Let me sum up: the USA boldly sends a probe in space, at a very great cost to taxpayers. Some decades later, NASA is forced to scrap the only computer that can access the unique (and very expensive) data collected by said probe, because the administration refuses to fund them properly.
Actually, Congress allocates funding for NASA and thus is responsible for the lack of funds. You should contact your local Senate and House representatives if you wish to continue research in this area.
However, please note that due to beaurocracy alone, the cost of NASA performing this research is on the order of twenty times larger than an exterior organization which uses primarily volunteers and college students and collects money via donations and/or selling T-shirts.
If you have a problem with this, then don't blame Microsoft. Blame the media providers. If you don't like having to buy a new monitor that supports their DRM requirements, do not buy their media content. When no one buys their media content, they will change their requirements or go out of business. Simple enough.
All Microsoft is doing is providing the method to enforce the DRM, but are not actually offering the DRM.
How many Native Americans did we strip of their land, send off to die in reservations, and/or outright kill during the 19th century. Can you say "millions." I knew you could.
What this has to do with Iraq or Afghanistan I do not know, but I'm sure you can come up with something crazy enough to justify such a rediculous comment.
Regardless, this was more or less a war, that is, the battle between the colonists and the Native Americans. I'm not necessarily justifying the actions (of either side), but also history shows mistakes on both sides of that conflict. In any case, your point to show how "bad" America is falls short, like all other liberal arguments.
Now get off your high horse. War is about economic or political advantage.
Of course it does... because, again, America is bad... and no one ever does anything for other people.
But Iraq was just plain stupid on so many grounds both economic and political that Bush is going to give Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of "Worst President."
Which perfectly contradicts the last sentence I quoted you on. It wasn't about either money or politics. It was about principle. Bush put his presidency on the line by going into Iraq. If it was all about money and politics, he wouldn't have done this.
Oh and btw, Clinton was the worst President. Or maybe it was Carter. Tough call! </opinion>
I really don't know how this Supreme Court decision, which upheld Florida law, had anything to do with the tragedy of 9/11. By the way, the number was more like 3000.
Ohhh you're talking about the soldiers. Well, you're right, if it wasn't for our supreme court decision, then 50 million of Iraqis and Afghanis would still be under the facist rule of dictators.
And where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? No number can be verified as to how many and even the most liberal estimates put it at only about 50,000 to 60,000.
Why does the state force the telephone companies to provide 900 call blocking service when devices exist to do this? Yet, you're not complaining about this!
It's the same thing! Just different communication medium! And, no, I'm not saying 100% of people in Utah are behind the law. But as I also said, this is an "opt-in"... you don't HAVE to opt-in!
Personally, as I originally posted, I think the law is crap. The Utah legislature obviously feels this is what it's constituents want and therefore have applied the law. If those constituents don't want the law, they can elect people who will remove it. Simple as that. THAT is how a representative government works. The majority does, indeed, rule... since that is the will of the people!
What I also find frankly hypocritical is the recent tendency of social conservatives to bemoan the tyanny of a big (elected) federal government (including its judiciary) over the rights of localities while ardently and passionately supporting the tyranny of localities over the rights of individuals. It's amazing how quickly folks who imagine(d) being previously persecuted for their beliefs springing forth as persecutors themselves.
Well, it was the original intent of the founding fathers to limit federal government and let the states govern themselves. Over the years, the laws governing the people of the nation have shifted more towards the federal level thus leaving states less in control of the lives of it's inhabitants.
But this is really a point of view argument. Do you prefer states controlling your life or the federal government? Personally, I would prefer the states. This way, the overarching freedoms espoused by the Constitution remain, however I can choose the state I want to live in based on my own personal beliefs. For instance, let's say there was no federal law stating abortion was legal. However, I lived in a state, let's say Utah, that was against abortion and I didn't feel this was right. I also knew Colorado allowed abortions. I could simply "move" to the state I liked more. It's competition at it's best!
Show me where this is unconstitutional? I would like you to show me where the Constitution denies the rights of individuals to censor themselves from things they do not want to see. Since this is, as been discussed, an "opt-in" for the user of the ISP and not required, how exactly is this different than a 1-900 blocker on your telephone put there by your telephone company? That's right, there is none.
Oh and hey, stop with the personal attacks now and the cursing is not needed. I am simply expressing some observations I have made. This is my right under the constitution, especially if it doesn't agree with yours.
The ACLU watches over our civil liberties, but who is watching the watchers?
Sure, it's parents removing the responsibility from themselves and putting it on the state. However, if this is their choice, then they should be allowed to do it.
