Well, if that's the case, as I will say to every respondent in a topic concerning Amateur Radio, post your call sign, so we can all verify that you are what you claim.
You should really try not to be so much of a jackass when talking about technologies about which you clearly have little to no understanding. Amateur radio operators have been for a very long time, continue to be, and will continue to be, absolutely indispensible in situations where regional communications failures have occurred.
Granted, in recent years, we have done a much better job re-installing other forms of radio comms in disaster areas, but amateur radio operators were still on the scene first, do it for free, and don't ask for anything more than a modicum of respect for their services.
Seriously, though, if you guys do "massive simulations where technology, policy, and economics meet", I'd like to see some simulations of the global economic and environmental consequences of rapidly rising energy prices, or calculations of how much waste heat contributes to climate change.
Actually, *everyone* tends to think more with their emotions than with logic. This is not a quality that is limited to "touchy-feely leftists". I fail to see how his policies on welfare are "dangerous". Misguided, perhaps, but hardly dangerous. His positions on crime are eminently logical; any denial of this fact is a knee-jerk and emotional reaction based on fear. His positions on national security are far more pragmatic and rational than anything the right-wing goose-steppers have ever come up with.
I've checked out his voting profile several times in the past. Other than his positions on the death penalty (which I agree with, with reservations) and the Second Amendment (which I will defend unreservedly), I see little there with which to disagree vehemently.
Rep. Kucinich has already introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, for exactly the reason you intimate. They are still pending.
First of all, Congress did not "authorize the invasion, and all its excesses". What Congress authorized was the "use of force" to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. This does not necessarily imply an authorization for a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and the destruction of that nations government. This is exactly why there is some distinction between the President's authority as CINC and Congress' power to Declare War.
Second of all, the War Powers Act will quickly force...nothing. *Every* president since the War Powers Act was passed has argued the unconstitutionality of that law.
That would really ring true if it didn't ignore the fact that going into Vietnam was the right thing to do. The real problem with Vietnam was that the war was completely mismanaged from the very beginning, just the same as what has happened in Iraq. Of course, that is exactly what one would expect from the so-called leadership of people like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, who somehow managed to succeed in avoiding service in Vietnam.
I will agree, though that the Tonkin Resolution was the wrong way to go about it, but I also understand that an out-and-out Declaration of War would have opened up a much larger can of worms that might have resulted in a much larger conflict. Understand that the global political environment in the 1960's was quite a bit different than the situation we faced in the early 2000's. no matter how much the Bush Administration did to hoodwink the world into believing that Iraq possessed, or was attempting to construct, the sort of weapons of mass destruction that we *know*, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the supporters of the North Vietnamese government possessed then.
You may laugh at "duck and cover" now, but the threat of Global Thermonuclear War was a very real possibility in those days.
Impeachment proceedings are (supposed to be) considered in the course of Congressional business to have "high privilege", meaning, that they are of the most important category of business, and most other proceedings, such as gas prices (which Congress does not have, and should not have, control over), terrorism (which is not, in the end, a significant issue, except for those who have been cowed by the fearmongers into believing so), and yes, even Iraq, are (again, supposed to be) put on the back burner, so to speak, until the question of the impeachment is settled.
Unfortunately, the reality of the current political climate in this country means Congress will move on these Articles approximately as quickly as they have moved on Kucinich's last introduction of Articles of Impeachment (against Richard Cheney, in case you didn't know, and which are still pending).
It's a shame you consider rules of order to be "melodrama", but your opinion is not necessarily the standard against which such things are weighed, and I thank the Framers for that. It is even more of a shame that Congress apparently feels no compunction to do their sworn duty.
Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. Period.
The District Court decision was related to a charge of "civil contempt of court".
The SCOTUS decision you refer to relates to his disbarment from the Supreme Court. No reason was given for the disbarment, as stated in the article you reference.
The "Arkansas Supreme Court" article you refer to in fact contains no mention of the Arkansas Supreme Court, but relates to Clinton's voluntary agreement to a five-year suspension of his license to practice law, as part of an agreement to end the investigation.
You clearly fail to understand the workings of the legal system.
