Actually the distinction is alien unlawful enemy combatant.
Fine, very well. Now, explain to me how the government decides that person x is an "alien unlawful enemy combatant", in terms that match the principles of justice that have governed the country for over 200 years now.
Oh and congress created the 'fake label' not the administration
Bush was using the label long before Congress passed any laws about it.
I'm talking about 'ownership' of a bit of data used within a software system, you're talking about a full fledged, standalone software application, they're two different things.
There's no such thing as a "standalone" software application, it also exists within a system, just like everything else in the universe. Just like second life could turn off their server at any time, Microsoft could update windows to refuse to run your software application at any time, and then where would your investment be (maybe on a vacation to Korea)?
The outcome of such a tribunal is a determination that they *are* or *are not* a POW, but either way, they remain in custody.
The problem is that the administration has created a fake label for these people. By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", or even to permit the "enemy combatant" the chance to prove that he is not one.
As it stands, the "enemy combatants" are not "terrorists" they are merely "people arrested by the army and held indefinitely". The government refuses to provide any evidence to the contrary.
This is correct. Turning the telephone behemoth into lots of little monopolies didn't change a thing. It was the various rulings on the side of the antitrust stuff (like permitting anyone to make telephones, not just the phone company) that helped fix things.
The same thing was suggested during the Microsoft antitrust trial. Turning Microsoft into the Microsoft OS Corp and Microsoft Office Corp with their respective monopolies in each field wouldn't have changed a thing.
the cost of monitoring this would be huge compared to reading a number every month
If they have the equipment to sell you electricity by the time of day, then it should work the same way to buy it back.
Generally though (at least around here), all the "advanced" metering systems (peak charges, power factor, etc) are used for commercial installations, and homeowners just get a flat rate.
Or are you just panicking along with everyone else because of what a phone company blowhard spouts off but actually takes no action on?
Given that it would take the power of government to compel a company to say whether or not they had actually "taken no action", I'd say that the various CEOs have opened Pandora's Box, and now must deal with the consequences.
we'll be lobbying our towns to get rid of the local franchise.
And then next year, you get a million dollar bill for your property taxes to cover your share of the contract buyout charge, and your entire city goes without cable or phone service until you manage to convince the next company that you're very, very sorry for getting uppity and you'll swear you'll never break the contract again.
And murderers are doing what they're "supposed" to, after all, thats why we call them "murderers". Who decided that the profit motive was supposed to be superior to honesty? I think you'll find that fraud is not accepted in standard definitions of "free market" or "Capitalism", so where has the idea that lying for money is permissible come from?
If you're going to point fingers and call hypocrisy, stand on less shaky ground next time. It also helps when you're not trying to defend people that explicitly broke the law.
Keylogging wouldn't help the scammer; instead he would have to take over the entire browser in order to actually display your transaction information together with his transaction challenge code.
Some banks have gone a step further and made the transaction amount as part of the challenge, meaning that even an attack like this would fail (since you transferring $20 to your landlord wouldn't match his attempt to withdraw all $21.54 in your account)
Remember BeOS? Be was going to bring all the cool, hip video and audio work from Apple back to the PC with its amazing multitasking support. So they went around and tried to get companies to ship their OS on hardware, but wait! Microsoft was banning PC makers from shipping computers without Windows if they wanted to sell a single PC with it. So they went around and tried to convince companies to sell machines that could dual boot, but that was a no-go too, Microsoft didn't allow anyone to sell a PC with a modified boot loader. Be offered a desktop icon and a program that the user could click, that would repartition the drive, install BeOS, and set up dual booting, but MS said "no, only approved partners' icons can appear on the desktop".
I think they eventually managed to convince some company to ship it despite all this, and there might be a few hundred BeOS installs still out there, buried in progra~1, waiting for their owner to discover and install them.
Anyway, explain why you believe Apple for the PC would have been different?
Hm, what if someone wrote a box-pushing game that *cough* borrowed maps from the various wooden crate game, where the goal is to push all the crates into position so the player can jump on them or blow them up for powerups;)
The MPAA is not stopping anyone from making original movies
Funny, that's exactly where DRM has been heading for a while now, and oh! Look!/. already ran a story this year about how the government is proposing that satellite music be DRM limited in order to prevent disseminating music in a way that might possibly be infringing on a copyright.
