The lack of comments about the technical or economic merits of this is sad.
It's the top story on the page as you wrote that. It takes a few minutes for moderators to kick in (sorry, I used my points in the Poll, where I seldom post).
Also, you should know the first 50 posts are mainly Karma whores trying to get in a post early to soak up those valuable mod points. I forget how many you need to win the free iPod...
I would agree that the best reasons to reduce pollution is that I like clean and water. I just don't understand the polarization of the issue: One side wants us all to live like cave men, the other wants unrestricted rights to pollute. I am not convinced that "man made global warming" is occuring, but I still don't want mercury in my drinking water.
It would seem the smartest idea would be to take a long term approach, lowering the allowed amount of pollution over a long time, which would actually HELP the economy because businesses would have less uncertainty (they hate that) and it would create new opportunity for people to make money by solving the pollution problems. A 5/10/20/50/100 year set of objectives would make sense.
And it has to be fair for all countries. Kyoto was not, and although I would like to see some reductions in output, you can't expect the US to agree to restrictions that China is exempt from. They are our biggest potential competitor in the global marketplace. Their pollution is already over 10x what the level is in the US. (Actually, pollution is already DOWN in the US compared to the 1970s, its just CO2 thats the issue)
Its a whole lot easier to reach a goal if the goal is spelled out in black and white.
"Lela: Thank god nuclear winter cancelled out global warming"
I get no traction trying to speak to others about global warming either. The idea is considered blasphomy that it may simply be part of a larger cycle, that the earth gets warmer, then cooler, regardless of what we humans are doing. I have no idea, but for so many to ignore it shows the true agenda. I would LOVE to know the truth, instead of having "dirty hippies" tell me I am a horrible human for even asking the question.
For many (not all) it is about anti-capitalism and controlling others. Misery loves company, and there really are millions out there who think they are smarter than the rest of us, and think we should all live like they want us to live, whether we want to or not. Personal freedom is fine, as long as you agree with them and do exactly what they tell you.
Ironically, the Barbara S.'s of the world are great to TELL you how to live, but not willing to live the same way. I guess you don't have to follow your own rules if you are rich and smart enough.
So in the mean time, it is impossible to know what is really going on with the atmosphere, because of the BS flowing liberally (pun intended) from certain camps, as well as the reality that we have VERY LITTLE objective data over 100 years old.
Nevermind that these are the same people screaming for blood when some rinky-dink company violates the GPL, which is, of course, based on the same copyright laws.
Or perhaps the people who scream when someone violates the GPL and makes a profit off it thinks there is a double standard? It is ok for a company to violate a copyright, but not an individual?
If I download a TV show via bittorrent, I haven't stopped anyone from watching it and I haven't cost anyone anything. Movies may be an entirely different factor, but I'm talking about TV shows, shown over the airwaves. Regardless of how I were to watch the show, it would be free to me. I have not made any money, nor saved any money. This is bad and I should go to jail.
If someone like Linksys takes the Linux kernel, violates the GPL and makes a profit, then I shouldn't have the right to say that it is wrong? Even if they didn't make money, they explicitly AGREED to the license by distributing the new kernel, then violated it by not distributing the source.
I didn't agree to anything by downloading or watching SG-1 on TV. It was released on the "free" airwaves that are "owned" by the public. They are not the same.
I would only disagree by saying that it is the duty of the press to be skeptical and to act as a "watchdog" to protect the people by offering them the information, as well as present the facts on how an event may be unconsitutional. THIS is the reason they have been given exceptional latitude that non-journalists (even bloggers) do not enjoy, from the Constitution to hundreds of court rulings over history.
What was most disturbing was the lack of concern by the reporters in the article. It was written "overly objective" as if this was an acceptable idea that would not cause controversy.
I thought the whole idea of the press was to protect us from nuts like this Houston police chief trying to do things like this, legal or not.
You can get broadband in any trailer park or project here, for the same price as it is in a country club neighborhood. You can get it way out in the country, and I mean WAY out into the country here. There is no 100k "setup fee" in this area. Actually, its pretty hard to find a decent house for 100k here, but that is another story.
