Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it.
You're beating a dead horse... laws against "homosexuality" are void due to Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The question at issue is how and whether society provides some sort of benefit to certain social structures -- and whether private employment law does or does not correlate with that.
An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people...
This is the most retarded meme that has ever been accepted as "fact". There is *no* "separate class system for gay people" because "gay people" (which I'm defining as "those who are sexually attracted to their own sex") are not discriminated against. The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is. Please remove your head from Marx's butt and stop thinking in class terms.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex. Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination. Think carefully.
Seriously, though... Halliburton? Boeing/McDonald-Douglas/insert-defense-contractor-with-undersea-experience-here? Demote the Coast Guard and get the full Navy in charge? Hard to say...
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
You use the word "harrass", but I wonder if you didn't actually mean "shame". There is a big difference between harrassment and calling someone out for a hateful attitude towards a minority with a different lifestyle that in reality has little affect on any straight person. I wonder if you could consider gay marriage bans a "harrassment" of gays?
Harrassment? Shaming? Needless publicization of private citizens? Posting the names and address of abortion doctors? Legally-authorized Johns Lists? A public sex offender registry? It's a quite slippery slope you've got there.
The difference is that most of the later examples entail *actions* on the part of the listees, either judicially designated or not. If someone thinks that the doctor who performed an abortion is a murderer, that's at least rational (though perhaps not reasonable, depending on your political viewpoint).
The people who signed a petition did not, ipso facto, perform a procedure, or commit a crime, or to any rational-minded person cause any plausible actual harm. They expressed themselves through government action. If anything is going to get protection against "outing" and forced-deanonymization, it really should be political "actions" taken like voting, speaking, petitioning, or publishing pamphlets.
For better or for worse, the SC decided today that even that doesn't warrant a presumption of privacy. Que sera, sera.
Oh please. What happened to his vaunted intellect? This paragon of intelligence and reason who was supposed to lead us all to the promised land of enlightenment? NOTHING is "absolutely safe".
Either he actually believed it, in which case he's an idiot and worse than Bush ever was; or he knew better but didn't question the statement, in which case he's an ineffective and negligent Chief Executive; or he wasn't actually told that but is going into full-fledged CYA mode, in which case he's passing the buck and acting fairly un-Presidential.
This actually kind of surprises me... From what I understand, ICQ is still a big player internationally in the instant-messaging space. Unless Skype is suddenly ruling the roost or something... And despite my qualms with some of their updates over the years (Newsflash: When you have to put out a "Lite" version of your software because your users refuse to use the bloated piece of crapware that your official client is, you're doing something wrong...) ICQ has done nothing if not tried to remain relevant, added features, tried to integrate with other systems.
ICQ seems like one of the pieces of tech to keep... and not just for nostalgia reasons.
You don't just get to decide for yourself *after you've already begun the process* that it no longer applies to you. Once you start showing up to court, you have to continue showing up... except in the very rare case where you're provisionally appearing strictly for the purpose of debating proper jurisdiction. This is like saying "time out... hold on, have we started playing the game yet?".
After you submit to jurisdiction, it takes a judge's ruling to say you're not. If you just stop showing up the judge has no choice but to rule in the other guy's favor in a civil case. If I were the judge, I'd probably add a "stupid tax" to your damages too.
MS Research did it... with MyLifeBits
on
Life Recorder
·
· Score: 1
MyLifeBits is a Microsoft Research project. It was inspired by Vannevar Bush's hypothetical Memex computer system. The project includes full-text search, text and audio annotations, and hyperlinks. The "experimental subject" of the project is computer scientist Gordon Bell, and the project will try to collect a lifetime of storage on and about Bell. Jim Gemmell of Microsoft Research and Roger Lueder were the architects and creators of the system and its software.
They've been experimenting on tagging and electronic recording of an entire person's life since before Zuckerman was in HS, and of course the concept stretches long before that.
I can't run arbitrary processing code on my Facebook page right now... and I can't add CSS to modify its appearance, and I can't stick in random javascript (as either a consumer or as a developer). And the problem?
Having the middle man there with an application/code approval process in theory is intended to make the environment model more trusted. But it's a choice... If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Either don't use any apps (and treat your FB/iPhone as using the corporate-created features ONLY -- like any other website), or go somewhere else, like MySpace. GLWT.
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims. Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc. undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened. The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist. Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.)
Sorry, but that's naive BS. Removed this week after British media reports? People were talking about this two months ago...
