Only a python fanboy would call python "much cleaner" than ruby (come to think of it though, one area where python does win big is in sheer quantity of fanboys...
Yes, damn that Python. I mean, Ruby is so much cleaner. In Ruby, everything's an object! Wait, no, that's true in Python too. But in Python you have to prepend self to talk about an instance variable, that's ugly! Oh, wait, Ruby uses @ and has self for some cases, too. Hm. Well, Ruby's got all that metaprogramming goodness, surely you can't do that in Python! Er, no, forgot about __metaclass__ (which, by the way, doesn't have an equivalent in Ruby -- you have to monkeypatch the class object after it's created), never mind on that one.
Etc., and so forth. Only a "fanboy" would proclaim one language or the other as being inherently superior; in the long run, the biggest difference between the two is idioms (the languages themselves are remarkably similar once you discount superficial syntax differences; see, for example, Python "fanboy" Alex Martelli explaining how Ruby and Python are far more similar than different). And in doing so you've tipped your hand.
Oh, and be aware, the Django documentation online is for their SVN version!
Well, you can start the tutorial here for the SVN version, or you can read the big warning at the top of the page which links to documentation for the various releases, and find:
So long as you can read large text at the top of every page, and click clearly-offered links, you can read the documentation for dev version, or for any stable release we've ever done.
In the diff that I saw, there was a BSD license notice, and a trailing paragraph saying that the code could also be distributed under GPLv2. The Linux developer apparently took this as meaning that the code could also be distributed under GPLv2 (what gall!), and so changed the file to include a GPLv2 license notice.
There are apparently some questions about exactly what code was covered by the offer of alternate license terms, but they will likely never be resolved because, as soon as it came to his attention, Theo began his usual level-headed practice of screaming obscenities and threatening nuclear war against Linux. The alleged original author of the BSD code tried, at one point, to state that yes, he really did mean it was OK for people to distribute it under GPLv2 and that this was OK with him, but that got lost in the noise.
They're useful for doing in-place file uploads without refreshing the page (e.g., in a web app like Gmail where you'd want to add an attachment to a message), because that's the only way to do that.
China is booming, and the authorities can barely keep it under control.
China has a sword hanging over its head, and the smarter government officials know this (some have rather candidly admitted as much in interviews with Western media). Not a sword of war, but a sword of population; the crunch of America's "Baby Boom" generation retiring will be looked on with nostalgia when China's recent (late-20th-century) population booms reach old age, and state-mandated population control policies leave too few active workers to support them.
Same way you use it with HTML. CSS isn't tied to HTML, and can be applied to pretty much any arbitrary XML you like (using Firefox or Thunderbird? The UI is an XML format -- XUL -- styled with CSS, and has behaviors bound to it via XBL, allowing you to add new features to the application with JavaScript if you like).
Yes, because when you're using VoIP there are absolutely no fees whatsoever involved in maintaining a working Internet connection on both ends, so of course all telecommunications companies will be ruined.
Ah, but now you're just playing semantic tricks. If the licensor was once a licensee then all bets are off but, as Yiddish speakers would say, if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather.
You're missing the first part in licensing. A license is a legally binding agreement between TWO parties. Licensor is supplying software with the expectation that that license be upheld. The licensor in this case is not the sole developer. He has had those rights transferred to him from the respective developers, independent of the GPL. He is free to do that. However, that does not automatically mean that he is not bound by the GPL by those contributions.
You're still missing the part where the licensor is not the licensee. When a project requires assignment of copyright from contributors, they are not receiving that code under the GPL -- they are not receiving it under any license at all, and are instead receiving the copyright itself. Hence, again, licensor is licensor and is never in a situation where he/she/it must accept the terms of the GPL.
This reflects a misunderstanding of mechanics. If you release software with the GPL attached, that software is GPL'd for life. You, as the rightsholder, may distribute software via another license or grant exceptions to the GPL, but you continue to be obligated to honor the GPL on the software with which it was provided. If you choose to release anything under the GPL, you are bound by it. If you release software and declare it GPL but never provide any source, even if you are the original creator, you are violating the GPL.