And I do provide CD's of freeware such as Open Office and Knoppix to everyone for free at the office. And yes, I download them at home and burn them at work with the bosses blessing.
No employee telecommutes except me, and it consists of an SSH shell to servers that are not on the same connection as the office's outbound system. They can check email at home, which is on yet a different network.
Oh, and employees are well paid where I work. Well above the average for our industry, which is why we have zero turnover. No full time employee has quit or been fired in several years.
Not every company is an ogre. I just don't want them downloading streaming video on the company network, since it isn't company related and causes problems. Simple enough.
We did the same thing at our company, with 6 or 7 people sharing one 33k connection. Used a win95 server (really) that would autodial when a connection was needed. Can't remember the software, but it worked fine. Eventually I just used a keepalive program so there would be no dialup delay. Back then, it was mainly used for email anyway, no ecommerce. About 96/07.
By 99, we had already graduated to a full blown 256k dsl setup run through a linux server/firewall. Unfortunately, it was in a different building, so we had to use coax to link it to the network, which was otherwise ethernet.
Even today, we have 12 people sharing half a T1 (other half is for phone lines). 768k is all. We have another full T1, but I reserve it for the TFC server, er, incoming traffic only....;)
The main point is, as an IT manager, I prefer the slower bandwidth. It is plenty as long as no one is downloading anything, which they don't need to do at our office. It is easy to tell when someone is streaming video, which is not allowed. I have less problems with the employees doing stuff they shouldn't do, because their home connection is better suited for it, so they do it at home.
1. This would be a boon to Linux and a bust for Apple. $x % of people want to be different, and Apple would no longer be different. Or different enough. The GUI is not even close, nor the functionality when comparing the two OSs.
2. OS/X is doing great because of the BSD roots, which benefits from Linux (and vice versa). More hardware makers are opening up their drivers. They have momentum already. And their stock price already reflects this.
3. If it was only about "cool" hardware, Alienware would be larger and Dell's decidedly unsexy hardware would make them another mid-sized company. Cool helps, but there is no shortage of "cool" Wintel boxes, just of buyers.
Sorry, but Dvorak must be jonesing for the hits only slashdot/digg can provide by putting out a story like this. Nothing to see, move along...
Why am I pushing this post so far off-topic? To show that hackers in China are willing to pay retail, if only because retail is so much cheaper here.
That would explain why China is held in such high esteem in regards to piracy and infringement. None of it going on there, nope. If other countries were more like China, then software developers would never have to worry about piracy and theft, right?
How many weapons need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light, over great distances (ie: light years). What they are talking about is very long distance. And only about speeds faster than 57% of the speed of light.
Unless the Borg are coming, Starship Troopers are recruiting, or the Asgard have gone Maverick on us, this isn't gonna be useful as a weapon. Doesn't apply to a cruise missle, ICBM, satalite or UAV. Only long distance travel/projectory.
An AC earlier had a good idea about making it as a mod to another game. Seems like HL2 would be a good candiate. It runs well with slower computers ( 2ghz- ), yet offers really good graphics and fluid movement, IMHO.
I would like to see Valve try something like that. It would be a pretty big project for someone/group to do for free, but if it was done right, it would be worth paying for.
I might add, I would also be happy to see TFC2 get finished...
Archive websites dont cache images, just the html. they link back to the old images, so if you leave the old images, they will still show up. if you remove them, they will show as broken images.
If you MODIFY them, they will seem innocently as if they were not modified, even though they are not the same. My guess is that they are not that dumb. Actually, the entire case is purely speculative to begin with, but under any circumstance MS wouldn't be that dumb.
I'll safely assume that you didn't RTFA since you don't already know what I going to tell you.
After reading the article and the comments, I think it is very safe to assume that no one read the article. Too bad, it was pretty interesting.
If this truly is a backdoor, MS should have some 'splaining to do, be it a corporate policy or rouge programmer. I am not much of a programmer, but even I could understand that this "feature" may indeed be a feature, and not a bug.