The majority of people in this country are against gay marriage as well: does this mean that gay marriage should be illegal^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H not be legalized.
Sure: In an emergency can I cobble together something to send out a communication that doesn't involve me fabricating a processor?(...)
For any infrastructure, there should be at least the possibility of a contingency plan that could operate using 1940's technology... ideally with a fail-safe involved as well. Anything else is bound to come back to haunt us sooner or later.
If you're interested in communicating with people over long distances with extremely simple technology, I seriously suggest you look into getting a ham license. It's not very difficult, and you can make yourself useful when other communications networks are down. See http://www.arrl.org/ for further information.
73 de OH8HTH
Got one, thanks:) (Though I rarely make use of it...) I'm also involved with the local CERT team and am trying to find time for work with ARES and other civil defense/emergency communications teams... "When all else fails" indeed.
Name a problem with VoIP, and there are people who will find a solution, assuming we're willing to invest in infrastructure.
Sure: In an emergency can I cobble together something to send out a communication that doesn't involve me fabricating a processor? Give me a bundle of random parts and a headphone or two and I can create an analog phone out of it in an hour or so. VoIP relies on too many technologies to be easily "recreateable" in the event of a major disaster. Prior to IC's there was little that couldn't be recreated in the event of a long-term power outage or major (EMP-like) disruption to society.
For any infrastructure, there should be at least the possibility of a contingency plan that could operate using 1940's technology... ideally with a fail-safe involved as well. Anything else is bound to come back to haunt us sooner or later.
Personally I think it would be better if we encouraged people to live a bit closer together rather than subsidize people who want a log cabin lifestyle with an urban center connection.
Ahh yes, the "progressive" agenda comes out. Urbanization = good because we can all live eco-latte dorm lifestyles and no one has to drive a car and we can sustainably account for our cubbyhole by wearing hemp and planting a love tree on our roof.
Meanwhile in the rest of the world that doesn't live in something akin to NYC, we deal with actual life and actual quasi-self-sufficiency (and I say this living in San Diego, not BFE Montana). The reason we have Universal Telephone Service is that that's precisely the kind of thing that *should* be subsidized: proper minimal communications access for the entire country, guaranteed... just like the subsidization of the US Postal Service. It's a big country, but we owe that commitment to infrastructure to ourselves.
POTS fills that role for a not-insignificant portion of the population, and for very good technical reasons. If some of the billions of dollars in stimulus money was filtered out to the ILECs (and/or AT&T Long Lines) to upgrade the national communications network while making it at OR BETTER in reliability and not subjecting the US to the vulnerability of a common mode failure, I'd be all for it.
Until then, POTS needs to stay. Hell, analog cell should have stayed IMHO.
There very much is a common ground. Truth. Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date. Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
Bzzzz. Not if you're a postmodernist... where "truth" doesn't exist and science is only useful as a tool to enact social policy goals. Strangely enough, the postmoderns and the American Left (not Classic Liberals) seem to agree in this regard...:/
My Canon PowerShot can't upload photos to Facebook. When it can, I'll dust it off and start using it again. Until that point, I'm happy enough with my 3.2MP Verizon LG Touch...
I you vote to restrict your neighbors doing something harmless, I'm not sure they shouldn't get to burn your house down...
This is why we don't let Libertarians run rampant. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a law, the fact that it restricts something you consider to be harmless (though it doesn't seem to run afoul of constitutional rights -- ie, it's a valid,legal law) does not give you any sort of right (legal, moral or otherwise) to burn someone else's house down.
Well, that depends... are you in favor of the Death Penalty for breaking the law? That's what happens when you extend that metaphor...
FTR, every state in the union has rules on the books for the Secretary of State (or other official) to dis(in)corporate an corporation for any of a number of different reasons. RICO was specifically written to do just that for organizations that need to be officially dismantled as punishment.
Corporate personhood is a long-standing concept in US law, mostly stemming from interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Suffice to say that lots of people come down all over the place on the issue, but the legal fiction of corporate personhood (and LLC's) has probably contributed more than anything else to our economic growth in the last 150 years.
Seriously, use it to stimulate PRIVATE innovation and investment, instead of trying to manually command-and-control the economy. The government can't do, or direct people to do, things with half the efficiency that entrepreneurs can.
* First released version: 1.0 * First revision: 1.1 * First bug fix to the first revision: 1.1.1 * First major revision or rewrite: 2.0
The important part of version numbers is comparing them, and that's another place where Apple's classic metadata resource framework was ahead of its time.
