If law enforcement isn't doing their job, then you protest against law enforcement, you don't take enforcement into your own hands.
how do you protest against law enforcement? Yhe whole purpose of this recent publicity was precisely to push law enforcement into action by stoking public outrage.
the world is not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a moral one. There is no question about this woman's actions, or her identity. There are no significant facts in dispute, only legal and moral culpability. And yes, individuals and communities do have the right to judge moral culpability for themselves, with or without your permission.
Seeing as how she's a grown woman and not a 13 year old, nothing. Surprisingly enough, the laws are written under the assumption that adults can take care of themselves, while children need some protection -- particularly from adults. Most societies on earth have the same moral assumptions as well.
I'm the parent of a special needs child who gets far more verbal abuse than this stupid girl ever would yet she's not trying to kill herself.
That's probably because special needs have nothing whatsofuckever to do with depression and mental health. Indeed, suicide rates for mentally and physically challenged youths are far below those of normal youths. Congratulations on having a child who doesn't suffer from problems she doesn't have -- that's a real accomplishment in oppositeland. My child who has asthma never had problem with blood sugar levels, so obviously those diabetic kids just have shitty parents! And of course having bad parents means you deserve to die at 13 and never get a chance to remake yourself as an adult.
People are repeating information that is already publicly available through the police reports, which are public records. That the woman was involved is not in question, nor is her identity, nor are her actions, as she described them herself in the report to the police. The only questions are how much moral responsibility she carries, and if there is any legal responsibility.
So basically, all of your arguments are meaningless, and your analogies are nothing like the case at hand.
If someone calls up the RIAA and says "hey, i've been stealing music for the past 20 years and here's a confession stamped by a notary public", then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the RIAA publishing that document and name.
When XP was released, SATA was neither old nor ubiquitous.
true, but I think microsoft has pressed a few new CDs since the first batch was made in 2001. At the very least, they should have updated the drivers on the SP2 install CDs to support SATA natively. Or at some point in the several years after, when both SATA was standard and floppy drives were disappearing. There's really no excuse for how lousy the out of the box XP install experience has been over the years other than sheer lack of concern.
Just curious. Was the DVD player you were running written in Java?
I'm assuming he has one of those new computers that runs more than one program at a time. Java wanting to be updated had nothing to do with the programming language of his DVD player. It's just that the Java update timing was poor, and the system's handling of the update notifaction was intrusive. Most OEMs seem to load the Sun Java distribution on new systems, and the default setting is of course for it to sit there in your system tray and nag you periodically about OpenOffice and java updates.
Your USB mass storage driver was so defective it had to be reinstalled for each and every thunb drive you used? I call BS.
I don't know what version of XP you've been using, but all the ones shipped by the company called "Microsoft" go through the "New Hardware Found!" excitement any time you attach a new USB mass storage device with a different controller chip or version, even though they all wind up using the "Generic USB Mass Storage Device" driver that ships with the OS.
The sad truth is that $1,000,000 will buy you a lot more representation than voting will. You could donate the maximum $2,000 to 500 candidates, or of course donate more to PACs for fewer candidates and issues. So if the goal is to have your voice heard, taking the money would make a lot more sense. For the same reason, getting a free ride at college in exchange for skipping a single election cycle would be a no-brainer.
I never loaded the demo, so I don't know if it was poorly optimized (which seems to happen quite a bit).
I honestly expected CoD4 wouldn't run well enough to play on my system, which is an "ancient" Athlon64 @1800Mhz with 3GB of old DDR memory. My 7600GT is a decent card that seems to perform a hell of a lot better than it seems anyone gives credit for. I can play just about every game released at 1280x1024 with all the settings turned to max except AA/AF, which I usually leave at 2x.
CoD4 is not only playable, I turned every visual setting to max and even was able to leave the filtering at 4x, I still get 20-30fps depending on the scene. I suspect Crysis will kill my system, but CoD4 seems to be a ridiculously efficient engine -- even smoother than HL2 but with better effects at the same frame rate.
I think that sums it up. Zero innovation, prettier eyecandy.
Man, I'd pay $100 for an updated, prettier version of Fallout or Star Control. Sometimes there's no point in messing with a winning formula, just update the engine and add some bling so that it doesn't look dated.
I played the single-player CoD4 all the way through and loved it. I'm glad I suck at FPS, otherwise I'd be playing multiplayer all the time.
