Given the feebleness of the human race's attempts to leave the planet, I'm pretty happy about any plans for any type of space exploration. But, for God's sake, why can't we pick a place to go to? The shuttle is a 30-year old truck, and the space station is a purpose-built truck stop.
Anyone laboring under the impression that space travel is about scientific research is wrong. Space travel is about all the things that marked the great Earth-bound explorations of the 15th-19th centuries: adventure, pioneering spirit, money, greed and opportunity.
No, I don't think much at all about your suggestion implying, again, that the north started the war to ensure a supply of raw material the south. The South started the war by attempting to secede. Southern leaders were well aware of the likely northern response.
The south could have eliminated any motivation for secession and, hence, war, by simply abandoning slavery. They were not prepared to do that. Southern leaders chose the well-being of slavery over the well-being of the southern people, and everyone paid the price.
All arguments that the South was justified, or moral, or legitimate, are simply in error. All arguments that the war resulted from some sort of northern economic conspiracy are looney.
Again, I fault the Founders for not eliminating slavery in 1789, even if it risked secession and war then. Slavery and its aftermath, including the impact of the war on the south, is the single greatest burden this country faces. I do not forgive our ancestors who allowed slavery and the plantation economy to flourish and thrive for 80 years after the creation of the U.S. They should have outlawed slavery, arrested slaveowners, and used whatever force necessary to wipe out the institution.
This country rebelled once, against the British Empire. From that empire perspective, the American rebellion was illegal and a revolutionary act of war. They used military force to preserve their interests. In that, they were justified. The fact that they lost the war does not change that fact.
Having formed a sovereign federal union, following the complete failure of the weak collection of states gathered under the feeble Articles of Confederation, the U.S. was in the same position as the Brish Empire, or any sovereign nation. Even as weak an individual as the Southern apologist James Buchanan believed seccession to be unconstitutional.
The word secession does not appear in the Constitution. However, it does assert that the Constitution is the supreme law, no matter what legislation is passed in subordinate entities, such as the states. It also reserves all the highest sovereign functions -- war, treaty making, etc. Therefore, the acts of secession legislated in each state were null and void, and subsequent acts by the outlaw regimes in those states -- taking up arms against the U.S., attempting to gain foreign recognition as a sovereign nation, etc. -- were acts of illegal rebellion.
t is illogical to assume, therefore, that the Founders entertained any notion that a state could unilaterally remove itself from the bounds of the Constitution.
Per the Constitution, the union is absolute. The South's illegal secession was the greatest threat possible to the sovereignty and union of the U.S. The Confederacy was not a recognized sovereign state; it was a collection of individual states that violated the Constitution, formed an illegitimate government, and took up arms against the legitimate government, The south's secession was never recognized by the north. The north took the action necessary to preserve the union. No option existed not to compel reunification by military force once it became clear that the Confederacy was prepared to use military force itself.
The South had controlled American politics for the majority of the years between 1789 and 1861. during that time, it had amply demonstrated an aggressive desire to spread slavery and the plantation economy into as much of North America as possible. Any society based on trafficking in human slaves, much less attempting to expand that society, should be destroyed. I see nothing at all in the south's defeat to bemoan. The Founders should never have allowed the institution to exist in the first place.
As I recall, the NSA released some GPL'd code and then dropped it like a hot potato.
But, in this instance, the same circumstance applies. If the NSA had created some original security code as part of the SE Linux project, and if they wanted to offer that code, gratis, to all -- commercial, free and open source -- developers to ensure rapid inclusion in as much software as possible, the GPL license of SE Linux would have introduced a poison pill into the mix. Everyone with a reason to avoid the GPL would avoid using the code.
I'm beginning to think you're deliberately not making sense, At the least, you're putting words in my mouth.
Once again, the south precipitated the war by seceding. That secession was driven by the south's obsession with preserving and expanding slavery. If slavey had not existed in the south, there would have been no secession and, hence, no war.
The south, not the north, attempted to destroy the nation. The slave economy should have been destroyed after the Revolution.