The real question is: *IF* MS did intentionally put this backdoor in, or *IF* a rogue programmer at MS put it in and MS should have known about it, how will the press treat this? Lets me honest, you and I can scream til we are blue in the face, but approximately 90% of computers users are understandably appothetic as to the politics of computer science. Unless someone lights a fire under someone's ass, nothing of any consequence will result.
We don't know if this was a bonified secret backdoor yet, but we SHOULD have the right to know, if for no other reason than to make informed decisions as consumers. Oh, and because if it is, it would likely be illegal for MS to do that. That, too.
um.. you got an edition of windows that had neither notepad nor wordpad?
Nice troll, but no one writes letters with Notepad. Printing properly is often a problem as well.
No one does writes anything other than the most basic of letters in Wordpad either. It can't even open most *.doc files from MS office. Everyone knows this, particularly MS who would rather you buy MS Office to write your letters anyway.
You know this, everyone knows this. This ain't rocket science.
In the article, they didn't say if they installed a GUI on the boxes with Red Hat Enterprise Server. You have no choice with Windows, but most Linux servers do NOT have the GUI installed, nor would you want it installed. It's a server.
Perhaps their arguement for desktop is somewhat valid, but not for servers. I have been saying that the Linux desktop is too bloated in the mainstream distros for years, but most IT types don't install a GUI for any Linux server. It makes no sense, since all the maintenance you will do will be via remote SSH anyway. When was the last time a Linux admin sat in front of a server to do maintenance? I even rent a remote server for offsite backup that I have never seen, and have done so for 5 years.
Of course they installed the GUI on the servers, and of course they did so to skew the results, although the vast majority of real world applications would not do so.
Well, it is completely theoretically possible that the government is violating the amendment about unwarranted search and seizure for thousands or millions of people without any of them knowing about it.
Thoery. UFOs are theory. This is the stuff paranoia is made from, and it serves no purpose.
There ARE problems that are being ignored because people are too worried about "theoretical" problems. This makes no sense. Lets focus on the real problems, and I am all ears if you have a real instance to quote.
This is akin to the lady who neglects her own children because she is too busy volunteering, to make herself feel good about "caring".
It is amazing how many people here will talk about how the government "might" be doing all these things, and have not a single clue as to the real limitations and capabilities of the police. I mean shit, if they are capable of secretly spying on millions of us, you would think they would be smart enough to make sure that no camera was rolling while they violate someone's civil rights, ie: Rodney King, New Orleans, etc.
Its just mindless "theory" that makes people feel good because they can say they care, simply by the fact that they don't trust the government. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is proven, nothing has changed.
but it does illustrate, in a very compelling and inspiring way, the very real civil rights abuses going on every day in this country.
You have got to be kidding.
No, it would seem to prove there are so few cases regarding civil rights abuses that someone had to make one up. Or at least it would lead a logical person to conclude this. I mean, if there are 10s of thousands of real stories, and no one hears about them, and we only hear about this one, and it is fake? Do the math.
There ARE problems with civil rights in limited circumstances in the US, and these fake stories do nothing but HURT those who really have a legitimate bitch. So, rather than prove your point, it counters it.
California contains 12% of the US population, NOT 20%. Big difference. (see Wikipedia) biggest, yes, but by a bit over half of your estimation.
Secondly, most states don't really care what California does. Or any other state. This is a federal issue regarding a state law, ie: US constitutionality.
The whole idea of a Federalist Democratic Republic (ie: USA) is so that the feds dont have to do everything, and each state can do what it wants, as long as it doesnt violate the US constitution, like this law did (ie: 10th Amendment). It will have little impact to the other states, except giving them a reason to word their laws differently. After all, for a politician, the goal isn't the result, it is being able to say "I tried but a judge kicked the law out. Now reelect me."
It doesn't bar them from passing any laws they want. If Florida passes the same law, it has to go through the courts again, and the federal judge in that district thinks the law is kosher, then the law will be legal in Florida. 5 to 10 years later, maybe the Supremes will take it on after a few appeals, maybe not.
