Laying someone off, especially someone you know, is a vicious nasty thing to do, and to have to do.
A former boss and friend of mine who was in business for himself had to make a choice once: reduce pay and benefits for everyone, or layoff two people and eliminate their positions.
At first he thought, I'll just cut everyone's pay by 10% and increase the deductible on the company insurance plan from $100 to $250. That'll keep everyone in a job, and everyone will share the burden of reduced business.
The employees went apeshit when he called a meeting to discuss this proposal. One of the biggest whiners was one of the people who was to be laid off under "plan B" (which I knew of at the time). What a sad situation. No one would think about taking the "plan A" approach. So the two people got laid off and everyone else got their 100% pay and slightly less sucky health insurance.
Three months later business was down again, another big percent, and the boss completely stopped taking pay checks. Three months from then it was back to the employees to discuss furlows and reduced hours.
Everyone bitched. And then turned on him for his "extravagent" lifestyle. Even after he told of his lack of pay for several months they bitched. One employee noted that the bosses wife was wealthy, she should finance the companies losses until things picked back up again.
Big surprise that he shut the whole thing down and essentially retired a few weeks later.
The bottom line is that loyalty is very real, but it requires a lot of mutal trust and respect. The decision to lay people off is a heart wrenching one, but often it is totally necessary.
Farmers dont generally farm one crop. They farm a cash crop, and a crop in the off season, out season, or rotation season. Without the cash crop, there is no "other crop", which generally is foodstuff.
Without many of the government handouts farmers get, there would be no farming in the US except for high priced exportable or niche products. That means we'd be dependent on foreign food only, which is so dangerous it's absurd.
this is just plainly wrong
I am 100% correct. Before the Patriot Act any information the CIA learned via means that the FBI could not employ - signals interception, internatonal wiretaps, paid snitches, interrogaton, plain out infilitration, etc could not be divulged to the Justice Department or other domestic agency.
The CIA or DIA could not reveal certain elements of international operations or information gathering to the White House - including names, dates, locations, or certain other specifics - without a special administration order or an act of Congress. An intentional wall was errected. Information had to go up the chain through the military apparatus, to the commander-in-chief (or office) and then back down the civilian apparatus. It was extremely top heavy. And as a result it meant that only the most solid, most decisive, most reliable information made the trip. From the DIA operatives to their handlers to the brass to the Joint Chiefs to the office of the President to the Attorny General to the Director of the FBI to the agents in charge to the agents in the field. It's a fucked up version of events.
You should read the USA PATRIOT ACT before making things up about it. 98-99% of it is completely necessary, completely good changes in law and policy. 2% or less is upsetting to some people.
. As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.
Okay, then, you should be fine with the people at Gitmo and other prisons. Each of them went through four (4) reviews before boarding a plane to Gitmo each by military personell. At Gitmo each has been assessed a number of times (with a number more being released, by the way).
There are never going to be televised American civil court room style procedures. In a war zone there is no crime scene unit, there is no cop to take witness statements, there is no physical evidence collected. Army breaks down the door, see's you working on a roadside bomb, captures you - you get life with "no trial" or prompt execution. That's all there is to it. That person is not a solider - he's not uniformed, paid by a nation, or even a person. That person is not a criminal - there are no laws in this country, no civil justice system. That person is not an American.
What many are arguing for is completely absurd. They want American style or in-America-criminal-court trials for these individuals. With lawyers and witnesses and miranda and CourtTV and all the dressings.
So you think indefinite jail for anyone is acceptable as an administrative policy? That's fucked up.
Why not allow them to have a real court trial?
I do not think its okay for "anyone". However, I don't think that international terrorism is a criminal problem, like some others do. International terrorism is a national security, a national defense issue. If the military or CIA or some such agency apprehends a terrorist, a terrorist plotters, financier, etc in a foreign land that person should be interrogated and then put before a military tribunal, and put into a military jail and/or executed. They do not qualify for the geneva convention protections, they do not belong in an American court room, they do not belong in front of the camera's.
Uhh.. you are incorrect. Also, the National Lawyers Guild is not the definitive word on rights, FYI.
From the article you linked:
So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Prosecuted under the criminal code. Interesting. Read on.
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law.
So, in this case, illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights because they are not prosectued under criminal code, but rather, administrative law. Your own article contradicts your own case.