A problem can arise when comparing version numbers by casting them to unsigned longs. When compared this way, Golden Master (GM) version numbers will compare as being older than any of the final candidate versions.
For the GM release of a file, the version resource will have the stage field set to final and the nonRelRev field set to zero. Most final candidate releases will contain a version resource, which has the stage field set to final and the nonRelRev field set to some value greater than zero. The problem here is that when the version numbers are cast to unsigned longs, the nonzero value in the nonRelRev field of final candidate version resources causes it to compare as greater than--and thus newer than--the GM version, which is in fact the newest version available.
In the past, this is most often a problem during installations when installing the GM version of a package over a perviously installed final candidate version of the same package. The installer would complain that you are trying to replace newer versions of the files in the package when this is clearly not the case. The Apple installer (and most other installers) avoid this problem by comparing the individual fields of version resources.
Years later Apple chucked many of these recommendations with QuickTime/iTunes version inflation. But it's nice to see things have stabilized somewhat in that regard. QT7 and iTunes8 have had lots of revs.
That seems to be one split between the various different monitoring systems out there. Either it's intended for the network guys and its only understanding of host/server metrics is what it can poll out of SNMP, or it's SA-focused but has few of the broad, large-scale network features that the network guys want.
Personally (as an SA), I've been very satisfied with Xymon (nee Hobbit, which was a fork/rebuild of Big Brother). Performance is great, even with 5000+ devices, it's got an open and simple-to-parse protocol, and an incredibly extensible architecture. As an SA, being able to script up a monitor and throw it into a data stream as plain text makes it very easy to develop new tests (or add simple monitoring/logging/rrdgraphing) out of pre-existing scripts. Don't limit yourself to what SNMP gives you if you're dealing with servers, services, and higher-level app testing. KISS: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hobbit_Design_Document
Whatever you do, pick something you can easily customize: Hack together three different monitoring systems to come up with a best-of-both worlds solution. Everyone's monitoring needs are different, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it.
You're beating a dead horse... laws against "homosexuality" are void due to Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The question at issue is how and whether society provides some sort of benefit to certain social structures -- and whether private employment law does or does not correlate with that.
An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people...
This is the most retarded meme that has ever been accepted as "fact". There is *no* "separate class system for gay people" because "gay people" (which I'm defining as "those who are sexually attracted to their own sex") are not discriminated against. The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is. Please remove your head from Marx's butt and stop thinking in class terms.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex. Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination. Think carefully.
Instead you would suggest...who, exactly?
Benthic Petroleum!
Seriously, though... Halliburton? Boeing/McDonald-Douglas/insert-defense-contractor-with-undersea-experience-here? Demote the Coast Guard and get the full Navy in charge? Hard to say...
Those who sued to get the names of the people who signed the petition did so so that they could harrass the more prominent people who signed it.
You use the word "harrass", but I wonder if you didn't actually mean "shame". There is a big difference between harrassment and calling someone out for a hateful attitude towards a minority with a different lifestyle that in reality has little affect on any straight person. I wonder if you could consider gay marriage bans a "harrassment" of gays?
Well okay then, what would you consider this: http://www.eightmaps.com/
Harrassment? Shaming? Needless publicization of private citizens? Posting the names and address of abortion doctors? Legally-authorized Johns Lists? A public sex offender registry? It's a quite slippery slope you've got there.
The difference is that most of the later examples entail *actions* on the part of the listees, either judicially designated or not. If someone thinks that the doctor who performed an abortion is a murderer, that's at least rational (though perhaps not reasonable, depending on your political viewpoint).
The people who signed a petition did not, ipso facto, perform a procedure, or commit a crime, or to any rational-minded person cause any plausible actual harm. They expressed themselves through government action. If anything is going to get protection against "outing" and forced-deanonymization, it really should be political "actions" taken like voting, speaking, petitioning, or publishing pamphlets.
For better or for worse, the SC decided today that even that doesn't warrant a presumption of privacy. Que sera, sera.
Oh please. What happened to his vaunted intellect? This paragon of intelligence and reason who was supposed to lead us all to the promised land of enlightenment? NOTHING is "absolutely safe".
Either he actually believed it, in which case he's an idiot and worse than Bush ever was; or he knew better but didn't question the statement, in which case he's an ineffective and negligent Chief Executive; or he wasn't actually told that but is going into full-fledged CYA mode, in which case he's passing the buck and acting fairly un-Presidential.
