To me it means, people should be armed so they can be ready to defend their free country.
The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it. Otherwise you have a very loose interpretation of the constitution where everyone can read their own beliefs in.
Yeah, if we applied your principle to the First Amendment, the only "free speech" rights you'd have, would be to petition the government. And only for redress of grievances. (As well as only after registering, passing background checks, and only using means available in the 18th century — such as print or personal speech — but certainly not online or TV.)
Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation. We as a society can choose to consider the internet an extension or not. But that's a choice it isn't about what the constitution means but rather about how we choose to apply it in today's world, A different question.
Georgetown professor of Constitutional Law argues for abolishing the document [nytimes.com]
No he doesn't. He argues for less fidelity to it. Separating out the habits. He even explicitly agrees that most clauses would still apply since "they are better left settled". And that frankly is an extreme case as his own editorial shows, he knows he is being extreme in the article and steps back a bit numerous times to fallback positions...
As for Hawaii, the situation sounds bad (though I'd like some less biased coverage before drawing conclusions) the students were academically punished not arrested. The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.
OK then what does he do? That's now part of the record. The person he is about to sanction has argued they cannot comply. He now has to give reason why they can comply. He has to prove willful failure to comply, that's his burden now. There are laws / policies even for judges.
What do you think, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means? What militia are they talking about? In reading any document you have to look at the intent behind the wording, and their intent is pretty clear as the documents show. Wording like, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army" note form not deploy.
As for your last paragraph no one really argues against the entire constitution and both parties are somewhat hamstrung by 18th century laws. Even the documents cited by GP don't propose repealing the constitution but mainly just grouse a bit about its structures.
At the time the constitution was written the concept of corporations existed. In fact they were common used in the territory of the USA. Yet the constitution explicitly defines rights, including those for commerce to “persons,” “the people,” and “citizens.” That's a pretty clear rejection of the doctrine of immortal legal persons defined by money.
Both parties ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like. Republicans like to talk about the 2nd amendment. But the 2nd amendment's clear intent was that America not having a standing army only a standing navy with state militias constituting the army. I don't hear Republicans pushing for that.
The constitution clearly rejects the notion of corporations as legal entities yet Republicans seem to be quite happy with corporate charters existing inner state and not for public purposes.
How about this, "Encryption relies on knowing the solution to a math problem that cannot be solved. We, Apple, can't solve it, the FBI can't solve it, the NSA can't solve it. You cannot order us to solve it anymore than you can order us to change the speed of light. It is not a question of law it is a question of math."
The 5th says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. It doesn't say the courts can't drag 3rd parties into being witnesses against you even if they don't want to. There is no conflict.
What will happen when this collides with Apple and Google deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break?
Nothing. The law requires people to give reasonable assistance to law enforcement. It does not require them to architect systems so that such reasonable assistance is fruitful. Safe manufacturers are not required to know the combinations to their devices.
but how are you going to ensure that everything is kept patched. When the installation/development team have fled the building and handed the task of running it over to some "outsourced operations center".
The outsourced operations center is responsible for most of the core containers and your development team responsible for others. The operations center knows what containers need to be replaced everyday. Because automated test environments need to be in place, they just roll out the new container and test. If it passes regression (i.e. identical output) it goes into production (or at least staging). Then you find out if your regression tests are up to snuff. If they aren't you build better regression tests.
This is the question that never gets asked and why a lot of this new fancy smart stuff isn't that widely deployed by largish shops whose core business is something other then it and where a 5 year life cycle is considered short and agile.
The idea is that there are microservices. Nothing will ever have a 5 year lifecycle unchanged. That's the philosophy.
Rocket is a specification that the Docker project could include support for.
But absolutely it is way behind. This only is going to make sense for a system that wants a genuine next generation Docker and is willing to give up all the tools on top of Docker to get there. So far I'm not seeing much advantage except for the fact that a system wouldn't need a registry. Their analogy of DNS for executables could be the killer feature of Rocket but even still that's a lot of different containers before that made sense. I could see it. Say large projects gets broken into dozens (hundreds / thousands) of containers and hundreds of versions each with new ones being released every few hours...
That was a tough transition for me as well. Anyway in theory there is no reason you couldn't write a bundle to do things the windows way. So I was answering that.
Good point. iPod's played.mp3's fine. But absolutely there were limits as far as other DRMed music standards. I suspect that's going to be an easy disputed fact for Apple to win on.
The market is iPod customers. The restraint was what music played on it. The limitations on music leading to higher prices. That is unfair competition for songs led to higher prices on the players. Dumb theory... so don't blame the messenger.
Middle miles are for last century copper networks. They not longer exist in modern fiber networks.
What are you talking about. If I connect a user in New York city to a server outside Los Angeles there is 3000 miles of physical distance. All of that has to be covered, copper or fiber.
