Illegal aliens have ALWAYS been counted in the census, regardless of who was in charge. Stop watching Fox Noise and go do some reading, starting with the Constitution. It says nothing about citizenship or immigration status. The present controlling language is in the 14th Amendment:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Even knowing how ignorant people are, it still amazes me how many bitch and moan about the federal government's actions without bothering to check the Constitution -- the owner's manual for our nation -- to see what it has to say.
I'm going to make a radical statement about Java applications. It's not about Java itself, and it's not based on benchmarks, but from 10+ years of using Java applications. Here it is:
Java apps are slow.
This is invariable. Every "end-user" (that is, not server-side) Java application I have ever used just _crawls_. (I don't much care about server-side; within certain bounds, I subscribe to "hardware is cheap" in that area, so I'm more concerned with scalability.)
Now, there are three likely causes to the phenomenon of universal turtle-ness in applications written in a given language:
1) The language is fundamentally flawed.
2) The implementations are flawed.
3) People don't know how to write fast code in that language.
When I talk to Java partisans, option #3 is by far the most common, and option #2 is also frequently used. Then there's blabbering about how widely used Java is.
What none of them seem to understand is that it's been fifteen years. If #2 and #3 were going to be fixed, one would think it would have happened by now.
There are two possible conclusions to take from this:
1) The language is so fundamentally flawed that producing fast code is prohibitively difficult, even if it's theoretically possible.
2) The language's community, and its stewards, don't care about producing fast code.
Neither is particularly flattering, to Java, and either way, it's going to continue to be ridiculed as "slow" until the average Java app's performance begins to approach the average C++ app's performance. So far, I've seen no evidence of that occurring.
Or even if their wives know, maybe their children don't.
And it's not just intra-family issues. For example, would you want a future employer to know if you had a past drug problem? Maybe you want to run for political office one day; details of visits to prostitutes might be of extreme interest to the media.
Yes, extreme cases. Refusing to evict a rent-paying tenant because a bank wants to let a house sit empty and unsold in a rapidly-shrinking economy is not such a case.
Even if Federal interests were implicated, the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts place severe restrictions on the ability of the President to use military forces (including federalized national guard units) for law enforcement. There essentially has to be an insurrection or disturbance of sufficient severity that the state cannot enforce order. Eisenhower got away with it in 1957 because the Governor of Georgia tried to use Georgia's national guard to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, giving a pretty good argument for insurrection.
When Governor George Wallace tried to block enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama in 1963, there was no national guard involved, and the DoJ sent a Deputy Attorney General and US Marshals.
Now, they could try using US Marshals for eviction without hitting the Posse Comitatus Act, but even then, the federal government's jurisdiction would be murky at best, particularly if there is no bankruptcy case involved. Eviction proceedings and real property rights are primarily a state matter. One could reasonably argue that the bank's Fifth Amendment rights against property being taken are being infringed, but they are receiving compensation in the form of rent, making the applicability of the Takings Clause arguable (the court would have to decide that it doesn't meet the requirement of "just compensation").
The best argument is probably due process -- the bank isn't really getting any. But, until the bank exhausts state remedies (that is, state courts and higher law enforcement have all declined to intervene), federal courts and the President would be unlikely to involve themselves.
Again, you're relying on the target of the writ to comply, or on the ability and (again), willingness of someone else to enforce his compliance. And again, usually this works. Sometimes it doesn't. The law is not magical, it relies on the general assent and cooperation of people, and sometimes, people don't assent and cooperate.
If the sheriff refuses to evict a tenant, and mass public opinion is behind him, who exactly do you expect to *make* him evict the tenant?
One of the checks and balances lies in the fact that "executives" (this effectively includes sheriffs) can decline to execute. This is unusual, as there will often be political consequences, in the form of lost elections, recall efforts, or in some circumstances, impeachment, but civil or criminal consequences are exceedingly rare and apply only in certain extraordinary cases.
And even if there are non-political consequences in a given case, you're still relying on executives to enforce those consequences.