In this case, the ISP is not the one policing your kids, it's the state. The ISP is merely the transportation method. It's like blocking 1-900 calls on your phone line. The state requires this blocking and your telephone company provides it, but it's an opt-in... and you're not required to opt-in.
So what's wrong? I person can not censor themselves? The state isn't telling the ISPs they must install this software, but are telling them they must provide this software at the request of the user on an opt-in basis. Two different things... and to say that the user is not allowed to censor themselves is rediculous.
The law only provides an easy method for users to obtain the software without the additional cost of software which could run $50-80. For poorer families, this additional cost could be difficult to bare.
So yeah I have already seen about 6 posts looking something like, "those crazy right wing nut jobs want to stop the righteous and omniscient ACLU from protecting my civil liberties!" Seems to be the trend on/. recently, which makes it less interesting for me to read.
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
The problem I really have here is that while all you pro-ACLU people continue to scream about the ACLU protecting my right to free speech, it seems that the ACLU is restricting the right of the people of Utah (in this case) to elect a government which is representative of their ideals and beliefs.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do. If they do not, they could elect individuals who would overturn said law.
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
No, socks will still be lost in the vortex that exists between space, time and your clothes drier. This is out of reach of normal radio signals, but I think SETI is establishing a program to search for extratestrial cotton fabrics.
No, it's about whether the method for gathering evidence is "generally accepted". And the use of a breathalizer test is generally accepted, and this kind of ruling only falls under the category of a rogue judiciary.
The problem here is not that the device code is closed source, but that we're talking about activist judges who once again want to bypass the written law. In this case, you're letting off a guy who could have killed someone due to his stupid actions. And yes, in this case, the judge is defending the drunk driver.
Every year the school has special classes to explain the differences, encourage kids to use it, and explain any problems they may have. How much does this class cost the school? How much time is taken out of fundamental education in order to teach this information? I'm not saying this is bad, but is $100,000 a real figure when you count the continued education needed of the students in order for them to become familiar with OpenOffice?
I guess making the task of finding which employees to can has just been made easier... they can just fire those who don't show up to work!
European workers are known for their inability to deal with change. A story my manager told me about his brother who works for an international bank and was once sent to France. The facility discontinued a particular wine in the cafeteria (yes, wine for lunch in the cafeteria) and the employees threated to strike over it. Talk about spoiled!
Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace) [note: pun may or may not have been intended]
They "care" so much because they are typical liberals. They want to tell me how to run my life, if the aspect of my life their interested in is computers, they want to tell me I should run Firefox and not IE. If their interest is in the car I drive, they'll tell me what kind of car, etc.
Basically what it comes down to is rediculing me for making a choice of what to run. If I don't run the "geek approved" software, then I'm considered a lamer.
I've personally never understood this phenominon. I've also told people I believe they should use something, but if they say "oh well i dont like it because of X, Y and Z" I say OK and drop it. However, I still encourage people to try new things.
I've used many open source and closed source software, and honestly I believe good software comes from both categories. For instance, I like Mac OS X... some may not because it only runs on a Mac.. or because it's not entirely open source. However, *I* prefer it over windows and linux. I also prefer Photoshop over Gimp. However, I prefer Firefox over IE... and I also prefer using im over notepad.
It's funny... if this was a Christian group proselytizing Christianity, this same group of people would be screaming outrage of how Christianity is being forced down their throats. But when it comes to technology, they prove themselves hypocrits.
Gee... if only Apple let you configure your system the way you wanted it... that would be great. Then you could add all the ram you wanted... or all the hard drives... or upgrade the video card to an NVIDIA 6800 Ultra DDL for $450... or add an Apple display... or two... or maybe an gigabit ethernet ($100) and fiber channel ($500) cards. Geesh.. if only.
Well then you have a choice: DO NOT USE THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Period. End of discussion.
The sad part about this entire story is that the same group of lame people (yes, slashdot users) are whining about how bad Microsoft's OS quality is, but when they want to add a feature to better support or help them diagnose their OS, you complain about privacy. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways!
If Microsoft's software violates any laws which affect a business, then those companies who use Microsoft products will either 1) change to a different OS vendor or 2) risk being fined, etc for violating the law.
So my sarcasm is for a reason... you have a choice, use it... and stop whining.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Congress allocates funding for NASA and thus is responsible for the lack of funds. You should contact your local Senate and House representatives if you wish to continue research in this area.
However, please note that due to beaurocracy alone, the cost of NASA performing this research is on the order of twenty times larger than an exterior organization which uses primarily volunteers and college students and collects money via donations and/or selling T-shirts.
Of course, you forget to mention Jose Padilla pleads guilty. Because, after all, that would not allow you to prove your point.
