They attack this problem in Australia (and other places) by taxing the organiser of the lottery, all advertised prizes are for the "after tax" value, if it says "First prize: $1M" and you win, you get $1M. The taxman doesn't hassle you because he took his cut before you got your cheque.
That's funny. In the U.S. it's almost exactly the opposite. First, the lottery says "Jackpot prize $15 million" when it is actually $7 million, because they give you the option of taking the $7 million and putting it a fund which pays out 30 annual payments of half a million each. Then the tax comes on top of that. Counting only the federal income taxes and inflated advertising, that means that a jackpot advertised as $15 million comes out to a lump sum of about $4.6 million.
You're a bit off there - that authorizes them to collect the taxes to pay for those services, but NOT to have the departments that provide them.
That's provided under Article II, Section 2, which states:
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
It even conveniently has the word "department" to help you pick out the clarity of the intent.
Argh! I'm going to put this as simply as possible: habeas corpus is protected by the Constitution, it is not granted by the Constitution. Why is that subtle difference so difficult to grasp?
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the surrounding context. The administration of which Gonzales is a part has been advocating the removal of Habeas Corpus, first for anyone declared an enemy combatant by the executive branch, and then later with the Military Commission Act for any non-citizen, including legal resident non-citizens. So Gonzales is NOT arguing that it is protected, he is arguing that it is not present for some people, and therefore can be ignored without suspending it (which of course is equivalent to suspending it).
So you agree with the AG's statement, then? That the words "Habeas corpus is granted" aren't in the Constitution? Because those words aren't in there, and we don't need a "Constitutional" right to habeas corpus, because habeas corpus predates the Constitution.
He never said we don't have the right, he said it's not granted by the Constitution. And so far all you've done is proven him right.
That argument is equivalent to looking at the part of the constitution that says, "neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years", and concluding that the president doesn't have to be thirty five years of age or older because it does not express it in the positive tense as "thirty five years or older".
I do not believe that a lawyer having poor reading comprehension skills should be sufficient grounds for ignoring the straightforward content of constitution.
I've been parsing that for a few minutes and it doesn't make sense. How would open access equate to some sort of closed access?
They're trying to insinuate that public access means a thing must be funded by the government, and thus subject to state control. This is a silly false dichotomy of course, but such is the nature of propaganda.
Really? So habeas corpus is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution? Which section? Which clause?
Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2, declares the privilege of habeas corpus, and prohibits the government from restricting it except in stated conditions:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Amendment V, prohibits imprisonment without due process of law:
"No person shall be held to answer... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Amendment VI, guarantees the right to a speedy, public, and fair trial:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Habeas corpus is explicitly listed as a privilege, its removal is explicitly prohibited, the imprisonment of an individual without following this legal process is prohibited, and the process of appearing before a court in a speedy fashion is expressly detailed.
Gonzales is either a moronic psychopath, or he is trying his best to promote a state of tyranny. In either case he should be granted no power.
I think the number of fanbois with more money than brains is somewhat limited. This might not be a good business model.
It's a brilliant business model, you're just thinking about it shortsightedly. Introduce a high end phone with attractive features as your first entry into the market, get a big splash of media coverage, make some sales to high end buyers who are looking for the prestige of a high end phone (which people always seem to want), then let the price fall rapidly over two years as the components cheapen, and you're a solid competitor in the market at traditional prices but with a desirable reputation as a leader in phone quality and features.
True enough, but if I have to choose between, say, the Linus-approved Linux kernel and Joe Schmoe's Kernel That He Made From The Linux Kernel But Added Some Stuff Joe Thought Was Cool, I know which one I'll go with.;)
Unless the day comes when you stop trusting Linus. Thus, free.:)
Hashes will always have collisions, if (and only if) the input space is larger than the output space, sure.
Are you sure and the "only if" part? Couldn't there be a hash function which maps several inputs to the same output even if are less inputs than outputs?
No, try to construct one.
Mapping / Count A-->a (1 in, 1 out) B-->a (2 in, 1 out) (any arbitrary hash with at least one collision must include at least the equivalent of these two mappings.)
Now the only way to get an output count which is equal to or larger than the input count is to add mappings with more outputs than inputs. This can only happen if a single input maps to more than one output, and that violates the definition of "function".
I doubt courts will understand the similarity, given that papers are tangible, and emails are not (unless printed). Either they will not understand, or use the technicality to get a hold of information they should not really have.