Before long, you won't be able to make your own movie by yourself, because for all the computer knows, your video is actually a shaky-cam rip of the latest and greatest Hollywood flick. Of course, you could have your locked-down video cleared by a panel of very expert copyright specialists, say at a cost of a few thousand dollars an hour per specialist which would include watching through your video several times to make sure they don't miss everything, plus research time and lunches, travel, cellphone bills, whores, and so on.
And hey, if your movie was really good, they'll even bill you the legal fees for when they sue you for plagiarizing their "currently-in-production movie", it'll be hard for you to prove it's not some sort of coincidence when your video pretty much matches their script line-for-line, except they have big-name stars in theirs.
What's needed is the creation of some kind of drug testing organization that would be responsible for the actual process of certification of drugs, rather than an organization like the FDA whose sole purpose is to tell people what to do via regulation. This organization would operate a structured framework that would accept drugs and their target conditions, and guide each drug along the multi-step process with standardized and reliable testing processes for each step of the way to assure patients that the drugs are effective and as safe as possible.
One independent organization that was free of corporate and political interference would significantly improve the process of drug invention. Further, with an organization independent of payment from the company there would be no direct pressure to hide results or approve things to make the money flow in (see: patent office or the redacted Vioxx study that had deleted the report of cardiovascular events). I'll leave it up to economists to explain how to get such an organization created, since it would almost certainly fail under either a socialist (government interference) or a capitalist (corporate interference) economy.
Who's going to pay people to find out if it works or not?
Just because you don't have a patent
Correction, who's going to pay people to find out if it works or not, only to have all the other drug companies start selling the drug once you've proven that it works?
Here's the actual press release that appears to talk about the canyon policy. Reading through it, it looks like there's a bit of misunderstanding on who exactly is saying or not saying what (I don't think selling a creationist book means that if you ask a tour guide they have to tell you the canyon is 6000 years old). They do have links to letters and responses though, you can read them yourself. Other sources picked up their press release but don't mention anything about a ban on telling people how old the canyon is.
Do tour guides at the Grand Canyon take orders directly from the Federal Government
Why, as a matter of fact, they do. It's a national park, ruled by the National Park Service.
much less the Presidential Administration?
Mary Bomar, current director of the Park Service, was appointed by Bush and confirmed October 2006.
nor could they allow it b/c of some agreement with the cable company.
Yes, these are the contracts and regulations I spoke of. Listening to the telcos and cablecos whine about them is amusing, and reminds me of my childhood: When I was a wee lad, my father would take my icecream and start eating it, all the while making a great theatrical performance of "Eww! Disgusting! This stuff is terrible! You can't eat this, it's nasty! I guess I'm going to have to suffer through it since we can't throw out food."
I didn't buy it as a kid, and I'm no stupider now than then. Regardless of how much they publicly whine about how horribly onerous it is for them to take money from subscribers no matter where in the city they are, deep down inside, I'm sure they think that having unused lines to slums with $50/mo cable is far superior to having Slum-o-vision move in and undercut them with $20/mo cable.
Arrr, thats what I get for trying to cram in one last post before heading out into the cold, cruel night, and now my karma's gonna burn, burn, burn.
What I meant was
"I'll give up on regulation banning non-neutrality if telcos and cablecos give up on their contracts and regulations protecting their precious monopoly."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the distinction is alien unlawful enemy combatant.
Fine, very well. Now, explain to me how the government decides that person x is an "alien unlawful enemy combatant", in terms that match the principles of justice that have governed the country for over 200 years now.
Oh and congress created the 'fake label' not the administration
Bush was using the label long before Congress passed any laws about it.
I'm talking about 'ownership' of a bit of data used within a software system, you're talking about a full fledged, standalone software application, they're two different things.
There's no such thing as a "standalone" software application, it also exists within a system, just like everything else in the universe. Just like second life could turn off their server at any time, Microsoft could update windows to refuse to run your software application at any time, and then where would your investment be (maybe on a vacation to Korea)?
The outcome of such a tribunal is a determination that they *are* or *are not* a POW, but either way, they remain in custody.
