Being source code, is a form of expression, protected by copyright. As such, can a commercial entity try to block the dissemination of the "speech" that the source code constitutes?
Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
The shortsightedness is trying to subsidize one group with another... when the taxed group is one you are trying to reduce the # of.
While today there are clearly more traditional petrol autos than hybrids (or fully electric)... what happens when the scales tip?
Funding the S-CHIP program through tobacco taxes sounds good... until you reach the tipping point when there aren't enough smokers paying the tax.
As I recall Minnesota ran into a similar problem a few years... where vehicle tabs (amongst other things in part) fund the bus system... when the recession hit, quite a few people got rid of their cars and started running the heavily subsidized bus system.
The result? Massive losses to Metro Transit who had to go running to the city & state for piles of cash because the designs of the legislature had worked too well.
*facepalm* mileage, not millage... and I should have said MPG... I guess the smog from my gas guzzling SUV (or what the state calls it, despite having the same undercarriage, engine and transmission of an Impala ) must be affecting my ability to spell.
So after first de-prioritizing medical marijuana raids in places like California (where they are legal)... only to reprioritize them again... he now flips again about deferring to state based decisions?...or this is one of his much touted 'evolutions'
One day I would love to know what he actually believes in... other than political expediency.
I always enjoy it when someone fails to read the article they link to... allow me to cite a very key part you obviously missed (emphasis mine):
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term.
Let me repeat that: no specific format.
In fact... your very own Wikipedia article goes on to say:
This article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress", "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
That sure does make it sound like your 'authoritative source' (ie what I was asking for) is making up its own delineator (just as you are).
You also claimed that:
Congress has to declare it, not just stamp "PAID" on military budgets
Nyeh! That just proves that they didn't declare war!!! How can you declare war on 'terrorists'
Except for that we have done this before, and as two quick examples I present you with the First and Second Barbary Wars... where we went to war against pirates and used legislation authorizing force... but that lacked what you seem to be demanding... the words "declaration of war".
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
What's that!?!?!?! Congress didn't vote on this made up concept of a 'formal declaration of war'... but did authorize force? And refers to a 'state of war' in the resolution?
Any chance you could cite an authoritative source as to what all is involved in or required by a 'declaration of war'?
I'll give you a hint... whatever you find will actually be in line with the authorizations to use military force in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Unlike the Obama Administration's actions in Libya... the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are quite legal under US law. Can't say the same about the unauthorized military action which was the first in the history of the War Powers Act to violate it.
Takes one to know one... his concession is not binding in any way (just ask Al Gore)... it's simply a respectful thing to do.
In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.
Will any of the above happen? Probably not... but you show your ignorance of the system.
Unfortunately, most people are so poorly educated when it comes to basic computer use that they do not even understand the privacy implications of using a system like Twitter
Are you arguing that ignorance of the law... errr... technology is an excuse?
Interesting that your outrage is with the partying in the street... and not with a President who now has more power than any leader in the history of the world... to simply decide (on his own) that an individual is a threat to the security of the US... and order their death... either with SEALS or the more common use of a drone strike... even when the target in question is an American citizen.
Be upset if you want... but make sure you point your shame or anger in the right direction.
Been using it in beta for a lil while now (granted from the PC)... and they say that even after it leaves the preview stage, there will be a free version: http://tfspreview.com/en-us/pricing/information/
That worthless douchebag hasn't been heard from since leaving office unlike most former presidents.
That's largely been by design.
Unlike some other former presidents who during from 1/01-01/09 spent a great deal of time relentlessly attacking the then President and attempting to undermine him... 43 seems to have opted to allow the current president to succeed or fail on his own.
How horrible is it that a previous President be respectful to their successor... you know... the complete opposite of what this President has done to his predecessor.
Thank you for proving what a moron you are... or as you said:
It is not interesting that you didn't read the article, nor that you failed to read the summary.
The article in no way says that Microsoft will be ripping out Windows Servers and replacing them with Linux boxes... it says that they will be making Linux VMs available to customers who want to run their apps on top of them... which is perfectly in line with IaaS push we are seeing from multiple cloud providers.
You are incorrect on the definition and application of the GPL
Actually... you are more so than the parent.
Open source is based on the idea of copyright... for without it would be unenforceable.
More so, I got quite a lulz out of this statement of yours:
You are allowed to use without restriction, and modify with only the restriction that you open source your modifications as well.
*facepalm*
Incorrect... you are only make available the source code if you *release* any derivative work (be it a binary or a source drop)... or are various companies running FOSS stacks internally that may have been tweaked here or there violating the GPL by not releasing every single line & change?
Proving the intent is easy when a gun is fired. Firing a gun at someone is automatically intent to cause harm, and fatal injury.
But then ignore the law...
In order to reduce the charge to a manslaughter, it would require that Zimmerman's actions were not intended to cause death, and that death was unexpected. Firing a gun at someone intentionally is most certainly not followed by surprise at the death of the victim.
You seem to be forgetting the 'Stand Your Ground' law in most states requires the person using lethal force be afraid for their safety/life to the point that a 'reasonable person' would act similarly.
I’m fairly certain that a reasonable person would conclude that if you are on your back (ie unable to run) and being beaten (ie under physical attack, creating a valid cause for concern for personal saftey) by a person who is on top of you (ie preventing your escape)... that you have two options... pray to god that they don’t permanently injury/kill you... or use force to remove the (threatened/real) force against you, even with lethal force... and that the latter here would be justified and toss out any murder/manslaughter/etc charges.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... because this has never happend before *rolls eyes*
So 'suicide watch' is 'torture'?
