> Unfair in the sense that 4 populous states (CA, FL, NY, and TX) can't impose their will on the rest of the country,
> yes. You have to have AT LEAST a dozen states to win under an electoral system, but under a popular system you can basically promise every federal dollar to those four states and the rest fo the country can go to hell...
This is quite like the situation in Canada. Ontario, the most populous province by far, essentially elects the prime minister. It's an ongoing sore point with the western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, and is one of the reasons why many in the west support the idea of a senate system as practised in the States.
> As a matter of interest, can the queen overule the Canadian governor general, or not?
The Governor General represents the Queen of Canada (i.e. Betty II). In a painfully hypothetical sense, it's conceivable.
However, imagining that the Governor General would veto a bill duly passed by parliament and the senate is on the order of a person winning three consecutive multi-million dollar lottaries. The Queen stepping into Canadian politics has about the same probability as all the air molecules in your room spontaneously moving into your coffee cup. (It isn't going to happen.)
One of the few situations where the Governor General (or the Lieutenant Governor for the provinces) has some disgression to act is when the prime minister (or premier of a province) asks him/her to dissolve parliament and call for an election. In a few cases, the GG (or LG) has refused.
all things being equal, wouldn't you rather have an intelligent president instead of one that needs to be hand-held through the decision-making process?
I recall that Jimmy Carter was said to be one of the more intelligent presidents. However, his term in office was not a high point of American history. A micromanager (easy to be when you have the intellectual ability to know tasks outside your sphere) has the risk of losing sight of the big picture while mired in the details.
The recent untimely death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau ("timely" would conceivably been have been forty years ago) brings to mind the legacy of this disastrous former prime minister of Canada. He was an intellectual heavyweight who during his reign alienated the western provinces, imposed country-wide martial law on the shakey pretext of a local kidnapping, and left a national debt ten times its former size.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan had no such intellectual ability (nor intellectual arrogance). But, he did have principles, and he used them as touchstones for the people who did his planning. His legacy changed the world.
So, to answer the question, all else being equal, no. The smarter a person is the less predictable. When you vote for your guy, wouldn't you feel better knowing that what you see is probably what you'll get?
> it may also shed some light on why law enforcement is so gung-ho about keeping the war on drugs going.
This is a very interesting observation. Not so very long ago "witches" were burned at the stake. Their property was also forfeited. Sometimes the attractiveness of the latter made it convenient to discover the witchful nature of the owner.
That isn't what I see the text saying: (apologies for HTML illiteracy) > 2. Provisions Implementing Divestiture > a. After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business > nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets[...]
This, and other parts, say the remedies last only for the term of the Final Judgment (obviously, I suppose.) But look here:
> 6. Effective Date, Term, Retention of Jurisdiction, Modification. > a. This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered; provided, however that sections 1.b and > 2 (except 2.d) shall be stayed pending completion of any appeals from this Final Judgment.
and a couple lines further:
>c. This Final Judgment shall expire at the end of ten years from the date on which it takes effect.
So, if we understand "the date on which [the Final Judgment] is entered" to mean today, then ten years from today (plus 90 days) the ballgame is over. That portions of it may be stayed pending appeal will not (as I read it) extend the time the companies must be separate. If I've missed the part that says otherwise, please enlighten me.
I wonder if I'm misreading it: the Plan is to go into effect in 90 days, and last for 10 years. The stayed stuff (the breakup, with the prohibition from rejoining) will also expire 10 years + 90 days from now.
What this means, if I understand it correctly, is that if Microsoft can keep this in court for 10 years, they don't have to break up. Is this right?
Who cares what device raises a person's public stature? What matters is what he does with it. His argument seems cogent, and if he alludes to a certain episode in Microsoft's memory of recent embarrassments, so what? There is a small, but finite, chance that it will change Microsoft's mind.
Stallman's views are interesting, and certainly have some grain of truth. But you have to be careful to pick only the parts of his theology that seem right to you. Otherwise, you might find one day a glass of funny-tasting kool-aid in your hand.
> The problem with cell phones [is] that most people don't have hands free sets[....]