It is the reality of large group of people who have built their lives on the very sacrifices that got them to where they are sitting now, so they can write their witty posts that mock the very system that continues to support their way of life, and for their children.
I'm sure the British Governors were saying the same things about those ungrateful colonials.
A lie is a statement, true or false, with an intent to deceive. That is now what happened.
A lie of omission -- ie, by deliberately censoring and leaving out intelligence that contradicts your interpretation -- is still a lie.
If scientists had several studies showing that there was a strong possibility of particles smaller than atoms, and deliberately coverd up those studies and experiments so that they could say the atom was the smallest particle as they fervently believe, then yes, it would be a lie.
What you seem to be confused about is whether a lie has to be intentional. It may well be that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc all fervently believed that their interpretation was correct and that contrary information was not reliable. They may have sincerely believed they were "eliminating confusion", but ultimately they and their delegates made the decision to only tell one side of the story, and deny that a different interpretation even existed. That's a lie, that's conscious, purposeful deception so that you can get what you want.
This is completely customizable actually, I have all my shadow copies set up on my network to work on defined intervals by me.
Shadow Copy is somewhat configurable by the UI on Server 2003, but on all versions of Vista it's a black box. There's no configuration interface other than turning it on and off on the "system protection" tab. You can only affect the schedule by running scripts with Windows Scheduler, you can only tell it to exclude certain files via registry editing. And as far as I can tell, there's no way to configure which files are removed first on 2003 or Vista, so you could well wind up in a situation where you have 12 copies of your IE browser cache and no copies of the excel spreadsheet you hadn't edited in a few weeks.
Time machine, while being interesting and a definate bonus for OSX is only available with a external drive that I am aware of, if one were to take that path, why not just buy Retrospect?
Time Machine requires that the data be written to any drive other than the one containing the data it's backing up. This is because Time Machine is an actual backup system, not *just* a versioning system. It is Shadow Copy, Windows Backup, Image Backup and System Restore all in one API and interface rather than spread across a dozen different feature sets. If you really wanted to back up to the same physical drive, you could create a partition and TM would use that, but it's a bad idea so Apple doesn't encourage it. Restrospect is just a backup program with a scheduler, the same as 99% of backup apps out there that nobody uses because they're too inconvenient and complicated. That's not at all what TM (or for that matter, Shadow Copy) is or is trying to address, though TM does make backup programs with schedulers pretty much obsolete for the typical desktop user, while you'll still need to use a traditional backup program on Windows.
I am assuming that with time machine that you still need to have an OS loaded before it will work.
The Install DVD for Leopard is an OS as far as the system is concerned. Once you've booted from your the DVD, you can restore your backup, no intermediate installation necessary. You can do a bare metal install and restore your OS (for disaster recovery), or just have it restore the user accounts and data (for a new OS install, system migration, etc).
You are wrong on the "entire point" of the ruling. They ruled that the law giving them the power of the writ of mandamus was unconstitutional BECAUSE it was unconstitutional for them to have that power!
Please, for God's sake, read the actual ruling rather than whatever interpretation is popular with the tax-dodgers or freepers or whoever is passing around this ridiculous idea. They ruled that the Congress passed a law giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this case, and that Congress did not have the ability to give them that jurisdiction. Period.
"This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it can issue from this court."... "To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction."... "Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and, therefore, seems not to belong to appellate, but to original jurisdiction. Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction."
They ruled entirely on the basis of jurisdiction. Any mandamus should issue from the original court, not from an appelate court. Which is, of course, how it still works today -- appellate courts instruct lower courts in what way they have erred and then leave it up to the lower court to deal with the details of how the rulings must be carried out.
However, as clearly stated in the decision, any cases that DO have original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court (as per the Constitution, not as per Congress), would indeed be subject to such commands directly from the court.
Nowhere do they claim the courts do not have the ability to issue a mandamus, indeed they SPELL OUT precisely who should issue the mandamus in different circumstances.
The next market segment is comic fans who do no already download. This is going to be a small market. It is limited to those who are not digitally inclined and thus poor targets for any digital service, or who have chosen not to download for various reasons.
On the contrary, "comics fans who don't already download" is probably 98% of the comics market. These are precisely the people they're going after. Most people don't download because they don't know it exists, it is inconvenient, or they don't want to read on screen.