Next time, don't make jokes of killing yourself when in the clink.
The shortsightedness is trying to subsidize one group with another... when the taxed group is one you are trying to reduce the # of.
While today there are clearly more traditional petrol autos than hybrids (or fully electric)... what happens when the scales tip?
Funding the S-CHIP program through tobacco taxes sounds good... until you reach the tipping point when there aren't enough smokers paying the tax.
As I recall Minnesota ran into a similar problem a few years... where vehicle tabs (amongst other things in part) fund the bus system... when the recession hit, quite a few people got rid of their cars and started running the heavily subsidized bus system.
The result? Massive losses to Metro Transit who had to go running to the city & state for piles of cash because the designs of the legislature had worked too well.
Why is it backwards for the state to expect that those that use the roads pay 'their fair share' for them like the rest of it's gas using users?
*facepalm* mileage, not millage... and I should have said MPG... I guess the smog from my gas guzzling SUV (or what the state calls it, despite having the same undercarriage, engine and transmission of an Impala ) must be affecting my ability to spell.
Could help take care of the smug problem that quite a few high millage car drivers have.
If I had mod points... they would be yours. Well said.
So after first de-prioritizing medical marijuana raids in places like California (where they are legal)... only to reprioritize them again... he now flips again about deferring to state based decisions? ...or this is one of his much touted 'evolutions'
One day I would love to know what he actually believes in... other than political expediency.
I always enjoy it when someone fails to read the article they link to... allow me to cite a very key part you obviously missed (emphasis mine):
Let me repeat that: no specific format.
In fact... your very own Wikipedia article goes on to say:
That sure does make it sound like your 'authoritative source' (ie what I was asking for) is making up its own delineator (just as you are).
You also claimed that:
... I guess you are unfamiliar with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists or the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002... where in both resolutions they did what is required under the law... which does not include the requirement to use the term "declaration of war".
You are probably thinking...
Except for that we have done this before, and as two quick examples I present you with the First and Second Barbary Wars... where we went to war against pirates and used legislation authorizing force... but that lacked what you seem to be demanding... the words "declaration of war".
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
What's that!?!?!?! Congress didn't vote on this made up concept of a 'formal declaration of war'... but did authorize force? And refers to a 'state of war' in the resolution?
What else could you be wrong about?
Q.E.D.
Any chance you could cite an authoritative source as to what all is involved in or required by a 'declaration of war'?
I'll give you a hint... whatever you find will actually be in line with the authorizations to use military force in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Unlike the Obama Administration's actions in Libya... the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are quite legal under US law. Can't say the same about the unauthorized military action which was the first in the history of the War Powers Act to violate it.
Takes one to know one... his concession is not binding in any way (just ask Al Gore)... it's simply a respectful thing to do.
In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.
Will any of the above happen? Probably not... but you show your ignorance of the system.
I was unaware that there was a single proven claim that fraking caused any of the cases of flammable tapwater.
There have been plenty of claims... but as yet I’ve not heard of a single proven case. Care to point us to one?
So now two wrongs make a right? Riiiiiight.
Are you arguing that ignorance of the law... errr... technology is an excuse?
Too bad Microsoft beat them all (Google Drive & iCloud) with Live Mesh back in 2008.
Interesting that your outrage is with the partying in the street... and not with a President who now has more power than any leader in the history of the world... to simply decide (on his own) that an individual is a threat to the security of the US... and order their death... either with SEALS or the more common use of a drone strike... even when the target in question is an American citizen.
Be upset if you want... but make sure you point your shame or anger in the right direction.
Doesn't that only apply to GPL3 software? Plus I'd think that assumes that the author of the code in question had rights to the patent.
http://www.tfspreview.com/
Been using it in beta for a lil while now (granted from the PC)... and they say that even after it leaves the preview stage, there will be a free version: http://tfspreview.com/en-us/pricing/information/
I bet you also hope for unicorns, a Ron Paul presidency and Pandora to be a real planet... keep on hoping, none are going to happen.
That's largely been by design.
Unlike some other former presidents who during from 1/01-01/09 spent a great deal of time relentlessly attacking the then President and attempting to undermine him... 43 seems to have opted to allow the current president to succeed or fail on his own.
How horrible is it that a previous President be respectful to their successor... you know... the complete opposite of what this President has done to his predecessor.
Thank you for proving what a moron you are... or as you said:
Citation please.
Stand by what? You've made claims, but not supported them in any way, other than with more seemingly baseless claims!
Actually... you are more so than the parent.
Open source is based on the idea of copyright... for without it would be unenforceable.
More so, I got quite a lulz out of this statement of yours:
*facepalm*
Incorrect... you are only make available the source code if you *release* any derivative work (be it a binary or a source drop)... or are various companies running FOSS stacks internally that may have been tweaked here or there violating the GPL by not releasing every single line & change?
You start off correct...
But then ignore the law...
You seem to be forgetting the 'Stand Your Ground' law in most states requires the person using lethal force be afraid for their safety/life to the point that a 'reasonable person' would act similarly.
I’m fairly certain that a reasonable person would conclude that if you are on your back (ie unable to run) and being beaten (ie under physical attack, creating a valid cause for concern for personal saftey) by a person who is on top of you (ie preventing your escape)... that you have two options... pray to god that they don’t permanently injury/kill you... or use force to remove the (threatened/real) force against you, even with lethal force... and that the latter here would be justified and toss out any murder/manslaughter/etc charges.
Not to mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HMByO1RA4M ... or the 2008 Barack-Opolis and most of thse there.