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the news item claiming that mixing cell phones with driving was similar to alcohol and driving also included hands-free models in the barrage.
I hope that there will be solid studies done on driving and cell phones (with and without hands). Maybe something, other than abstinence, will come up that lessens the risks.
Certainly, we should put the GPL through its paces, sooner rather than later. The sooner we discover whether it needs fixing, and fix it, the more we reduce exposure to risk for Open Source.
Because the GPL is so radical, having direct supporting case law behind it will give a warm glow to the legal arm of the oncoming corporate contributors.
qmail has performed very well here, albeit with only three virtual domains. We use the free add-on vmailmgr (http://em.ca/~bruceg/vmailmgr/), which allows you to add users to a virtual domain without requiring a new Linux logon for each one. (It's very handy.)
The only real complaint I have about qmail is that the add-ons are all over the map, and it's very difficult to know which, if any, are part of the Received Canon, and which, if any, are heretical upstarts doomed to wither.
Re:Obfuscated DeCSS programming contest
on
A New DeCSS
·
· Score: 3
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder: would it be a violation to point to a suppressed document? How about point to a pointer?
To map this to another context, imagine that some "randomiser" program, which generates, say, binary keys based on plaintext, just happened when applied against a certain legally protected dictionary file (or a web page, or a picture or song), to produce the contents of a suppressed document? It seems to me that both components would be legal, and that only the combination of the two would be a legal offense.
Thus, though the end result would still be illegal, the means to acquire the information would be known and protected by law. (It has been put better: "Information wants to be free.")
It would be best, however, for the DeCSS case to be thrown out of court, but this demonstrates the futility of gag orders in a distributed, computerized world.
Let's look at this one more time: It *sounds* good to say that with commercial, closed source software you have someone to sue. But seriously, has anyone ever heard of Joe Mid-sized Corporation suing Microsoft when one of its products goes off the rails? (Let's exclude Sun and J++.)
If I'm not mistaken, most software comes with the company's disclaimer that their liability is limited to the price of the software. Given that, it seems that all else being equal, Open Source comes out the clear winner.
This sounds very interesting. Like it or not, advances in armament change how war is waged. Bots are like Gatling guns against bows and arrows. People might decry how each new weapon or defence sullies the "honour" of combat, but victory favours the bigger guns.
In Real Life, Stealth bombers, AWACS, Satellite Imaging and Cruise missiles make you a World Power -- not a cheater. As I understand it, the modern Army is working to equip its soldier with whatever is needed to coordinate and execute a mission and return alive. You want a fat defense contract? Make an aimbot for the army.
I think that if, rather than being suppressed, bots were embraced, you might well see a shift from the immediate tactics of taking out the enemy in the next room towards strategic warfare. (Imagine the Slashdot Slashers in a virtual campaign against the West Point Bedwetters!)
There is a saying: "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary condition."
Terminal and debilitating illness aside, most things change. The tragedy of suicide is that it cannot be undone once the storm has passed.
Most choices can be "taken back" to one degree or another, when one has had time to reflect. Suicide, however, has no 15-day return policy.
When you buy a house, and sign up for a multi-year mortgage, it would be considered stupid to go ahead without checking what you are getting yourself into. How much more stupid for suicide?
Spot on. I value seeing Star Wars, Part 1, more than I do the umpteen dollars the theatre mogul will charge me. The TM, conversely, gets sweaty palms thinking about all the dollars he will get for showing what is after all just images and sound.
We both win (and George Lucas, of course.) I think only accountants and social activists can even imagine free enterprise and zero sum in the same thought.
The article is interesting, but such an egregious error undermines its credibility.
In Canada, a recent Supreme Court ruling has established that a sincere belief of consent is not a defense. In other words, if Joe Normal engages in what appears to be consensual sex with Jane Average, he is at risk of being charged and convicted for sexual assault.
Unless sanity re-enters the Canadian Judicial system, not only will the modern Lothario bring a shiny condom to his trysts but an affadavit and two witnesses.
Slashdot Mirror
> Unfair in the sense that 4 populous states (CA, FL, NY, and TX) can't impose their will on the rest of the country,
> yes. You have to have AT LEAST a dozen states to win under an electoral system, but under a popular system you can basically promise every federal dollar to those four states and the rest fo the country can go to hell...