The rights afforded to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens do not derive from the Constitution, but from case law and administrative policy which can be changed without an act of Congress. Aka, the executive branch largely dictates this law, no the courts and the Congress.
You do not get blinded by road glare. I've flown planes (not big ones like jumbos, but littles ones).. 7 minutes from landing, I'd probably would have crashed if I was blinded for 2 minutes. It's just that simple.
Being blinded like that - violently - is a bad, bad situation.
The military makes the determination. If the military captures a person behind enemy lines they can determine his or her status on the spot.
Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot. Those who are not involved in their view are let go or ignored or moved to another location, etc. If the person is a threat immediately, the person is dead. If the person is a uniformed enemy solider, like say an Iraqi national guardsmen in uniform and surrenders, he is afforded the full protection of the Geneva convention. If he is not wearing a uniform, and holding a weapon, he can be executed on the spot, held as a detainee, or anything in between.
as many pieces of the Act have already been found
That's unsubstantiated. Show it. Which sections?
have not looked deeply into the Patriot Act as what I have read scares the living hell out of me
I've read the entire bill.
I have felt for a long time that our (US) government is only here for it's benefit and the US people are being allowed to reside here to support it.
That may be true, but the patriot act has nothing to do with that.
All the Patriot Act has done that I can see it allowed the US Government to go after it's own citizens for not thinking/acting the way they are expected to.
You should read the bill before you go MAKING THINGS UP.
For one thing, its main purpose was to allow various agencies the legal right to share information. If the CIA knew for a fact that an attack on the US was going to happen before the PATRIOT ACT it would have been *ILLEGAL* for them to tell the FBI, the White House, etc. That's insanity!
As for the laser incident, the guy is guilty of nothing more than doing something stupid.
Stupid isn't a crime. Interfering with a flight crew is - by means of stupidty or not.
I have seen people do things that could have done more harm than this and carry on their merry way.
So? Does that justify this bad behaviour?
But then again, the US government could probably find something illegal with that and the next thing you know you with have the FBI, CIA, ATF and any other department with a gun pounding down your door.
Ahh... a conspiracy nut. Should have known. The CIA? Get real.
Luckily, the court system is grinding through the issue. So far it is looking good for him. Precendent will be set. He will get out. See, now, if this was a real fascist country, do you think anything could save him from the government? Let alone another part of the government?
The Constitution is a binding agreement between the states who ratified it, their citizens and decendants, and those who volunteer to become a citizen of the US and are therefore bound to it by oath.
All people born into the terrority of the US are natural born US citizens, and are protected by all of our laws and the Constitution. You may renounce your citizenship at anytime by going to the US embassy, State department, or foreign consulate and swearing in writing an oath of renunication (followed by exiting US soil). Unless you do this, you are not a citizen of the United States and you therefore do not have the responsibilities or rights of US citizen.
People born in Zaire or France or China are not descended from the ratifiers, nor have they ratified it, nor are they bound by it. If the United States Congress voted by majority to permit it and a majority of citizens of any foreign province, terrority or land voted by majority to ratify it, the US Constitution would apply fully to all of its citizens.
Being charged under the USA PATRIOT act does mean you are accused of being a terrorist. It is nothing at all like you describe it.
The USA PATRIOT act is a bill, just like all others, but a bit more complex. There are bits about money handling, and warrants, and air travel, and interferring with the flight crew, etc. There are numerous bits about funding, about drugs and drug controls, about interagency co-operation, and even so much more.
Just because he is charged with a crime under this bill does not mean he is suspected of being a "terrorist". It means he is suspect of violating a bit of the USA PATRIOT act.
I've done a fair amount of research on the topic, but I can't find a comprehensive list of treaties the US is bound to. There may be some that I've missed, but generally:
The US is being somewhat more than accomodating in the fact that during a time of war or even armed conflict spys, saboters, un-uniformed soliders and mercanaries who are captured are subject to summary execution without hearing, redress, trial, evidence or even a chance to speak. The famous Vietnam era video footage of a man being executed at point blank range with a shot to the head demonstrates something: the prisoner was an illegal spy. His execution was perfectly legal under all applicable international law.
Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.
I am not arguing for the sake of argument and if you have some *first* hand reference material, please let me know so I can update my notes. There is a lot of garbage floating around about international law this and international law that. But not so much in terms of clear concise information.