And I want to state again, no one outside of California really cares what laws are passed in California, with very few little exceptions. Nothing personal, it's just the way it is for any state, and I have lived in about a dozen. Just as those of us in North Carolina don't care that New York has gun control, we still can get conceal to carry permits, and the lottery is legal 30 miles north in Virginia but not here, so we drive north.
It is listed as The Courts / Games / Politics and placed in the Games area. I would argue against part of the logic used in that decision, since it pertains to First Amendment rights and seems more of a Your Rights Online issue than politics.
The Games section of/. is getting pretty small lately, and this case has broader impact than just the gaming industry, thus the story deserves better exposure.
Don't worry though, I'm quite confident that Taco will dupe it in another section that gets more traffic;)
Hmmmmn, somehow, I doubt that someone using a version of IE on a Mac past the end of 2006 is the sort of person who'd be applying security updates in any case.
One example you might not be aware of are intranet applications. We have an inventory order system that REQUIRES IE because of the VB scripting. Not my idea. It will run on any box that uses IE, but the app wont work at all without IE. We don't have a choice but to use IE, patches or no, and our systems are patched very regularly.
The author is almost done with the new version (finally) that is instead written using Javascript and java. Then we can finally move over to Firefox.
It's ok if you hate America, just be honest enough to just state that, and perhaps brave enough to not post AC. But most Afghanis and Iraqis don't. No one wants us there forever (including us) but the *majority* are glad we are there, by any polls, by any media.
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of comments about the technical or economic merits of this is sad.
It's the top story on the page as you wrote that. It takes a few minutes for moderators to kick in (sorry, I used my points in the Poll, where I seldom post).
Also, you should know the first 50 posts are mainly Karma whores trying to get in a post early to soak up those valuable mod points. I forget how many you need to win the free iPod...
I would agree that the best reasons to reduce pollution is that I like clean and water. I just don't understand the polarization of the issue: One side wants us all to live like cave men, the other wants unrestricted rights to pollute. I am not convinced that "man made global warming" is occuring, but I still don't want mercury in my drinking water.
It would seem the smartest idea would be to take a long term approach, lowering the allowed amount of pollution over a long time, which would actually HELP the economy because businesses would have less uncertainty (they hate that) and it would create new opportunity for people to make money by solving the pollution problems. A 5/10/20/50/100 year set of objectives would make sense.
And it has to be fair for all countries. Kyoto was not, and although I would like to see some reductions in output, you can't expect the US to agree to restrictions that China is exempt from. They are our biggest potential competitor in the global marketplace. Their pollution is already over 10x what the level is in the US. (Actually, pollution is already DOWN in the US compared to the 1970s, its just CO2 thats the issue)
Its a whole lot easier to reach a goal if the goal is spelled out in black and white.
"Lela: Thank god nuclear winter cancelled out global warming"
I get no traction trying to speak to others about global warming either. The idea is considered blasphomy that it may simply be part of a larger cycle, that the earth gets warmer, then cooler, regardless of what we humans are doing. I have no idea, but for so many to ignore it shows the true agenda. I would LOVE to know the truth, instead of having "dirty hippies" tell me I am a horrible human for even asking the question.
For many (not all) it is about anti-capitalism and controlling others. Misery loves company, and there really are millions out there who think they are smarter than the rest of us, and think we should all live like they want us to live, whether we want to or not. Personal freedom is fine, as long as you agree with them and do exactly what they tell you.
Ironically, the Barbara S.'s of the world are great to TELL you how to live, but not willing to live the same way. I guess you don't have to follow your own rules if you are rich and smart enough.
So in the mean time, it is impossible to know what is really going on with the atmosphere, because of the BS flowing liberally (pun intended) from certain camps, as well as the reality that we have VERY LITTLE objective data over 100 years old.
Nevermind that these are the same people screaming for blood when some rinky-dink company violates the GPL, which is, of course, based on the same copyright laws.
