You'd probably have a point there if every single Windows app didn't ship with 42 DLLs that only work with/for that particular app, providing a shim between the app and the OS. In contrast, Linux apps are actually expected to interface with shared libraries not directly under the particular app developers control.
I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows Han shot first, it's right there on the DVD, which is exactly the same as what was on the VHS tape.
My stuff will be in boxes when I die for my people to do with as they please.
Damn right. I don't expect to live long enough to be a burden on my children, but I can get even by leaving them an attic and basement full of random shit for them to sort through.
Let's talk about (movie) films on cellulose. Or old paintings. Or manuscripts. Or textiles. Or samurai sords. Things degrade if someone doesn't care (and continue to care) that they stay whole and in good condition. One generation of neglect and a priceless masterpiece can be lost for all time. At least with digital we can preserve a true and perfect copy.
You are so right. The 9/11 hijackers did change the rules, and now the flying public knows: don't co-operate. Of course meanwhile, the cop-types started using "Hey, it's a different world" as their excuse for whatever curtailment of rights or legal corner-cutting they had in mind. And while it is technically possible to scale back the TSA without sacrificing actual security, the fact is anybody who even suggests it will be crucified by the Right as being "Soft on Communism^WTerrorism".
Or the shoe/underwear/toner cartridge bombers could be what they were before 9/11 - crackpots; and the TSA could be using them for the "See? We told you so, terrists - but we're keeping you safe!" publicity value.
"Slippery slope" is a pretty lame argument in the face of grannies in wheelchairs having their colostomy bags searched, and toddlers having their sippy cups taken away, and a thousand other stupid anecdotes we've all heard. The REAL problem with TSA isn't necessarily the screening itself, which could be done pretty inconspicuously, but the sheer ostentation of going through a glacially slow-moving "security" checkpoint run by thugs and bullies.
In the first place, I acknowledge that you (jmorris42) using "Democrat delenda est" ("Democrat must be destroyed") as your sig self-identifies you as a reactionary who is as amenable to reason and rational discourse as a cornered wolverine, but hey, it's my breath to waste.
I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd have led with Brown v. Board of Education as your poster child for "bad bad liberal bad socialist bad bad judicial activism - only bad bad liberals and bad bad socialists do it"; but then, I don't suppose you have that much intellectual honesty. So, as you suggest, we'll take Roe v. Wade as "Data Point 1". You say:
There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. How ever much we might like that idea, the only way for it to be there is to add an amendment because right now it just ain't there.
Actually, as the 9th Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, It doesn't "have to be there" (enumerated) to exist. That would be YOU, being 100% completely wrong. Simply because "privacy" (whatever that might mean) is not explicitly stated as a (specific, named) Right under the Constitution, does not mean that it does not exist, nor should it be disparaged simply because it is not named by name. That's what the 9th Amendment says. Get it? Get it? It's the same kind of "just because we didn't mention it by name..." language as used in the 10th Amendment. I won't go into the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the argument because I know how much the "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." part enrages the "hold my breath until I turn blue" Congressional conservative crowd. Besides, that's Reconstruction, not actual Bill of Rights. Point is, you're wrong: it don't have to be stated, and it don't need an Amendment for "privacy" (non-interference by government in people's private lives) to exist and be enforceable.
What really makes me laugh is how worked up conservatives get about Roe, especially when the (stated) gist of the Court's decision was "It's none of the Government's goddamn business, let the individual person decide". To me, it's the height of hypocrisy (and howlingly funny) how loudly conservatives want the Government to stay out of everybody's business, except when they want the Government to dictate things (usually legislated morality) they (the conservatives) want to shove down everybody's throat. It's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.
On to Citizen's United and Heller.
In the first place, I'll let you have Heller, simply because I know (and acknowledge as being a Good Thing) that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) in general, pretty much explicitly state that the government of this country (which was founded on armed revolution) shall rule at the consent of an armed populace. Again, I think that's a Good Thing. I like to reserve that right on principle, besides, the way things are going, I might have to exercise it. Besides, just because YOU brought it up doesn't mean I have to champion it. If Heller makes you thump your chest in victory, you go right ahead.
Citizen's United
...the court did nothing more than say, "yup the 1st and 2nd Amendments still say exactly when they said and were understood to have meant when written.'
