The earlier AC (call him AC1, which makes you AC2) asserted his right, as a putative ISP, to handle client email pretty much any way he saw fit:
"It's MY property and I can capture it, log it, and read it to people on the street if I want to."
His basis for this was,
it's MY server your email is stored on.
AC1 was hardly defending privacy rights, unless you think that an ISP's privacy is somehow compromised by not reading and then disseminating their clients' emails. I was simply inquiring as to his feelings about a morally similar position based on similar thinking.
I mean, the member governments agreeing to do things a single consistent way is one thing, but requiring all the citizens to use the same file formats, whether they like them or not, is a whole 'nother thing.
Sometimes I like to write with blue ink, and sometimes in black. Occasionally I'll fire off a note in red, or even green.
The government, OTOH, does pretty much everything in black ink, because it Xeroxes well or something.
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that the whole thing was Photoshopped together as a gag.
The console looks like an industrial control setup from a chemical plant or somesuch, with a big-ass valve control. The video screen is a TV (complete with a channel selector,) and if you look it's floating there, with no apparent bracket.
And from the apparent size of the teletype, you'd type with your fists rather than your fingers.
That loyalty may have carried over to sabotage of Operation Eagle Claw. For the man who served as chief mission planner was none other than Richard Secord, who later surfaced as a major kingpin in the shady arms dealings between the Reagan White House and the contras of Nicaragua. A top staffer at a key base in Eagle Claw's catastrophic helicopter support operation was none other than the legendary Colonel Oliver North. Working closely with him as a logistical planner was Albert Hakkim, who later sat by Secord's side at the Congressional Iran-contra hearings and wept of his love for Oliver North.
That's it? They were there? Hey, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and that went badly. Must have been sabotage!
As for your Cheney charge,no, I wouldn't call that "treason."
Look, showing stuff to foreigners is not treason. Showing stuff to foreigners when we are at war with them, that's treason. We aren't at war with the Saudis, so even if what you're saying is true, Cheney did not commit treason. A security violation, sure, sounds like it, maybe even espionage, but not treason, not under US law.
If you are seriously charging Oliver North with involvement with sabotage in the rescue attempt, then I think you'd best back that up. Certainly he was never charged with any such thing. Most "October Surprise" theories revolve around negotiations in June & July of 1980, not Desert One.
As for the Contra part, "illegal wars contrary to the foreign policy sanctioned by Congress" is a crime, but not treason. The US defines that word pretty carefully, which is why neither Robert Hanssen nor Aldrich Ames was so charged.
Actually, to be pedantic, here's the official scoop: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. " That's generally been taken to mean, "enemies in time of war."
Iran bore us some hostility, but we were not at war, and "War on Drugs" rhetoric aside that wasn't a war either.
Well, I think I voted for Browne that year, but I'm not sure that I would describe Iran/Contra as "treason". We were not at war with Iran, nor is defiance of Congress in of itself treason (although it may be, and was, illegal.)
In fact, the more I think about it, the more sure I am that I would NOT use the term -- it's simply innapropriate. Congress passed laws regarding aid to the Contras, and those laws were violated, but that isn't treason anymore than speeding is treason.
I was discussing the public perception, not the reality. Oliver North wasn't yet on the front page, or even really on the radar, when Reagan put his hand on the Bible.
There are party loyalties, of course, but "what have you done for me lately?" is still the crucial question -- just ask Newt Gingrich. Pols will toe the Party line if and only if the Party can enforce that line, and an unpopular President has only a little stick with which to beat them.
Assisting with legislation is part of it, of course, but budgets and appointments are also an important part of the job and involve Congress. There's a balance to the whole thing that makes it more of a dance than the Constitution spells out.
There is much more to being President than winning the election.
If Bush wins and the public turn against him, his clout with Congress plummets. Regardless of statuatory authority (or really, I suppose, because of the limits of that authority,) a President who lacks popular support doesn't get much done. Whether or not the President is up for re-election, Congresscritters are always campaigning, and one-third of the Senate is up every two years, so if there is advantage to defiance of the White House then defiance will be the rule.
The terms were negotiated by the Reagan transition team, but the whole thing probably pivoted largely on the fact that the Iranians were just tired of all the racket.
It didn't really matter, though, that Carter ws stubborn and held to various sanctions that Reagan gave away -- the perception was that Carter was weak and Reagan strong, so that the Iranians caved in the moment Reagan ascended. I'm not sure it's even right to blame Reagan for that perception.
Well, Ronald Reagan was widely credited with freeing the embassy hostages because they were released the day of his inaguration (bumping him almost below the fold, which was pretty funny -- "HOSTAGES FREE!! in other news, Ronald Reagan takes office...")