It is not the job of the prosector to necessarily "over" or "under" charge. They have a degree of judgement. But generally the bigger the potential damage, the bigger the charge.
What this person did can be read to fit the description of the acts he (is alleged) to have committed.
br.
The judge and jury all have some discretion in what they do from here on out.
The man has not been sentenced. Under the law he *could* get 25 years. COULD. "Facing up to 25 years" does mean "he will serve 25 years".
What this guy did could have very easily led to the death of 250 people. This wasn't some little toy laser on a keychain. Granted it wasn't a friggin light sabre, but it was in the realm of possibility that this plane and/or the pilots could have been hurt seriously or killed.
So far the *charge* fits the act perfectly. At trial things like motive, intent, naiveitte, and other factors will be raised by his defense. The judge and/or jury and/or prosecutor will dispense final justice.
15 miles away and 8000 feet means that the plane needs to drop about 1000 feet per minute for each minute that the plane is in the air. Touch down speed for a big plane like that is probably in the 120-200 mph range. That means the 15 mile approach would take 7 1/2 minutes. That's not al ot of time!
Each second of that last 7 1/2 minutes before touch down the plane has to drop at least 15 feet! Each second!
This is a very dangerous time of the flight. For one or both pilots to be blinded at this juncture - or even imparied slighly - could lead to catrosphe. Imagine the pilot is off just slightly in his approach. The plane drop 16 feet per second, instead of his normal plane of 15 feet per second. That would mean the plane would be 450 feet below sea level when it "gets" to the runway (aka, it crashes well before the runway).
Those 8000 feet and 15 miles numbers make perfect sense for a jumbo on approach.
IE is failing. That is fact. It is losing market share very, very rapidly. Going from nearly 100% market share to around 90% in six months, and now into the 80%'s after another 6 months is a big thing. Obviously a 100 million users wont switch over night, but millions already have. The technical clueful people already have, and now, even regular users are switching. Of course some people are ignorant, but Mozilla/Netscape/FireFox has reached a self-sustaining point - users know of it and switch, tell a friend, etc.
Unlikely - I know plenty of people who do/did use IE and I know noone who uses or has ever used AOL - the two are reasonably unrelated.
That means nothing. IE has approximately 100 million users in the US. AOL has about 20 million subscribers in the US, and more than that in users. Do the math. It is a substainal share of IE's user base.
It could be argued it is a "decent product" from a monopolistic point of view
It can and is substantially arguable that it is a "decent product" in that many people who use it are not compelled to switch even when they know of FireFox or another browser. Firefox will never completely kill IE. IE will always have loyal users. As far as technical merits, if you have never seen worse software than IE you have absolutely no business pretending you know anything about IE. I urge you to get a clue, and look around.
Finally, a last point. IE is not a monopoly, and even if Windows used to be, it certainly isn't now. People switch from IE all the time and go on to live happy productive lives.
I just meant to not make it too easy
The problem is that "easy" for a good programmer is also "easy" for a bad programmer.
The problem is that 9 times out of 10 the people buying the software aren't the people who are going to use it.
That is just an absurd number. Really, quite literally made up out of whole cloth. Look at it like this: in organizations with IT departments, you have a fighting chance that software purchases will go through procurement process that includes for decently large sales an onsite demo, customer references, and high level meetings with an account executive. In cases where an organization is small and doesn't have an IT department the purchases are directed or phycially made by the intended user or an immediate supervisor. Either way, the user has an advocate in the process. The only times the user has no advocate is when you have a crony in the IT department, which is a problem of course. Regardless, the companies peddling crappy VB programs will fail. Companies selling high-quality VB programs will succeed, and often at rates higher than companies selling high quality C/C++ applications. The cost to develop VB programs is *significantly* lower than comparable platforms of the day.
Even in a sector where the _users_ get the choice, we see crappy software like Internet Explorer having a massive market share over better software such as FireFox.
Such a bad example. For so many reasons! First, IE's market share is tanking at perhaps an all time high. Firefox is gaining users at a very rapid pace. That's fact #1. On top of that you have the fact that most people do not associate IE with being crappy. Most people do not associate IE with anything other being "The Internet". Additionally, much of IE's market share is related directly to the fact that a modified version is used by AOL for their 20M+ (or whatever it is today) users. Finally, IE is - despite its security problems - a decent product. It does a good enough of job to get the job done for a majority of people in a majority of circumstances. It's not perfect, and it's never going to be perfect. But it does work, and work as intended for the majority of its users. Therefore it is not by definition crappy software. It clearly has some "crappy programming" as part of the equation. And that is exactly why FireFox is gaining market share while IE loses it.