This reflects such a deep misunderstanding of licensing that I'm not even sure where to begin. But I'll try anyway; let's start with the text of GPLv2, because it's by far the most prevalent version in use. That license defines, up front, the word "you" which is used repeatedly within the text:
Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Now, right off the bat we know who this is directed at: licensees. And we know who it's not directed at: people who are not licensees. The copyright holder, by definition, is never a licensee; instead, the copyright holder is the licensor, the person who grants the license. There is no text anywhere within the terms of the GPL which addresses the licensor or lays any obligation on the licensor in any way, shape or form. So already we have a legally and logically ironclad explanation of the fact that the GPL does not obligate the copyright holder to continue providing source or to obey any of the other terms of the GPL. But let's dig deeper, because you've missed several very important points.
The GPL is a license; it is a grant of privileges from one person to another. It is most emphatically not a contract. A contract is an agreement with consideration and obligations for both sides, while a license is entirely one-sided: licensor grants a privilege, with certain conditions, to licensee. The licensor is not bound by the terms imposed on the licensee and, in fact, if this were the case licenses would be worthless. You've suggested that we consider what would happen if we weren't talking about the GPL, so let's do so: let's assume that instead we're talking about the EULA for Microsoft Windows, which expressly forbids copying, distribution and/or modification of the software. By your argument, Microsoft would be "obligated" by its license terms not to copy, distribute or modify Windows, which is -- however you may feel about proprietary licenses and/or Microsoft -- a patently ludicrous idea. So we have a second strong explanation of the fact that the GPL places no obligations on the copyright holder to abide by its terms. But let's continue.
The GPL is very clear about the situations in which it comes into play, and it works like this:
Ordinarily, when you receive a copy of a copyrighted piece of software, copyright law expressly forbids you taking certain actions with it, among them copying, distributing and modifying the software.
So long as you do not attempt to do any of the things which are ordinarily forbidden by copyright law, the GPL does not restrict you in any way: you are free to run the program for any purpose.
The moment you attempt to do any of those things, however, you are faced with a choice: accept the terms of the GPL, or violate copyright law.
This entire scheme is predicated on the assumption that, as the GPL states, "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works" which, assuming that you are a licensee and that the GPL is the only licensing option available, is generally true. However, that clause of the license begins with a very important sentence: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
What this means is that if the key assumption -- that nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the program or its derivative works -- d
I didn't miss it. I refined it. You ARE obligated to continue offering the source to new licensees. You're NOT obligated to release FUTURE source to new licensees. You don't have to host the files on your public web space, but if the source and binaries are not conveyed in a single package/archive, you must continue to provide the source for three years.
No, you are not obligated to do so when you are the copyright holder to the entirety of the software. Remember that the GPL is a license from the copyright holder, not a contract between the copyright holder and the licensee. The GPL's terms only come into play when:
You received the software under the terms of the GPL, and
You wish to distribute the software or derivative works thereof, and
You have no license or agreement from the copyright holder or any other right, other than the GPL, which would permit you to do so.
When these conditions are met, you may distribute only if you accept and adhere to the terms of the GPL. But if you are the copyright holder these conditions are not met (because you did not receive the software under the GPL and because, as the copyright holder, you have an inherent right, separate from the GPL, to distribute), and so you may distribute without being forced to accept the terms of the GPL. And if you do not ever accept the terms of the GPL, and are never in a situation where you are forced to accept the terms of the GPL, then the terms of the GPL cannot be enforced against you.
In other words, if you are the copyright holder you may distribute the software any way you wish, and you may allow licensees to receive it from you under the terms of the GPL, but you do not ever have to to its terms to do so. This means you may cease distributing it at any time; any licenses you granted up to that point will remain valid, but you are under no obligation from the GPL to continue offering the software to anyone, including your current licensees, because you were never required to accept its terms as a condition of distribution.
You may have missed this line from my original post:
The copyright holder cannot stop anyone who already received a GPL copy from exercising the freedoms granted by the GPL, but the copyright holder is not in any way obligated to continue offering the software to new licensees.