If you can let people know it is available, make it convenient, and enjoyable, you can win a lot of eyes. Of course whether this effort succeeds at those things is another matter entirely. I don't think reading in a web browser is convenient or enjoyable, and I doubt many others do. But even just releasing CBZ files wouldn't satisfy this market, because reading comics onscreen isn't a good experience for most people even with good software.
Ultimately 99% of the challenge is figuring out how to make reading comics in a digital form enjoyable. We have plenty of technology options to make it convenient and easy once we discover a decent format. eBooks have been dealing with these same issues for years, and they have a MUCH simpler problem than visual storytelling does.
Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, because the Court's constitutional jurisdiction excludes the power of issuing writs of mandamus.
Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to hear a particular kind of case not on appeal. That the rest of the law they declared unconstitutional had to do with writs was completely irrelevant. Read the actual court case, this is not some secret.
But it correctly concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to order him to do it, and the commission was never delivered.
No, the court decided they didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case, not that they didn't have authority to order the Executive branch to follow the law. On the contrary, the court explicitly said that they had the authority to tell an official to perform his official duties, but that it was immaterial because they didn't have the authority to hear the case.
The Supreme Court got to eat their cake and have it, too -- the Executive got what it wanted in that particular case, but in accepting the judgment they wanted, tacitly accepted that the Court had the authority to tell it what to do! What you claim is almost the exact opposite of what actually happened.
By what authority can the courts order the executive branch to not delete any emails? In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that it did not have, and under the Constitution could not be given, the power to issue such orders to the executive branch.
You keep making Constitutional pronouncements, but you don't seem to have even the most fundamental understanding of the seminal cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court.
I'm Marbury v Madison, the court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the law Congress had passed that claimed to give them jurisdiction was unconstitutional. The ENTIRE POINT of the decision was that the court did NOT want to say they didn't have the right to order the executive branch to do something, but they also didn't want to risk actually ordering them to do something and having the order ignored. This is Constitutional history 101.
He said that as long as I have a company policy of deleting them after X amount of time, then nobody could claim that I was deleting them for malicious or fraudulent reasons.
Yes, but once you know that you're going to court (or even should reasonably have known), you have to preserve what has not ALREADY been deleted. You don't get to *continue* deleting things just because it's policy.
That is exactly what a writ of mandamus is -- a court order compelling a public official to carry out a duty as required by statue. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court determined that their jurisdiction, as defined in the Constitution, EXCLUDED the power to issue writs of mandamus to public officers.
No they didn't. They decided that they did not have the jurisdiction over the case. They have never, in all the existence of this nation, said that they do NOT have the power to direct officeholders to perform procedural duties of their office.
But privacy of deliberations within the executive office, equally vital.
Preserving records doesn't require that they be made public, and Congress has never required them to be made public. If they are preserved in secret for 50-100 years and then added to the historical record, then both needs have been met. There is no Constitutional conflict in the requirement that records be preserved.
Curtailing civil liberties?... The "subversion" that Bush is accused of is asserting the power of the executive to do specifically what the Constitution tasks it with: to protect the United States by waging war on its enemies.
Denial of Habeas Corpus is one of the most fundamental abridgments of individual civil liberties conceivable in our system of government.
I just can't believe people still take Apple's side on this.
Apple side on what? We were talking about them having design authority over the device. Whether or not it's a good deal for you financially or ideologically is completely meaningless to the issue being discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
If law enforcement isn't doing their job, then you protest against law enforcement, you don't take enforcement into your own hands.
how do you protest against law enforcement? Yhe whole purpose of this recent publicity was precisely to push law enforcement into action by stoking public outrage.
the world is not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a moral one. There is no question about this woman's actions, or her identity. There are no significant facts in dispute, only legal and moral culpability. And yes, individuals and communities do have the right to judge moral culpability for themselves, with or without your permission.
Seeing as how she's a grown woman and not a 13 year old, nothing. Surprisingly enough, the laws are written under the assumption that adults can take care of themselves, while children need some protection -- particularly from adults. Most societies on earth have the same moral assumptions as well.
I'm the parent of a special needs child who gets far more verbal abuse than this stupid girl ever would yet she's not trying to kill herself.
That's probably because special needs have nothing whatsofuckever to do with depression and mental health. Indeed, suicide rates for mentally and physically challenged youths are far below those of normal youths. Congratulations on having a child who doesn't suffer from problems she doesn't have -- that's a real accomplishment in oppositeland. My child who has asthma never had problem with blood sugar levels, so obviously those diabetic kids just have shitty parents! And of course having bad parents means you deserve to die at 13 and never get a chance to remake yourself as an adult.
