Well, Mike Hawash contributed to Global Relief, which before 9/11 was a charity with a good reputation. This is hardly the "same thing." Also, how do you know that Mike is Muslim? Do you have any personal knowledge? As far as I can tell, there's no mention of his religion on the "Free Mike Hawash" site.
Finally, would you ban all Islamic charities, or just the ones of which you don't approve? I have an idea! I don't like Christian charities, let's ban them, too!
Coincidentally, I just came across this article in Nature that describes an experiment intended to discover how altruism really works, as opposed to how we think it works and how our social mores say it should work.
The upshot is that if you treat people well, you will be treated well. Good deeds are rewarded, bad deeds are punished. And if you want decent morale, don't treat people badly.
Read the article. Then get your boss to read the article.
On the other hand, what kind of performance do you get from people who are afraid and are constantly looking over their shoulders? Not to mention the fact that a layoff hurts not just those who are hit but those who are left behind. Sometimes morale (and therefore performance) never comes back to what it was.
I really think that the layoff business has grown past the point of absurdity. The companies that will do well are those who are just hunkered down and are hanging in there.
Of course, I was laid off recently, so what do I know, right?
Erm. The point, in fact, is that we as citizens need to do something about this before we find ourselves wiretapped, searched, sent to jail, sent to a death camp.
Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
You may recognize the quote. It's particularly apt in this thread, where folks are claiming that the US has become a fascist state. Not yet, but we're definitely on our way, if Chaney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al, get their way.
Personally, I don't plan to sit around and do nothing while my rights (not to mention those of my children) get slowly chipped away. I'll be writing my Senator (Feinstein) and my Representative (Harman), I'll be giving money to the ACLU and the EFF, I'll be trying to persuade others to do the same and I'll be voting against the current bunch of bastards every chance I get.
As far as your question, well, you've already lost your Fourth Amendment right:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act did that one in.
There are currently a number of United States citizens being held in violation of the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Heh, not to mention the Tenth Amendment, which is in tatters, these days:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(I got all of this information from FindLaw,
by the way.)
So, are you going to sit around and do nothing, or are you going to exercise your rights before they are all lost?
Many years ago, at a small college in Texas, on a Xerox 560 mainframe (which had both core and RADs, for those who are ancient enough to remember them) running CP-V, emitted from a Fortran compiler (which had just crashed while compiling a coed's program for class), just before it dumped its state:
Break Rob's Knuckles
I never learned who Rob was, or what he did, but it apparently didn't work.
You can switch between fullscreen and windowed mode in mplayer with the "f" key. Or by using the GUI, but real programmers don't use GUIs, right?
I use mplayer on FreeBSD (now up to 4.7-stable) all the time. It seems to be the best all-around viewer, and the only one that will reliably work on my PII/400 laptop (Dell Inspiron 3500; hey, I can watch movies on it, what more do I need?).
...which means that to the rest of the universe, it takes forever for your component particles to disappear into the event horizon.
Of course, to _you_ it's all over in an instant, so don't get your hopes up. Besides, in most cases, you'll be dead long before you reach the event horizon itself, since the tides you encounter will shred you into tiny bits (thus the "component particles" above).
Fun stuff. For a good SF view, I highly recommend Fred Pohl's Heechee Saga.
Sigh. This post proves that being a member of Mensa
isn't an indicator of intelligence.
"I would accept
any copyright extensions if they serve to protect
Micky Mouse and Goofy."
So you would accept perpetual copyright just so Disney can continue to profit from the work of a dead man, forever? You must be kidding. I certainly hope you're kidding.
The whole point is that new creation is very
often based on old creation, viz
Cinderella, Snow White, et al. These days, all these
copyright extensions do is protect the profit of
the corporations.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit.
This pretty much says it all. What is a copyright extension but "turning back the clock?"
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Supremes
will follow the intent of the framers of the Constitution, rather than pandering to those in Congress who are in the pockets of those who have
a vested interest in keeping the laws as they are, or worse.
The Los Angeles Times has a very good article about this whole thing, with particular emphasis on Lessig and on the historical perspective (this debate goes back more than two hundred years);
find it here.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Mike Hawash contributed to Global Relief, which before 9/11 was a charity with a good reputation. This is hardly the "same thing." Also, how do you know that Mike is Muslim? Do you have any personal knowledge? As far as I can tell, there's no mention of his religion on the "Free Mike Hawash" site.
Finally, would you ban all Islamic charities, or just the ones of which you don't approve? I have an idea! I don't like Christian charities, let's ban them, too!
Or are you just a troll?
The upshot is that if you treat people well, you will be treated well. Good deeds are rewarded, bad deeds are punished. And if you want decent morale, don't treat people badly.
Read the article. Then get your boss to read the article.
I really think that the layoff business has grown past the point of absurdity. The companies that will do well are those who are just hunkered down and are hanging in there.
Of course, I was laid off recently, so what do I know, right?
Martin Niemöller:
You may recognize the quote. It's particularly apt in this thread, where folks are claiming that the US has become a fascist state. Not yet, but we're definitely on our way, if Chaney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et al, get their way.Personally, I don't plan to sit around and do nothing while my rights (not to mention those of my children) get slowly chipped away. I'll be writing my Senator (Feinstein) and my Representative (Harman), I'll be giving money to the ACLU and the EFF, I'll be trying to persuade others to do the same and I'll be voting against the current bunch of bastards every chance I get.
As far as your question, well, you've already lost your Fourth Amendment right:
The so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act did that one in.There are currently a number of United States citizens being held in violation of the Sixth Amendment:
Heh, not to mention the Tenth Amendment, which is in tatters, these days:
(I got all of this information from FindLaw, by the way.)So, are you going to sit around and do nothing, or are you going to exercise your rights before they are all lost?
I never learned who Rob was, or what he did, but it apparently didn't work.
You can switch between fullscreen and windowed mode in mplayer with the "f" key. Or by using the GUI, but real programmers don't use GUIs, right?
I use mplayer on FreeBSD (now up to 4.7-stable) all the time. It seems to be the best all-around viewer, and the only one that will reliably work on my PII/400 laptop (Dell Inspiron 3500; hey, I can watch movies on it, what more do I need?).
Of course, to _you_ it's all over in an instant, so don't get your hopes up. Besides, in most cases, you'll be dead long before you reach the event horizon itself, since the tides you encounter will shred you into tiny bits (thus the "component particles" above).
Fun stuff. For a good SF view, I highly recommend Fred Pohl's Heechee Saga.
The whole point is that new creation is very often based on old creation, viz Cinderella, Snow White, et al. These days, all these copyright extensions do is protect the profit of the corporations.
Heinlein said (as quoted by Yale Law in Top Ten New Copyright Crimes,
This pretty much says it all. What is a copyright extension but "turning back the clock?" I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Supremes will follow the intent of the framers of the Constitution, rather than pandering to those in Congress who are in the pockets of those who have a vested interest in keeping the laws as they are, or worse.
The Los Angeles Times has a very good article about this whole thing, with particular emphasis on Lessig and on the historical perspective (this debate goes back more than two hundred years); find it here.