In the end, governments (and for that matter, business, military, or any other large organization) function because most of the time, in most of the cases, the people involved will carry out "lawful orders" even if they disagree with them. Sometimes you reach a breaking point where someone isn't willing to do that. What happens then depends on many factors, but public opinion is a often a big one.
CDs and DVDs have never been exempt from sales tax online -- ever, in any state. If your state has sales tax that applies to CDs and DVDs and you haven't paid it for discs you ordered online, you are in violation of the law. Read up on sales taxes -- if the retailer doesn't collect it, it's your responsibility to pay it yourself.
This is not another tax, it's closing a loophole in an existing one.
This 4% rate is exactly identical to the state sales tax rate for everything else in New York. Hell, they're being ridiculously nice -- it's half what you'd actually pay in most cities (which add their own rate, usually in the vicinity of 3-5%, on top of the state rate).
The fact that downloads don't get taxed in some states is a bizarre anomaly, and has no logical basis. CDs and DVDs are not exempt from sales tax, exempting their online counterparts is wildly inconsistent. Argue all you want about the merits of taxes in general or sales taxes in particular, but there's nothing remarkable here. Just a state closing a silly loophole.
The fact that they're running off a single T1 would seem to imply that the "Washington" being referred to is Washington State, not D.C. (since the latter is unlikely to have anywhere in it that it's not far easier and more economical to go for DSL or another more modern solution, yet there are many such places in Washington State).
That being the case, some small schools, particularly in eastern parts of the state, may have difficulty getting any sort of television signal. Check out a map, we've got an awful lot of empty space up here.
AAC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding ) is an industry standard, and even if it weren't, iTunes helpfully provides a "Convert to MP3" item in the context menu of non-DRM'd AAC files that does exactly what it says.
That timeline was based on the idea that the panels would be unusable due to dust buildup. Circular reasoning, anyone?
NASA put people on the moon with a tin can and a few thousand transistors. Anyone who thinks the engineers couldn't have come up with a solution to remove dust from solar panels on Mars that would be practical and cost-effective over a multi-year mission timeline is insane.
The lack of a cleaning mechanism doesn't reflect the unique challenges of the Martian environment, it reflects only the horrific mismanagement of the space program since Apollo.
Prepared (or parametrized) statements are an easy and absolute defense against SQL injection attacks. The OP is right, the fact that such attacks still succeed is disgusting and inexcusable.
Not an easy question, but best guess is that the company with which the non-compete was signed is probably screwed either way.
In the former case (getting a job in California), it likely winds up in Federal court due to diversity of citizenship, and the court notes that as a matter of public policy, such contracts are unenforceable in California. The original company is probably screwed.
In the latter, of getting a job outside of California having signed a non-compete in California, it is likely that the issue would again wind up in Federal court and that the court would declare the contract unenforceable since it was illegal at the time of its execution (in California). Again, the company is probably screwed.
> It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
Not completely true. It is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of rulings from other jurisdictions that they are not technically bound by. Good examples are courts attempting to interpret potentially-ambiguous clauses of law common to multiple states (think Uniform Commercial Code), particularly if those clauses have not been commonly-reviewed in the state they're in.
This of course is a more specialized case where California law is rather different from most states', but in states that have similar or more ambiguous laws, or in odd cross-jurisdictional cases, it's very possible that this ruling may influence decisions in non-California courts.
How much support does Microsoft give you for those purchase prices without paying more for additional support? Almost none? I thought so.
What parts of the system does Microsoft's support cover? Just the core OS, which is largely useless by itself? Yeah...
What does Ubuntu's support cover? Well, it's for a year, and it includes the "core" OS and all of the hundreds of applications that come with it.
How much would you pay for Windows with a year of core OS support, plus a year of support for several major third-party applicationswithout which you can't really do anything? Thousands? Perhaps tens of thousands?
They're not as dramatic as locking everyone in a room until they're done, but in most legislative bodies, there are ways to make life deeply unpleasant. The tactics tend to require the cooperation of the speaker/chair/president/whathaveyou of the body and a sizable minority of members to be truly effective, though.