People are repeating information that is already publicly available through the police reports, which are public records. That the woman was involved is not in question, nor is her identity, nor are her actions, as she described them herself in the report to the police. The only questions are how much moral responsibility she carries, and if there is any legal responsibility.
So basically, all of your arguments are meaningless, and your analogies are nothing like the case at hand.
If someone calls up the RIAA and says "hey, i've been stealing music for the past 20 years and here's a confession stamped by a notary public", then I don't think anyone would have a problem with the RIAA publishing that document and name.
When XP was released, SATA was neither old nor ubiquitous.
true, but I think microsoft has pressed a few new CDs since the first batch was made in 2001. At the very least, they should have updated the drivers on the SP2 install CDs to support SATA natively. Or at some point in the several years after, when both SATA was standard and floppy drives were disappearing. There's really no excuse for how lousy the out of the box XP install experience has been over the years other than sheer lack of concern.
I'm assuming he has one of those new computers that runs more than one program at a time. Java wanting to be updated had nothing to do with the programming language of his DVD player. It's just that the Java update timing was poor, and the system's handling of the update notifaction was intrusive. Most OEMs seem to load the Sun Java distribution on new systems, and the default setting is of course for it to sit there in your system tray and nag you periodically about OpenOffice and java updates.
I don't know what version of XP you've been using, but all the ones shipped by the company called "Microsoft" go through the "New Hardware Found!" excitement any time you attach a new USB mass storage device with a different controller chip or version, even though they all wind up using the "Generic USB Mass Storage Device" driver that ships with the OS.
The sad truth is that $1,000,000 will buy you a lot more representation than voting will. You could donate the maximum $2,000 to 500 candidates, or of course donate more to PACs for fewer candidates and issues. So if the goal is to have your voice heard, taking the money would make a lot more sense. For the same reason, getting a free ride at college in exchange for skipping a single election cycle would be a no-brainer.
I never loaded the demo, so I don't know if it was poorly optimized (which seems to happen quite a bit).
I honestly expected CoD4 wouldn't run well enough to play on my system, which is an "ancient" Athlon64 @1800Mhz with 3GB of old DDR memory. My 7600GT is a decent card that seems to perform a hell of a lot better than it seems anyone gives credit for. I can play just about every game released at 1280x1024 with all the settings turned to max except AA/AF, which I usually leave at 2x.
CoD4 is not only playable, I turned every visual setting to max and even was able to leave the filtering at 4x, I still get 20-30fps depending on the scene. I suspect Crysis will kill my system, but CoD4 seems to be a ridiculously efficient engine -- even smoother than HL2 but with better effects at the same frame rate.
Man, I'd pay $100 for an updated, prettier version of Fallout or Star Control. Sometimes there's no point in messing with a winning formula, just update the engine and add some bling so that it doesn't look dated.
I played the single-player CoD4 all the way through and loved it. I'm glad I suck at FPS, otherwise I'd be playing multiplayer all the time.
Wait, is Slashdot an opt-out commenting system now? Every comment we don't expressly disagree with, we're endorsing?
I'm sure the British Governors were saying the same things about those ungrateful colonials.
A lie of omission -- ie, by deliberately censoring and leaving out intelligence that contradicts your interpretation -- is still a lie.
If scientists had several studies showing that there was a strong possibility of particles smaller than atoms, and deliberately coverd up those studies and experiments so that they could say the atom was the smallest particle as they fervently believe, then yes, it would be a lie.
What you seem to be confused about is whether a lie has to be intentional. It may well be that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc all fervently believed that their interpretation was correct and that contrary information was not reliable. They may have sincerely believed they were "eliminating confusion", but ultimately they and their delegates made the decision to only tell one side of the story, and deny that a different interpretation even existed. That's a lie, that's conscious, purposeful deception so that you can get what you want.
Shadow Copy is somewhat configurable by the UI on Server 2003, but on all versions of Vista it's a black box. There's no configuration interface other than turning it on and off on the "system protection" tab. You can only affect the schedule by running scripts with Windows Scheduler, you can only tell it to exclude certain files via registry editing. And as far as I can tell, there's no way to configure which files are removed first on 2003 or Vista, so you could well wind up in a situation where you have 12 copies of your IE browser cache and no copies of the excel spreadsheet you hadn't edited in a few weeks.