As a people, we're quite capable of putting blame or credit pretty much anywhere we please, so if Kerry wins and the election goes badly, we could always say, "Well, with a weak President taking office, of course the radical Iraqis took advantage of the situation," or "With a reasonable man entering the White House, of course the Iraqi people responded reasonably"
I assume that your objection to Coke as a trademark is that the word "coke" has been around for a jillion years, and of course you're right, but that's not the point of trademarks.
Consider the case of "Ford", also a common word, and for that matter a common surname. Would you be comfortable if I sold you a car I had whittled in my spare time and which I labeled as a Ford? More realistically, how about brake linings?
Just because Ford has a trademark doesn't mean that the company controls the word. The Ford modelling agency does just fine, for instance, as do scads of other organizations. The real issue is confusion: are you, the hypothetical "reasonable man", likely to mix up the two? Will a wormy apple, for instance, put you off buying an iMac, or are you capable of distinguishing between computers and fruit? Ford has something of a lock on the name in the automotive arena, but not particularly elsewhere. In fact, in my area there's a dealership named Apple Ford.
Well, I'm thinking that's why election officials would prefer to have neat selections from a list.
Still, issues like that are why there was a minor dust-up in one or two states during the first Carter campaign -- he preferred the folksy "Jimmy" while some states required the full legal name of "James Earl", presumably to avoid ambiguity among candidates.
Who told you that write-ins are only counted in a manual recount? It's a perfectly valid way to vote, although there are confusions that can arise if the voter writes-in a candidate and also checks off / punches in / flips the lever / raises his hand / whatever for the same candidate (obviously if he votes for two different candidates the ballot is invalid.)
Personally, my guess is that a majority of Nader voters are at least literate and can probably manage to write or type "Nader", even if./ can't.
The LP, BTW, didn't make it on to the ballot here in MD, and I think it's worth noting that "Browne" was a lot easier to spell.
Do you know of any (easy) way to determine who owns a particular game?
Way back when, I worked for Avalon Hill and coded Wall Ball, whcih wasn't very good and remains deservedly "extremely rare". I was simply a wage-slave, so I never had rights.
Avalon Hill was later sold to Hasbro, so I presume my cart was included. Now, apparently, the revived Atari has bought portions of Habro's holdings, which may or may not include the rights to AH's computer games (the board games have clearly stayed with Hasbro.)
It doesn't really matter, buit it would be fun if someday my cart were to be re-released as part of some "Worst of Atari" 1,000 game set.
Being a good American, I speak no other languages, and Babelfish gives me:
France n'est not only! It n'est not only! It n'est not only! It has vast Empire behind it. It can make British block with l'Empire which holds the sea and continues the fight. It can, like l'Angleterre, to use without limits l'immense industry of the United States!
but I think i get the gist of it, and yes, the immense industry, and some escort ships and aircraft, were in the war earlier than 12/41. In fact, there was some grumbling about "undeclared war" on Roosevelt's part.
Re:Version control would be nice as well
on
Database File System
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, I've met a few Americans who've said that WW II began at Pearl Harbor, so I suppose reciprocal tolerance is in order.
Still, I'd hate for the English, for instance, to forget that Prince of Wales was lost in that other war, just as Americans forget the above-mentioned Reuben James.
Of course, the Russians make a good case that they won the ETO while the rest of us held their coats (and then turned on Japan and beat them into submission in a single day.)
Slashdot Mirror
The earlier AC (call him AC1, which makes you AC2) asserted his right, as a putative ISP, to handle client email pretty much any way he saw fit:
His basis for this was,
AC1 was hardly defending privacy rights, unless you think that an ISP's privacy is somehow compromised by not reading and then disseminating their clients' emails. I was simply inquiring as to his feelings about a morally similar position based on similar thinking.
Moron.
Do you feel that way about your phone calls, which after all travel over phone company wires using their electrons?
Hmmm...I think Chris Crawford might be among those claiming prior art on the simulation game.
Ah, yes, Tautology, the biggest winner in one-horse racing history...
I got a buck says "oxymoron" doesn't mean what you think.
Was "Knoppix 2.6" a typo, or is there some special virtue to that release lost in later ones?
I mean, the member governments agreeing to do things a single consistent way is one thing, but requiring all the citizens to use the same file formats, whether they like them or not, is a whole 'nother thing.
Sometimes I like to write with blue ink, and sometimes in black. Occasionally I'll fire off a note in red, or even green.
The government, OTOH, does pretty much everything in black ink, because it Xeroxes well or something.
The console looks like an industrial control setup from a chemical plant or somesuch, with a big-ass valve control. The video screen is a TV (complete with a channel selector,) and if you look it's floating there, with no apparent bracket.
