Alan Shepard's was a much lower orbit than Gagarin's. If the point of the analogy is to explain what orbit the bacteria are going to be in (low), then it's entirely correct to cite Shepard before Gagarin.
Slava Gagarinu, a hero for all mankind, and all that jazz, but you're still wrong.
One response is that it's wrong for the same reason that olympic athletes aren't allowed to use performance enhancing drugs -- if some do, then all must in order to compete effectively.
nobody can 'corner the human genome market'.. that'd be like saying you can corner the market the recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
first of all there's a million ways to make a cookie, and the directions for doing so are already available everywhere.
The latter statement may be true, but it's irrelevent in the realm of patent law. If patents are being granted for the sole use of an important gene, once discovered, then it doesn't matter that everyone else now knows about the gene and had it concealed in his/her body all along. Patents, by their very nature, prohibit anyone from achieving a certain result, irrespective of how anyone goes about doing so. It doesn't matter that there are millions of ways of putting together a human being so as not to include that gene, since the vast majority of the current installed user base (us) already rely upon that gene's existence. It's concerns like these that make patent reform in this area imperative.
Ack! No! If RMS were in the habit of going around and smacking people up side the head, then you'd have better run for cover, because RMS unambiguously hates the "open source" creed.
The parent post is damn informative, and I plan to make his modification as soon as possible. But it has me wondering, what exactly about his post should not be labeled informative and instead should be labeled funny? That someone is using Netscape to begin with? Linux doesn't give you many other options, so that can't be it. Aha; I think I've got it: the moderator was smoking a whole lott'a crack.
The US has neutron bombs. Russia has neutron bombs. China has neutron bombs, having stolen the plans from the US. Pakistan has neutron bombs if it wants them. India probably has neutron bombs. The information is out there, and eager nations with a rudimentary level of manufacturing infrastructure and raw materials can build what they want.
Weapons aren't inherently "defensive" or "offensive". They only kill or maim people. "Offensive" and "defensive" are just a measure of political justification and the history behind intentions to kill or maim people.
The Federal law is the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court in January in the unanimous decision of Reno v. Condon. In a nut shell, federalism issues don't prevent Congress from regulating the sale of such information as an appropriate regulation of interstate commerce.
(When the DPPA was originally passed, it only required an opt-out provision be provided to angry motorists. However, Public Law 106-69, 113 Stat. 986, which was signed into law on October 9, 1999, changed that to an opt-in requirement, which will all but assures that no such data will be released, owing to the slightly non-zero intelligence of most Americans and their/our general laziness.)
One consequence of Reno v. Condon demonstrated, however, is that because Congress has plenary power over these data, while we can hope and demand that privacy be enforced, Congress is equally capable of legislating that companies be allowed to use/sell such data, and under the Supremecy Clause of the constitution, all state privacy laws to the contrary would be trumped. It's a scary thought.
It turns out pr0n viewers are having less sex than is the rest of the population as a whole. Said Jupiter researchers: "They may be enthusiasts, but they're still not getting any."
I bet the MPAA will sue American Standard next, because clearly their products are too content-agnostic and are not doing their best to feed the MPAA's cash cow. Actually, the point is more valid than it seems, considering the parallels in what's coming out of the movie industry these days and what's being flushed down American Standard's products.
In years past, folks were worried that once RedHat became the dominant commercial distribution, they'd leverage their popularity and start closing up the source whenever possible. If Ingo provides any indication of what general attitudes are at RedHat about being dedicated to opensourcing all their code, then such fears are unfounded -- in response to question #11, Ingo waxes eloquent about GPL philosophy with only the slightest provocation. It looks like it runs a little deeper than enlightened corporate self-interest, bordering almost on zealotry, and I can't say I'm displeased.
I've met Rosen briefly, and I've gotten him to sign my copy of Unwanted Gaze, and this is only my own opinion, but there is something a bit phoney about the man. I kept getting the impression that he was someone who, while he was genuinely interested in the topic he was writing about, he came off as someone who really wanted to write a book and therefore did precisely the amount of research necessary to appear to know what he was talking about without actually getting a clear grasp on even some of the important details. I watched an interview with him the other day, and he was completely confused about whether it was Intel who was responsible for putting serial numbers into PIII chips and whether Microsoft was responsbile for their unique ids inserted into MSOffice documents, claiming it was Intel who was responsible for the latter. And this doesn't even begin to address the logical errors encountered within the first few chapters of his book.
Actually, I could express the exact same opinion of a certain other columnist on slashdot, but that would be rude.
Sure, the ability to make walls transparent is great for the company's bottom line, but think of how much more successful it would be if it also allowed users to make certain characters' clothes transparent.
The historical justification for allowing the regulation of zoning for adult businesses is that such businesses produce detrimental secondary effects like increases in prostitution and drug dealing and the like. "Adult" video game establishments can't be said to produce such effects any more than other places that cater to teenagers, like coffee shops. There's no comparison.
You're confusing two aspects of wine: 1) the WINE Win32 API to compile code against and end up with a native binary and 2) an environment for running windows binaries under. The latter is a stopgap measure until companies start doing more of the former.