Um, no. It (Citizen's) goes a damn sight farther than that. In the first place, it declares that MONEY is SPEECH. Which it ain't. Obviously.
Based on this, and your previous "kill your kids" post, I can only say that you're a fool. And a liar. And a fool. And a liar. Do society a favor. Put a gun in your mouth.
Google will settle with the FTC for nearly $22.5 million over its bypassing of Apple's Safari browser privacy settings. Google, [????] the largest settlement with [the] FTC over privacy related charges ever. By abusing [a] privacy hole in Safari, Google circumvented user settings to show them [the user settings] advertising and track the users, 'Safari, unlike other browsers, blocks cookies from ad networks like Google's. But because of a loophole[^Wvulnerability], Google had been able to avoid[^Wcircumvent] the block, as researchers discovered in February. It [the loophole/Google/the block/researchers] installed cookies and tracked Safari users across the Web to show them personalized ads.'
I don't agree at all. "Pornography", "obscenity", and "cool" are all very personal, subjective concepts, without any kind of fixed definition. The "prevailing community standards" is as close as we are able to come. If "cool" had a fixed definition, we'd all have eyebrow studs and earlobe expanders; or maybe Italian penny loafers and silk ties. In the case of Apple, many of their products are considered unutterably cool by their customer base, but just kind of "meh" by the computer industry at large. Perhaps if the judge had used the term "cachet" instead of "cool", it might make for a more understandable legal opinion.
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
--Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.
Neither you nor the parent remember any history at all. The only reason that the SSC was sited in the DFW area is because Jim Wright (the Representative from DFW) just happened to be the Speaker of the House at the time. Everybody else on the planet wanted to site it at Fermilab, and use the existing equipment in situ, rather than starting from scratch. So, once again, politics trumped engineering.
And by that you mean "acceptable to the health insurance lobby". Partly I blame this as a failure of marketing. Had they simply touted the public option as "Medicare for everybody" we'd have that instead of this hlaf-assed compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd probably have a point there if every single Windows app didn't ship with 42 DLLs that only work with/for that particular app, providing a shim between the app and the OS. In contrast, Linux apps are actually expected to interface with shared libraries not directly under the particular app developers control.
Soccer balls are not regular polyhedrons. Nor are they spheres.
I've never seen an IDE that didn't annoy the hell out of the coders.
My wife and I have promised to come to their houses for dinner and say "I don't like it" before we taste it - and fight at the table.
I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows Han shot first, it's right there on the DVD, which is exactly the same as what was on the VHS tape.
Damn right. I don't expect to live long enough to be a burden on my children, but I can get even by leaving them an attic and basement full of random shit for them to sort through.
Let's talk about (movie) films on cellulose. Or old paintings. Or manuscripts. Or textiles. Or samurai sords. Things degrade if someone doesn't care (and continue to care) that they stay whole and in good condition. One generation of neglect and a priceless masterpiece can be lost for all time. At least with digital we can preserve a true and perfect copy.
You are so right. The 9/11 hijackers did change the rules, and now the flying public knows: don't co-operate. Of course meanwhile, the cop-types started using "Hey, it's a different world" as their excuse for whatever curtailment of rights or legal corner-cutting they had in mind. And while it is technically possible to scale back the TSA without sacrificing actual security, the fact is anybody who even suggests it will be crucified by the Right as being "Soft on Communism^WTerrorism".
Or the shoe/underwear/toner cartridge bombers could be what they were before 9/11 - crackpots; and the TSA could be using them for the "See? We told you so, terrists - but we're keeping you safe!" publicity value.
"Slippery slope" is a pretty lame argument in the face of grannies in wheelchairs having their colostomy bags searched, and toddlers having their sippy cups taken away, and a thousand other stupid anecdotes we've all heard. The REAL problem with TSA isn't necessarily the screening itself, which could be done pretty inconspicuously, but the sheer ostentation of going through a glacially slow-moving "security" checkpoint run by thugs and bullies.