This actually kind of surprises me... From what I understand, ICQ is still a big player internationally in the instant-messaging space. Unless Skype is suddenly ruling the roost or something... And despite my qualms with some of their updates over the years (Newsflash: When you have to put out a "Lite" version of your software because your users refuse to use the bloated piece of crapware that your official client is, you're doing something wrong...) ICQ has done nothing if not tried to remain relevant, added features, tried to integrate with other systems.
ICQ seems like one of the pieces of tech to keep... and not just for nostalgia reasons.
ICQ #5632973
You don't just get to decide for yourself *after you've already begun the process* that it no longer applies to you. Once you start showing up to court, you have to continue showing up... except in the very rare case where you're provisionally appearing strictly for the purpose of debating proper jurisdiction. This is like saying "time out... hold on, have we started playing the game yet?".
After you submit to jurisdiction, it takes a judge's ruling to say you're not. If you just stop showing up the judge has no choice but to rule in the other guy's favor in a civil case. If I were the judge, I'd probably add a "stupid tax" to your damages too.
From Wikipedia:
They've been experimenting on tagging and electronic recording of an entire person's life since before Zuckerman was in HS, and of course the concept stretches long before that.
Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society
re: secular: Just wait 10 years.
The problem with a post-xian society is that multicultural secularism isn't able to combat forces that are pre-post-islam.
I can't run arbitrary processing code on my Facebook page right now... and I can't add CSS to modify its appearance, and I can't stick in random javascript (as either a consumer or as a developer). And the problem?
Having the middle man there with an application/code approval process in theory is intended to make the environment model more trusted. But it's a choice... If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Either don't use any apps (and treat your FB/iPhone as using the corporate-created features ONLY -- like any other website), or go somewhere else, like MySpace. GLWT.
I am curious how and by whom you think actually discovered the flaw in the IPCC's claims. Science requires that scientific work, claims, publications etc. undergo some degree of peer review which is exactly what happened. The IPCC made a claim which was analyzed and corrected by a scientist. Error correction is one of the most remarkable traits of science that is completely absent in its alternatives (pseudoscience, political infighting etc.)
Sorry, but that's naive BS. Removed this week after British media reports? People were talking about this two months ago...
Here's a blog post from 12/1/09:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/
See the primary sources here:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf (p 66)
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/10.pdf (p 493)
And I'm sure *someone* knew about this before then, but simply didn't go public about it.
Someone want to remind me why I should trust the IPCC (or climate "science") again?
The majority of people in this country are against gay marriage as well: does this mean that gay marriage should be illegal^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H not be legalized.
There... fixed that for ya.
Sure: In an emergency can I cobble together something to send out a communication that doesn't involve me fabricating a processor?(...)
For any infrastructure, there should be at least the possibility of a contingency plan that could operate using 1940's technology... ideally with a fail-safe involved as well. Anything else is bound to come back to haunt us sooner or later.
If you're interested in communicating with people over long distances with extremely simple technology, I seriously suggest you look into getting a ham license. It's not very difficult, and you can make yourself useful when other communications networks are down. See http://www.arrl.org/ for further information.
73 de OH8HTH
Got one, thanks :) (Though I rarely make use of it...) I'm also involved with the local CERT team and am trying to find time for work with ARES and other civil defense/emergency communications teams... "When all else fails" indeed.
KI6IIE
Name a problem with VoIP, and there are people who will find a solution, assuming we're willing to invest in infrastructure.
Sure: In an emergency can I cobble together something to send out a communication that doesn't involve me fabricating a processor? Give me a bundle of random parts and a headphone or two and I can create an analog phone out of it in an hour or so. VoIP relies on too many technologies to be easily "recreateable" in the event of a major disaster. Prior to IC's there was little that couldn't be recreated in the event of a long-term power outage or major (EMP-like) disruption to society.
For any infrastructure, there should be at least the possibility of a contingency plan that could operate using 1940's technology... ideally with a fail-safe involved as well. Anything else is bound to come back to haunt us sooner or later.
Personally I think it would be better if we encouraged people to live a bit closer together rather than subsidize people who want a log cabin lifestyle with an urban center connection.
Ahh yes, the "progressive" agenda comes out. Urbanization = good because we can all live eco-latte dorm lifestyles and no one has to drive a car and we can sustainably account for our cubbyhole by wearing hemp and planting a love tree on our roof.