"It depends on what your definition of is is."
Now we're just splitting hairs...
If you have a problem with this, then don't blame Microsoft. Blame the media providers. If you don't like having to buy a new monitor that supports their DRM requirements, do not buy their media content. When no one buys their media content, they will change their requirements or go out of business. Simple enough.
All Microsoft is doing is providing the method to enforce the DRM, but are not actually offering the DRM.
How many Native Americans did we strip of their land, send off to die in reservations, and/or outright kill during the 19th century. Can you say "millions." I knew you could.
What this has to do with Iraq or Afghanistan I do not know, but I'm sure you can come up with something crazy enough to justify such a rediculous comment.
Regardless, this was more or less a war, that is, the battle between the colonists and the Native Americans. I'm not necessarily justifying the actions (of either side), but also history shows mistakes on both sides of that conflict. In any case, your point to show how "bad" America is falls short, like all other liberal arguments.
Now get off your high horse. War is about economic or political advantage.
Of course it does... because, again, America is bad... and no one ever does anything for other people.
But Iraq was just plain stupid on so many grounds both economic and political that Bush is going to give Warren Harding a run for his money for the title of "Worst President."
Which perfectly contradicts the last sentence I quoted you on. It wasn't about either money or politics. It was about principle. Bush put his presidency on the line by going into Iraq. If it was all about money and politics, he wouldn't have done this.
Oh and btw, Clinton was the worst President. Or maybe it was Carter. Tough call! </opinion>
I really don't know how this Supreme Court decision, which upheld Florida law, had anything to do with the tragedy of 9/11. By the way, the number was more like 3000.
Ohhh you're talking about the soldiers. Well, you're right, if it wasn't for our supreme court decision, then 50 million of Iraqis and Afghanis would still be under the facist rule of dictators.
And where do you get 'hundreds of thousands'? No number can be verified as to how many and even the most liberal estimates put it at only about 50,000 to 60,000.
First, Apple and Nokia for new portable web browser
Next, Apple and Intel deal to make processors for Apple computers.
Now, Nokia and Intel to make hi-speed wifi.
Will Apple be the first hardware vendor to have a portable device that uses the new hi-speed wifi w/ this browser?
it seems another round of unemployment is just around the corner!
But it's still censorship! It doesn't matter why it's there, IT'S STILL CENSORSHIP! I never said anything was about morality.
Why does the state force the telephone companies to provide 900 call blocking service when devices exist to do this? Yet, you're not complaining about this!
It's the same thing! Just different communication medium! And, no, I'm not saying 100% of people in Utah are behind the law. But as I also said, this is an "opt-in"... you don't HAVE to opt-in!
Personally, as I originally posted, I think the law is crap. The Utah legislature obviously feels this is what it's constituents want and therefore have applied the law. If those constituents don't want the law, they can elect people who will remove it. Simple as that. THAT is how a representative government works. The majority does, indeed, rule... since that is the will of the people!
What I also find frankly hypocritical is the recent tendency of social conservatives to bemoan the tyanny of a big (elected) federal government (including its judiciary) over the rights of localities while ardently and passionately supporting the tyranny of localities over the rights of individuals. It's amazing how quickly folks who imagine(d) being previously persecuted for their beliefs springing forth as persecutors themselves.
Well, it was the original intent of the founding fathers to limit federal government and let the states govern themselves. Over the years, the laws governing the people of the nation have shifted more towards the federal level thus leaving states less in control of the lives of it's inhabitants.
But this is really a point of view argument. Do you prefer states controlling your life or the federal government? Personally, I would prefer the states. This way, the overarching freedoms espoused by the Constitution remain, however I can choose the state I want to live in based on my own personal beliefs. For instance, let's say there was no federal law stating abortion was legal. However, I lived in a state, let's say Utah, that was against abortion and I didn't feel this was right. I also knew Colorado allowed abortions. I could simply "move" to the state I liked more. It's competition at it's best!
Show me where this is unconstitutional? I would like you to show me where the Constitution denies the rights of individuals to censor themselves from things they do not want to see. Since this is, as been discussed, an "opt-in" for the user of the ISP and not required, how exactly is this different than a 1-900 blocker on your telephone put there by your telephone company? That's right, there is none.
Oh and hey, stop with the personal attacks now and the cursing is not needed. I am simply expressing some observations I have made. This is my right under the constitution, especially if it doesn't agree with yours.
The ACLU watches over our civil liberties, but who is watching the watchers?
Sure, it's parents removing the responsibility from themselves and putting it on the state. However, if this is their choice, then they should be allowed to do it.