I did not equate public good with commercial, or GPL'd, software. All I'm saying is that it makes sense to me that commercial software vendors consider the GPL restrictive. Therefore, it also makes sense to me that the public's interest in seeing rapid and widespread distribution of software developed by or for the government is not well served by a license that repels the makers of the vast majority of software in use today.
I'm not saying that everyone should be able to do as they please with the poster's GPL'd code. I am saying that his choice to use the GPL does not automatically equate to serving the public interest. Perhaps it might, if you believe supporting the GPL serves a greater public interest than allowing other developers to use your code without the GPL restrictions. That's another story.
Absent slavery, the south would not have tried to leave the union. They engaged in revolution to preserve slavery. Lincoln eventually, perhaps rather belatedly, realized that the union could not be saved if slavery existed. The war brought a fiery and violent end to a doomed culture. The plantation elite should have eliminated slavery when the southern states ratified the Constitution. Because they did not, they bear responsibility for the war and the south's fate.
Well, I didn't mean partisan in the traditional Republican versus Democrat sense. Many folks seem to be applying a software development model -- free software, the GPL, etc. -- to day-to-day politics. People are partisan in the sense that they appear to care more about defeating political opponents -- real or imagined -- than actually writing software.
This seems a partisan rant by GPL political activists. Where is the call to "outlaw" the GPL? Where is the justification for putting government code under the GPL, instead of one of the other very similar licenses out there?
It is a reality that many commercial vendors won't touch GPL code. If you're primary goal is to eliminate commercial software, this kind of gambit makes sense. If you want to avoid closing avenues for widespread distribution of software, it doesn't make sense.
I'm telling you that the South engaged in an act of revolution to protect a culture based on slavery. I'm telling you that the Union was compelled to preserve the nation by whatever means necessary. I'm telling you that it wasn't a "crusade to free the salves". Emancipation, occuring well into the war, was seen by Lincoln as a device to weaken the South, help in diplomatic efforts to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy, and to rally political support in the North. That it began to correct a fundamental evil in American life is a benefit, but not a precipitating cause. (Had the Souith chosen to surrender before the Proclamation, they might well have preserved slavery.)
The only "noble cause" in this whole affair was the South's deluded belief that slavery was God's will and that slave owners and slave sellers were "gentlemen". I'm afraid the Declaration of Independence doesn't guarantee anything to anyone, it isn't part of the Constitution. The union is absolute.
That's one of the sorriest postings I've seen, which is saying something about/.
The South seceded because it believed, correctly, that Lincoln's new Republican administration represented revolutionary political change in the U.S. It was revolutionary because it finally, after 80 years, broke the southern planter aristocracy's grip on national politics. No longer would the U.S. need to pay obeisance to the slave traders. So, in response, the South took an even more revolutionary step: it left the Union. It was revolutionary because the Constitution recognizes no right of seccesson. Unless the Confederacy voluntarily returned to the Union, the U.S. had no option but to preserve the union by any means necessary.
Due to its slave ideology, the South's economy was weak and undeveloped and uncompetitive compared to the North. Your notion that Northern businesses were at a disadvantage because of slavery is ludicrous. What was there for the North to envy? Reduced literacy rates? Reduced living standards? Reduced life expectancy?
While the ante bellum North was building factories and railroads, the ante bellum South was busy scheming to expand slavery and plantations into the territories. The South's addiction to slavery drove its failure to modernize its economy and, fortunately, crippled the South during the war.
OK, so MAC addresses can be spoofed. Still, what's the big deal? Some game company wants to weed out cheaters and/. jumps on it as if it is a threat to human liberties. Granted, I expect the/. crew to post stories that increase ad impressions, but it'd be nice if so many readers weren't suckered so easily.
Equal protection is not an intrusion. It's a right. A state can't decide that it doesn't like one particular application of equal protection and tell anyone who disagrees to leave. That's the entire point of the 14th amendment: You have equal protection under the laws of the U.S. regardless of which state you live in.
The notion that state legislation can trump or nullify U.S. laws that is a dead issue, as of 1865.
That's what happens here. If my provider doesn't see the MAC address of their card, the connection drops.