This is quite like the situation in Canada. Ontario, the most populous province by far, essentially elects the prime minister. It's an ongoing sore point with the western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, and is one of the reasons why many in the west support the idea of a senate system as practised in the States.
> As a matter of interest, can the queen overule the Canadian governor general, or not?
The Governor General represents the Queen of Canada (i.e. Betty II). In a painfully hypothetical sense, it's conceivable.
However, imagining that the Governor General would veto a bill duly passed by parliament and the senate is on the order of a person winning three consecutive multi-million dollar lottaries. The Queen stepping into Canadian politics has about the same probability as all the air molecules in your room spontaneously moving into your coffee cup. (It isn't going to happen.)
One of the few situations where the Governor General (or the Lieutenant Governor for the provinces) has some disgression to act is when the prime minister (or premier of a province) asks him/her to dissolve parliament and call for an election. In a few cases, the GG (or LG) has refused.
I recall that Jimmy Carter was said to be one of the more intelligent presidents. However, his term in office was not a high point of American history. A micromanager (easy to be when you have the intellectual ability to know tasks outside your sphere) has the risk of losing sight of the big picture while mired in the details.
The recent untimely death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau ("timely" would conceivably been have been forty years ago) brings to mind the legacy of this disastrous former prime minister of Canada. He was an intellectual heavyweight who during his reign alienated the western provinces, imposed country-wide martial law on the shakey pretext of a local kidnapping, and left a national debt ten times its former size.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan had no such intellectual ability (nor intellectual arrogance). But, he did have principles, and he used them as touchstones for the people who did his planning. His legacy changed the world.
So, to answer the question, all else being equal, no. The smarter a person is the less predictable. When you vote for your guy, wouldn't you feel better knowing that what you see is probably what you'll get?
> it may also shed some light on why law enforcement is so gung-ho about keeping the war on drugs going.
This is a very interesting observation. Not so very long ago "witches" were burned at the stake. Their property was also forfeited. Sometimes the attractiveness of the latter made it convenient to discover the witchful nature of the owner.
> Nor a lying, (former) cocaine addict.
Well, Gore did invent the Internet (and his boss invented not having sex with interns.)
Democratic presidential candidates are most definitely *not* liers. What's more, they are ingenious inventors.
I'd go on with why you should vote for Al Gore, but I'm getting sleepy.
That isn't what I see the text saying:
(apologies for HTML illiteracy)
> 2. Provisions Implementing Divestiture
> a. After Implementation of the Plan, and throughout the term of this Final Judgment, neither the Operating Systems Business
> nor the Applications Business, nor any member of their respective Boards of Directors, shall acquire any securities or assets[...]
This, and other parts, say the remedies last only for the term of the Final Judgment (obviously, I suppose.) But look here:
> 6. Effective Date, Term, Retention of Jurisdiction, Modification.
> a. This Final Judgment shall take effect 90 days after the date on which it is entered; provided, however that sections 1.b and
> 2 (except 2.d) shall be stayed pending completion of any appeals from this Final Judgment.
and a couple lines further:
>c. This Final Judgment shall expire at the end of ten years from the date on which it takes effect.
So, if we understand "the date on which [the Final Judgment] is entered" to mean today, then ten years from today (plus 90 days) the ballgame is over. That portions of it may be stayed pending appeal will not (as I read it) extend the time the companies must be separate. If I've missed the part that says otherwise, please enlighten me.
I wonder if I'm misreading it: the Plan is to go into effect in 90 days, and last for 10 years. The stayed stuff (the breakup, with the prohibition from rejoining) will also expire 10 years + 90 days from now.
What this means, if I understand it correctly, is that if Microsoft can keep this in court for 10 years, they don't have to break up. Is this right?
Who cares what device raises a person's public stature? What matters is what he does with it.
His argument seems cogent, and if he alludes to a certain episode in Microsoft's memory of recent embarrassments, so what? There is a small, but finite, chance that it will change Microsoft's mind.