And from the apparent size of the teletype, you'd type with your fists rather than your fingers.
That's it? They were there? Hey, Kerry was in Viet Nam, and that went badly. Must have been sabotage!
As for your Cheney charge,no, I wouldn't call that "treason."
Look, showing stuff to foreigners is not treason. Showing stuff to foreigners when we are at war with them, that's treason. We aren't at war with the Saudis, so even if what you're saying is true, Cheney did not commit treason. A security violation, sure, sounds like it, maybe even espionage, but not treason, not under US law.
As for the Contra part, "illegal wars contrary to the foreign policy sanctioned by Congress" is a crime, but not treason. The US defines that word pretty carefully, which is why neither Robert Hanssen nor Aldrich Ames was so charged.
Actually, to be pedantic, here's the official scoop: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. " That's generally been taken to mean, "enemies in time of war."
Iran bore us some hostility, but we were not at war, and "War on Drugs" rhetoric aside that wasn't a war either.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more sure I am that I would NOT use the term -- it's simply innapropriate. Congress passed laws regarding aid to the Contras, and those laws were violated, but that isn't treason anymore than speeding is treason.
I was discussing the public perception, not the reality. Oliver North wasn't yet on the front page, or even really on the radar, when Reagan put his hand on the Bible.
Assisting with legislation is part of it, of course, but budgets and appointments are also an important part of the job and involve Congress. There's a balance to the whole thing that makes it more of a dance than the Constitution spells out.
If Bush wins and the public turn against him, his clout with Congress plummets. Regardless of statuatory authority (or really, I suppose, because of the limits of that authority,) a President who lacks popular support doesn't get much done. Whether or not the President is up for re-election, Congresscritters are always campaigning, and one-third of the Senate is up every two years, so if there is advantage to defiance of the White House then defiance will be the rule.
It didn't really matter, though, that Carter ws stubborn and held to various sanctions that Reagan gave away -- the perception was that Carter was weak and Reagan strong, so that the Iranians caved in the moment Reagan ascended. I'm not sure it's even right to blame Reagan for that perception.
As a people, we're quite capable of putting blame or credit pretty much anywhere we please, so if Kerry wins and the election goes badly, we could always say, "Well, with a weak President taking office, of course the radical Iraqis took advantage of the situation," or "With a reasonable man entering the White House, of course the Iraqi people responded reasonably"
See? It's not hard.
Consider the case of "Ford", also a common word, and for that matter a common surname. Would you be comfortable if I sold you a car I had whittled in my spare time and which I labeled as a Ford? More realistically, how about brake linings?
Just because Ford has a trademark doesn't mean that the company controls the word. The Ford modelling agency does just fine, for instance, as do scads of other organizations. The real issue is confusion: are you, the hypothetical "reasonable man", likely to mix up the two? Will a wormy apple, for instance, put you off buying an iMac, or are you capable of distinguishing between computers and fruit? Ford has something of a lock on the name in the automotive arena, but not particularly elsewhere. In fact, in my area there's a dealership named Apple Ford.
Still, issues like that are why there was a minor dust-up in one or two states during the first Carter campaign -- he preferred the folksy "Jimmy" while some states required the full legal name of "James Earl", presumably to avoid ambiguity among candidates.
Personally, my guess is that a majority of Nader voters are at least literate and can probably manage to write or type "Nader", even if ./ can't.
The LP, BTW, didn't make it on to the ballot here in MD, and I think it's worth noting that "Browne" was a lot easier to spell.
I'm assuming that you then double your estimate, or is this the friendly-fire method?
Way back when, I worked for Avalon Hill and coded Wall Ball, whcih wasn't very good and remains deservedly "extremely rare". I was simply a wage-slave, so I never had rights.
Avalon Hill was later sold to Hasbro, so I presume my cart was included. Now, apparently, the revived Atari has bought portions of Habro's holdings, which may or may not include the rights to AH's computer games (the board games have clearly stayed with Hasbro.)
It doesn't really matter, buit it would be fun if someday my cart were to be re-released as part of some "Worst of Atari" 1,000 game set.
but I think i get the gist of it, and yes, the immense industry, and some escort ships and aircraft, were in the war earlier than 12/41. In fact, there was some grumbling about "undeclared war" on Roosevelt's part.
Close. That's a VMS feature.
Still, I'd hate for the English, for instance, to forget that Prince of Wales was lost in that other war, just as Americans forget the above-mentioned Reuben James.
Of course, the Russians make a good case that they won the ETO while the rest of us held their coats (and then turned on Japan and beat them into submission in a single day.)
Hey, it was my Dad's war, not mine. All those black-and-white wars tend to look alike after a while. :)