Also, regarding this:
However, any code you released under GPL2 you must continue to provide for three years, per the license agreement.
If I am the copyright holder, I am not required to accept the GPL in order to distribute the software. Licensees who received the software from me must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software, but I -- as the copyright holder -- have a right to distribute separate from that granted by the GPL, which means I am not obligated in any way to continue providing the software if I decide to stop distributing it myself; that clause applies only to someone who must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software.
Below is a post about the GPL, from a retired attorney. The post is on a scox message board, but if you read it, you will see that it also applies to the apple case:
No, it doesn't. Again, it appears that CUPS, like the FSF, maintained a policy of requiring copyright assignment from contributors. Which means Apple would be the free and clear holder of copyright to every single line of code. Not a licensee of that code, not just another distributor or developer of that code, the copyright holder in that code. Which means they can do absolutely anything with it that they like now; they are not in any way obligated to keep the code free into the future, because they are not distributing it under license -- they are distributing it as the copyright holder, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Once something is GPL2, it stays GPL2. You can not take it back, even if you own the copyright. And any code you add, is also GPL2.
No, you're fundamentally misunderstanding both the GPL and how copyright law works. The copyright holder cannot stop anyone who already received a GPL copy from exercising the freedoms granted by the GPL, but the copyright holder is not in any way obligated to continue offering the software to new licensees. The copyright holder is also perfectly free to begin offering a dual-licensing scheme at any point, or to begin offering the software only under a completely different license: offering something once under the GPL, when you are the copyright holder, does not abdicate your right to later change your mind and offer it under a different license instead, or to stop offering it at all. Others who've received GPL copies can continue to modify and distribute per the GPL, but again there is nothing in the GPL which requires the copyright holder to continue offering new licensees the option of the GPL.
If Apple entirely re-writes the CUPS system, then Apple can do whatever they want with the licensing.
No, they don't have to rewrite anything. From what I gather, CUPS has always required assignment of copyright from contributors (much like software maintained by the FSF), which means Apple holds the copyright to all of the CUPS code free and clear. And the GPL does not place any restrictions on the copyright holder which would forbid Apple from switching the licensing scheme.
The common wisdom among folks who know what they're talking about seems to be that lower-end hardware and certain use patterns (lots of single-table stuff or simple joins) favor MySQL, while beefier boxes and different use patterns (complex queries where the Postgres cost-based planner can shine) favor PostgreSQL.
They knew that this person was not guilty of the tort for which they were suing her.
They continued to press the suit while in possession of that knowledge, seeking a monetary settlement from someone who, they assumed, could not afford to fight them in court.
They engaged in tactics which the court in the case found to be illegal (e.g., having their investigator call a child's school and impersonate a family member).
They have a track record which indicates that this was not an isolated occurrence, but rather part of a pattern of deliberate violations of the law and various rules of civil proceedings.
The bad news for the record companies is that the first three items in that list can't really be disputed -- a court has already issued a finding as to their truth. Proving the final item is all that's needed to inflict ruinous damages on the RIAA and its member companies, and there's quite a lot of evidence to back that one up.
To be fair, I saw this earlier this morning when danah (the author) first linked it off her blog (which I read); the announcement there was along the lines of "here's this thing I've been looking into, I don't have anything formal or rigorous yet but I wanted to throw out some thoughts on it real quick", not "this is a serious, finalized paper on the topic".
We are an arrogant people who for some reason think we know everything yet laugh at those who came before us for thinking the very same thing
Then pat yourself on the back for being ahead of the curve: you're arrogantly scoffing at your contemporaries instead of at people in the past. Ain't progress grand?
the petition should have been filed under a different jurisdiction, which Padilla did, and won.
Your link concerns the case of Ali al-Marri, not Jose Padilla; Padilla re-filed in the appropriate jurisdiction, and the 4th Circuit upheld the detention, basing its judgment on the Congressional resolution authorizing use of military force against terrorists and the previous case of Yaser Hamdi.