You need to pay more attention in Civics class. Impeachment is the *only* avenue available to bring a sitting President to Justice. And, yes he has broken US law, demonstrably. And, no we should *not* turn him over to any international "court". The sovereignty of the United States cannot, and will not, be questioned.
I highly doubt that Apple is going to push through a "quick" update and call it v10.6. Much more likely is that Apple does indeed plan on going Intel-only for v10.6, and is planning on making sure developers know it far enough in advance. I expect v10.6 will be released no sooner than mid 2009, and likely not until early 2010. This would put v10.6 on about a two-year release cycle, which is consistent with Apple's increasingly long development cycles (though it actually took 2.5 years for v10.4 - v10.5), and would give, in what seems to be a normal sort of move for Apple, their developers at least an entire year to wrap their minds around the concept of ditching PPC entirely.
Bear in mind that v10.5 requires at least an 867 MHz G4 to install. By the time v10.6 rolls out, the minimum requirements will probably be in the area of a 2.0 GHz G5, which will leave comparatively few PPC machines extant that can even run the beast, so Apple may think, "Why bother?". That would mean no PPC laptops, as no G5 laptops were ever released, leaving only iMacs, Power Macs, and XServes able to run it. After all, my own Dual 2.0 GHz G5 Power Mac is already over three years old, and will be four-and-a-half by next summer. There's no reason to expect that Apple will support these machines indefinitely. A still more likely explanation is that only faster G5's (as described above) will run v10.6 PPC, and PPC support will be removed in v10.7, as this will avoid pissing off the punters too much. Not that Apple is any stranger to pissing off their customers, but they seem to know we'll eventually forgive them if they deliver the goods with the new candy.
The biggest clue is that the banners rolling out at the Moscone Center all read "OS X Leopard", rather than "Mac OS X Leopard". While this may indicate Apple finally moving on from the old Macintosh OS code, it is also possible that it means nothing more than that Apple is rebranding "OS X" in conjunction with the release of the 3G iPhone (or 2G, if you prefer iPod terms instead of cell network terms), something which has been intimated with every discussion of the iPhone's current OS as "running OS X", rather than running "Mac OS X". It may also have something to do with these "electric computers" that are streaming into the country at an astounding rate (which are likely the new iPhones, but who knows? Apple is very, very sneaky.).
What truly boggles my mind is that Microsoft hasn't released "Microsoft Linux", embracing and extending (though not necessarily "extinguishing" the concept this time) it to become the core of Microsoft's OS offerings. Whatever strengths Microsoft possesses, I'm sure we can all agree that OS design is not recognized as being in that group by a large number of people in the technology industry.
Imagine what could happen if Microsoft were to throw its weight and influence behind a standardized distribution of GNU/Linux?
Sure, it would mean revolutionizing Microsoft's approach to business in many ways (though not in others), but the benefits to Microsoft are practically uncountable. I would even venture to say that it could, in the end, turn out to be highly beneficial to the F/OSS community as a whole (though very likely damaging in other ways).
Sometimes, I really have to wonder what the guys in Redmond are doing with all the time and money they have...
As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
Translation to reality:
"If you give people the choice between, as an example, a $2500 Wintel PC and a $500 Wintel PC, both of which offer the same crappy Windows Experience, most people will choose to invest less of their money in a losing proposition."
What truly amazes me is that, apparently, a full third of the people who can afford a superior product nonetheless invest in the inferior version.
Modern motorcycle helmets are meant to protect the human head from impact with the ground. The approximate speed at which a human head will be travelling when dropped from the average motorcycling riding height is about 13 miles per hour. What this means is that the helmet must necessarily be designed to cope with relatively low impact forces in order to prevent brain injury. Motorcycles are most definitely not designed with "some heavy impact in mind".
Your friend is very, very lucky to be alive. Granted, with proper protective gear (not what the vast majority of motorcyclists wear), motorcycles crashes are highly survivable even at racing speeds, so long as the crash happens in relatively controlled circumstances. That is to say, not on public streets, where you are likely to slide into all manner of obstacles which are not designed to absorb the impact of a human body. I hope your friend was performing this feat at a properly maintained race course, and not on public streets.
