Amazing isn't it? Yes, the last time the United States issued a declaration of war under the provisions of the US constitution was against Japan on December 8th, 1941.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html
No such congressional declararion of war has ever been since against any other nation, including Vietnam.
>i'm not so sure microsoft would be very happy with that kind of solution
I wasn't aware that there was any expectation that Microsoft had to be happy with anything that results from their "anti-competitive behaviour".
In fact, I'm almost positive that a punishment, such as a fine, is expressly intended to be something that makes Microsoft unhappy.;-)
>...a better and even more widely used alterantive to windows is most certainly NOT something they would like to see.
Good point. That might level the playing field and disassemble their monopoly. Microsoft wouldn't like that.;-)
But, as to using the fine to fund an opensource consumer OS:
I'm having a hard time imagining how that could ever happen. Is there any precedent for government imposed fines to be given to a third party for *any* purpose?
>but at least the Supreme Court has the wisdom to see how Microsoft was conducting business was wrong.
...or maybe they just refused to even look at it.
The high court declined without any comment or dissent to review the June 28 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals
So, the appeal papers came back with a big red 'REFUSED' stamped on them. It isn't like they spent months and months looking over the entire case and came back and upheld Jackson's finding of fact.
They didn't exercise much wisdom, they decided there wasn't enough merit in Microsoft's arguments to accept the appeal.
Re:this is neither healthy nor a sign of life
on
Loki Goes Postal
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
>that's almost certainly due to the original authors not being interested in a linux version.
I think it depends on how the license/port is arranged financially, who assumes the risk and who pays who for what, no?
If the original author (publisher, really) hires Loki at a fixed price to make a port, and then assumes the risk of making a return on that expense by selling x copies of the Linux version, then yes - I agree with your point. (and Loki would have a much more successful business as they would get paid for their work regardless of how successful a Linux version was).
However, that isn't what I read into the way they do business from the article on thier bankruptcy filing a little while ago. I seem to recall that they pay a fixed licensing fee to the owner/publisher of the game, then they port the game and take the risk of selling x copies in order to make a profit on the money they have laid out. (Carmack said a lot of the money Loki owes is to id).
In that case, the high cost of obtaining a license for current titles such as Diablo 2, warcraft 3, etc is going to prevent Loki from taking on a port, not the author's interest. (afterall, the author gets paid up front.)
You may be thinking of the Al Franken self-contained one-man remote studio with satellite uplink as seen on SNL during the Gulf War.;-)
Problem was, the dish mounted on his head and the power supply on his back were so heavy they caused him sever back and neck pain (not to mention that when he turned his head during a broadcast, the feed would drop out).
>they could record some footage at a higher resolution and/or framerate and then send it to the network and have them assemble it at the network
That's exactly what it says in the article. The tradeoff is the amount of time it takes to transfer the data. If it is breaking news and you want to get it on the tube first, you sacrifice quality.
"It can edit the story in the field and send the completed story back; but in Afghanistan, it usually sends the 'raw tape' back and the bureau assembles the story"
...
"Those at the receiving end can decide how much quality they are willing to wait for. To feed a minute of video at top quality would take between 5 and 30 minutes, depending on the quality of the connection."
Pravda, once seen as the propaganda tool of the soviet regime, is now available over the web, complete with discussion board and a google search. Man, how times have changed, eh?
>Its just a matter of knowing what boxes to uncheck during the installation. Ordinary users simply dont know what they're clicking through during an install.
Man, the worst offender I ever experienced was paintshop pro. This was especially bad if you were stupid enough (as I was once) to download and install the TRIAL VERSION!.
It took _every_ file extension it decided it should handle and changed the registered extension app without asking (or even giving an option in the install, custom install not being available in the 'demo').
So, after using the software for 30 days (or less!) and deciding I didn't want it, there was no way to restore the file extension settings (other than manually, of course).
At first, I would still click on the file I wanted to open and PSP would come up and rag at me that my trial had expired and I should buy the damn thing. Of course, my response was to uninstall the stupid thing. Not much better, now windows would report that it couldn't find the registered application for the file I was opening.
You can, of course, hunt down the view/folder options/file types dialog and then manually change each extension back to some other app install on your system. Most programs these days will ask during the install which extensions you want to have automatically opened by the program, and others are even smart enough to offer the right-click/open with option during the install.
"We have experience of sunken Russian reactors," he added, referring to the Komsomolets nuclear submarine which lies at a depth of 4,500ft off north west Norway.
The Komsomolets, which sank in 1989 following a fire which killed 42 crewmen, is slowly leaking plutonium, although the depth of the water means it is less of a threat to marine life than the Kursk.