Time Machine requires that the data be written to any drive other than the one containing the data it's backing up. This is because Time Machine is an actual backup system, not *just* a versioning system. It is Shadow Copy, Windows Backup, Image Backup and System Restore all in one API and interface rather than spread across a dozen different feature sets. If you really wanted to back up to the same physical drive, you could create a partition and TM would use that, but it's a bad idea so Apple doesn't encourage it. Restrospect is just a backup program with a scheduler, the same as 99% of backup apps out there that nobody uses because they're too inconvenient and complicated. That's not at all what TM (or for that matter, Shadow Copy) is or is trying to address, though TM does make backup programs with schedulers pretty much obsolete for the typical desktop user, while you'll still need to use a traditional backup program on Windows.
The Install DVD for Leopard is an OS as far as the system is concerned. Once you've booted from your the DVD, you can restore your backup, no intermediate installation necessary. You can do a bare metal install and restore your OS (for disaster recovery), or just have it restore the user accounts and data (for a new OS install, system migration, etc).
An apostrophe means "look out, here comes an 's'!"
Please, for God's sake, read the actual ruling rather than whatever interpretation is popular with the tax-dodgers or freepers or whoever is passing around this ridiculous idea. They ruled that the Congress passed a law giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this case, and that Congress did not have the ability to give them that jurisdiction. Period.
They ruled entirely on the basis of jurisdiction. Any mandamus should issue from the original court, not from an appelate court. Which is, of course, how it still works today -- appellate courts instruct lower courts in what way they have erred and then leave it up to the lower court to deal with the details of how the rulings must be carried out.
However, as clearly stated in the decision, any cases that DO have original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court (as per the Constitution, not as per Congress), would indeed be subject to such commands directly from the court.
Nowhere do they claim the courts do not have the ability to issue a mandamus, indeed they SPELL OUT precisely who should issue the mandamus in different circumstances.
On the contrary, "comics fans who don't already download" is probably 98% of the comics market. These are precisely the people they're going after. Most people don't download because they don't know it exists, it is inconvenient, or they don't want to read on screen.
If you can let people know it is available, make it convenient, and enjoyable, you can win a lot of eyes. Of course whether this effort succeeds at those things is another matter entirely. I don't think reading in a web browser is convenient or enjoyable, and I doubt many others do. But even just releasing CBZ files wouldn't satisfy this market, because reading comics onscreen isn't a good experience for most people even with good software.
Ultimately 99% of the challenge is figuring out how to make reading comics in a digital form enjoyable. We have plenty of technology options to make it convenient and easy once we discover a decent format. eBooks have been dealing with these same issues for years, and they have a MUCH simpler problem than visual storytelling does.
Marbury v. Madison determined that Congress could not give the Court the power to hear a particular kind of case not on appeal. That the rest of the law they declared unconstitutional had to do with writs was completely irrelevant. Read the actual court case, this is not some secret.
No, the court decided they didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the case, not that they didn't have authority to order the Executive branch to follow the law. On the contrary, the court explicitly said that they had the authority to tell an official to perform his official duties, but that it was immaterial because they didn't have the authority to hear the case.
The Supreme Court got to eat their cake and have it, too -- the Executive got what it wanted in that particular case, but in accepting the judgment they wanted, tacitly accepted that the Court had the authority to tell it what to do! What you claim is almost the exact opposite of what actually happened.
You keep making Constitutional pronouncements, but you don't seem to have even the most fundamental understanding of the seminal cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court.
I'm Marbury v Madison, the court decided that they did not have jurisdiction over the case and that the law Congress had passed that claimed to give them jurisdiction was unconstitutional. The ENTIRE POINT of the decision was that the court did NOT want to say they didn't have the right to order the executive branch to do something, but they also didn't want to risk actually ordering them to do something and having the order ignored. This is Constitutional history 101.
Yes, but once you know that you're going to court (or even should reasonably have known), you have to preserve what has not ALREADY been deleted. You don't get to *continue* deleting things just because it's policy.
No they didn't. They decided that they did not have the jurisdiction over the case. They have never, in all the existence of this nation, said that they do NOT have the power to direct officeholders to perform procedural duties of their office.
damn, I wish they would add an edit function for a minute or two after posting.
Apple side on what? We were talking about them having design authority over the device. Whether or not it's a good deal for you financially or ideologically is completely meaningless to the issue being discussed.