Bad software fails. Your refernece about EDS is also absurd. EDS has had well publicized failings. EDS has also had a huge string of successes throughout its career. But again, you've missed the big picture. EDS's mistakes have cost them, and cost them dearly. They are a company at serious risk of failure. Which is exactly what they should be.
IMHO BASIC is not and never has been a suitable language for writing real world applications.
You know, that's a funny position. I've worked with dozens of small to medium sized companies that have sold very excellent industry leading platforms upon the VB5/6 platform.
but care must be taken to prevent people who can't code from producing bug ridden applications that they can sell to the managers.
Right. There is a programming elite, and that elite should be trained to keep the unwashed masses from touching a compiler.
What ever happened to freedom? Open Source is about freedom - the freedom to have a compiler, to tinker, and to create value.
In the marketplace and the wider world, crappy programs of any stripe fail. A crappy "muppet" application could easily be foisted on an unsuspecting manager, but that manager will be brought to account by his customers, and his customers customers, and ultimately, by the market.
That's not true. You have to license the software if you wan't the IDE. You can develop very happily from the command line and compile and distribute or sell till your heart is complete via the.NET SDK. You get free compilers and headers and access to 100% of the features of the.NET runtime.
Plus there are *never* any runtime or distribution royalities.
Ohh, one more thing. If you are a VB programmer or a C# programmer, you should investigate Mono with GTK#.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a lot more loyalty than you can imagine.
Laying someone off, especially someone you know, is a vicious nasty thing to do, and to have to do.
A former boss and friend of mine who was in business for himself had to make a choice once: reduce pay and benefits for everyone, or layoff two people and eliminate their positions.
At first he thought, I'll just cut everyone's pay by 10% and increase the deductible on the company insurance plan from $100 to $250. That'll keep everyone in a job, and everyone will share the burden of reduced business.
The employees went apeshit when he called a meeting to discuss this proposal. One of the biggest whiners was one of the people who was to be laid off under "plan B" (which I knew of at the time). What a sad situation. No one would think about taking the "plan A" approach. So the two people got laid off and everyone else got their 100% pay and slightly less sucky health insurance.
Three months later business was down again, another big percent, and the boss completely stopped taking pay checks. Three months from then it was back to the employees to discuss furlows and reduced hours.
Everyone bitched. And then turned on him for his "extravagent" lifestyle. Even after he told of his lack of pay for several months they bitched. One employee noted that the bosses wife was wealthy, she should finance the companies losses until things picked back up again.
Big surprise that he shut the whole thing down and essentially retired a few weeks later.
The bottom line is that loyalty is very real, but it requires a lot of mutal trust and respect. The decision to lay people off is a heart wrenching one, but often it is totally necessary.
Farmers dont generally farm one crop. They farm a cash crop, and a crop in the off season, out season, or rotation season. Without the cash crop, there is no "other crop", which generally is foodstuff.
Without many of the government handouts farmers get, there would be no farming in the US except for high priced exportable or niche products. That means we'd be dependent on foreign food only, which is so dangerous it's absurd.
Ironic. Apple is the monopoly in digital music players - 87% of the market. Now comes the lawsuit.
MS must love this. How long until the DOJ gets involved?
this is just plainly wrong
I am 100% correct. Before the Patriot Act any information the CIA learned via means that the FBI could not employ - signals interception, internatonal wiretaps, paid snitches, interrogaton, plain out infilitration, etc could not be divulged to the Justice Department or other domestic agency.
The CIA or DIA could not reveal certain elements of international operations or information gathering to the White House - including names, dates, locations, or certain other specifics - without a special administration order or an act of Congress. An intentional wall was errected. Information had to go up the chain through the military apparatus, to the commander-in-chief (or office) and then back down the civilian apparatus. It was extremely top heavy. And as a result it meant that only the most solid, most decisive, most reliable information made the trip. From the DIA operatives to their handlers to the brass to the Joint Chiefs to the office of the President to the Attorny General to the Director of the FBI to the agents in charge to the agents in the field. It's a fucked up version of events.