Anyway, this little fuss is just about people who think that everyone has a right to be on every network, anywhere. It's as if they believe that people every network is a public, free, resource.,
What's the big deal? If a private network doesn't want to let you in, why should they? A unique MAC addess is just another way of establishing who you are.
I don't think so. The Constitution stipulates that the laws of the United States take precedence over individual state laws. In areas -- such as speed limits -- in which Congress lack authority to legislate -- it sometimes tries to ensure compliance with its intent by making dispersal of federal funds contingent on adherence to a regulation.
In any case, a state that chose to opt out of these arrangements would face lawsuits on two fronts: From the federal government and from angry state citizens charging violation of the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
People who think the world can be resolved into black and white always put themselves in the white section, and put anyone who disagrees with them in the black section.
So, you see, life is really simple if you can't accept the possibility that you might not always be right. Or, that sometimes there is no right answer.
I'm tired of people lieing about the Civil War and romanticizing the South's slave culture. "Imperialists" had nothing to do with the Civil War. Nor was the ante bellum South a garden of liberty. It was, in fact, just the opposite: a dictatorship of a minority planter class that sustained itself via slave culture. The South wanted to perpetuate an evil way of life and had spent the better part of the nation's first 80 years attempting to ensure that their despicable culture would be allowed to expand, unhindered, across the North American continent.
Proponents of slavery and ante-bellum culture precipitated the Civil War, were directly responsible for the death and destruction that the war brought to the South, and, in the end, deserved everything that happened to them.
Perhaps the more likely outcome of enlisting the Navajo, the Hopi, the Apache and all the other native American nations of the southwest in this looney scheme would be their assertion of their claim to Arizona, New Mexico, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the feebleness of the human race's attempts to leave the planet, I'm pretty happy about any plans for any type of space exploration. But, for God's sake, why can't we pick a place to go to? The shuttle is a 30-year old truck, and the space station is a purpose-built truck stop.
Anyone laboring under the impression that space travel is about scientific research is wrong. Space travel is about all the things that marked the great Earth-bound explorations of the 15th-19th centuries: adventure, pioneering spirit, money, greed and opportunity.
No, I don't think much at all about your suggestion implying, again, that the north started the war to ensure a supply of raw material the south. The South started the war by attempting to secede. Southern leaders were well aware of the likely northern response.
The south could have eliminated any motivation for secession and, hence, war, by simply abandoning slavery. They were not prepared to do that. Southern leaders chose the well-being of slavery over the well-being of the southern people, and everyone paid the price.
All arguments that the South was justified, or moral, or legitimate, are simply in error. All arguments that the war resulted from some sort of northern economic conspiracy are looney.
Again, I fault the Founders for not eliminating slavery in 1789, even if it risked secession and war then. Slavery and its aftermath, including the impact of the war on the south, is the single greatest burden this country faces. I do not forgive our ancestors who allowed slavery and the plantation economy to flourish and thrive for 80 years after the creation of the U.S. They should have outlawed slavery, arrested slaveowners, and used whatever force necessary to wipe out the institution.
This country rebelled once, against the British Empire. From that empire perspective, the American rebellion was illegal and a revolutionary act of war. They used military force to preserve their interests. In that, they were justified. The fact that they lost the war does not change that fact.
Having formed a sovereign federal union, following the complete failure of the weak collection of states gathered under the feeble Articles of Confederation, the U.S. was in the same position as the Brish Empire, or any sovereign nation. Even as weak an individual as the Southern apologist James Buchanan believed seccession to be unconstitutional.
The word secession does not appear in the Constitution. However, it does assert that the Constitution is the supreme law, no matter what legislation is passed in subordinate entities, such as the states. It also reserves all the highest sovereign functions -- war, treaty making, etc. Therefore, the acts of secession legislated in each state were null and void, and subsequent acts by the outlaw regimes in those states -- taking up arms against the U.S., attempting to gain foreign recognition as a sovereign nation, etc. -- were acts of illegal rebellion.
t is illogical to assume, therefore, that the Founders entertained any notion that a state could unilaterally remove itself from the bounds of the Constitution.
panIP sucks, it won't hold in court if someone countersues, but my IP is mine until I say otherwise.