The problem is that the administration has created a fake label for these people. By calling them enemy combatants, he deprives them of even the right of determination of POW status by refusing to permit any process whereby the government "proves" before a court or a tribunal that the person is an "enemy combatant", or even to permit the "enemy combatant" the chance to prove that he is not one.
As it stands, the "enemy combatants" are not "terrorists" they are merely "people arrested by the army and held indefinitely". The government refuses to provide any evidence to the contrary.
You bought and paid for this administration's abuses with a million other trespasses you let slide because they made you feel good.
Moral of the story: the frog doesn't jump out of the boiling water because he's ashamed of the fact that he waited so long.
This is correct. Turning the telephone behemoth into lots of little monopolies didn't change a thing. It was the various rulings on the side of the antitrust stuff (like permitting anyone to make telephones, not just the phone company) that helped fix things.
The same thing was suggested during the Microsoft antitrust trial. Turning Microsoft into the Microsoft OS Corp and Microsoft Office Corp with their respective monopolies in each field wouldn't have changed a thing.
the cost of monitoring this would be huge compared to reading a number every month
If they have the equipment to sell you electricity by the time of day, then it should work the same way to buy it back.
Generally though (at least around here), all the "advanced" metering systems (peak charges, power factor, etc) are used for commercial installations, and homeowners just get a flat rate.
The kind of action this bill is meant to prevent
Like Vonage or Skype VoIP packets mysteriously disappearing into the ethernet, while [insert ISP here]'s VoIP offering works just fine?
Not everything is a game of extortion, some of it is just good old leveraging of monopolies.
why do we have to favor Geothermal over Nuclear or Solar or Wind?
Because only one can have the "best" return on investment, and that will be the one everyone invests in.
Or are you just panicking along with everyone else because of what a phone company blowhard spouts off but actually takes no action on?
Given that it would take the power of government to compel a company to say whether or not they had actually "taken no action", I'd say that the various CEOs have opened Pandora's Box, and now must deal with the consequences.
we'll be lobbying our towns to get rid of the local franchise.
And then next year, you get a million dollar bill for your property taxes to cover your share of the contract buyout charge, and your entire city goes without cable or phone service until you manage to convince the next company that you're very, very sorry for getting uppity and you'll swear you'll never break the contract again.
what they're "supposed" to.
And murderers are doing what they're "supposed" to, after all, thats why we call them "murderers". Who decided that the profit motive was supposed to be superior to honesty? I think you'll find that fraud is not accepted in standard definitions of "free market" or "Capitalism", so where has the idea that lying for money is permissible come from?
LOL recounts.
Republicans "asked county auditors statewide to reconsider ballots that were rejected on Election Day." Because apparently when Democrats can't punch out a hole right, they're stupid idiots, but when Republicans can't fill out a ballot, their voice deserves to be heard.
If you're going to point fingers and call hypocrisy, stand on less shaky ground next time. It also helps when you're not trying to defend people that explicitly broke the law.
Keylogging wouldn't help the scammer; instead he would have to take over the entire browser in order to actually display your transaction information together with his transaction challenge code.
Some banks have gone a step further and made the transaction amount as part of the challenge, meaning that even an attack like this would fail (since you transferring $20 to your landlord wouldn't match his attempt to withdraw all $21.54 in your account)
if Apple had made an operating system for the PC.
Remember BeOS? Be was going to bring all the cool, hip video and audio work from Apple back to the PC with its amazing multitasking support. So they went around and tried to get companies to ship their OS on hardware, but wait! Microsoft was banning PC makers from shipping computers without Windows if they wanted to sell a single PC with it. So they went around and tried to convince companies to sell machines that could dual boot, but that was a no-go too, Microsoft didn't allow anyone to sell a PC with a modified boot loader. Be offered a desktop icon and a program that the user could click, that would repartition the drive, install BeOS, and set up dual booting, but MS said "no, only approved partners' icons can appear on the desktop".
I think they eventually managed to convince some company to ship it despite all this, and there might be a few hundred BeOS installs still out there, buried in progra~1, waiting for their owner to discover and install them.
Anyway, explain why you believe Apple for the PC would have been different?
Stop using wooden crates in games!