Are ISPs so bad that they can't handle a sustained 90%+ link utilization without jitter?
Yes. They can't sustain a variable 50% link utilization without jitter.
, I can now run my 50/50 connection at a sustained 48/48 with absolutely no latency, loss, or jitter issues.
Which means the network middle miles you are on are under provisioned. That will change. You ain't paying what that costs to provide.
They are defining it as anyone who purchased an iPod. Believe it or not they are arguing the purchase of the iPod was where the unfair too high prices happened not the purchase of music. I.E. the people who bought the following (list from the suit itself):
If you read the suit they are alleging that not playing other music caused the iPod to cost more, not music to cost more, "the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been." I don't see how they can possibly prove that. I'd suspect if anything the song restriction caused iPod prices to be lower.
Why merge for a cloud system? You create microservices for each one of these that other applications can use. You don't use a common application. This guy is advocating against monolithic applications by arguing for a rich service architecture.
What's secret about the bureaucrats? They aren't a secret government they are the government. They handle micropolicy while the public debates macro policy. Do you want to have 20k public debates about water quality levels for each of the 20k lakes or one overall policy about water quality that then gets applied?
I think it does. He wants to break the application infrastructure into microservices.
That works pretty well with legacy code. For example you have a COBOL routine which used to go through the tape and extract all the records meeting criteria X to another tape which then gets fed... This has been updated over the years to do a file copies and trigger jobs as well as making criteria X more complex. Well you pull the criteria out and then it can run against a data lake equally well... So the issue is not 207 applications but say 20,000 COBOL programs which are parts of those applications each being migrated to a microservice.
Actually you can. The menus for applications are contained in.nib files. Those can be edited by interface builder. If you want to go further you can replace the.bundle files that are used by Quartz or though of course in practice this is really hard to do since applications assume you are using the standard ones.
; it also broke filesystem mounting and session management in my schroot tool. None of these tools should have anything at all to do with init systems.
You should know better than this. Systemd is not an init system it is a process manager. It absolutely should change how filesystem mounting is handled as that is one of the things it does monitor filesystem state. As for session management most likely that involves processes, so again, that is supposed to be integrated.
Slashdot Mirror
The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it. Otherwise you have a very loose interpretation of the constitution where everyone can read their own beliefs in.
Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation. We as a society can choose to consider the internet an extension or not. But that's a choice it isn't about what the constitution means but rather about how we choose to apply it in today's world, A different question.
No he doesn't. He argues for less fidelity to it. Separating out the habits. He even explicitly agrees that most clauses would still apply since "they are better left settled". And that frankly is an extreme case as his own editorial shows, he knows he is being extreme in the article and steps back a bit numerous times to fallback positions...
As for Hawaii, the situation sounds bad (though I'd like some less biased coverage before drawing conclusions) the students were academically punished not arrested. The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.
OK then what does he do? That's now part of the record. The person he is about to sanction has argued they cannot comply. He now has to give reason why they can comply. He has to prove willful failure to comply, that's his burden now. There are laws / policies even for judges.
Dude we beat back those laws. They existed under Clinton we fought them, did civil action against them and got them repealed.
What do you think, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means? What militia are they talking about? In reading any document you have to look at the intent behind the wording, and their intent is pretty clear as the documents show. Wording like, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army" note form not deploy.
As for your last paragraph no one really argues against the entire constitution and both parties are somewhat hamstrung by 18th century laws. Even the documents cited by GP don't propose repealing the constitution but mainly just grouse a bit about its structures.
At the time the constitution was written the concept of corporations existed. In fact they were common used in the territory of the USA. Yet the constitution explicitly defines rights, including those for commerce to “persons,” “the people,” and “citizens.” That's a pretty clear rejection of the doctrine of immortal legal persons defined by money.
Both parties ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like. Republicans like to talk about the 2nd amendment. But the 2nd amendment's clear intent was that America not having a standing army only a standing navy with state militias constituting the army. I don't hear Republicans pushing for that.
The constitution clearly rejects the notion of corporations as legal entities yet Republicans seem to be quite happy with corporate charters existing inner state and not for public purposes.
That was tried under Clinton, it failed.
How about this, "Encryption relies on knowing the solution to a math problem that cannot be solved. We, Apple, can't solve it, the FBI can't solve it, the NSA can't solve it. You cannot order us to solve it anymore than you can order us to change the speed of light. It is not a question of law it is a question of math."
The 5th says that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself. It doesn't say the courts can't drag 3rd parties into being witnesses against you even if they don't want to. There is no conflict.
Nothing. The law requires people to give reasonable assistance to law enforcement. It does not require them to architect systems so that such reasonable assistance is fruitful. Safe manufacturers are not required to know the combinations to their devices.