Per the Constitution, the union is absolute. The South's illegal secession was the greatest threat possible to the sovereignty and union of the U.S. The Confederacy was not a recognized sovereign state; it was a collection of individual states that violated the Constitution, formed an illegitimate government, and took up arms against the legitimate government, The south's secession was never recognized by the north. The north took the action necessary to preserve the union. No option existed not to compel reunification by military force once it became clear that the Confederacy was prepared to use military force itself.
The South had controlled American politics for the majority of the years between 1789 and 1861. during that time, it had amply demonstrated an aggressive desire to spread slavery and the plantation economy into as much of North America as possible. Any society based on trafficking in human slaves, much less attempting to expand that society, should be destroyed. I see nothing at all in the south's defeat to bemoan. The Founders should never have allowed the institution to exist in the first place.
As I recall, the NSA released some GPL'd code and then dropped it like a hot potato.
But, in this instance, the same circumstance applies. If the NSA had created some original security code as part of the SE Linux project, and if they wanted to offer that code, gratis, to all -- commercial, free and open source -- developers to ensure rapid inclusion in as much software as possible, the GPL license of SE Linux would have introduced a poison pill into the mix. Everyone with a reason to avoid the GPL would avoid using the code.
I'm beginning to think you're deliberately not making sense, At the least, you're putting words in my mouth.
Once again, the south precipitated the war by seceding. That secession was driven by the south's obsession with preserving and expanding slavery. If slavey had not existed in the south, there would have been no secession and, hence, no war.
The south, not the north, attempted to destroy the nation. The slave economy should have been destroyed after the Revolution.
I did not equate public good with commercial, or GPL'd, software. All I'm saying is that it makes sense to me that commercial software vendors consider the GPL restrictive. Therefore, it also makes sense to me that the public's interest in seeing rapid and widespread distribution of software developed by or for the government is not well served by a license that repels the makers of the vast majority of software in use today.
I'm not saying that everyone should be able to do as they please with the poster's GPL'd code. I am saying that his choice to use the GPL does not automatically equate to serving the public interest. Perhaps it might, if you believe supporting the GPL serves a greater public interest than allowing other developers to use your code without the GPL restrictions. That's another story.
Not exactly.
Absent slavery, the south would not have tried to leave the union. They engaged in revolution to preserve slavery. Lincoln eventually, perhaps rather belatedly, realized that the union could not be saved if slavery existed. The war brought a fiery and violent end to a doomed culture. The plantation elite should have eliminated slavery when the southern states ratified the Constitution. Because they did not, they bear responsibility for the war and the south's fate.
Well, I didn't mean partisan in the traditional Republican versus Democrat sense. Many folks seem to be applying a software development model -- free software, the GPL, etc. -- to day-to-day politics. People are partisan in the sense that they appear to care more about defeating political opponents -- real or imagined -- than actually writing software.
>> ...you are going to have problems using my GPL code in a commercial application and then selling it. This means that the GPL is working for me.
That's the point. The GPL works for you, at the expense of others.
You assume your interests should take precedence over the public good. They don't.
This seems a partisan rant by GPL political activists. Where is the call to "outlaw" the GPL? Where is the justification for putting government code under the GPL, instead of one of the other very similar licenses out there?
It is a reality that many commercial vendors won't touch GPL code. If you're primary goal is to eliminate commercial software, this kind of gambit makes sense. If you want to avoid closing avenues for widespread distribution of software, it doesn't make sense.
You don't have to tell me you made it up.
I'm telling you that the South engaged in an act of revolution to protect a culture based on slavery. I'm telling you that the Union was compelled to preserve the nation by whatever means necessary. I'm telling you that it wasn't a "crusade to free the salves". Emancipation, occuring well into the war, was seen by Lincoln as a device to weaken the South, help in diplomatic efforts to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy, and to rally political support in the North. That it began to correct a fundamental evil in American life is a benefit, but not a precipitating cause. (Had the Souith chosen to surrender before the Proclamation, they might well have preserved slavery.)