Padilla was finally transferred back to the civil justice system, but only when the government's chances of surviving further appeals diminished enough that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting it anymore (the 4th-Circuit decision was so bad my grandmother could poke holes in it). However, he still has not had a trial.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant to the President the power to order the indefinite detainment without charge of US citizens, except in times of "rebellion or invasion". We are not undergoing a rebellion or an invasion, therefore an executive order to have someone so detained cannot be "due process". If you prefer "unbridled exercise in dictatorship", however, I'll happily use that instead.
The corporate "standard" is Microsoft Enterprise Windows Email Exchange Protocol Vista Ultimate Edition 2007, not one of those pesky "open" standards that anyone can implement. Only communists use POP and IMAP, you know.
Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process.
Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was first detained as a material witness, then deemed -- by administrative fiat, not by any due process of legal action -- an enemy combatant and transferred to military custody; when his attorney filed a habeas corpus petition, the administration fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, finally winning at that level, and was then challenged again in a different jurisdiction, where a an appeals court deemed Padilla's indefinite detention lawful. Just to be extra safe, last year's Military Commisions Act, helpfully passed just before the Republican party lost its control of Congress, then proceeded to explicitly and absolutely strip away the power of civil courts to hear habeas corpus petitions pertaining to "enemy combatant" detainees, and further stripped the jurisdiction of any civil courts to hear appeals of a military comission's decisions or constitutional challenges of the use of such commissions.
There is no bloody way that's constitutional, but Bush and the former Republican Congress did everything they could to ensure that challenges will take years at the least. Any effective challenge to a detainment would have to begin with the arduous task of getting the Military Commissions act struck down (habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution, and power to hear cases arising under the Constitution is granted to the courts directly by the Constitution with no ability for Congress to take that away), a process which would likely take the rest of this decade and might not even succeed, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps sometime people should see what it is to live in nation without civil liberties.
Some of us would rather never get there in the first place;)
When you see the President daily working to concentrate more and more power into his office at his personal control, when you see an eight-hundred-year-old institution like habeas corpus thrown down and spit upon, when you see our constitutional protection against unreasonable searches thrown out because getting a warrant is just too darned inconvenient, when Congress feels the need to pass a law clarifying the fact that the United States should not torture people (and the President attaches a signing statement saying he'll disregard that if he feels like it), when you see the White House arguing that it should have the power to detain any American citizen indefinitely, without charges or legal due process...
Well, when you see all that you start wondering how much further we really have to go. And you want to stand up and fight it while you still can.
Yeah, right. It's a web browser, if it's not expecting HTML then it needs fixed.
Several things:
The DOCTYPE directive is an SGML construct; HTML (up through version 4) is an SGML application, and the DOCTYPE directive is (one method) used to indicate to SGML tools how they should process a given document.
Web browsers are expected to handle a variety of SGML- and XML-derived (and XML is itself an SGML application) formats already, including things like RSS and Atom feeds and SVG images, as well as arbitrary XML with XSL stylesheets defining display.
Web browsers are not the only types of applications which process these types of documents.
Web browsers are expected to be able to save copies of retrieved documents to disk, after which users may invoke other local applications to process them.
Unrelated to these concerns, most web browsers (including all of the "popular" ones) are able to switch from a backwards-compatible "quirks mode" which is intended for legacy documents to a more modern "standards mode" for documents which follow the HTML and CSS specifications more closely; the switch is accomplished by looking at the DOCTYPE directive (which made quite a lot of sense originally, since only people who'd bothered to follow the specifications would include it correctly).
So, on the whole, using the DOCTYPE directive as is conventional in SGML (or the XML prolog as is conventional in XML) is a good thing and helps make lots of stuff work better.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I'm Django's release manager. I'm in the IRC channel pretty much 24/7, and I know precisely how many people don't read the warning about the tutorial versions.