Or perhaps the people who scream when someone violates the GPL and makes a profit off it thinks there is a double standard? It is ok for a company to violate a copyright, but not an individual?
If I download a TV show via bittorrent, I haven't stopped anyone from watching it and I haven't cost anyone anything. Movies may be an entirely different factor, but I'm talking about TV shows, shown over the airwaves. Regardless of how I were to watch the show, it would be free to me. I have not made any money, nor saved any money. This is bad and I should go to jail.
If someone like Linksys takes the Linux kernel, violates the GPL and makes a profit, then I shouldn't have the right to say that it is wrong? Even if they didn't make money, they explicitly AGREED to the license by distributing the new kernel, then violated it by not distributing the source.
I didn't agree to anything by downloading or watching SG-1 on TV. It was released on the "free" airwaves that are "owned" by the public. They are not the same.
I would only disagree by saying that it is the duty of the press to be skeptical and to act as a "watchdog" to protect the people by offering them the information, as well as present the facts on how an event may be unconsitutional. THIS is the reason they have been given exceptional latitude that non-journalists (even bloggers) do not enjoy, from the Constitution to hundreds of court rulings over history.
What was most disturbing was the lack of concern by the reporters in the article. It was written "overly objective" as if this was an acceptable idea that would not cause controversy.
I thought the whole idea of the press was to protect us from nuts like this Houston police chief trying to do things like this, legal or not.
You can get broadband in any trailer park or project here, for the same price as it is in a country club neighborhood. You can get it way out in the country, and I mean WAY out into the country here. There is no 100k "setup fee" in this area. Actually, its pretty hard to find a decent house for 100k here, but that is another story.
And I do provide CD's of freeware such as Open Office and Knoppix to everyone for free at the office. And yes, I download them at home and burn them at work with the bosses blessing.
No employee telecommutes except me, and it consists of an SSH shell to servers that are not on the same connection as the office's outbound system. They can check email at home, which is on yet a different network.
Oh, and employees are well paid where I work. Well above the average for our industry, which is why we have zero turnover. No full time employee has quit or been fired in several years.
Not every company is an ogre. I just don't want them downloading streaming video on the company network, since it isn't company related and causes problems. Simple enough.
We did the same thing at our company, with 6 or 7 people sharing one 33k connection. Used a win95 server (really) that would autodial when a connection was needed. Can't remember the software, but it worked fine. Eventually I just used a keepalive program so there would be no dialup delay. Back then, it was mainly used for email anyway, no ecommerce. About 96/07.
;)
By 99, we had already graduated to a full blown 256k dsl setup run through a linux server/firewall. Unfortunately, it was in a different building, so we had to use coax to link it to the network, which was otherwise ethernet.
Even today, we have 12 people sharing half a T1 (other half is for phone lines). 768k is all. We have another full T1, but I reserve it for the TFC server, er, incoming traffic only....
The main point is, as an IT manager, I prefer the slower bandwidth. It is plenty as long as no one is downloading anything, which they don't need to do at our office. It is easy to tell when someone is streaming video, which is not allowed. I have less problems with the employees doing stuff they shouldn't do, because their home connection is better suited for it, so they do it at home.
Wrong answer.
1. This would be a boon to Linux and a bust for Apple. $x % of people want to be different, and Apple would no longer be different. Or different enough. The GUI is not even close, nor the functionality when comparing the two OSs.
2. OS/X is doing great because of the BSD roots, which benefits from Linux (and vice versa). More hardware makers are opening up their drivers. They have momentum already. And their stock price already reflects this.
3. If it was only about "cool" hardware, Alienware would be larger and Dell's decidedly unsexy hardware would make them another mid-sized company. Cool helps, but there is no shortage of "cool" Wintel boxes, just of buyers.
Sorry, but Dvorak must be jonesing for the hits only slashdot/digg can provide by putting out a story like this. Nothing to see, move along...
Why am I pushing this post so far off-topic? To show that hackers in China are willing to pay retail, if only because retail is so much cheaper here.