That being said, when a human head travelling at 200+ mph on a motorbike comes into contact with a bird, the transfer of force involved is probably a lot less than one might initially imagine. The bird is a soft "target", and being likely airborne, would rebound easily.
Keep these frequencies clear for relief efforts!
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 1
According to Tim, N9PUZ, the moderator of the Buddipole Users Group, who forwarded a message from Michael Chen, BD5RV/4, the following frequencies are being used for relief efforts in the Sichuan region, and should be kept clear of all other traffic:
14.270 MHz
7.050 MHz
7.060 MHz
FORWARDED MESSAGE:
I know lot's of buddipole users monitor 14.270 for QSO's, but for now we may want to find a different frequency based on the following information:
"Strong earthquake hits China, all ham radio operators stand by
"A Magnitude 7.8 earthquake hits Sichuan, China on Monday, May 12, 2008 at 06:28:04 UTC. Casualties and loss unknown up to now. According to Chinese Radio Sports Association, 14.270Mhz, 7.050 and 7.060 Mhz are preserved for amatuer radio emergency service in the rescue. Please spread this message as far as you can and keep the frequencies clean for emergency use. Thank you.
"Your attention please! 14.270Mhz is now reserved for ARES in 5.12 earth quake in Sichuan, China. Please help to keep this frequency clear.
"A group of radio amateurs is now transmitting from Wenchuan, the center of quake. Its signal is reported to be very weak. They tried to keep communication with BY8AA in Chengdu, seeking for all resources needed. During a contact finished a few minutes ago, they were asking for raincoats, water, tents, and outdoor living facilities.
"PLEASE HELP TO FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL RELEVANT FORUMS, MAILING LISTS, AND NEWS RESOURCES. MEANWHILE, KEEP THE ABOVE FREQUENCY CLEAN FOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION.
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of a complete misunderstanding of the issues involved. You may refer to Lessig and Stallman as many times as you like, but the issue in question is not that of "personal copy".
You should re-read the transcript of the proceedings with a more open mind. You have completely missed exactly how insightfully most of the panel, with the obvious exception of Professor Hansen, addressed the arguments.
You also clearly do not understand the difference between "created rights", as you term them, and "natural rights", or the purpose of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
Yes, Beckman was right. This was acknowledged by the panel more than once. But Beckman's arguments do not constitute the entirety of the debate.
Why should anyone ask the RIAA this question? Your understanding of the argument is clearly deficient.
If a car is considered "available" by parking it on the street, this does not give a thief the "right" to steal it, even if the windows are left down, the doors unlocked, the keys in the ignition, and the engine running! Nor is the owner of said car infringing upon the property rights of anyone else by leaving the car in that condition.
This is an entirely specious argument. If I have been granted the power by the Constitution of the United States to have sole discretion over the manner in which my works are distributed, and you infringe upon that right by making unauthorized copies of my work in violation of those laws, you have deprived me of my grant without due process of law. In most cases concerning works intended for commercial distribution, this means you have deprived me of my rightful compensation.
I have to say I haven't heard of any problem quite like the one you're experiencing, and I'm an independent consultant that deals primarily with Macintosh systems. My personal MacBook is now over a year old, and the only thing I've seen is the mysterious dropping connection. I also have an iMac of the same vintage whose AirPort has been rock solid, and none of my clients have ever reported similar issues to yours.
That said, sometimes Apple releases some stinkers. My G3 iBook was repaired by Apple at least four times. The first time, the onboard memory failed five weeks after I got the unit. It took three attempts by Apple's repair people to fix the issue, because the first two times, they "repaired" the wrong thing. I was absolutely livid, and they managed to replace my perfectly functioning HDD with all my data on it (fortunately, it was a new machine, so it didn't really have *that* much on it, but still...I'll never send in another for repair without a backup). The fourth time was for the well-known video chip issue. My seemed to last longer than most others', but still eventually failed. It may have even gone back for repair one more time just before the extended warranty ran out, but it's been stable since then, though I don't use it very much anymore.
The "AirPort dropping connections" problem is quite easily solved in most cases by making sure the base station you're connecting to uses WPA with the AES encryption option, rather than TKIP, or using WPA2 (where AES is required, and TKIP is not an option).