But Greenpeace says any possibility of radiation leakage was too much, and has demanded the Kursk be raised to the surface as soon as possible rather than just contained as other vessels have been.
Recovering human remains may be an important part of this mission, but I would think recovering the reactor would be the primary motivation.
Lifted, yes. Raised, not yet. The last story on this had a little slideshow on how it was going to go. The sub isn't going to be raised out of the water while at sea at all.
The plan, IIRC, was to lift the vessel from the bottom to the underside of the Giant 4 which will carry it to port where floats will be attached (submerged, filled with water) and then the floats will be "blown" to raise both the Giant and Kursk higher in the water so that both can sail into a dry-dock. The Giant will then deposit the sub in the dock and sail out. From there you pump out the dry-dock and you can start slavage or whatever.
>Then Uzbekistan can say they didn't authorize or agree with the non-humanitarian missions and the US will get all the blame.
Yeah, except the Taliban have already promised to treat Uzbekistan the same way they treated those who cooperated with the Russians.
IIRC, they castrated those guys and dragged then through the streets.
"But, we told them they could only launch rescue missions from our soil. We told them they were not to launch attacks. They agreed but then went ahead and launched commando raids from our bases *without* our permission!"
"You dog, you should not have made the deal with the satan in the first place. Now we will visit the wrath of Alah upon you and your families!"
>How many kentucky rednecks know what Afghanistans flag looks like? Do YOU?).
Well, I'm no "kentucy redneck", but doubtless there are those in every country that are poorly educated and backwards, the united dates being no exception. I do happen to know what the flags of different countries around the world look like, in particular I have been acquainting myself with information on Afganistan, Pakistan, Uzbeckistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan to better understand what has been going on in that region.
>How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read? I'd say about 5%.
So, the assumption is that every person would need to be able to read a note in order for this to be effective? Oh, the 5% whi *can* read aren't going to tell anyone else what the note says. I see.
"The White House on Sunday again refused to negotiate with the Taliban after a reported offer from them to detain suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and try him under Islamic law."
They didn't offer to extradite him.
But I am taken aback at the stance of Bush to demand that they cough him up unconditionally. I mean, we obviously don't have an extradition treaty with them (hell, we don't even *recognize* them as the legitimate government), but at least *some* attempt at diplomacy or negotiation might have neen tried?
I guess it is just a demonstration of our contempt for the Taliban's illegitimacy that motivates the US to deal with them like this.
I've heard talk of this over the last couple days and it makes sense to me too. I even read a report that the Taliban was suggesting we use the roads to deliver food instead of air drops.
The reason? Well, what he said didn't make any sense. Something like - the US is trying to make it appear as if they are not against the people of Afghanistan, but in fact they are against all Muslims. The roads coming into the country are all open, why don't you drive them in instead of airdrop?
Some thoughts:
If we were to transport the food to the region (say Pakistan) and then load into trucks and drive into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, you have the potential for the Taliban to take the food and use it to their best interest (squirrel it away for their troops?) instead of distributing it to those most in need (starving refugees). Another scenario is that they do distribute the food and supplies to those who desparately need it, but they forget to mention that the stuff came from the enemy.
If we airdrop to the areas where people are most in need, and leave a little notes explaining it was from us and we bear no enmity to the people of Afghanistan, you undermine the Taliban's rhetoric that the US is waging a "crusade" of anti-muslim extermination against the people of Afghanistan.
Obviously the Taliban doen't want their people to hear this message.
Early word from CNN right now is that these are likely sea-launced cruise missles coming from US and UK ships/subs in the Arabian sea. Given to 1000 mile range of these weapons, seems a likely assumption.
Surely not. However, these initial strikes are probably aimed at a limited number of air defense installations and probably a few 'token' targets like evacuated 'terrorist' camps and the like.
But, I would doubt very much that any are aimed at anyone's house (civilian residential area are surely being avoided). $10 tent and camel's butt notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
make oldconfig
[now, some extra 'noise' that I must type to get past the 'lameness filter']
Amazing isn't it? Yes, the last time the United States issued a declaration of war under the provisions of the US constitution was against Japan on December 8th, 1941.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html
No such congressional declararion of war has ever been since against any other nation, including Vietnam.
Quick quiz: what was the last time congress actually officially declared war?
Ugh, nevermind. I went back and reread the post at the top of this thread and realised the post I was replying to was responding to this:
>MS would gladly pay the money to get out of this mess
I will go stand in the corner now for the next five minutes.