I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd have led with Brown v. Board of Education as your poster child for "bad bad liberal bad socialist bad bad judicial activism - only bad bad liberals and bad bad socialists do it"; but then, I don't suppose you have that much intellectual honesty. So, as you suggest, we'll take Roe v. Wade as "Data Point 1". You say:
Actually, as the 9th Amendment states:
In other words, It doesn't "have to be there" (enumerated) to exist. That would be YOU, being 100% completely wrong. Simply because "privacy" (whatever that might mean) is not explicitly stated as a (specific, named) Right under the Constitution, does not mean that it does not exist, nor should it be disparaged simply because it is not named by name. That's what the 9th Amendment says. Get it? Get it? It's the same kind of "just because we didn't mention it by name..." language as used in the 10th Amendment. I won't go into the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part of the argument because I know how much the "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." part enrages the "hold my breath until I turn blue" Congressional conservative crowd. Besides, that's Reconstruction, not actual Bill of Rights. Point is, you're wrong: it don't have to be stated, and it don't need an Amendment for "privacy" (non-interference by government in people's private lives) to exist and be enforceable.
What really makes me laugh is how worked up conservatives get about Roe, especially when the (stated) gist of the Court's decision was "It's none of the Government's goddamn business, let the individual person decide". To me, it's the height of hypocrisy (and howlingly funny) how loudly conservatives want the Government to stay out of everybody's business, except when they want the Government to dictate things (usually legislated morality) they (the conservatives) want to shove down everybody's throat. It's always different when the shoe is on the other foot.
On to Citizen's United and Heller.
In the first place, I'll let you have Heller, simply because I know (and acknowledge as being a Good Thing) that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution) in general, pretty much explicitly state that the government of this country (which was founded on armed revolution) shall rule at the consent of an armed populace. Again, I think that's a Good Thing. I like to reserve that right on principle, besides, the way things are going, I might have to exercise it. Besides, just because YOU brought it up doesn't mean I have to champion it. If Heller makes you thump your chest in victory, you go right ahead.
Citizen's United
Um, no. It (Citizen's) goes a damn sight farther than that. In the first place, it declares that MONEY is SPEECH. Which it ain't. Obviously.
Based on this, and your previous "kill your kids" post, I can only say that you're a fool. And a liar. And a fool. And a liar. Do society a favor. Put a gun in your mouth.
I always preferred Crunchy Frogs myself...
You may have heard of the "Republican Party".
In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine. That's why it's "needed".
If I'm not mistaken, something along the lines of:
"My signature is bad Latin because stupid people think it sounds clever."
Ve haf vays to make you submit to full body scans. <puffs cigarette>
Shit. And me without mod points. You hit the nail right on the head. Thanks for the insight.
Google will settle with the FTC for nearly $22.5 million over its bypassing of Apple's Safari browser privacy settings. Google, [????] the largest settlement with [the] FTC over privacy related charges ever. By abusing [a] privacy hole in Safari, Google circumvented user settings to show them [the user settings] advertising and track the users, 'Safari, unlike other browsers, blocks cookies from ad networks like Google's. But because of a loophole[^Wvulnerability], Google had been able to avoid[^Wcircumvent] the block, as researchers discovered in February. It [the loophole/Google/the block/researchers] installed cookies and tracked Safari users across the Web to show them personalized ads.'
I don't agree at all. "Pornography", "obscenity", and "cool" are all very personal, subjective concepts, without any kind of fixed definition. The "prevailing community standards" is as close as we are able to come. If "cool" had a fixed definition, we'd all have eyebrow studs and earlobe expanders; or maybe Italian penny loafers and silk ties. In the case of Apple, many of their products are considered unutterably cool by their customer base, but just kind of "meh" by the computer industry at large. Perhaps if the judge had used the term "cachet" instead of "cool", it might make for a more understandable legal opinion.
Looks like you didn't notice that Einsteinium atom in the background sticking its tongue out.
Two women are in a room. Which one is smarter?
The one with the smaller breasts.
Neither you nor the parent remember any history at all. The only reason that the SSC was sited in the DFW area is because Jim Wright (the Representative from DFW) just happened to be the Speaker of the House at the time. Everybody else on the planet wanted to site it at Fermilab, and use the existing equipment in situ, rather than starting from scratch. So, once again, politics trumped engineering.
And by that you mean "acceptable to the health insurance lobby". Partly I blame this as a failure of marketing. Had they simply touted the public option as "Medicare for everybody" we'd have that instead of this hlaf-assed compromise.
Riiiight. Same as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller are remembered as great philanthropists.