This drove me nuts when I replaced my G3 iBook with my C2D MacBook with the "N"-capable chipset, until I found the answer. This of course, doesn't happen when you're actually using an Apple AirPort base station, but is a common problem running typical off-brands. In my case, I was running two Linksys WRT54GS's with Alchemy, which I then switched to DD-WRT in an attempt to work around the problem. That in itself didn't solve the problem until I stumbled across the AES issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I'l tell you what they do--they follow the guidelines of the ITU.
Well, if that's the case, as I will say to every respondent in a topic concerning Amateur Radio, post your call sign, so we can all verify that you are what you claim.
73 DE K2TIV/AG
Yes, but where do you keep your nuclear wessels? In Alameda?
You should really try not to be so much of a jackass when talking about technologies about which you clearly have little to no understanding. Amateur radio operators have been for a very long time, continue to be, and will continue to be, absolutely indispensible in situations where regional communications failures have occurred.
Granted, in recent years, we have done a much better job re-installing other forms of radio comms in disaster areas, but amateur radio operators were still on the scene first, do it for free, and don't ask for anything more than a modicum of respect for their services.
73 DE K2TIV
Seriously, though, if you guys do "massive simulations where technology, policy, and economics meet", I'd like to see some simulations of the global economic and environmental consequences of rapidly rising energy prices, or calculations of how much waste heat contributes to climate change.
Because my statement my have been unclear, I would like to clarify that I support capital punishment, with some reservations.
Actually, *everyone* tends to think more with their emotions than with logic. This is not a quality that is limited to "touchy-feely leftists". I fail to see how his policies on welfare are "dangerous". Misguided, perhaps, but hardly dangerous. His positions on crime are eminently logical; any denial of this fact is a knee-jerk and emotional reaction based on fear. His positions on national security are far more pragmatic and rational than anything the right-wing goose-steppers have ever come up with.
I've checked out his voting profile several times in the past. Other than his positions on the death penalty (which I agree with, with reservations) and the Second Amendment (which I will defend unreservedly), I see little there with which to disagree vehemently.
Rep. Kucinich has already introduced Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard Cheney, for exactly the reason you intimate. They are still pending.
Does the business of the Congress of the United States of America somehow become less important at different hours of the day?
First of all, Congress did not "authorize the invasion, and all its excesses". What Congress authorized was the "use of force" to make Iraq comply with the UN resolutions. This does not necessarily imply an authorization for a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and the destruction of that nations government. This is exactly why there is some distinction between the President's authority as CINC and Congress' power to Declare War.
Second of all, the War Powers Act will quickly force...nothing. *Every* president since the War Powers Act was passed has argued the unconstitutionality of that law.
That would really ring true if it didn't ignore the fact that going into Vietnam was the right thing to do. The real problem with Vietnam was that the war was completely mismanaged from the very beginning, just the same as what has happened in Iraq. Of course, that is exactly what one would expect from the so-called leadership of people like George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, who somehow managed to succeed in avoiding service in Vietnam.
I will agree, though that the Tonkin Resolution was the wrong way to go about it, but I also understand that an out-and-out Declaration of War would have opened up a much larger can of worms that might have resulted in a much larger conflict. Understand that the global political environment in the 1960's was quite a bit different than the situation we faced in the early 2000's. no matter how much the Bush Administration did to hoodwink the world into believing that Iraq possessed, or was attempting to construct, the sort of weapons of mass destruction that we *know*, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the supporters of the North Vietnamese government possessed then.
You may laugh at "duck and cover" now, but the threat of Global Thermonuclear War was a very real possibility in those days.
Impeachment proceedings are (supposed to be) considered in the course of Congressional business to have "high privilege", meaning, that they are of the most important category of business, and most other proceedings, such as gas prices (which Congress does not have, and should not have, control over), terrorism (which is not, in the end, a significant issue, except for those who have been cowed by the fearmongers into believing so), and yes, even Iraq, are (again, supposed to be) put on the back burner, so to speak, until the question of the impeachment is settled.