>i'm not so sure microsoft would be very happy with that kind of solution
;-)
;-)
I wasn't aware that there was any expectation that Microsoft had to be happy with anything that results from their "anti-competitive behaviour".
In fact, I'm almost positive that a punishment, such as a fine, is expressly intended to be something that makes Microsoft unhappy.
>...a better and even more widely used alterantive to windows is most certainly NOT something they would like to see.
Good point. That might level the playing field and disassemble their monopoly. Microsoft wouldn't like that.
But, as to using the fine to fund an opensource consumer OS:
I'm having a hard time imagining how that could ever happen. Is there any precedent for government imposed fines to be given to a third party for *any* purpose?
>one can't exactly renege on a Nobel prize, now, can one?
;-)
Why not? They stripped (npi) Vanessa Williams of her Miss America crown.
>but at least the Supreme Court has the wisdom to see how Microsoft was conducting business was wrong.
...or maybe they just refused to even look at it.
The high court declined without any comment or dissent to review the June 28 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals
So, the appeal papers came back with a big red 'REFUSED' stamped on them. It isn't like they spent months and months looking over the entire case and came back and upheld Jackson's finding of fact.
They didn't exercise much wisdom, they decided there wasn't enough merit in Microsoft's arguments to accept the appeal.
>that's almost certainly due to the original authors not being interested in a linux version.
I think it depends on how the license/port is arranged financially, who assumes the risk and who pays who for what, no?
If the original author (publisher, really) hires Loki at a fixed price to make a port, and then assumes the risk of making a return on that expense by selling x copies of the Linux version, then yes - I agree with your point. (and Loki would have a much more successful business as they would get paid for their work regardless of how successful a Linux version was).
However, that isn't what I read into the way they do business from the article on thier bankruptcy filing a little while ago. I seem to recall that they pay a fixed licensing fee to the owner/publisher of the game, then they port the game and take the risk of selling x copies in order to make a profit on the money they have laid out. (Carmack said a lot of the money Loki owes is to id).
In that case, the high cost of obtaining a license for current titles such as Diablo 2, warcraft 3, etc is going to prevent Loki from taking on a port, not the author's interest. (afterall, the author gets paid up front.)
This was a while ago (version 4?) so it has probably been changed by now. At the time the trial version I installed gave me no such options.
You may be thinking of the Al Franken self-contained one-man remote studio with satellite uplink as seen on SNL during the Gulf War. ;-)
Problem was, the dish mounted on his head and the power supply on his back were so heavy they caused him sever back and neck pain (not to mention that when he turned his head during a broadcast, the feed would drop out).
>they could record some footage at a higher resolution and/or framerate and then send it to the network and have them assemble it at the network
That's exactly what it says in the article. The tradeoff is the amount of time it takes to transfer the data. If it is breaking news and you want to get it on the tube first, you sacrifice quality.
"It can edit the story in the field and send the completed story back; but in Afghanistan, it usually sends the 'raw tape' back and the bureau assembles the story"
...
"Those at the receiving end can decide how much quality they are willing to wait for. To feed a minute of video at top quality would take between 5 and 30 minutes, depending on the quality of the connection."
That's cool!
Pravda, once seen as the propaganda tool of the soviet regime, is now available over the web, complete with discussion board and a google search. Man, how times have changed, eh?
>Its just a matter of knowing what boxes to uncheck during the installation. Ordinary users simply dont know what they're clicking through during an install.
Man, the worst offender I ever experienced was paintshop pro. This was especially bad if you were stupid enough (as I was once) to download and install the TRIAL VERSION!.
It took _every_ file extension it decided it should handle and changed the registered extension app without asking (or even giving an option in the install, custom install not being available in the 'demo').
So, after using the software for 30 days (or less!) and deciding I didn't want it, there was no way to restore the file extension settings (other than manually, of course).
At first, I would still click on the file I wanted to open and PSP would come up and rag at me that my trial had expired and I should buy the damn thing. Of course, my response was to uninstall the stupid thing. Not much better, now windows would report that it couldn't find the registered application for the file I was opening.
You can, of course, hunt down the view/folder options/file types dialog and then manually change each extension back to some other app install on your system. Most programs these days will ask during the install which extensions you want to have automatically opened by the program, and others are even smart enough to offer the right-click/open with option during the install.
Exactly. Seems like if your only concern was keeping the weapons tech out of anyone else's hands, you needn't go to the trouble of raising her.
This is a nuclear sub, right?
"We have experience of sunken Russian reactors," he added, referring to the Komsomolets nuclear submarine which lies at a depth of 4,500ft off north west Norway.