If I handwrite a letter to my mother, scan it, email it to her as an attachment, and she prints it out, then what's the difference between this letter and one that traveled through the postal service? Judges are able to understand this.
A sitting and living president can only be removed by process of impeachment (or resignation), and this would only happen over voting problems if it were proven that he was personally involved.
In my opinion (and that's all it is), it comes down to how little I have to think about my applications. I don't want to have another office suite on my computer if I'm running, say, a flower shop. I just want something that works with my old files and gives me everything I need with my new files. And if I'm the average consumer (i.e., not a Slashdotter with an intimate knowledge of the open source options at my disposal), I know that's Office. So I go get it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done -- I have the industry standard office suite, and should have no problem exchanging documents with anyone else.
Or, you run a flower shop, go to the store, buy a computer, and it doesn't have Office on it by default. It has Works, and maybe a demo or installer that tries to get you to buy MS Office. So you can either go spend over a hundred to buy an office program, or download the same thing for free from the internet.
It's little more than a myth that buying the MS-branded office suite protects one from compatibility problems. In actual practice, transferring a document from one person's MS Office to another person's MS Office installation frequently fails due to different versions, and sometimes even font problems. This is the common person's experience, so what difference does it make if they get it for free?
Maybe faced with the efforts involved in bypassing MSFT/GOOG/Y!, this might at least soften China's resistance somewhat (information wants to be free, and they will have to face and accept this at some point), but I don't see the proverbial dam busting anytime soon.
The more potent force will probably be the Chinese public. It's not like they can get on the internet and not KNOW when their government is blocking microsoft, google, and yahoo. And they will see plainly that people elsewhere are fond of these services. The more people are denied things straight to their face, the more angry they get.
When the day comes that the Constitution can no longer protect us in the information age
Uh, but it does, and plainly so. Not only is a laptop part of a person's "effects" as protected explicitly in the fourth amendment, but the contents of a laptop are ones papers. The search of papers inside of a laptop is thus the same as the search of papers inside of an envelope. The transmission of a paper via email is no different than the transmission of a paper via postal mail. The constitution plainly and clearly provides protection for this, and it is simply a question of whether the courts will acknowledge this now, or come to their senses later. It is not exactly a matter of interpretation when the language is that clear.
does google china still censor it's content? yes? then this is a load of bullshit.
I think you miss the point. Google can afford to say no to China's censorship if all of the major information gateways, i.e., its competitors (MSN, Yahoo, etc), agree to say no under the same set of rules.
As they are only now developing this, and have not past-tense developed it, evaluating Google's current stance toward China is not yet a valid test.
The Open Document Format (ODF) is what OpenOffice uses, and Office 2007 uses Microsoft's own more proprietary version of this, OpenXML.
Err, this seems wrong somehow. If OpenOffice switches to a new file format and calls it MS_XML, do you think Microsoft would mind?
it's getting harder and harder (really, due to the minor differences more than the major ones) to transfer documents back and forth between OOo and Office
I would actually say compatibility has significantly increased as time has progressed. I do not see why you would say otherwise. I don't know how Office 2007 compatibility is yet, but then again, it hasn't even been released to the public at large yet, so there can hardly be an expectation of compatibility right now.
but for pure ease of use and reliable translation, Word to Word is always going to work better than OpenOffice to Word.
That's not necessarilly true. OpenOffice often does a better job of converting to and from old versions of Word documents than new versions of Word do.
And do you know what works even better? OpenOffice to OpenOffice. For some reason they do not lose backward compatibility for their own documents like Microsoft Office tends to do. And there is the simple issue that if I use OpenOffice at work, I can also work on these documents with OpenOffice at home without paying for an extra home copy of MS Office, and without having to worry at all about compatibility as I work on a document. (And also without having to worry about losing the ability to open the document ten years later.) Nobody I share documents with can complain that OpenOffice is not an option for them or is outside of their budget.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd better hope that's a really good bluetooth keyboard.
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
It even conveniently has the word "department" to help you pick out the clarity of the intent.
I do not believe that a lawyer having poor reading comprehension skills should be sufficient grounds for ignoring the straightforward content of constitution.
They're trying to insinuate that public access means a thing must be funded by the government, and thus subject to state control. This is a silly false dichotomy of course, but such is the nature of propaganda.
Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2, declares the privilege of habeas corpus, and prohibits the government from restricting it except in stated conditions:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Amendment V, prohibits imprisonment without due process of law:
"No person shall be held to answer
Amendment VI, guarantees the right to a speedy, public, and fair trial:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Habeas corpus is explicitly listed as a privilege, its removal is explicitly prohibited, the imprisonment of an individual without following this legal process is prohibited, and the process of appearing before a court in a speedy fashion is expressly detailed.
Gonzales is either a moronic psychopath, or he is trying his best to promote a state of tyranny. In either case he should be granted no power.
But how many involved some sort of violent act or direct abuse of children?
(I'd love to see an actual number if someone can find it.)
I'd love to see someone apply this to TV pundits to identify and objectively rank which ones are simply regurgitating talking points.
I think we can come up with some better locations to attach a third arm.
Don't worry, you can trust skynet. What could go wrong?
It's a brilliant business model, you're just thinking about it shortsightedly. Introduce a high end phone with attractive features as your first entry into the market, get a big splash of media coverage, make some sales to high end buyers who are looking for the prestige of a high end phone (which people always seem to want), then let the price fall rapidly over two years as the components cheapen, and you're a solid competitor in the market at traditional prices but with a desirable reputation as a leader in phone quality and features.
Unless the day comes when you stop trusting Linus. Thus, free.
You must be new to our planet. Welcome.
No, try to construct one.
Mapping / Count
A-->a (1 in, 1 out)
B-->a (2 in, 1 out)
(any arbitrary hash with at least one collision must include at least the equivalent of these two mappings.)
Now the only way to get an output count which is equal to or larger than the input count is to add mappings with more outputs than inputs. This can only happen if a single input maps to more than one output, and that violates the definition of "function".
If I handwrite a letter to my mother, scan it, email it to her as an attachment, and she prints it out, then what's the difference between this letter and one that traveled through the postal service? Judges are able to understand this.
A sitting and living president can only be removed by process of impeachment (or resignation), and this would only happen over voting problems if it were proven that he was personally involved.
Or, you run a flower shop, go to the store, buy a computer, and it doesn't have Office on it by default. It has Works, and maybe a demo or installer that tries to get you to buy MS Office. So you can either go spend over a hundred to buy an office program, or download the same thing for free from the internet.
It's little more than a myth that buying the MS-branded office suite protects one from compatibility problems. In actual practice, transferring a document from one person's MS Office to another person's MS Office installation frequently fails due to different versions, and sometimes even font problems. This is the common person's experience, so what difference does it make if they get it for free?
The more potent force will probably be the Chinese public. It's not like they can get on the internet and not KNOW when their government is blocking microsoft, google, and yahoo. And they will see plainly that people elsewhere are fond of these services. The more people are denied things straight to their face, the more angry they get.
Uh, but it does, and plainly so. Not only is a laptop part of a person's "effects" as protected explicitly in the fourth amendment, but the contents of a laptop are ones papers. The search of papers inside of a laptop is thus the same as the search of papers inside of an envelope. The transmission of a paper via email is no different than the transmission of a paper via postal mail. The constitution plainly and clearly provides protection for this, and it is simply a question of whether the courts will acknowledge this now, or come to their senses later. It is not exactly a matter of interpretation when the language is that clear.
I think you miss the point. Google can afford to say no to China's censorship if all of the major information gateways, i.e., its competitors (MSN, Yahoo, etc), agree to say no under the same set of rules.
As they are only now developing this, and have not past-tense developed it, evaluating Google's current stance toward China is not yet a valid test.
Err, this seems wrong somehow. If OpenOffice switches to a new file format and calls it MS_XML, do you think Microsoft would mind?
I would actually say compatibility has significantly increased as time has progressed. I do not see why you would say otherwise. I don't know how Office 2007 compatibility is yet, but then again, it hasn't even been released to the public at large yet, so there can hardly be an expectation of compatibility right now.
That's not necessarilly true. OpenOffice often does a better job of converting to and from old versions of Word documents than new versions of Word do.
And do you know what works even better? OpenOffice to OpenOffice. For some reason they do not lose backward compatibility for their own documents like Microsoft Office tends to do. And there is the simple issue that if I use OpenOffice at work, I can also work on these documents with OpenOffice at home without paying for an extra home copy of MS Office, and without having to worry at all about compatibility as I work on a document. (And also without having to worry about losing the ability to open the document ten years later.) Nobody I share documents with can complain that OpenOffice is not an option for them or is outside of their budget.