Yes, damn that Python. I mean, Ruby is so much cleaner. In Ruby, everything's an object! Wait, no, that's true in Python too. But in Python you have to prepend self to talk about an instance variable, that's ugly! Oh, wait, Ruby uses @ and has self for some cases, too. Hm. Well, Ruby's got all that metaprogramming goodness, surely you can't do that in Python! Er, no, forgot about __metaclass__ (which, by the way, doesn't have an equivalent in Ruby -- you have to monkeypatch the class object after it's created), never mind on that one.
Etc., and so forth. Only a "fanboy" would proclaim one language or the other as being inherently superior; in the long run, the biggest difference between the two is idioms (the languages themselves are remarkably similar once you discount superficial syntax differences; see, for example, Python "fanboy" Alex Martelli explaining how Ruby and Python are far more similar than different). And in doing so you've tipped your hand.
Well, you can start the tutorial here for the SVN version, or you can read the big warning at the top of the page which links to documentation for the various releases, and find:
So long as you can read large text at the top of every page, and click clearly-offered links, you can read the documentation for dev version, or for any stable release we've ever done.
In the diff that I saw, there was a BSD license notice, and a trailing paragraph saying that the code could also be distributed under GPLv2. The Linux developer apparently took this as meaning that the code could also be distributed under GPLv2 (what gall!), and so changed the file to include a GPLv2 license notice.
There are apparently some questions about exactly what code was covered by the offer of alternate license terms, but they will likely never be resolved because, as soon as it came to his attention, Theo began his usual level-headed practice of screaming obscenities and threatening nuclear war against Linux. The alleged original author of the BSD code tried, at one point, to state that yes, he really did mean it was OK for people to distribute it under GPLv2 and that this was OK with him, but that got lost in the noise.
They're useful for doing in-place file uploads without refreshing the page (e.g., in a web app like Gmail where you'd want to add an attachment to a message), because that's the only way to do that.
China has a sword hanging over its head, and the smarter government officials know this (some have rather candidly admitted as much in interviews with Western media). Not a sword of war, but a sword of population; the crunch of America's "Baby Boom" generation retiring will be looked on with nostalgia when China's recent (late-20th-century) population booms reach old age, and state-mandated population control policies leave too few active workers to support them.
Same way you use it with HTML. CSS isn't tied to HTML, and can be applied to pretty much any arbitrary XML you like (using Firefox or Thunderbird? The UI is an XML format -- XUL -- styled with CSS, and has behaviors bound to it via XBL, allowing you to add new features to the application with JavaScript if you like).
Yes, because when you're using VoIP there are absolutely no fees whatsoever involved in maintaining a working Internet connection on both ends, so of course all telecommunications companies will be ruined.
Oh. Wait. No, that's not how it works...
Ah, but now you're just playing semantic tricks. If the licensor was once a licensee then all bets are off but, as Yiddish speakers would say, if my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather.
You're still missing the part where the licensor is not the licensee. When a project requires assignment of copyright from contributors, they are not receiving that code under the GPL -- they are not receiving it under any license at all, and are instead receiving the copyright itself. Hence, again, licensor is licensor and is never in a situation where he/she/it must accept the terms of the GPL.
This reflects such a deep misunderstanding of licensing that I'm not even sure where to begin. But I'll try anyway; let's start with the text of GPLv2, because it's by far the most prevalent version in use. That license defines, up front, the word "you" which is used repeatedly within the text:
Now, right off the bat we know who this is directed at: licensees. And we know who it's not directed at: people who are not licensees. The copyright holder, by definition, is never a licensee; instead, the copyright holder is the licensor, the person who grants the license. There is no text anywhere within the terms of the GPL which addresses the licensor or lays any obligation on the licensor in any way, shape or form. So already we have a legally and logically ironclad explanation of the fact that the GPL does not obligate the copyright holder to continue providing source or to obey any of the other terms of the GPL. But let's dig deeper, because you've missed several very important points.