Meanwhile in the rest of the world that doesn't live in something akin to NYC, we deal with actual life and actual quasi-self-sufficiency (and I say this living in San Diego, not BFE Montana). The reason we have Universal Telephone Service is that that's precisely the kind of thing that *should* be subsidized: proper minimal communications access for the entire country, guaranteed... just like the subsidization of the US Postal Service. It's a big country, but we owe that commitment to infrastructure to ourselves.
POTS fills that role for a not-insignificant portion of the population, and for very good technical reasons. If some of the billions of dollars in stimulus money was filtered out to the ILECs (and/or AT&T Long Lines) to upgrade the national communications network while making it at OR BETTER in reliability and not subjecting the US to the vulnerability of a common mode failure, I'd be all for it.
Until then, POTS needs to stay. Hell, analog cell should have stayed IMHO.
Hear, hear to that... I've always found her novels to be some of the most plausibly realistic in the space opera genre.
He's replaced that sticky with a different, updated one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/sticky-for-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13888
there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.
C1 = 300!
R1 = 3.060575122185 x 10 ^ 614
The joys of hypercalc :)
There very much is a common ground. Truth. Because people disagree doesn't mean that both aren't seeking to know the truth; really, both might have reasonable positions, given everything that individual has experienced and learned to date. Reality will be the ultimate arbitrator which decides who is correct.
Bzzzz. Not if you're a postmodernist... where "truth" doesn't exist and science is only useful as a tool to enact social policy goals. Strangely enough, the postmoderns and the American Left (not Classic Liberals) seem to agree in this regard... :/
My Canon PowerShot can't upload photos to Facebook. When it can, I'll dust it off and start using it again. Until that point, I'm happy enough with my 3.2MP Verizon LG Touch...
I you vote to restrict your neighbors doing something harmless, I'm not sure they shouldn't get to burn your house down...
This is why we don't let Libertarians run rampant. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a law, the fact that it restricts something you consider to be harmless (though it doesn't seem to run afoul of constitutional rights -- ie, it's a valid,legal law) does not give you any sort of right (legal, moral or otherwise) to burn someone else's house down.
Well, that depends... are you in favor of the Death Penalty for breaking the law? That's what happens when you extend that metaphor...
FTR, every state in the union has rules on the books for the Secretary of State (or other official) to dis(in)corporate an corporation for any of a number of different reasons. RICO was specifically written to do just that for organizations that need to be officially dismantled as punishment.
Corporate personhood is a long-standing concept in US law, mostly stemming from interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Suffice to say that lots of people come down all over the place on the issue, but the legal fiction of corporate personhood (and LLC's) has probably contributed more than anything else to our economic growth in the last 150 years.
to...
Seriously, use it to stimulate PRIVATE innovation and investment, instead of trying to manually command-and-control the economy. The government can't do, or direct people to do, things with half the efficiency that entrepreneurs can.
Apple's recommendations from the classic Mac OS days (as explained in Technote OV 12 -- Version Territory, now #1132) were what I grew up with.
* First released version: 1.0
* First revision: 1.1
* First bug fix to the first revision: 1.1.1
* First major revision or rewrite: 2.0
The important part of version numbers is comparing them, and that's another place where Apple's classic metadata resource framework was ahead of its time.
Years later Apple chucked many of these recommendations with QuickTime/iTunes version inflation. But it's nice to see things have stabilized somewhat in that regard. QT7 and iTunes8 have had lots of revs.
That seems to be one split between the various different monitoring systems out there. Either it's intended for the network guys and its only understanding of host/server metrics is what it can poll out of SNMP, or it's SA-focused but has few of the broad, large-scale network features that the network guys want.
Personally (as an SA), I've been very satisfied with Xymon (nee Hobbit, which was a fork/rebuild of Big Brother). Performance is great, even with 5000+ devices, it's got an open and simple-to-parse protocol, and an incredibly extensible architecture. As an SA, being able to script up a monitor and throw it into a data stream as plain text makes it very easy to develop new tests (or add simple monitoring/logging/rrdgraphing) out of pre-existing scripts. Don't limit yourself to what SNMP gives you if you're dealing with servers, services, and higher-level app testing. KISS: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hobbit_Design_Document
Whatever you do, pick something you can easily customize: Hack together three different monitoring systems to come up with a best-of-both worlds solution. Everyone's monitoring needs are different, after all.