In this case, the ISP is not the one policing your kids, it's the state. The ISP is merely the transportation method. It's like blocking 1-900 calls on your phone line. The state requires this blocking and your telephone company provides it, but it's an opt-in... and you're not required to opt-in.
So what's wrong? I person can not censor themselves? The state isn't telling the ISPs they must install this software, but are telling them they must provide this software at the request of the user on an opt-in basis. Two different things... and to say that the user is not allowed to censor themselves is rediculous.
The law only provides an easy method for users to obtain the software without the additional cost of software which could run $50-80. For poorer families, this additional cost could be difficult to bare.
So yeah I have already seen about 6 posts looking something like, "those crazy right wing nut jobs want to stop the righteous and omniscient ACLU from protecting my civil liberties!" Seems to be the trend on /. recently, which makes it less interesting for me to read.
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
The problem I really have here is that while all you pro-ACLU people continue to scream about the ACLU protecting my right to free speech, it seems that the ACLU is restricting the right of the people of Utah (in this case) to elect a government which is representative of their ideals and beliefs.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do. If they do not, they could elect individuals who would overturn said law.
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
No, socks will still be lost in the vortex that exists between space, time and your clothes drier. This is out of reach of normal radio signals, but I think SETI is establishing a program to search for extratestrial cotton fabrics.
No, it's about whether the method for gathering evidence is "generally accepted". And the use of a breathalizer test is generally accepted, and this kind of ruling only falls under the category of a rogue judiciary.
The problem here is not that the device code is closed source, but that we're talking about activist judges who once again want to bypass the written law. In this case, you're letting off a guy who could have killed someone due to his stupid actions. And yes, in this case, the judge is defending the drunk driver.
So when you go to translate.google.com and translate something, the result will be legal-eze in the resulting languages.
Spanish: "Que pasa?"
English translation: "With regards to the current situation, how is the day progressing?"
Every year the school has special classes to explain the differences, encourage kids to use it, and explain any problems they may have. How much does this class cost the school? How much time is taken out of fundamental education in order to teach this information? I'm not saying this is bad, but is $100,000 a real figure when you count the continued education needed of the students in order for them to become familiar with OpenOffice?
I guess making the task of finding which employees to can has just been made easier... they can just fire those who don't show up to work!
European workers are known for their inability to deal with change. A story my manager told me about his brother who works for an international bank and was once sent to France. The facility discontinued a particular wine in the cafeteria (yes, wine for lunch in the cafeteria) and the employees threated to strike over it. Talk about spoiled!
Actually, a more accurate statement would be, "Welcome to the Special Interests of Amerca". It's not always the corporations, but in general special interest groups, that muddy the waters (from the MPAA to the Greenpeace) [note: pun may or may not have been intended]
Forced? What happened to the fillibuster? Oh that's right, they're reserving that for the judicial nominees.
They "care" so much because they are typical liberals. They want to tell me how to run my life, if the aspect of my life their interested in is computers, they want to tell me I should run Firefox and not IE. If their interest is in the car I drive, they'll tell me what kind of car, etc.
Basically what it comes down to is rediculing me for making a choice of what to run. If I don't run the "geek approved" software, then I'm considered a lamer.
I've personally never understood this phenominon. I've also told people I believe they should use something, but if they say "oh well i dont like it because of X, Y and Z" I say OK and drop it. However, I still encourage people to try new things.
I've used many open source and closed source software, and honestly I believe good software comes from both categories. For instance, I like Mac OS X... some may not because it only runs on a Mac.. or because it's not entirely open source. However, *I* prefer it over windows and linux. I also prefer Photoshop over Gimp. However, I prefer Firefox over IE... and I also prefer using im over notepad.
It's funny... if this was a Christian group proselytizing Christianity, this same group of people would be screaming outrage of how Christianity is being forced down their throats. But when it comes to technology, they prove themselves hypocrits.
Gee... if only Apple let you configure your system the way you wanted it... that would be great. Then you could add all the ram you wanted... or all the hard drives... or upgrade the video card to an NVIDIA 6800 Ultra DDL for $450... or add an Apple display... or two... or maybe an gigabit ethernet ($100) and fiber channel ($500) cards. Geesh.. if only.
Oh wait...
Well then you have a choice: DO NOT USE THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Period. End of discussion.
The sad part about this entire story is that the same group of lame people (yes, slashdot users) are whining about how bad Microsoft's OS quality is, but when they want to add a feature to better support or help them diagnose their OS, you complain about privacy. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways!
If Microsoft's software violates any laws which affect a business, then those companies who use Microsoft products will either 1) change to a different OS vendor or 2) risk being fined, etc for violating the law.
So my sarcasm is for a reason... you have a choice, use it... and stop whining.