The GPL is a license; it is a grant of privileges from one person to another. It is most emphatically not a contract. A contract is an agreement with consideration and obligations for both sides, while a license is entirely one-sided: licensor grants a privilege, with certain conditions, to licensee. The licensor is not bound by the terms imposed on the licensee and, in fact, if this were the case licenses would be worthless. You've suggested that we consider what would happen if we weren't talking about the GPL, so let's do so: let's assume that instead we're talking about the EULA for Microsoft Windows, which expressly forbids copying, distribution and/or modification of the software. By your argument, Microsoft would be "obligated" by its license terms not to copy, distribute or modify Windows, which is -- however you may feel about proprietary licenses and/or Microsoft -- a patently ludicrous idea. So we have a second strong explanation of the fact that the GPL places no obligations on the copyright holder to abide by its terms. But let's continue.
The GPL is very clear about the situations in which it comes into play, and it works like this:
This entire scheme is predicated on the assumption that, as the GPL states, "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works" which, assuming that you are a licensee and that the GPL is the only licensing option available, is generally true. However, that clause of the license begins with a very important sentence: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
What this means is that if the key assumption -- that nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the program or its derivative works -- d
No, you are not obligated to do so when you are the copyright holder to the entirety of the software. Remember that the GPL is a license from the copyright holder, not a contract between the copyright holder and the licensee. The GPL's terms only come into play when:
When these conditions are met, you may distribute only if you accept and adhere to the terms of the GPL. But if you are the copyright holder these conditions are not met (because you did not receive the software under the GPL and because, as the copyright holder, you have an inherent right, separate from the GPL, to distribute), and so you may distribute without being forced to accept the terms of the GPL. And if you do not ever accept the terms of the GPL, and are never in a situation where you are forced to accept the terms of the GPL, then the terms of the GPL cannot be enforced against you.
In other words, if you are the copyright holder you may distribute the software any way you wish, and you may allow licensees to receive it from you under the terms of the GPL, but you do not ever have to to its terms to do so. This means you may cease distributing it at any time; any licenses you granted up to that point will remain valid, but you are under no obligation from the GPL to continue offering the software to anyone, including your current licensees, because you were never required to accept its terms as a condition of distribution.
You may have missed this line from my original post:
Also, regarding this:
If I am the copyright holder, I am not required to accept the GPL in order to distribute the software. Licensees who received the software from me must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software, but I -- as the copyright holder -- have a right to distribute separate from that granted by the GPL, which means I am not obligated in any way to continue providing the software if I decide to stop distributing it myself; that clause applies only to someone who must accept the GPL in order to distribute the software.
No, it doesn't. Again, it appears that CUPS, like the FSF, maintained a policy of requiring copyright assignment from contributors. Which means Apple would be the free and clear holder of copyright to every single line of code. Not a licensee of that code, not just another distributor or developer of that code, the copyright holder in that code. Which means they can do absolutely anything with it that they like now; they are not in any way obligated to keep the code free into the future, because they are not distributing it under license -- they are distributing it as the copyright holder, and that makes all the difference in the world.
No, you're fundamentally misunderstanding both the GPL and how copyright law works. The copyright holder cannot stop anyone who already received a GPL copy from exercising the freedoms granted by the GPL, but the copyright holder is not in any way obligated to continue offering the software to new licensees. The copyright holder is also perfectly free to begin offering a dual-licensing scheme at any point, or to begin offering the software only under a completely different license: offering something once under the GPL, when you are the copyright holder, does not abdicate your right to later change your mind and offer it under a different license instead, or to stop offering it at all. Others who've received GPL copies can continue to modify and distribute per the GPL, but again there is nothing in the GPL which requires the copyright holder to continue offering new licensees the option of the GPL.
No, they don't have to rewrite anything. From what I gather, CUPS has always required assignment of copyright from contributors (much like software maintained by the FSF), which means Apple holds the copyright to all of the CUPS code free and clear. And the GPL does not place any restrictions on the copyright holder which would forbid Apple from switching the licensing scheme.
Yup; it's fairly well known that MySQL doesn't get as much benefit from additional cores (see, for example, MySQL 5 only showing 6%-14% improvement when going from two cores to four, compared to PostgreSQL jumping 77% in the same situation) and has performance drop-offs beyond certain levels though Josh Berkus of PostgreSQL pointed out in response to that test that Postgres will also top out, just at a higher number of cores), so using a machine with fewer cores can actually favor MySQL.