Running a single binary on multiple operating systems is nothing special, and has been done for years, if not decades, and is not even remotely unique to Linux. It's nothing more than a question of supporting the necessary executable formats (semi-trivial) and ABIs (far from trivial). See, for instance, iBCS, WINE, and even Java and.NET. Strictly understood, however, binary compatibility is only a small part of the picture.
Installation/setup, package management, network configuration, GUI, assorted hardware configuration, user management, automated deployment, init/service management, filesystem layout. All of these and more can and do differ from one "distribution" to the next, and are a major part of what differentiates operating systems. Expecting some sort of utopia where an application developed on one "distribution" will be trivially installable and usable on all the others is incredibly naïve.
Incidentally, the XP->Vista analogy is just silly. If RHEL5 won't run some (non-system-level) application that RHEL4 did just fine, you might have a case. But we're not talking about subsequent versions of the same "distribution", we're talking about different "distributions" from different people/companies developed in parallel (and then on dissimilar schedules) toward different goals.
Demanding that everyone be the same so that you don't have to worry about choice is selfish, ignorant, and lazy. If you want to be locked into one path where you don't have to think for yourself, you know where to go.
I don't understand this continued fallacy of the "Linux distribution". They've differentiated themselves far too much to still be looked at as simple customizations of the same OS.
They're _different operating systems_. The fact that they share a lot of common code doesn't change that. From a user perspective, they should simply be viewed as, at most, individual members of the Unix/POSIX-like family.
The common code should be of interest primarily to developers and sysadmins, in that it means they can use mostly-common APIs and transfer knowledge of some of the inner workings across OSs.
This is what makes it funny to me every time someone talks about installing software that isn't packaged for their "distribution". Do you whine about how hard it is to install an OS X application on Windows or vice-versa?
If by "several" you mean "several owned by VeriSign", you're correct. They operate under multiple brands and have purchased a number of other major certificate authorities over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now I know which browser to avoid. Thanks for the warning!
Illegal aliens have ALWAYS been counted in the census, regardless of who was in charge. Stop watching Fox Noise and go do some reading, starting with the Constitution. It says nothing about citizenship or immigration status. The present controlling language is in the 14th Amendment:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Even knowing how ignorant people are, it still amazes me how many bitch and moan about the federal government's actions without bothering to check the Constitution -- the owner's manual for our nation -- to see what it has to say.
Code theft is somebody lifting your wallet. Malware is somebody punching you in the face first.
So yeah, there is a big difference. Malware is worse.
I'm going to make a radical statement about Java applications. It's not about Java itself, and it's not based on benchmarks, but from 10+ years of using Java applications. Here it is:
Java apps are slow.
This is invariable. Every "end-user" (that is, not server-side) Java application I have ever used just _crawls_. (I don't much care about server-side; within certain bounds, I subscribe to "hardware is cheap" in that area, so I'm more concerned with scalability.)
Now, there are three likely causes to the phenomenon of universal turtle-ness in applications written in a given language:
1) The language is fundamentally flawed.
2) The implementations are flawed.
3) People don't know how to write fast code in that language.
When I talk to Java partisans, option #3 is by far the most common, and option #2 is also frequently used. Then there's blabbering about how widely used Java is.
What none of them seem to understand is that it's been fifteen years. If #2 and #3 were going to be fixed, one would think it would have happened by now.
There are two possible conclusions to take from this:
1) The language is so fundamentally flawed that producing fast code is prohibitively difficult, even if it's theoretically possible.
2) The language's community, and its stewards, don't care about producing fast code.
Neither is particularly flattering, to Java, and either way, it's going to continue to be ridiculed as "slow" until the average Java app's performance begins to approach the average C++ app's performance. So far, I've seen no evidence of that occurring.
25KB of navigational HTML implies a rather more fundamental flaw.
Or even if their wives know, maybe their children don't.
And it's not just intra-family issues. For example, would you want a future employer to know if you had a past drug problem? Maybe you want to run for political office one day; details of visits to prostitutes might be of extreme interest to the media.
Yes, extreme cases. Refusing to evict a rent-paying tenant because a bank wants to let a house sit empty and unsold in a rapidly-shrinking economy is not such a case.