Unfortunately, the reality of the current political climate in this country means Congress will move on these Articles approximately as quickly as they have moved on Kucinich's last introduction of Articles of Impeachment (against Richard Cheney, in case you didn't know, and which are still pending).
It's a shame you consider rules of order to be "melodrama", but your opinion is not necessarily the standard against which such things are weighed, and I thank the Framers for that. It is even more of a shame that Congress apparently feels no compunction to do their sworn duty.
Clinton was never found guilty of perjury. Period.
The District Court decision was related to a charge of "civil contempt of court".
The SCOTUS decision you refer to relates to his disbarment from the Supreme Court. No reason was given for the disbarment, as stated in the article you reference.
The "Arkansas Supreme Court" article you refer to in fact contains no mention of the Arkansas Supreme Court, but relates to Clinton's voluntary agreement to a five-year suspension of his license to practice law, as part of an agreement to end the investigation.
You clearly fail to understand the workings of the legal system.
You need to pay more attention in Civics class. Impeachment is the *only* avenue available to bring a sitting President to Justice. And, yes he has broken US law, demonstrably. And, no we should *not* turn him over to any international "court". The sovereignty of the United States cannot, and will not, be questioned.
I highly doubt that Apple is going to push through a "quick" update and call it v10.6. Much more likely is that Apple does indeed plan on going Intel-only for v10.6, and is planning on making sure developers know it far enough in advance. I expect v10.6 will be released no sooner than mid 2009, and likely not until early 2010. This would put v10.6 on about a two-year release cycle, which is consistent with Apple's increasingly long development cycles (though it actually took 2.5 years for v10.4 - v10.5), and would give, in what seems to be a normal sort of move for Apple, their developers at least an entire year to wrap their minds around the concept of ditching PPC entirely.
Bear in mind that v10.5 requires at least an 867 MHz G4 to install. By the time v10.6 rolls out, the minimum requirements will probably be in the area of a 2.0 GHz G5, which will leave comparatively few PPC machines extant that can even run the beast, so Apple may think, "Why bother?". That would mean no PPC laptops, as no G5 laptops were ever released, leaving only iMacs, Power Macs, and XServes able to run it. After all, my own Dual 2.0 GHz G5 Power Mac is already over three years old, and will be four-and-a-half by next summer. There's no reason to expect that Apple will support these machines indefinitely. A still more likely explanation is that only faster G5's (as described above) will run v10.6 PPC, and PPC support will be removed in v10.7, as this will avoid pissing off the punters too much. Not that Apple is any stranger to pissing off their customers, but they seem to know we'll eventually forgive them if they deliver the goods with the new candy.
The biggest clue is that the banners rolling out at the Moscone Center all read "OS X Leopard", rather than "Mac OS X Leopard". While this may indicate Apple finally moving on from the old Macintosh OS code, it is also possible that it means nothing more than that Apple is rebranding "OS X" in conjunction with the release of the 3G iPhone (or 2G, if you prefer iPod terms instead of cell network terms), something which has been intimated with every discussion of the iPhone's current OS as "running OS X", rather than running "Mac OS X". It may also have something to do with these "electric computers" that are streaming into the country at an astounding rate (which are likely the new iPhones, but who knows? Apple is very, very sneaky.).
...but they just haven't realized it yet.
What truly boggles my mind is that Microsoft hasn't released "Microsoft Linux", embracing and extending (though not necessarily "extinguishing" the concept this time) it to become the core of Microsoft's OS offerings. Whatever strengths Microsoft possesses, I'm sure we can all agree that OS design is not recognized as being in that group by a large number of people in the technology industry.
Imagine what could happen if Microsoft were to throw its weight and influence behind a standardized distribution of GNU/Linux?
Sure, it would mean revolutionizing Microsoft's approach to business in many ways (though not in others), but the benefits to Microsoft are practically uncountable. I would even venture to say that it could, in the end, turn out to be highly beneficial to the F/OSS community as a whole (though very likely damaging in other ways).
Sometimes, I really have to wonder what the guys in Redmond are doing with all the time and money they have...