;)
Hm, what if someone wrote a box-pushing game that *cough* borrowed maps from the various wooden crate game, where the goal is to push all the crates into position so the player can jump on them or blow them up for powerups
Anyone have any advice on the next best alternative to get funds out?
All of it. On Red. Repeat until there isn't any more there.
The MPAA is not stopping anyone from making original movies
/. already ran a story this year about how the government is proposing that satellite music be DRM limited in order to prevent disseminating music in a way that might possibly be infringing on a copyright.
Funny, that's exactly where DRM has been heading for a while now, and oh! Look!
Before long, you won't be able to make your own movie by yourself, because for all the computer knows, your video is actually a shaky-cam rip of the latest and greatest Hollywood flick. Of course, you could have your locked-down video cleared by a panel of very expert copyright specialists, say at a cost of a few thousand dollars an hour per specialist which would include watching through your video several times to make sure they don't miss everything, plus research time and lunches, travel, cellphone bills, whores, and so on.
And hey, if your movie was really good, they'll even bill you the legal fees for when they sue you for plagiarizing their "currently-in-production movie", it'll be hard for you to prove it's not some sort of coincidence when your video pretty much matches their script line-for-line, except they have big-name stars in theirs.
What's needed is the creation of some kind of drug testing organization that would be responsible for the actual process of certification of drugs, rather than an organization like the FDA whose sole purpose is to tell people what to do via regulation. This organization would operate a structured framework that would accept drugs and their target conditions, and guide each drug along the multi-step process with standardized and reliable testing processes for each step of the way to assure patients that the drugs are effective and as safe as possible.
One independent organization that was free of corporate and political interference would significantly improve the process of drug invention. Further, with an organization independent of payment from the company there would be no direct pressure to hide results or approve things to make the money flow in (see: patent office or the redacted Vioxx study that had deleted the report of cardiovascular events). I'll leave it up to economists to explain how to get such an organization created, since it would almost certainly fail under either a socialist (government interference) or a capitalist (corporate interference) economy.
IF IT WORKS?
Who's going to pay people to find out if it works or not?
Just because you don't have a patent
Correction, who's going to pay people to find out if it works or not, only to have all the other drug companies start selling the drug once you've proven that it works?
For the metrically challenged among us, 180km/hr is 12025769.5 rods per fortnight, or really, really fast.
Here's the actual press release that appears to talk about the canyon policy. Reading through it, it looks like there's a bit of misunderstanding on who exactly is saying or not saying what (I don't think selling a creationist book means that if you ask a tour guide they have to tell you the canyon is 6000 years old). They do have links to letters and responses though, you can read them yourself. Other sources picked up their press release but don't mention anything about a ban on telling people how old the canyon is.
Do tour guides at the Grand Canyon take orders directly from the Federal Government
Why, as a matter of fact, they do. It's a national park, ruled by the National Park Service.
much less the Presidential Administration?
Mary Bomar, current director of the Park Service, was appointed by Bush and confirmed October 2006.
much of America's production moves to China
Thanks, I needed a good belly laugh to warm me up in the morning.
I am not sure if you are implying Windows on Xen is faster
He's implying that without VT, windows does not perform on Xen.
nor could they allow it b/c of some agreement with the cable company.
Yes, these are the contracts and regulations I spoke of. Listening to the telcos and cablecos whine about them is amusing, and reminds me of my childhood: When I was a wee lad, my father would take my icecream and start eating it, all the while making a great theatrical performance of "Eww! Disgusting! This stuff is terrible! You can't eat this, it's nasty! I guess I'm going to have to suffer through it since we can't throw out food."
I didn't buy it as a kid, and I'm no stupider now than then. Regardless of how much they publicly whine about how horribly onerous it is for them to take money from subscribers no matter where in the city they are, deep down inside, I'm sure they think that having unused lines to slums with $50/mo cable is far superior to having Slum-o-vision move in and undercut them with $20/mo cable.
Arrr, thats what I get for trying to cram in one last post before heading out into the cold, cruel night, and now my karma's gonna burn, burn, burn.
What I meant was
"I'll give up on regulation banning non-neutrality if telcos and cablecos give up on their contracts and regulations protecting their precious monopoly."