The common wisdom among folks who know what they're talking about seems to be that lower-end hardware and certain use patterns (lots of single-table stuff or simple joins) favor MySQL, while beefier boxes and different use patterns (complex queries where the Postgres cost-based planner can shine) favor PostgreSQL.
Well...
The bad news for the record companies is that the first three items in that list can't really be disputed -- a court has already issued a finding as to their truth. Proving the final item is all that's needed to inflict ruinous damages on the RIAA and its member companies, and there's quite a lot of evidence to back that one up.
To be fair, I saw this earlier this morning when danah (the author) first linked it off her blog (which I read); the announcement there was along the lines of "here's this thing I've been looking into, I don't have anything formal or rigorous yet but I wanted to throw out some thoughts on it real quick", not "this is a serious, finalized paper on the topic".
Her actual (formally) published work is, as one would expect, of much higher quality.
Then pat yourself on the back for being ahead of the curve: you're arrogantly scoffing at your contemporaries instead of at people in the past. Ain't progress grand?
Your link concerns the case of Ali al-Marri, not Jose Padilla; Padilla re-filed in the appropriate jurisdiction, and the 4th Circuit upheld the detention, basing its judgment on the Congressional resolution authorizing use of military force against terrorists and the previous case of Yaser Hamdi.
Padilla was finally transferred back to the civil justice system, but only when the government's chances of surviving further appeals diminished enough that it wasn't worth the cost of fighting it anymore (the 4th-Circuit decision was so bad my grandmother could poke holes in it). However, he still has not had a trial.
The Constitution of the United States does not grant to the President the power to order the indefinite detainment without charge of US citizens, except in times of "rebellion or invasion". We are not undergoing a rebellion or an invasion, therefore an executive order to have someone so detained cannot be "due process". If you prefer "unbridled exercise in dictatorship", however, I'll happily use that instead.
The corporate "standard" is Microsoft Enterprise Windows Email Exchange Protocol Vista Ultimate Edition 2007, not one of those pesky "open" standards that anyone can implement. Only communists use POP and IMAP, you know.
Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was first detained as a material witness, then deemed -- by administrative fiat, not by any due process of legal action -- an enemy combatant and transferred to military custody; when his attorney filed a habeas corpus petition, the administration fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, finally winning at that level, and was then challenged again in a different jurisdiction, where a an appeals court deemed Padilla's indefinite detention lawful. Just to be extra safe, last year's Military Commisions Act, helpfully passed just before the Republican party lost its control of Congress, then proceeded to explicitly and absolutely strip away the power of civil courts to hear habeas corpus petitions pertaining to "enemy combatant" detainees, and further stripped the jurisdiction of any civil courts to hear appeals of a military comission's decisions or constitutional challenges of the use of such commissions.
There is no bloody way that's constitutional, but Bush and the former Republican Congress did everything they could to ensure that challenges will take years at the least. Any effective challenge to a detainment would have to begin with the arduous task of getting the Military Commissions act struck down (habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution, and power to hear cases arising under the Constitution is granted to the courts directly by the Constitution with no ability for Congress to take that away), a process which would likely take the rest of this decade and might not even succeed, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
Some of us would rather never get there in the first place ;)
When you see the President daily working to concentrate more and more power into his office at his personal control, when you see an eight-hundred-year-old institution like habeas corpus thrown down and spit upon, when you see our constitutional protection against unreasonable searches thrown out because getting a warrant is just too darned inconvenient, when Congress feels the need to pass a law clarifying the fact that the United States should not torture people (and the President attaches a signing statement saying he'll disregard that if he feels like it), when you see the White House arguing that it should have the power to detain any American citizen indefinitely, without charges or legal due process...
Well, when you see all that you start wondering how much further we really have to go. And you want to stand up and fight it while you still can.
Several things:
So, on the whole, using the DOCTYPE directive as is conventional in SGML (or the XML prolog as is conventional in XML) is a good thing and helps make lots of stuff work better.