The military really needs to deprogram these guys and integrate them back into the population. I would propose a type of "Combat Engineering" program, to shift these guys into some good paying, hard working jobs back home, via prepping them for things like road construction. We need to rework the infrastructure, unless we are just going to let the country fall into a vast wasteland. I present to you the concept of a Trans Americas Highway system, to tie the entire continents of North and South America together. A big project, but very handy for developing this part of the world. It's what advanced civilizations do.
That or something like it, to burn off a decade of war stress, by building something. Let's build it here, fuck them. They need to build something.
I present to you, a person who goes by the nickname "lexsird", who thinks that the solution to these kinds of problems is to compell members of the military, eligible to muster out honorably, to participate in forced manual labor for the "greater good", because "lexsird" wants a North/South American highway system, wants to rebuild the infrastructure in the US, and thinks that forced labor is the way to go.
Sure, sure, we'll pay 'em well, and it's for their own good, after all - Hell, ain't no kinda mental problem can't be fixed by some good, old-fashioned manual labor! And, if'n they get outta line? Well, we gots lotsa ways to deal with that, too!
You ARE correct in stating that the highway infrastructure in the US needs rebuilding, and since you seem so concerned about it? Rather than volunteer others for it, why not volunteer yourself? Oh, yeah, that's right - manual labor isn't for the likes of you, right?
Let's build it here, fuck them.
Goddamn right! Fuck the veterans!
They need to build something.
That's the only thing in your post with which I agree. However, that something isn't roads, it's their lives. THEIR lives, on THEIR terms. Your complete lack of empathy, your cookie-cutter approach to what is an enormously complex and difficult issue, one which you've proven by your words that you've never experienced, tells me that you're clueless, at best.
It's what advanced civilizations do.
Yes, that's exactly what advanced civilizations do: Public works using forced labor comprised of miltary veterans returned from the battlefield after serving their country honorably. Yup, that's exactly correct.
So, what do you do for an encore? Forced sterilization of people with physical or mental defects?
Sorry, but I am not interested in your ideas, nor do I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And to forestall the incoming ignorance, yes, I know about Article I, Section 10. It prohibits the *states* from issuing legal tender that is not gold or silver. The Federal government is under no such restriction.
Actually, it is, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, which just about everyone in the US Federal Government ignores these days.
The reasoning, which you will no doubt find specious, is as follows: The 10th Amendment explicitly states that if a right isn't *granted* to the US Federal government by the Constitution, then it does not have that right. Rather, it is reserved to the States or to the People.
The biggest problem that I see when people have arguments about the US Constitution here is that people tend to cherry-pick it to support their position, rather than considering it as a whole, as it should be, a practice that is now even the norm, with hordes of lawyers nit-picking this, that and the other thing and obtaining rulings in their favor based upon interpretations of the minuscule, extended far beyond such.
The design and intent of the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole, complete, living document was to ensure the most constraint possible upon the Federal government, while still allowing it to function on behalf of the entire Union and its citizens as they envisioned, and to accommodate change, as those that came later saw fit, which they created via the Amendment process. It actually worked quite well until people (Read: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, which I deem pretty much the same thing, only in different phases of their parasitic lives with regards to the Federal government) started emphasizing one section or phrase out of context to obtain the results they wanted.
Now, in your example, the states are explicitly forbidden from issuing legal tender that is not gold or silver. This means they they cannot create fiat money, but does NOT mean that they can't coin legal tender from gold or silver, should they so desire.
And, by simple logic, applying the 10th Amendment as it should be used, The Federal government, not having been granted the power to create fiat money, does not have the right to do so, as Article I, Section 8 states, in part: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Now, call me old-fashioned, but I'd hardly call paper money/fiat money or other forms of non-specie currency "coining".
Of course, the deed is long since done, and will not be undone easily, especially now that Federal Reserve holds sway over the Federal government, and by extension, over all of the citizens of the US.
Now, you might ask "Why would the Founders explicitly state that the States cannot use anything other than gold or silver to create legal tender, yet not explicitly forbid the Federal government from doing the same?"
The answer is a simple one, and is a result of their fundamental philosophy with regards to a Federal government and the framing of the Constitution. Barring an explicit statement concerning legal tender and its creation with regards to the States, nothing would prohibit them from creating fiat money on their own, potentially leading to disastrous economic results. This view is further bolstered by the fact that, again, by the 10th Amendment, as the Federal government was never explicitly granted the right to create fiat money as legal tender, that right *would have* fallen to either the States or the People, again because of the 10th Amendment, so they sought to prevent that, knowing as they did, that the 10th Amendment would also prevent the Federal government from doing the same, as the Constitution only explicitly *grants" powers to the Federal government, and the Federal government sho
Isn't it obvious? From home, while lounging, with a Cisco 891 router somewhere at home which provides VPN tunnels to the corporate office for voice and data, And of course, with hospital-style trays at various levels and angles suspended over you, to hold your laptop, monitors, keyboard, mouse.