Even if Federal interests were implicated, the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts place severe restrictions on the ability of the President to use military forces (including federalized national guard units) for law enforcement. There essentially has to be an insurrection or disturbance of sufficient severity that the state cannot enforce order. Eisenhower got away with it in 1957 because the Governor of Georgia tried to use Georgia's national guard to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, giving a pretty good argument for insurrection.
When Governor George Wallace tried to block enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama in 1963, there was no national guard involved, and the DoJ sent a Deputy Attorney General and US Marshals.
Now, they could try using US Marshals for eviction without hitting the Posse Comitatus Act, but even then, the federal government's jurisdiction would be murky at best, particularly if there is no bankruptcy case involved. Eviction proceedings and real property rights are primarily a state matter. One could reasonably argue that the bank's Fifth Amendment rights against property being taken are being infringed, but they are receiving compensation in the form of rent, making the applicability of the Takings Clause arguable (the court would have to decide that it doesn't meet the requirement of "just compensation").
The best argument is probably due process -- the bank isn't really getting any. But, until the bank exhausts state remedies (that is, state courts and higher law enforcement have all declined to intervene), federal courts and the President would be unlikely to involve themselves.
Again, you're relying on the target of the writ to comply, or on the ability and (again), willingness of someone else to enforce his compliance. And again, usually this works. Sometimes it doesn't. The law is not magical, it relies on the general assent and cooperation of people, and sometimes, people don't assent and cooperate.
If the sheriff refuses to evict a tenant, and mass public opinion is behind him, who exactly do you expect to *make* him evict the tenant?
One of the checks and balances lies in the fact that "executives" (this effectively includes sheriffs) can decline to execute. This is unusual, as there will often be political consequences, in the form of lost elections, recall efforts, or in some circumstances, impeachment, but civil or criminal consequences are exceedingly rare and apply only in certain extraordinary cases.
And even if there are non-political consequences in a given case, you're still relying on executives to enforce those consequences.
In the end, governments (and for that matter, business, military, or any other large organization) function because most of the time, in most of the cases, the people involved will carry out "lawful orders" even if they disagree with them. Sometimes you reach a breaking point where someone isn't willing to do that. What happens then depends on many factors, but public opinion is a often a big one.
CDs and DVDs have never been exempt from sales tax online -- ever, in any state. If your state has sales tax that applies to CDs and DVDs and you haven't paid it for discs you ordered online, you are in violation of the law. Read up on sales taxes -- if the retailer doesn't collect it, it's your responsibility to pay it yourself.
This is not another tax, it's closing a loophole in an existing one.
This 4% rate is exactly identical to the state sales tax rate for everything else in New York. Hell, they're being ridiculously nice -- it's half what you'd actually pay in most cities (which add their own rate, usually in the vicinity of 3-5%, on top of the state rate).
The fact that downloads don't get taxed in some states is a bizarre anomaly, and has no logical basis. CDs and DVDs are not exempt from sales tax, exempting their online counterparts is wildly inconsistent. Argue all you want about the merits of taxes in general or sales taxes in particular, but there's nothing remarkable here. Just a state closing a silly loophole.
This is called theft, there is no other word for it. File a police report immediately.
The fact that they're running off a single T1 would seem to imply that the "Washington" being referred to is Washington State, not D.C. (since the latter is unlikely to have anywhere in it that it's not far easier and more economical to go for DSL or another more modern solution, yet there are many such places in Washington State).
That being the case, some small schools, particularly in eastern parts of the state, may have difficulty getting any sort of television signal. Check out a map, we've got an awful lot of empty space up here.
AAC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding ) is an industry standard, and even if it weren't, iTunes helpfully provides a "Convert to MP3" item in the context menu of non-DRM'd AAC files that does exactly what it says.
That timeline was based on the idea that the panels would be unusable due to dust buildup. Circular reasoning, anyone?
NASA put people on the moon with a tin can and a few thousand transistors. Anyone who thinks the engineers couldn't have come up with a solution to remove dust from solar panels on Mars that would be practical and cost-effective over a multi-year mission timeline is insane.