The Komsomolets, which sank in 1989 following a fire which killed 42 crewmen, is slowly leaking plutonium, although the depth of the water means it is less of a threat to marine life than the Kursk.
But Greenpeace says any possibility of radiation leakage was too much, and has demanded the Kursk be raised to the surface as soon as possible rather than just contained as other vessels have been.
Recovering human remains may be an important part of this mission, but I would think recovering the reactor would be the primary motivation.
Lifted, yes. Raised, not yet. The last story on this had a little slideshow on how it was going to go. The sub isn't going to be raised out of the water while at sea at all.
The plan, IIRC, was to lift the vessel from the bottom to the underside of the Giant 4 which will carry it to port where floats will be attached (submerged, filled with water) and then the floats will be "blown" to raise both the Giant and Kursk higher in the water so that both can sail into a dry-dock. The Giant will then deposit the sub in the dock and sail out. From there you pump out the dry-dock and you can start slavage or whatever.
And that has _what_ to do with 'the Internet as a tool for "light civil disobedience" '??
No, I can't find any link and I doubt he really said it.
Caught that too, eh? That quote supposedly came from 'dubya, not me.
>If you really want to remain in power just hand the [...] over.
Could be that it is exactly that reason (want to remain in power) that they would not want to appear to cave in to US demands.
>Then Uzbekistan can say they didn't authorize or agree with the non-humanitarian missions and the US will get all the blame.
Yeah, except the Taliban have already promised to treat Uzbekistan the same way they treated those who cooperated with the Russians.
IIRC, they castrated those guys and dragged then through the streets.
"But, we told them they could only launch rescue missions from our soil. We told them they were not to launch attacks. They agreed but then went ahead and launched commando raids from our bases *without* our permission!"
"You dog, you should not have made the deal with the satan in the first place. Now we will visit the wrath of Alah upon you and your families!"
Nope, I don't think that would work.
>How many kentucky rednecks know what Afghanistans flag looks like? Do YOU?).
:-P
Well, I'm no "kentucy redneck", but doubtless there are those in every country that are poorly educated and backwards, the united dates being no exception. I do happen to know what the flags of different countries around the world look like, in particular I have been acquainting myself with information on Afganistan, Pakistan, Uzbeckistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan to better understand what has been going on in that region.
>How many people do you think there is in Afghanistan who can Read? I'd say about 5%.
So, the assumption is that every person would need to be able to read a note in order for this to be effective? Oh, the 5% whi *can* read aren't going to tell anyone else what the note says. I see.
>am I the only one that remembers the Taliban offering the transfer of Bin Laden to the US
Yes, you probably are the only one since it didn't happen that way.
"The White House on Sunday again refused to negotiate with the Taliban after a reported offer from them to detain suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and try him under Islamic law."
They didn't offer to extradite him.
But I am taken aback at the stance of Bush to demand that they cough him up unconditionally. I mean, we obviously don't have an extradition treaty with them (hell, we don't even *recognize* them as the legitimate government), but at least *some* attempt at diplomacy or negotiation might have neen tried?
I guess it is just a demonstration of our contempt for the Taliban's illegitimacy that motivates the US to deal with them like this.
I've heard talk of this over the last couple days and it makes sense to me too. I even read a report that the Taliban was suggesting we use the roads to deliver food instead of air drops.
The reason? Well, what he said didn't make any sense. Something like - the US is trying to make it appear as if they are not against the people of Afghanistan, but in fact they are against all Muslims. The roads coming into the country are all open, why don't you drive them in instead of airdrop?
Some thoughts:
If we were to transport the food to the region (say Pakistan) and then load into trucks and drive into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, you have the potential for the Taliban to take the food and use it to their best interest (squirrel it away for their troops?) instead of distributing it to those most in need (starving refugees). Another scenario is that they do distribute the food and supplies to those who desparately need it, but they forget to mention that the stuff came from the enemy.
If we airdrop to the areas where people are most in need, and leave a little notes explaining it was from us and we bear no enmity to the people of Afghanistan, you undermine the Taliban's rhetoric that the US is waging a "crusade" of anti-muslim extermination against the people of Afghanistan.
Obviously the Taliban doen't want their people to hear this message.
Early word from CNN right now is that these are likely sea-launced cruise missles coming from US and UK ships/subs in the Arabian sea. Given to 1000 mile range of these weapons, seems a likely assumption.
Surely not. However, these initial strikes are probably aimed at a limited number of air defense installations and probably a few 'token' targets like evacuated 'terrorist' camps and the like.
But, I would doubt very much that any are aimed at anyone's house (civilian residential area are surely being avoided). $10 tent and camel's butt notwithstanding.