Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Any definition of treason that includes Bradley Manning also includes every newspaper in the country. Bradley Manning is accused of clear crimes; there's no reason to throw a crime he didn't commit in there as well.
It really depends on the individual programmer. I'm not particularly healthy, and I max out at about 35. I wouldn't be surprised if there are individuals who can max out at 60, but not many.
Not sure if English isn't your first language, but "right on their sleeve" is an idiom. It doesn't mean correct; it means "out in the open". That is to say, I wasn't saying they were correct, merely that their bias is obvious and open.
So long as you ignore the articles that have anything to do with China or Falun Gong, I actually find their news pretty good. At least their bias is right on their sleeve and about a subject I don't really care about.
3) In a lot of states, there are other meaningful vote percentages. Here in Massachusetts, if Nader gets 3% that means the green party will be on the ballot automatically in 2002 and receive funding through the state's clean elections law.
4) Even if there are no meaningful local percentages, if Nader does well in a very localized race (say, 12% in your town or neighborhood), it will be a strong boost to any non-D, non-R running for office in that neighborhood 1 or 2 years from now.
In many ways, a vote for Nader is not about this year's election, it is about next election and the election after that, so we don't have to say "I don't want to throw my vote away" in 2004.
I know! I mean, with the kind of money those consumer organizations rake in, they ought to be in the 50% bracket! Plus, they totally rip you off. Like, what has Ralph Nader ever done for the people?
Check out his Consumer Project on Technology. Includes his opinions on tons of geek issues: patents, privacy, linux, antitrust, etc, and letters and editorials he's written demonstrating them.
Jason Kroll, the author of the Linux Journal article, suggests boycotting the entire motion picture industry
I disagree. A good boycott should pick just one studio, say MGM. Reasons:
If the negative press is spread out, a weak light is cast over all of them. Better to take a magnifying glass and focus it all on MGM. They won't be too happy if lots of newscasts show their corporate headquarters while talking about raiding 16-year-olds. This could even help toward eventually breaking the coalition.
People are more likely to believe that MGM is big and bad than the entire movie industry is a vast conspiracy (even if its true).
And it's a rather ridiculous fallacy that you should always vote for someone...There is no effective gain to always just voting for someone instead of not voting as a means of protesting the existing candidates.
If you vote for noone out of protest, your vote is indistinguishable from a vote for noone out of laziness. Better would be to write in a candidate, anyone, or even "Protest". Future candidates and future voters would definitely notice if the winning candidate had less than 40% of the vote, even if the third highest candidate didn't get 2%. Maybe then people wouldn't think it was impossible to elect a non-Dem, non-Rep candidate.
In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit.
There's a big difference between restricting and monitoring access. Whether or not you're for censorship, it's far far worse to monitor everything a kid does. What if they went to a gay teens site? Kids might not have the right to see certain things (in some countries), but that doesn't mean that parents have the right to know everything the kid did.
I'm serious, do you "tax me please" folk really think the government will do better things with your money than you would?
No, I think the government will do different things with the money. Am I better off spending $1000 on books and computers and have public schools suck? Or buy rollerblades but have the parks filled with trash? There are things that government can provide much more effectively than anybody else.
The ONLY way in which an online store costs the local government any money is by the usage roads by delivery companies (UPS, etc).
Online stores still have physical addresses. Somewhere, the police have to protect a warehouse, an office, etc. and somewhere the trash needs to be taken away. If you have a problem with where the tax is implemented because it's different police protecting a store somewhere far away, don't turn that into all taxes are bad.
This threatens EBay because someone using a meta-auction site might choose a product from a different auctioneer. Seeing that they have the largest list of products right now, they want to force users to choose between EBay, with their many listings, and other auctioneers, with their few listings. That's why they don't mind licensing their listings in a seperate section. Something like maintaining a "products" barrier to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
Treason is defined in the constitution as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Any definition of treason that includes Bradley Manning also includes every newspaper in the country. Bradley Manning is accused of clear crimes; there's no reason to throw a crime he didn't commit in there as well.
It really depends on the individual programmer. I'm not particularly healthy, and I max out at about 35. I wouldn't be surprised if there are individuals who can max out at 60, but not many.
Not sure if English isn't your first language, but "right on their sleeve" is an idiom. It doesn't mean correct; it means "out in the open". That is to say, I wasn't saying they were correct, merely that their bias is obvious and open.
So long as you ignore the articles that have anything to do with China or Falun Gong, I actually find their news pretty good. At least their bias is right on their sleeve and about a subject I don't really care about.
3) In a lot of states, there are other meaningful vote percentages. Here in Massachusetts, if Nader gets 3% that means the green party will be on the ballot automatically in 2002 and receive funding through the state's clean elections law.
4) Even if there are no meaningful local percentages, if Nader does well in a very localized race (say, 12% in your town or neighborhood), it will be a strong boost to any non-D, non-R running for office in that neighborhood 1 or 2 years from now.
In many ways, a vote for Nader is not about this year's election, it is about next election and the election after that, so we don't have to say "I don't want to throw my vote away" in 2004.
I know! I mean, with the kind of money those consumer organizations rake in, they ought to be in the 50% bracket! Plus, they totally rip you off. Like, what has Ralph Nader ever done for the people?
How about:
$ cvsup /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile
Others will mention it, but the SLASH-based site to go for news about the protests is philadelphia independent media center.
Check out his Consumer Project on Technology. Includes his opinions on tons of geek issues: patents, privacy, linux, antitrust, etc, and letters and editorials he's written demonstrating them.
Try www.vote-smart.org. A long questionnaire on issues, past votes, and evaluations by interest groups.
I disagree. A good boycott should pick just one studio, say MGM. Reasons:
And it's a rather ridiculous fallacy that you should always vote for someone...There is no effective gain to always just voting for someone instead of not voting as a means of protesting the existing candidates.
If you vote for noone out of protest, your vote is indistinguishable from a vote for noone out of laziness. Better would be to write in a candidate, anyone, or even "Protest". Future candidates and future voters would definitely notice if the winning candidate had less than 40% of the vote, even if the third highest candidate didn't get 2%. Maybe then people wouldn't think it was impossible to elect a non-Dem, non-Rep candidate.
In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit.
There's a big difference between restricting and monitoring access. Whether or not you're for censorship, it's far far worse to monitor everything a kid does. What if they went to a gay teens site? Kids might not have the right to see certain things (in some countries), but that doesn't mean that parents have the right to know everything the kid did.
I'm serious, do you "tax me please" folk really think the government will do better things with your money than you would?
No, I think the government will do different things with the money. Am I better off spending $1000 on books and computers and have public schools suck? Or buy rollerblades but have the parks filled with trash? There are things that government can provide much more effectively than anybody else.
The ONLY way in which an online store costs the local government any money is by the usage roads by delivery companies (UPS, etc).
Online stores still have physical addresses. Somewhere, the police have to protect a warehouse, an office, etc. and somewhere the trash needs to be taken away. If you have a problem with where the tax is implemented because it's different police protecting a store somewhere far away, don't turn that into all taxes are bad.
This threatens EBay because someone using a meta-auction site might choose a product from a different auctioneer. Seeing that they have the largest list of products right now, they want to force users to choose between EBay, with their many listings, and other auctioneers, with their few listings. That's why they don't mind licensing their listings in a seperate section. Something like maintaining a "products" barrier to entry.