As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
Translation to reality:
"If you give people the choice between, as an example, a $2500 Wintel PC and a $500 Wintel PC, both of which offer the same crappy Windows Experience, most people will choose to invest less of their money in a losing proposition."
What truly amazes me is that, apparently, a full third of the people who can afford a superior product nonetheless invest in the inferior version.
Modern motorcycle helmets are meant to protect the human head from impact with the ground. The approximate speed at which a human head will be travelling when dropped from the average motorcycling riding height is about 13 miles per hour. What this means is that the helmet must necessarily be designed to cope with relatively low impact forces in order to prevent brain injury. Motorcycles are most definitely not designed with "some heavy impact in mind".
Your friend is very, very lucky to be alive. Granted, with proper protective gear (not what the vast majority of motorcyclists wear), motorcycles crashes are highly survivable even at racing speeds, so long as the crash happens in relatively controlled circumstances. That is to say, not on public streets, where you are likely to slide into all manner of obstacles which are not designed to absorb the impact of a human body. I hope your friend was performing this feat at a properly maintained race course, and not on public streets.
That being said, when a human head travelling at 200+ mph on a motorbike comes into contact with a bird, the transfer of force involved is probably a lot less than one might initially imagine. The bird is a soft "target", and being likely airborne, would rebound easily.
14.270 MHz
7.050 MHz
7.060 MHz
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of a complete misunderstanding of the issues involved. You may refer to Lessig and Stallman as many times as you like, but the issue in question is not that of "personal copy".
You should re-read the transcript of the proceedings with a more open mind. You have completely missed exactly how insightfully most of the panel, with the obvious exception of Professor Hansen, addressed the arguments.
You also clearly do not understand the difference between "created rights", as you term them, and "natural rights", or the purpose of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution.
Yes, Beckman was right. This was acknowledged by the panel more than once. But Beckman's arguments do not constitute the entirety of the debate.
Now *that* made *my* day...
Why should anyone ask the RIAA this question? Your understanding of the argument is clearly deficient.
If a car is considered "available" by parking it on the street, this does not give a thief the "right" to steal it, even if the windows are left down, the doors unlocked, the keys in the ignition, and the engine running! Nor is the owner of said car infringing upon the property rights of anyone else by leaving the car in that condition.
This is an entirely specious argument. If I have been granted the power by the Constitution of the United States to have sole discretion over the manner in which my works are distributed, and you infringe upon that right by making unauthorized copies of my work in violation of those laws, you have deprived me of my grant without due process of law. In most cases concerning works intended for commercial distribution, this means you have deprived me of my rightful compensation.
I have to say I haven't heard of any problem quite like the one you're experiencing, and I'm an independent consultant that deals primarily with Macintosh systems. My personal MacBook is now over a year old, and the only thing I've seen is the mysterious dropping connection. I also have an iMac of the same vintage whose AirPort has been rock solid, and none of my clients have ever reported similar issues to yours.
That said, sometimes Apple releases some stinkers. My G3 iBook was repaired by Apple at least four times. The first time, the onboard memory failed five weeks after I got the unit. It took three attempts by Apple's repair people to fix the issue, because the first two times, they "repaired" the wrong thing. I was absolutely livid, and they managed to replace my perfectly functioning HDD with all my data on it (fortunately, it was a new machine, so it didn't really have *that* much on it, but still...I'll never send in another for repair without a backup). The fourth time was for the well-known video chip issue. My seemed to last longer than most others', but still eventually failed. It may have even gone back for repair one more time just before the extended warranty ran out, but it's been stable since then, though I don't use it very much anymore.
The "AirPort dropping connections" problem is quite easily solved in most cases by making sure the base station you're connecting to uses WPA with the AES encryption option, rather than TKIP, or using WPA2 (where AES is required, and TKIP is not an option).
This drove me nuts when I replaced my G3 iBook with my C2D MacBook with the "N"-capable chipset, until I found the answer. This of course, doesn't happen when you're actually using an Apple AirPort base station, but is a common problem running typical off-brands. In my case, I was running two Linksys WRT54GS's with Alchemy, which I then switched to DD-WRT in an attempt to work around the problem. That in itself didn't solve the problem until I stumbled across the AES issue.