Not only can I agree with everything on your list, I can add another of my own:
Anti-felon. I live in Massachusetts, which is one of only three states that haven't disenfranchised felons (along with Vermont and another New England state, probably Rhode Island), but the legislature has proposed and passed a constitutional amendment changing that, which now goes to the voters in November where it'll probably get overwhelmingly approved, since no one else seems to mind punishing a person twice and taking away the most fundamental liberty democratic nations can claim, simply out of spite, at a time when voter turnout in the regular population is at an all-time low. It's a violation of equal protection (not to mention an implication of principle of taxation without representation), but the federal supreme court has consistently ruled otherwise.
Ah yes, the old "we only accept friendly amendments" approach. The problem with that has always been that it doesn't prevent other legislators from introducing their own identical-but-for-the-additional-rider version of the bill, and it unduly constrains the legislative process of reaching an informed consensus.
BTW, please fix your formatting; there's no need to use carriage returns at the end of each "line" when submitting a comment. Your id# is sufficiently low that I suppose I'm wasting my time in telling you this, as you're choosing to use an obnoxious but well established convention of making your post stand out from others'.
This is not, of course, the first time Tattered Cover has been involved in a constitutional battle. Back in 1985, in Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780, they got part of Colorado's criminal code that criminalizes the display of sexually explicit materials struck down as violating the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.
"Line-item vetoes", in the traditional meaning of the term, are restricted to appropriations bills, and are inapplicable to general legislation. Thus, the president could veto the FBI's funding separately from vetoing other appropriations, but he couldn't veto an individual law assigning new powers to the FBI. A line-item veto of the sort you're imagining that reaches to all legislation would do a lot to undermine current checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches and otherwise be rather unwise.
As you all recall because you all follow these events as closely as I do, the Supreme Court just handed down US v. Morrison, which reaffirms the proposition recently stated in US v Lopez that Congress has no business regulating anything that does not stem from an enumerated power in Article I or any of the amendments. Specifically, Congress isn't allowed to claim that anything that substantially implicates interstate commerce is regulatable as such; it actually has to be a form of commerce to qualify.
As if there weren't enough 1st amendment grounds for striking down the censorship provisions of this act, I suspect Congress would be hard pressed to demonstrate that nonprofit speech as such is a form of commerce, and this bill doesn't specify that the speech must be conducted through interstate channels to qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
Alan Shepard's was a much lower orbit than Gagarin's. If the point of the analogy is to explain what orbit the bacteria are going to be in (low), then it's entirely correct to cite Shepard before Gagarin.
Slava Gagarinu, a hero for all mankind, and all that jazz, but you're still wrong.
One response is that it's wrong for the same reason that olympic athletes aren't allowed to use performance enhancing drugs -- if some do, then all must in order to compete effectively.
nobody can 'corner the human genome market'.. that'd be like saying you can corner the market the recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
first of all there's a million ways to make a cookie, and the directions for doing so are already available everywhere.
The latter statement may be true, but it's irrelevent in the realm of patent law. If patents are being granted for the sole use of an important gene, once discovered, then it doesn't matter that everyone else now knows about the gene and had it concealed in his/her body all along. Patents, by their very nature, prohibit anyone from achieving a certain result, irrespective of how anyone goes about doing so. It doesn't matter that there are millions of ways of putting together a human being so as not to include that gene, since the vast majority of the current installed user base (us) already rely upon that gene's existence. It's concerns like these that make patent reform in this area imperative.
Everyone's comupter should come with a 100Gb/s wireless world-spanning card.
Dear Lord. Maybe it's time to start investing in battery manufacturers.
people who follow RMS's Open Source creed
Ack! No! If RMS were in the habit of going around and smacking people up side the head, then you'd have better run for cover, because RMS unambiguously hates the "open source" creed.
The parent post is damn informative, and I plan to make his modification as soon as possible. But it has me wondering, what exactly about his post should not be labeled informative and instead should be labeled funny? That someone is using Netscape to begin with? Linux doesn't give you many other options, so that can't be it. Aha; I think I've got it: the moderator was smoking a whole lott'a crack.
Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas. Don't think environmentalists don't know it.
The US has neutron bombs. Russia has neutron bombs. China has neutron bombs, having stolen the plans from the US. Pakistan has neutron bombs if it wants them. India probably has neutron bombs. The information is out there, and eager nations with a rudimentary level of manufacturing infrastructure and raw materials can build what they want.
Weapons aren't inherently "defensive" or "offensive". They only kill or maim people. "Offensive" and "defensive" are just a measure of political justification and the history behind intentions to kill or maim people.
See this post.
The Federal law is the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, and it was upheld by the Supreme Court in January in the unanimous decision of Reno v. Condon . In a nut shell, federalism issues don't prevent Congress from regulating the sale of such information as an appropriate regulation of interstate commerce.
(When the DPPA was originally passed, it only required an opt-out provision be provided to angry motorists. However, Public Law 106-69, 113 Stat. 986, which was signed into law on October 9, 1999, changed that to an opt-in requirement, which will all but assures that no such data will be released, owing to the slightly non-zero intelligence of most Americans and their/our general laziness.)