That would explain why China is held in such high esteem in regards to piracy and infringement. None of it going on there, nope. If other countries were more like China, then software developers would never have to worry about piracy and theft, right?
How many weapons need to go a significant fraction of the speed of light, over great distances (ie: light years). What they are talking about is very long distance. And only about speeds faster than 57% of the speed of light.
Unless the Borg are coming, Starship Troopers are recruiting, or the Asgard have gone Maverick on us, this isn't gonna be useful as a weapon. Doesn't apply to a cruise missle, ICBM, satalite or UAV. Only long distance travel/projectory.
An AC earlier had a good idea about making it as a mod to another game. Seems like HL2 would be a good candiate. It runs well with slower computers ( 2ghz- ), yet offers really good graphics and fluid movement, IMHO.
I would like to see Valve try something like that. It would be a pretty big project for someone/group to do for free, but if it was done right, it would be worth paying for.
I might add, I would also be happy to see TFC2 get finished...
Archive websites dont cache images, just the html. they link back to the old images, so if you leave the old images, they will still show up. if you remove them, they will show as broken images.
If you MODIFY them, they will seem innocently as if they were not modified, even though they are not the same. My guess is that they are not that dumb. Actually, the entire case is purely speculative to begin with, but under any circumstance MS wouldn't be that dumb.
I'll safely assume that you didn't RTFA since you don't already know what I going to tell you.
After reading the article and the comments, I think it is very safe to assume that no one read the article. Too bad, it was pretty interesting.
If this truly is a backdoor, MS should have some 'splaining to do, be it a corporate policy or rouge programmer. I am not much of a programmer, but even I could understand that this "feature" may indeed be a feature, and not a bug.
The real question is: *IF* MS did intentionally put this backdoor in, or *IF* a rogue programmer at MS put it in and MS should have known about it, how will the press treat this? Lets me honest, you and I can scream til we are blue in the face, but approximately 90% of computers users are understandably appothetic as to the politics of computer science. Unless someone lights a fire under someone's ass, nothing of any consequence will result.
We don't know if this was a bonified secret backdoor yet, but we SHOULD have the right to know, if for no other reason than to make informed decisions as consumers. Oh, and because if it is, it would likely be illegal for MS to do that. That, too.
I was gonna bitch about it being a dupe, til I realized it wasnt a dupe, just already posted on Digg, as you point out.
I didn't find it all that interesting, but somehow got over 1100 digs. The US has a "seed bank" as well, as do many other countries.
um.. you got an edition of windows that had neither notepad nor wordpad?
Nice troll, but no one writes letters with Notepad. Printing properly is often a problem as well.
No one does writes anything other than the most basic of letters in Wordpad either. It can't even open most *.doc files from MS office. Everyone knows this, particularly MS who would rather you buy MS Office to write your letters anyway.
You know this, everyone knows this. This ain't rocket science.
In the article, they didn't say if they installed a GUI on the boxes with Red Hat Enterprise Server. You have no choice with Windows, but most Linux servers do NOT have the GUI installed, nor would you want it installed. It's a server.
Perhaps their arguement for desktop is somewhat valid, but not for servers. I have been saying that the Linux desktop is too bloated in the mainstream distros for years, but most IT types don't install a GUI for any Linux server. It makes no sense, since all the maintenance you will do will be via remote SSH anyway. When was the last time a Linux admin sat in front of a server to do maintenance? I even rent a remote server for offsite backup that I have never seen, and have done so for 5 years.
Of course they installed the GUI on the servers, and of course they did so to skew the results, although the vast majority of real world applications would not do so.
Suburban? Maybe Sub-suburban. I see a lot of fields. Probably would explain the local redneck cops having no clue.
What are you, 15 years old?
I am surrounded by many fields and forest, and CPAs, lawyers, doctors and business owners. I'm the closest thing to a redneck for miles.
Population density != intellegence. Thank you for proving this point.
Well, it is completely theoretically possible that the government is violating the amendment about unwarranted search and seizure for thousands or millions of people without any of them knowing about it.