Stallman's views are interesting, and certainly have some grain of truth. But you have to be careful to pick only the parts of his theology that seem right to you. Otherwise, you might find one day a glass of funny-tasting kool-aid in your hand.
> The problem with cell phones [is] that most people don't have hands free sets[....]
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the news item claiming that mixing cell phones with driving was similar to alcohol and driving also included hands-free models in the barrage.
I hope that there will be solid studies done on driving and cell phones (with and without hands). Maybe something, other than abstinence, will come up that lessens the risks.
Certainly, we should put the GPL through its paces, sooner rather than later. The sooner we discover whether it needs fixing, and fix it, the more we reduce exposure to risk for Open Source.
Because the GPL is so radical, having direct supporting case law behind it will give a warm glow to the legal arm of the oncoming corporate contributors.
qmail has performed very well here, albeit with only three virtual domains. We use the free add-on vmailmgr (http://em.ca/~bruceg/vmailmgr/), which allows you to add users to a virtual domain without requiring a new Linux logon for each one. (It's very handy.)
The only real complaint I have about qmail is that the add-ons are all over the map, and it's very difficult to know which, if any, are part of the Received Canon, and which, if any, are heretical upstarts doomed to wither.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder: would it be a violation to point to a suppressed document? How about point to a pointer?
To map this to another context, imagine that some "randomiser" program, which generates, say, binary keys based on plaintext, just happened when applied against a certain legally protected dictionary file (or a web page, or a picture or song), to produce the contents of a suppressed document? It seems to me that both components would be legal, and that only the combination of the two would be a legal offense.
Thus, though the end result would still be illegal, the means to acquire the information would be known and protected by law. (It has been put better: "Information wants to be free.")
It would be best, however, for the DeCSS case to be thrown out of court, but this demonstrates the futility of gag orders in a distributed, computerized world.
If I'm not mistaken, most software comes with the company's disclaimer that their liability is limited to the price of the software. Given that, it seems that all else being equal, Open Source comes out the clear winner.
This sounds very interesting. Like it or not, advances in armament change how war is waged. Bots are like Gatling guns against bows and arrows. People might decry how each new weapon or defence sullies the "honour" of combat, but victory favours the bigger guns.
In Real Life, Stealth bombers, AWACS, Satellite Imaging and Cruise missiles make you a World Power -- not a cheater. As I understand it, the modern Army is working to equip its soldier with whatever is needed to coordinate and execute a mission and return alive. You want a fat defense contract? Make an aimbot for the army.
I think that if, rather than being suppressed, bots were embraced, you might well see a shift from the immediate tactics of taking out the enemy in the next room towards strategic warfare. (Imagine the Slashdot Slashers in a virtual campaign against the West Point Bedwetters!)
There is a saying: "Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary condition."
Terminal and debilitating illness aside, most things change. The tragedy of suicide is that it cannot be undone once the storm has passed.
Most choices can be "taken back" to one degree or another, when one has had time to reflect. Suicide, however, has no 15-day return policy.
When you buy a house, and sign up for a multi-year mortgage, it would be considered stupid to go ahead without checking what you are getting yourself into. How much more stupid for suicide?
a little off-topic, and no doubt well-known, but this is what folk did in the olden days.
"I bet 90% of the people who bitch and moan about this barely write code themselves."
This is debugging (not everyone in QA is a coder), and is what makes an application, or a license, better.
Spot on. I value seeing Star Wars, Part 1, more than I do the umpteen dollars the theatre mogul will charge me. The TM, conversely, gets sweaty palms thinking about all the dollars he will get for showing what is after all just images and sound.
We both win (and George Lucas, of course.) I think only accountants and social activists can even imagine free enterprise and zero sum in the same thought.
The article is interesting, but such an egregious error undermines its credibility.
In Canada, a recent Supreme Court ruling has established that a sincere belief of consent is not a defense. In other words, if Joe Normal engages in what appears to be consensual sex with Jane Average, he is at risk of being charged and convicted for sexual assault.
Unless sanity re-enters the Canadian Judicial system, not only will the modern Lothario bring a shiny condom to his trysts but an affadavit and two witnesses.