The lack of a cleaning mechanism doesn't reflect the unique challenges of the Martian environment, it reflects only the horrific mismanagement of the space program since Apollo.
You're right, you're no programmer. Go read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection
Prepared (or parametrized) statements are an easy and absolute defense against SQL injection attacks. The OP is right, the fact that such attacks still succeed is disgusting and inexcusable.
Wouldn't most/all of those phones have C underneath the Java?
Most of whom, exactly?
Not an easy question, but best guess is that the company with which the non-compete was signed is probably screwed either way.
In the former case (getting a job in California), it likely winds up in Federal court due to diversity of citizenship, and the court notes that as a matter of public policy, such contracts are unenforceable in California. The original company is probably screwed.
In the latter, of getting a job outside of California having signed a non-compete in California, it is likely that the issue would again wind up in Federal court and that the court would declare the contract unenforceable since it was illegal at the time of its execution (in California). Again, the company is probably screwed.
> It is perfectly clear how this ruling will affect them: not at all. They are not California.
Not completely true. It is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of rulings from other jurisdictions that they are not technically bound by. Good examples are courts attempting to interpret potentially-ambiguous clauses of law common to multiple states (think Uniform Commercial Code), particularly if those clauses have not been commonly-reviewed in the state they're in.
This of course is a more specialized case where California law is rather different from most states', but in states that have similar or more ambiguous laws, or in odd cross-jurisdictional cases, it's very possible that this ruling may influence decisions in non-California courts.
How much support does Microsoft give you for those purchase prices without paying more for additional support? Almost none? I thought so.
What parts of the system does Microsoft's support cover? Just the core OS, which is largely useless by itself? Yeah...
What does Ubuntu's support cover? Well, it's for a year, and it includes the "core" OS and all of the hundreds of applications that come with it.
How much would you pay for Windows with a year of core OS support, plus a year of support for several major third-party applicationswithout which you can't really do anything? Thousands? Perhaps tens of thousands?
Where's the problem again?
They're not as dramatic as locking everyone in a room until they're done, but in most legislative bodies, there are ways to make life deeply unpleasant. The tactics tend to require the cooperation of the speaker/chair/president/whathaveyou of the body and a sizable minority of members to be truly effective, though.
Running a single binary on multiple operating systems is nothing special, and has been done for years, if not decades, and is not even remotely unique to Linux. It's nothing more than a question of supporting the necessary executable formats (semi-trivial) and ABIs (far from trivial). See, for instance, iBCS, WINE, and even Java and .NET. Strictly understood, however, binary compatibility is only a small part of the picture.
Installation/setup, package management, network configuration, GUI, assorted hardware configuration, user management, automated deployment, init/service management, filesystem layout. All of these and more can and do differ from one "distribution" to the next, and are a major part of what differentiates operating systems. Expecting some sort of utopia where an application developed on one "distribution" will be trivially installable and usable on all the others is incredibly naïve.
Incidentally, the XP->Vista analogy is just silly. If RHEL5 won't run some (non-system-level) application that RHEL4 did just fine, you might have a case. But we're not talking about subsequent versions of the same "distribution", we're talking about different "distributions" from different people/companies developed in parallel (and then on dissimilar schedules) toward different goals.
Demanding that everyone be the same so that you don't have to worry about choice is selfish, ignorant, and lazy. If you want to be locked into one path where you don't have to think for yourself, you know where to go.
I don't understand this continued fallacy of the "Linux distribution". They've differentiated themselves far too much to still be looked at as simple customizations of the same OS.
They're _different operating systems_. The fact that they share a lot of common code doesn't change that. From a user perspective, they should simply be viewed as, at most, individual members of the Unix/POSIX-like family.
The common code should be of interest primarily to developers and sysadmins, in that it means they can use mostly-common APIs and transfer knowledge of some of the inner workings across OSs.
This is what makes it funny to me every time someone talks about installing software that isn't packaged for their "distribution". Do you whine about how hard it is to install an OS X application on Windows or vice-versa?
If by "several" you mean "several owned by VeriSign", you're correct. They operate under multiple brands and have purchased a number of other major certificate authorities over the years.