You should read the USA PATRIOT ACT before making things up about it. 98-99% of it is completely necessary, completely good changes in law and policy. 2% or less is upsetting to some people.
. As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.
Okay, then, you should be fine with the people at Gitmo and other prisons. Each of them went through four (4) reviews before boarding a plane to Gitmo each by military personell. At Gitmo each has been assessed a number of times (with a number more being released, by the way).
There are never going to be televised American civil court room style procedures. In a war zone there is no crime scene unit, there is no cop to take witness statements, there is no physical evidence collected. Army breaks down the door, see's you working on a roadside bomb, captures you - you get life with "no trial" or prompt execution. That's all there is to it. That person is not a solider - he's not uniformed, paid by a nation, or even a person. That person is not a criminal - there are no laws in this country, no civil justice system. That person is not an American.
What many are arguing for is completely absurd. They want American style or in-America-criminal-court trials for these individuals. With lawyers and witnesses and miranda and CourtTV and all the dressings.
So you think indefinite jail for anyone is acceptable as an administrative policy? That's fucked up. Why not allow them to have a real court trial?
I do not think its okay for "anyone". However, I don't think that international terrorism is a criminal problem, like some others do. International terrorism is a national security, a national defense issue. If the military or CIA or some such agency apprehends a terrorist, a terrorist plotters, financier, etc in a foreign land that person should be interrogated and then put before a military tribunal, and put into a military jail and/or executed. They do not qualify for the geneva convention protections, they do not belong in an American court room, they do not belong in front of the camera's.
Uhh.. you are incorrect. Also, the National Lawyers Guild is not the definitive word on rights, FYI.
From the article you linked:
So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Prosecuted under the criminal code. Interesting. Read on.
But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law.
So, in this case, illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights because they are not prosectued under criminal code, but rather, administrative law. Your own article contradicts your own case.
The rights afforded to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens do not derive from the Constitution, but from case law and administrative policy which can be changed without an act of Congress. Aka, the executive branch largely dictates this law, no the courts and the Congress.
No one is saying very much he was trying to kill 250 people, just that he COULD have. It was a very dicey situation.
You do not get blinded by road glare. I've flown planes (not big ones like jumbos, but littles ones).. 7 minutes from landing, I'd probably would have crashed if I was blinded for 2 minutes. It's just that simple.
Being blinded like that - violently - is a bad, bad situation.
"any one".
The military makes the determination. If the military captures a person behind enemy lines they can determine his or her status on the spot.
Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot. Those who are not involved in their view are let go or ignored or moved to another location, etc. If the person is a threat immediately, the person is dead. If the person is a uniformed enemy solider, like say an Iraqi national guardsmen in uniform and surrenders, he is afforded the full protection of the Geneva convention. If he is not wearing a uniform, and holding a weapon, he can be executed on the spot, held as a detainee, or anything in between.
as many pieces of the Act have already been found
That's unsubstantiated. Show it. Which sections?
have not looked deeply into the Patriot Act as what I have read scares the living hell out of me
I've read the entire bill.
I have felt for a long time that our (US) government is only here for it's benefit and the US people are being allowed to reside here to support it.
That may be true, but the patriot act has nothing to do with that.
All the Patriot Act has done that I can see it allowed the US Government to go after it's own citizens for not thinking/acting the way they are expected to.
You should read the bill before you go MAKING THINGS UP.
For one thing, its main purpose was to allow various agencies the legal right to share information. If the CIA knew for a fact that an attack on the US was going to happen before the PATRIOT ACT it would have been *ILLEGAL* for them to tell the FBI, the White House, etc. That's insanity!
As for the laser incident, the guy is guilty of nothing more than doing something stupid.
Stupid isn't a crime. Interfering with a flight crew is - by means of stupidty or not.
I have seen people do things that could have done more harm than this and carry on their merry way.
So? Does that justify this bad behaviour?
But then again, the US government could probably find something illegal with that and the next thing you know you with have the FBI, CIA, ATF and any other department with a gun pounding down your door.
Ahh... a conspiracy nut. Should have known. The CIA? Get real.
There is reasonable reason, since the courts have repeatedly held that Padilla cannot be held without charges even if designated an "enemy combatant".
Padilla will be released or charged with a crime. Period.
As far as a speedy trial - 3 or 4 years - while appeals are filed etc - has been held by many courts to be plenty speedy.