The only "noble cause" in this whole affair was the South's deluded belief that slavery was God's will and that slave owners and slave sellers were "gentlemen".
I'm afraid the Declaration of Independence doesn't guarantee anything to anyone, it isn't part of the Constitution. The union is absolute.
That's one of the sorriest postings I've seen, which is saying something about /.
The South seceded because it believed, correctly, that Lincoln's new Republican administration represented revolutionary political change in the U.S. It was revolutionary because it finally, after 80 years, broke the southern planter aristocracy's grip on national politics. No longer would the U.S. need to pay obeisance to the slave traders. So, in response, the South took an even more revolutionary step: it left the Union. It was revolutionary because the Constitution recognizes no right of seccesson. Unless the Confederacy voluntarily returned to the Union, the U.S. had no option but to preserve the union by any means necessary.
Due to its slave ideology, the South's economy was weak and undeveloped and uncompetitive compared to the North. Your notion that Northern businesses were at a disadvantage because of slavery is ludicrous. What was there for the North to envy? Reduced literacy rates? Reduced living standards? Reduced life expectancy?
While the ante bellum North was building factories and railroads, the ante bellum South was busy scheming to expand slavery and plantations into the territories. The South's addiction to slavery drove its failure to modernize its economy and, fortunately, crippled the South during the war.
OK, so MAC addresses can be spoofed. Still, what's the big deal? Some game company wants to weed out cheaters and /. jumps on it as if it is a threat to human liberties. Granted, I expect the /. crew to post stories that increase ad impressions, but it'd be nice if so many readers weren't suckered so easily.
Of course it won't work. But it's their right to try it. If it drives honest customers away, they'll go out of business. C'est la vie,
Equal protection is not an intrusion. It's a right. A state can't decide that it doesn't like one particular application of equal protection and tell anyone who disagrees to leave. That's the entire point of the 14th amendment: You have equal protection under the laws of the U.S. regardless of which state you live in.
The notion that state legislation can trump or nullify U.S. laws that is a dead issue, as of 1865.
That's what happens here. If my provider doesn't see the MAC address of their card, the connection drops.
Anyway, this little fuss is just about people who think that everyone has a right to be on every network, anywhere. It's as if they believe that people every network is a public, free, resource.,
What's the big deal? If a private network doesn't want to let you in, why should they? A unique MAC addess is just another way of establishing who you are.
I don't think so. The Constitution stipulates that the laws of the United States take precedence over individual state laws. In areas -- such as speed limits -- in which Congress lack authority to legislate -- it sometimes tries to ensure compliance with its intent by making dispersal of federal funds contingent on adherence to a regulation.
In any case, a state that chose to opt out of these arrangements would face lawsuits on two fronts: From the federal government and from angry state citizens charging violation of the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
People who think the world can be resolved into black and white always put themselves in the white section, and put anyone who disagrees with them in the black section.
So, you see, life is really simple if you can't accept the possibility that you might not always be right. Or, that sometimes there is no right answer.
I'm tired of people lieing about the Civil War and romanticizing the South's slave culture. "Imperialists" had nothing to do with the Civil War. Nor was the ante bellum South a garden of liberty. It was, in fact, just the opposite: a dictatorship of a minority planter class that sustained itself via slave culture. The South wanted to perpetuate an evil way of life and had spent the better part of the nation's first 80 years attempting to ensure that their despicable culture would be allowed to expand, unhindered, across the North American continent.
Proponents of slavery and ante-bellum culture precipitated the Civil War, were directly responsible for the death and destruction that the war brought to the South, and, in the end, deserved everything that happened to them.
Perhaps the more likely outcome of enlisting the Navajo, the Hopi, the Apache and all the other native American nations of the southwest in this looney scheme would be their assertion of their claim to Arizona, New Mexico, etc.
You can't opt out of "federal mandates". The obligations of citizenship are not optional.
Besides, it's been done and it didn't work. Reference the events of 1861-1865 for details.
IT spending goes through the roof because the two cultures -- business and IT -- can barely make themselves understood to each other.
That said, ever notice how reluctant "consultants" are to recommend continued use of a legacy product that they don't know how to use?