guarantees that such a religion won't morph into something you find objectionable in the future. Unless you uncategorically accept as your God the gods of anyone who might end up in power, you should be concerned right along with me. Being offended is the least of my worries, really (and I don't necessarily agree that I even have a right "not to be offended" - that concept seems to have caused more harm than good in the last 20 years of jurisprudence). Supporting someone else's genocidal or psychotic idea of a Higher Being is much closer to the top of my worrying list.
Frankly, if the U.S. appeared to be less over-the-top fundamentalist Christian in our dealings with the world, and just based our foreign policy on secular concerns like more enlightened nations do, we would probably be better respected throughout the world. I imagine we would decrease our exposure to Islamic fundamentalism if it were less clear to the world that the U.S. is a bastion of Protestant Christian fundamentalism.
Sure, there's going to be some USA hatred one way or the other, based on other issues like power and money. But it's one less argument against us if our President George "Cowboy" Bush doesn't go around calling things a crusade. We don't have to make it any easier for religious leaders of the Middle East to incite hatred of U.S. citizens. Heck, they don't have state-sponsored religious schools in Pakistan, unlike in the USA.
The only reason that I could think of would be if they thought Sigma was dependent enough on their code that stopping coding would leave Sigma high and dry. But that's a pretty roundabout way to get back at somebody. I'm going to guess that there are other legal machinations going on right now that they haven't mentioned that contributed to the decision to stop (publicly) coding at the moment.
If these guys are real hackers, they have their own private copy that they're still working on. Whenever this is resolved, expect a huge jump in Xvid functionality :)
I always heard "Ensign Expendable".
I dunno, they're still curvy but they're very muppet-like as well. That's a totally different fetish, man.
Yeah, it's especially a pain to read (this is common to Windows too) "Press OK to do blah, or Cancel to do this other thing", neither of which are really OKing or Canceling anything. There must be a ton of people out there who are too lazy to label their buttons appropriately.
Or if that is too difficult to label, then maybe the scenario the user is being asked to understand is too complex in the first place? I think a lot of these situations are made more difficult for the user precisely because they are condensed down to OK/Cancel or Yes/No questions.
Actually, Best Buy droids around here will tell you that they are in fact illegal. I don't even know why I asked, and I'm not sure if that's the corporate line or if the droid I talked to was just very stupid or ignorant.
A-Hah! I never figured out what that tune was until now. Thanks!
Yeah, I love it when ads use a song that really means the exact opposite thing. My current favorite example is the GAP ad (might be Ralph Lauren or some other damn preppie clothes, I can't keep track) showing happy American people wearing jeans, flags, etc. The song lyric is "Some folks are born, made to wave the flag...", from the song Fortunate Son by John Fogerty. The tune is of course about fair-weather patriots; the exact opposite meaning from the one intended by the ad itself.
Don't these ad agencies ever think about more than one or two bars of the jingles they plan to use? What a bunch of morons.
The general theory on entrapment is that you can provide the opportunity for someone to commit a crime (leaving your car unlocked, etc.) but you can't try to talk them into it or get them to do something that they wouldn't have done without your coercion. Someone must really commit the crime of their own free will in order to be culpable.
Bush seems to operate on the theory that if he acts like a damn cowboy yahoo from Texas every time he opens his mouth, the other nations of the world will be too confused to figure what he's really after until he's mostly there. Thus the U.S.' even-more-schizophrenic-than-normal foreign policy recently.
Plus, he's keeping Paul O'Neill because he's the only other person in the administration who's more likely to make embarrassing public statements than the President is. O'Neill single-handedly crippled the economy of Brazil a couple weeks ago - he makes regular super-villains look pretty tame by comparison.
No, I don't hate America, but I'm pretty fed up with the people that are giving Americans a bad name at the moment.
I have to ask: Is your middle initial "Fucking"? Because that would be just too damn convenient :)
The point is not what you knew it came with; the point is whether or not the EULA gives you the right to get a refund for part of your purchase if you don't want it. For a while EULAs allowed this, and so there was nothing unethical or jackass-like about asking for it. Now that the EULA doesn't entitle you to a refund, it would be stupid to ask for one, I agree.
Maybe it was tested and failed? :)
The Linux kernel, at least, doesn't hew exactly to the POSIX spec; read various posts by Linus on Kernel Traffic or on the lkml to see why he doesn't see strict POSIX conformance as the highest-priority goal.
In practice, Linux is POSIX-compliant enough. It's almost to the point where interoperability with Linux and GNU software is more the standard than POSIX itself is.
I'm pretty sure that Futurama would have done just fine where it was (leading off a decent Sunday evening of TV (really the only good TV on Sunday nights usually)) if it was actually run at that time, rather than some damn football game being on almost every weekend. Here's a hint, FOX programming folks: if football runs late every weekend, then it's going to run late this weekend too. Plan for it, OK? Past a certain point, even gross incompetence counts as malice.
Dammit, I still miss My So-Called Life too :) Mmmmm, Claire Danes...
The joke is that it didn't always say "except by the consumer". For a while it was just "not to be removed under penalty of law." In fact, I think I ripped off one that said that. Thus the fear of The Man coming after you, etc.
In that world, we can reverse-engineer anything you do as closed source and distribute it. In that world, once we've got your source code (disgruntled employee, maybe?) it can legally spread around the world.
If the market is shrinking but Redhat looks to be the best positioned to take advantage of it under the new circumstances, then they are going to look more valuable. Combined with increasing relative market share (which usually allows you to increase your profit margin somewhat) that spells business growth.
Frankly, nobody's going to be able to compete with Microsoft in the software industry the way it is now. If you want to have a successful software business at the moment, you can either play by Microsoft's rules, or try to change the rules. The alternatives are essentially zero business growth for everyone except for Microsoft at present, or the potential for growth for some smaller players once Microsoft is no longer the king of the hill. The only way to any increase in revenue for anybody but Microsoft is to try to upset the whole apple cart, and see how things fall out. There are no other potential business plans; so when evaluating Redhat's plan you can't compare against what would be a good business plan in a normal (non-monopoly-driven) market.
Offtopic: interestingly, whenever I describe someone upsetting Microsoft, I keep hearing "when the dictatorship of the proletariat arrives". I feel quite like a cut-rate Marxist haranguing on a street corner :) Perhaps the meme of waiting for that Revolution isn't the healthiest for our industry; after all, when the Revolution did come, it was co-opted by a coup pretty soon thereafter...
"Comes the Revolution, you'll eat strawberries and cream and you'll like it!
Can anybody honestly say that they didn't know a person said "fuck" or "shit" at that point, or waved around an inappropriate part of their anatomy? I'm really not sure what censoring those things is accomplishing; it's patently clear (in some cases, moreso than in the original unedited version) what's going on.
In that particular scene the naked body was having sex with the German officer, though. Although I agree with the point you're trying to make. I wouldn't show that movie to young kids because of all the people being exterminated in it; sex is the least of ones' worries when watching that movie :)