The system is working very well: part of the government oversteps, is slapped down,.
Luckily, the court system is grinding through the issue. So far it is looking good for him. Precendent will be set. He will get out. See, now, if this was a real fascist country, do you think anything could save him from the government? Let alone another part of the government?
The Constitution is a binding agreement between the states who ratified it, their citizens and decendants, and those who volunteer to become a citizen of the US and are therefore bound to it by oath.
All people born into the terrority of the US are natural born US citizens, and are protected by all of our laws and the Constitution. You may renounce your citizenship at anytime by going to the US embassy, State department, or foreign consulate and swearing in writing an oath of renunication (followed by exiting US soil). Unless you do this, you are not a citizen of the United States and you therefore do not have the responsibilities or rights of US citizen.
People born in Zaire or France or China are not descended from the ratifiers, nor have they ratified it, nor are they bound by it. If the United States Congress voted by majority to permit it and a majority of citizens of any foreign province, terrority or land voted by majority to ratify it, the US Constitution would apply fully to all of its citizens.
There's your answer.
Uhh.. no.
Being charged under the USA PATRIOT act does mean you are accused of being a terrorist. It is nothing at all like you describe it.
The USA PATRIOT act is a bill, just like all others, but a bit more complex. There are bits about money handling, and warrants, and air travel, and interferring with the flight crew, etc. There are numerous bits about funding, about drugs and drug controls, about interagency co-operation, and even so much more.
Just because he is charged with a crime under this bill does not mean he is suspected of being a "terrorist". It means he is suspect of violating a bit of the USA PATRIOT act.
I've done a fair amount of research on the topic, but I can't find a comprehensive list of treaties the US is bound to. There may be some that I've missed, but generally:
The US is being somewhat more than accomodating in the fact that during a time of war or even armed conflict spys, saboters, un-uniformed soliders and mercanaries who are captured are subject to summary execution without hearing, redress, trial, evidence or even a chance to speak. The famous Vietnam era video footage of a man being executed at point blank range with a shot to the head demonstrates something: the prisoner was an illegal spy. His execution was perfectly legal under all applicable international law.
Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.
I am not arguing for the sake of argument and if you have some *first* hand reference material, please let me know so I can update my notes. There is a lot of garbage floating around about international law this and international law that. But not so much in terms of clear concise information.
You have to:
appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate)
sign an oath of renunciation
not renounce your renunciation within a non-specific time limit, generally a year, but potentially longer
i p_776.html
Here is more information.
It is no small thing to give up your US Citizenship!
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizensh
It is not the job of the prosector to necessarily "over" or "under" charge. They have a degree of judgement. But generally the bigger the potential damage, the bigger the charge.
What this person did can be read to fit the description of the acts he (is alleged) to have committed.
br. The judge and jury all have some discretion in what they do from here on out.
The man has not been sentenced. Under the law he *could* get 25 years. COULD. "Facing up to 25 years" does mean "he will serve 25 years".
What this guy did could have very easily led to the death of 250 people. This wasn't some little toy laser on a keychain. Granted it wasn't a friggin light sabre, but it was in the realm of possibility that this plane and/or the pilots could have been hurt seriously or killed.
So far the *charge* fits the act perfectly. At trial things like motive, intent, naiveitte, and other factors will be raised by his defense. The judge and/or jury and/or prosecutor will dispense final justice.
It does make sense.
15 miles away and 8000 feet means that the plane needs to drop about 1000 feet per minute for each minute that the plane is in the air. Touch down speed for a big plane like that is probably in the 120-200 mph range. That means the 15 mile approach would take 7 1/2 minutes. That's not al ot of time!
Each second of that last 7 1/2 minutes before touch down the plane has to drop at least 15 feet! Each second!
This is a very dangerous time of the flight. For one or both pilots to be blinded at this juncture - or even imparied slighly - could lead to catrosphe. Imagine the pilot is off just slightly in his approach. The plane drop 16 feet per second, instead of his normal plane of 15 feet per second. That would mean the plane would be 450 feet below sea level when it "gets" to the runway (aka, it crashes well before the runway).
Those 8000 feet and 15 miles numbers make perfect sense for a jumbo on approach.
Fine, that is fine. You've made nothing but a mess of this topic. Do you have anything else to spout off about, or are you all set now?