The outsourced operations center is responsible for most of the core containers and your development team responsible for others. The operations center knows what containers need to be replaced everyday. Because automated test environments need to be in place, they just roll out the new container and test. If it passes regression (i.e. identical output) it goes into production (or at least staging). Then you find out if your regression tests are up to snuff. If they aren't you build better regression tests.
The idea is that there are microservices. Nothing will ever have a 5 year lifecycle unchanged. That's the philosophy.
Rocket is a specification that the Docker project could include support for.
But absolutely it is way behind. This only is going to make sense for a system that wants a genuine next generation Docker and is willing to give up all the tools on top of Docker to get there. So far I'm not seeing much advantage except for the fact that a system wouldn't need a registry. Their analogy of DNS for executables could be the killer feature of Rocket but even still that's a lot of different containers before that made sense. I could see it. Say large projects gets broken into dozens (hundreds / thousands) of containers and hundreds of versions each with new ones being released every few hours...
That was a tough transition for me as well. Anyway in theory there is no reason you couldn't write a bundle to do things the windows way. So I was answering that.
Good point. iPod's played .mp3's fine. But absolutely there were limits as far as other DRMed music standards. I suspect that's going to be an easy disputed fact for Apple to win on.
The market is iPod customers. The restraint was what music played on it. The limitations on music leading to higher prices. That is unfair competition for songs led to higher prices on the players. Dumb theory... so don't blame the messenger.
What are you talking about. If I connect a user in New York city to a server outside Los Angeles there is 3000 miles of physical distance. All of that has to be covered, copper or fiber.
Yes. They can't sustain a variable 50% link utilization without jitter.
Which means the network middle miles you are on are under provisioned. That will change. You ain't paying what that costs to provide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
They are defining it as anyone who purchased an iPod. Believe it or not they are arguing the purchase of the iPod was where the unfair too high prices happened not the purchase of music. I.E. the people who bought the following (list from the suit itself):
iPod Standard, Classic, Special Models
iPod (5th generation) 30 GB
iPod (5th generation) 80 GB
iPod U2 Special Edition 30 GB
iPod Classic 120 GB
iPod Classic 80 GB
iPod Classic 160 GB
iPod (5th generation) 60 GB
iPod shuffle Models
iPod shuffle (2nd generation) 1 GB
iPod shuffle (2nd generation) 2 GB
iPod shuffle (3rd generation) 4 GB
iPod shuffle (1st generation) 1 GB
iPod shuffle 512 MB
iPod touch Models
iPod touch 8 GB
iPod touch 16 GB
iPod touch 32 GB
iPod touch (2nd generation) 8 GB
iPod touch (2nd generation) 16 GB
iPod touch (2nd generation) 32 GB
iPod nano Models
iPod nano (2nd generation) 2 GB
iPod nano (2nd generation) 4 GB
iPod nano (2nd generation) 8 GB
iPod nano (3rd generation) 4 GB
iPod nano (3rd generation) 8 GB
iPod nano (4th generation) 4 GB
iPod nano (4th generation) 8 GB
iPod nano (4th generation) 16 GB
iPod nano (1st generation) 1 GB
iPod nano (1st generation) 2 GB
iPod nano (1st generation) 4 GB
If you read the suit they are alleging that not playing other music caused the iPod to cost more, not music to cost more, "the software updates caused iPod prices to be higher than they otherwise would have been." I don't see how they can possibly prove that. I'd suspect if anything the song restriction caused iPod prices to be lower.
Why merge for a cloud system? You create microservices for each one of these that other applications can use. You don't use a common application. This guy is advocating against monolithic applications by arguing for a rich service architecture.
What's secret about the bureaucrats? They aren't a secret government they are the government. They handle micropolicy while the public debates macro policy. Do you want to have 20k public debates about water quality levels for each of the 20k lakes or one overall policy about water quality that then gets applied?
The Federal Government has several FISMA approved clouds. Plus many agencies run private clouds. So Oracle's, Lockheed Martin's, Verizon Federal...
I think it does. He wants to break the application infrastructure into microservices.
That works pretty well with legacy code. For example you have a COBOL routine which used to go through the tape and extract all the records meeting criteria X to another tape which then gets fed... This has been updated over the years to do a file copies and trigger jobs as well as making criteria X more complex. Well you pull the criteria out and then it can run against a data lake equally well... So the issue is not 207 applications but say 20,000 COBOL programs which are parts of those applications each being migrated to a microservice.
Actually you can. The menus for applications are contained in .nib files. Those can be edited by interface builder. If you want to go further you can replace the .bundle files that are used by Quartz or though of course in practice this is really hard to do since applications assume you are using the standard ones.
You should know better than this. Systemd is not an init system it is a process manager. It absolutely should change how filesystem mounting is handled as that is one of the things it does monitor filesystem state. As for session management most likely that involves processes, so again, that is supposed to be integrated.