Thoery. UFOs are theory. This is the stuff paranoia is made from, and it serves no purpose.
There ARE problems that are being ignored because people are too worried about "theoretical" problems. This makes no sense. Lets focus on the real problems, and I am all ears if you have a real instance to quote.
This is akin to the lady who neglects her own children because she is too busy volunteering, to make herself feel good about "caring".
It is amazing how many people here will talk about how the government "might" be doing all these things, and have not a single clue as to the real limitations and capabilities of the police. I mean shit, if they are capable of secretly spying on millions of us, you would think they would be smart enough to make sure that no camera was rolling while they violate someone's civil rights, ie: Rodney King, New Orleans, etc.
Its just mindless "theory" that makes people feel good because they can say they care, simply by the fact that they don't trust the government. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is proven, nothing has changed.
but it does illustrate, in a very compelling and inspiring way, the very real civil rights abuses going on every day in this country.
You have got to be kidding.
No, it would seem to prove there are so few cases regarding civil rights abuses that someone had to make one up. Or at least it would lead a logical person to conclude this. I mean, if there are 10s of thousands of real stories, and no one hears about them, and we only hear about this one, and it is fake? Do the math.
There ARE problems with civil rights in limited circumstances in the US, and these fake stories do nothing but HURT those who really have a legitimate bitch. So, rather than prove your point, it counters it.
California contains 12% of the US population, NOT 20%. Big difference. (see Wikipedia) biggest, yes, but by a bit over half of your estimation.
Secondly, most states don't really care what California does. Or any other state. This is a federal issue regarding a state law, ie: US constitutionality.
The whole idea of a Federalist Democratic Republic (ie: USA) is so that the feds dont have to do everything, and each state can do what it wants, as long as it doesnt violate the US constitution, like this law did (ie: 10th Amendment). It will have little impact to the other states, except giving them a reason to word their laws differently. After all, for a politician, the goal isn't the result, it is being able to say "I tried but a judge kicked the law out. Now reelect me."
It doesn't bar them from passing any laws they want. If Florida passes the same law, it has to go through the courts again, and the federal judge in that district thinks the law is kosher, then the law will be legal in Florida. 5 to 10 years later, maybe the Supremes will take it on after a few appeals, maybe not.
And I want to state again, no one outside of California really cares what laws are passed in California, with very few little exceptions. Nothing personal, it's just the way it is for any state, and I have lived in about a dozen. Just as those of us in North Carolina don't care that New York has gun control, we still can get conceal to carry permits, and the lottery is legal 30 miles north in Virginia but not here, so we drive north.
It is listed as The Courts / Games / Politics and placed in the Games area. I would argue against part of the logic used in that decision, since it pertains to First Amendment rights and seems more of a Your Rights Online issue than politics.
/. is getting pretty small lately, and this case has broader impact than just the gaming industry, thus the story deserves better exposure.
;)
The Games section of
Don't worry though, I'm quite confident that Taco will dupe it in another section that gets more traffic
Hmmmmn, somehow, I doubt that someone using a version of IE on a Mac past the end of 2006 is the sort of person who'd be applying security updates in any case.
One example you might not be aware of are intranet applications. We have an inventory order system that REQUIRES IE because of the VB scripting. Not my idea. It will run on any box that uses IE, but the app wont work at all without IE. We don't have a choice but to use IE, patches or no, and our systems are patched very regularly.
The author is almost done with the new version (finally) that is instead written using Javascript and java. Then we can finally move over to Firefox.
While you read as:
Translation: "Perl 6 code will be the most unreadable Perl ever."
This may be explained by the author who called Larry Wall an eccentric linguist .
Maybe the syntax is really just part of an elaborate hoax Larry is playing on us, like an open source reality show.
Cetainly no Iraqi or Afghani would agree
Then why are they turning out in droves to vote?
It's ok if you hate America, just be honest enough to just state that, and perhaps brave enough to not post AC. But most Afghanis and Iraqis don't. No one wants us there forever (including us) but the *majority* are glad we are there, by any polls, by any media.