IE is failing. That is fact. It is losing market share very, very rapidly. Going from nearly 100% market share to around 90% in six months, and now into the 80%'s after another 6 months is a big thing. Obviously a 100 million users wont switch over night, but millions already have. The technical clueful people already have, and now, even regular users are switching. Of course some people are ignorant, but Mozilla/Netscape/FireFox has reached a self-sustaining point - users know of it and switch, tell a friend, etc.
Unlikely - I know plenty of people who do/did use IE and I know noone who uses or has ever used AOL - the two are reasonably unrelated.
That means nothing. IE has approximately 100 million users in the US. AOL has about 20 million subscribers in the US, and more than that in users. Do the math. It is a substainal share of IE's user base.
It could be argued it is a "decent product" from a monopolistic point of view
It can and is substantially arguable that it is a "decent product" in that many people who use it are not compelled to switch even when they know of FireFox or another browser. Firefox will never completely kill IE. IE will always have loyal users. As far as technical merits, if you have never seen worse software than IE you have absolutely no business pretending you know anything about IE. I urge you to get a clue, and look around.
Finally, a last point. IE is not a monopoly, and even if Windows used to be, it certainly isn't now. People switch from IE all the time and go on to live happy productive lives.
I just meant to not make it too easy
The problem is that "easy" for a good programmer is also "easy" for a bad programmer.
The problem is that 9 times out of 10 the people buying the software aren't the people who are going to use it.
That is just an absurd number. Really, quite literally made up out of whole cloth. Look at it like this: in organizations with IT departments, you have a fighting chance that software purchases will go through procurement process that includes for decently large sales an onsite demo, customer references, and high level meetings with an account executive. In cases where an organization is small and doesn't have an IT department the purchases are directed or phycially made by the intended user or an immediate supervisor. Either way, the user has an advocate in the process. The only times the user has no advocate is when you have a crony in the IT department, which is a problem of course. Regardless, the companies peddling crappy VB programs will fail. Companies selling high-quality VB programs will succeed, and often at rates higher than companies selling high quality C/C++ applications. The cost to develop VB programs is *significantly* lower than comparable platforms of the day.
Even in a sector where the _users_ get the choice, we see crappy software like Internet Explorer having a massive market share over better software such as FireFox.
Such a bad example. For so many reasons! First, IE's market share is tanking at perhaps an all time high. Firefox is gaining users at a very rapid pace. That's fact #1. On top of that you have the fact that most people do not associate IE with being crappy. Most people do not associate IE with anything other being "The Internet". Additionally, much of IE's market share is related directly to the fact that a modified version is used by AOL for their 20M+ (or whatever it is today) users. Finally, IE is - despite its security problems - a decent product. It does a good enough of job to get the job done for a majority of people in a majority of circumstances. It's not perfect, and it's never going to be perfect. But it does work, and work as intended for the majority of its users. Therefore it is not by definition crappy software. It clearly has some "crappy programming" as part of the equation. And that is exactly why FireFox is gaining market share while IE loses it.
Bad software fails. Your refernece about EDS is also absurd. EDS has had well publicized failings. EDS has also had a huge string of successes throughout its career. But again, you've missed the big picture. EDS's mistakes have cost them, and cost them dearly. They are a company at serious risk of failure. Which is exactly what they should be.
IMHO BASIC is not and never has been a suitable language for writing real world applications.
You know, that's a funny position. I've worked with dozens of small to medium sized companies that have sold very excellent industry leading platforms upon the VB5/6 platform.
but care must be taken to prevent people who can't code from producing bug ridden applications that they can sell to the managers.
Right. There is a programming elite, and that elite should be trained to keep the unwashed masses from touching a compiler.
What ever happened to freedom? Open Source is about freedom - the freedom to have a compiler, to tinker, and to create value.
In the marketplace and the wider world, crappy programs of any stripe fail. A crappy "muppet" application could easily be foisted on an unsuspecting manager, but that manager will be brought to account by his customers, and his customers customers, and ultimately, by the market.
That's not true. You have to license the software if you wan't the IDE. You can develop very happily from the command line and compile and distribute or sell till your heart is complete via the .NET SDK. You get free compilers and headers and access to 100% of the features of the .NET runtime.
Plus there are *never* any runtime or distribution royalities.
Ohh, one more thing. If you are a VB programmer or a C# programmer, you should investigate Mono with GTK#.