One consequence of Reno v. Condon demonstrated, however, is that because Congress has plenary power over these data, while we can hope and demand that privacy be enforced, Congress is equally capable of legislating that companies be allowed to use/sell such data, and under the Supremecy Clause of the constitution, all state privacy laws to the contrary would be trumped. It's a scary thought.
icab. Trust me.
It turns out pr0n viewers are having less sex than is the rest of the population as a whole. Said Jupiter researchers: "They may be enthusiasts, but they're still not getting any."
Don't look now, but they're on the web, and they're organized.
I bet the MPAA will sue American Standard next, because clearly their products are too content-agnostic and are not doing their best to feed the MPAA's cash cow. Actually, the point is more valid than it seems, considering the parallels in what's coming out of the movie industry these days and what's being flushed down American Standard's products.
In years past, folks were worried that once RedHat became the dominant commercial distribution, they'd leverage their popularity and start closing up the source whenever possible. If Ingo provides any indication of what general attitudes are at RedHat about being dedicated to opensourcing all their code, then such fears are unfounded -- in response to question #11, Ingo waxes eloquent about GPL philosophy with only the slightest provocation. It looks like it runs a little deeper than enlightened corporate self-interest, bordering almost on zealotry, and I can't say I'm displeased.
I've met Rosen briefly, and I've gotten him to sign my copy of Unwanted Gaze, and this is only my own opinion, but there is something a bit phoney about the man. I kept getting the impression that he was someone who, while he was genuinely interested in the topic he was writing about, he came off as someone who really wanted to write a book and therefore did precisely the amount of research necessary to appear to know what he was talking about without actually getting a clear grasp on even some of the important details. I watched an interview with him the other day, and he was completely confused about whether it was Intel who was responsible for putting serial numbers into PIII chips and whether Microsoft was responsbile for their unique ids inserted into MSOffice documents, claiming it was Intel who was responsible for the latter. And this doesn't even begin to address the logical errors encountered within the first few chapters of his book.
Actually, I could express the exact same opinion of a certain other columnist on slashdot, but that would be rude.
Sure, the ability to make walls transparent is great for the company's bottom line, but think of how much more successful it would be if it also allowed users to make certain characters' clothes transparent.
The historical justification for allowing the regulation of zoning for adult businesses is that such businesses produce detrimental secondary effects like increases in prostitution and drug dealing and the like. "Adult" video game establishments can't be said to produce such effects any more than other places that cater to teenagers, like coffee shops. There's no comparison.
You're confusing two aspects of wine: 1) the WINE Win32 API to compile code against and end up with a native binary and 2) an environment for running windows binaries under. The latter is a stopgap measure until companies start doing more of the former.
Anti-felon. I live in Massachusetts, which is one of only three states that haven't disenfranchised felons (along with Vermont and another New England state, probably Rhode Island), but the legislature has proposed and passed a constitutional amendment changing that, which now goes to the voters in November where it'll probably get overwhelmingly approved, since no one else seems to mind punishing a person twice and taking away the most fundamental liberty democratic nations can claim, simply out of spite, at a time when voter turnout in the regular population is at an all-time low. It's a violation of equal protection (not to mention an implication of principle of taxation without representation), but the federal supreme court has consistently ruled otherwise.
Ah yes, the old "we only accept friendly amendments" approach. The problem with that has always been that it doesn't prevent other legislators from introducing their own identical-but-for-the-additional-rider version of the bill, and it unduly constrains the legislative process of reaching an informed consensus.
BTW, please fix your formatting; there's no need to use carriage returns at the end of each "line" when submitting a comment. Your id# is sufficiently low that I suppose I'm wasting my time in telling you this, as you're choosing to use an obnoxious but well established convention of making your post stand out from others'.
According to the American Booksellers Association, the case is heading to trial on July 26. Tattered Cover has their own website, of course, but I can't find any reference to the pending legal action.
This is not, of course, the first time Tattered Cover has been involved in a constitutional battle. Back in 1985, in Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780, they got part of Colorado's criminal code that criminalizes the display of sexually explicit materials struck down as violating the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.
"Line-item vetoes", in the traditional meaning of the term, are restricted to appropriations bills, and are inapplicable to general legislation. Thus, the president could veto the FBI's funding separately from vetoing other appropriations, but he couldn't veto an individual law assigning new powers to the FBI. A line-item veto of the sort you're imagining that reaches to all legislation would do a lot to undermine current checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches and otherwise be rather unwise.
No, it's a pesticide. He's just taking the prudent precaution of killing tapeworms at the source.
As you all recall because you all follow these events as closely as I do, the Supreme Court just handed down US v. Morrison, which reaffirms the proposition recently stated in US v Lopez that Congress has no business regulating anything that does not stem from an enumerated power in Article I or any of the amendments. Specifically, Congress isn't allowed to claim that anything that substantially implicates interstate commerce is regulatable as such; it actually has to be a form of commerce to qualify.
As if there weren't enough 1st amendment grounds for striking down the censorship provisions of this act, I suspect Congress would be hard pressed to demonstrate that nonprofit speech as such is a form of commerce, and this bill doesn't specify that the speech must be conducted through interstate channels to qualify.