With of course, various liquid-dispensing tubes (water, caffeine, alcohol), suspended from hospital-style "trees", which you use as needed/justified *grin*.
I'm not sure why this is even a question - doesn't everyone work this way? *grin*
However, for those of you that have to work for long hours at your office? Get 2 desks, one a normal one, the other one that can be adjusted for height. Get 2 sets of monitors and keyboards and mice. One set you use when you're seated at your desk, the other that you can use while standing at the other desk. Alternate between them, as needed. And of course, you just undock your laptop when you go home.
Regards,
dj
P.S.
Oh, and for those of you whose employers won't agree to pay for such a setup, despite working long hours for them? Start looking for another job. We've a LOT of people with this setup in their cubicles where I work, and the money spent to set it up is FAR less than the money that they earn.
No, you're taking a *copy* of it by violating the copyright holders rights under the law. Regardless of whether or not it deprives the copyright holder of the work, it deprives them of the remuneration to which they are entitled - that is what copyright is, after all.
in a way that introduces no further cost to the person who created the original copy.
You are confusing physical goods and property with copyrighted materials. Whether the infringement costs the copyright holder additional money or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled to be compensated for their copyrighted work as they deem fit.
It doesn't even have to have anything to do with entitlement.
It has *everything* do do with entitlement: What other motivation would you ascribe to copyright infringement other that that? Regardless of their rationalizations, the end result is that people that infringe other's copyright believe that they are justified in doing so for whatever reason, or no reason at all: In short, they do so because they believe that they are entitled to do so.
The content is there so it gets downloaded.
The content is there illegally.
In other words, it is theft.
No, my friend, it is rape. And murder. If you want to have a truly impressive argument, include as many inflammatory terms as you can think of.
And hyperbole such as that doesn't make for any kind of argument at all, as all it attempts to do is to obscure the true argument.
Now, all that being said, here's my position on copyright. I believe that copyright law in the US has been preempted by large corporations, who have lobbied for laws that have enormously extended it in not just time, but in reach. I'd like to see all extension to it revoked, leaving only the terms in the Constitution. If people want to change it, they are free to do so by the amendment process currently in place.
Further, nearly all of the rationalizations I've read on Slashdot start with flawed premises, with many of them stating or implying that copyrighted materials should be treated as physical property with regards to manufacture and pricing, i.e., since it costs next to nothing over time to reproduce, the people that create such should at least pass along the cost savings, or in your case, not care if you obtain it without paying them, as you seem to imply.
This, of course, is is simply an attempt to avoid paying for your entertainment, and no matter how you phrase it, it's selfish and greedy, the very same attributes that those who are pro-copyright infringement often attribute to organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA.
I believe that copyright owners are entitled to be paid for their works and to set prices for them as they see fit. This, in my estimation, is fair
He is a convicted felon, thief, and con artist. Not someone to admire.
Who said anything about admiring him? Even if your assessment is true, he's still entitled to due process under US law, by definition, from "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as quoted in
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: âNor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.â(TM) These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws⦠The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.â
The truth of the matter is, this is actually the best approach he could take, and one that he SHOULD take. By US law, his assets MUST be unfrozen at this point, because he has yet to be found guilty of any crime by due process of US law.
The real question is: Will the US Federal Government actually OBEY their own laws as interpreted by SCOTUS?
Somehow, I doubt it. There's too much money at stake, potentially, and there's no way that our Facist Overlords in the US are ever going to permit this: Crippling him by freezing his accounts worldwide, regardless of due process, gives them leverage, and there's NO way that they'll give up that advantage without a huge fight.
Look for the US Federal Government to try to turn this into a RICO case, to keep his assets frozen, by arguing that this is a case of "organized crime", in response to this.
Or does the US have the ability to put a hold order on money stoned in another country?
Yes, not only does the RIAA/MPAA have the ability to extend their influence overseas via the US Federal Government, so does the DEA: Stoned money in other countries is *definitely* under its jurisdiction, obviously it became stoned via illegal drugs!
I wonder how kindly businessmen trying to use the internet at the airport, hotel, or coffee shop for highly confidential business communications will take to knowingly being snooped.
Well, I'd hope that those businessmen are using VPN connections for those highly confidential business communications.
At my company, while we offer email access to our users' Exchange mailboxes via OWA and Outlook Anywhere, both are encrypted.
Access to internal company servers where work product is stored can only be accomplished from the outside world via our VPN, and so snooping at Internet cafes, airports, hotels, etc. wouldn't really be an issue.
I have set up several wireless hotspots for local businesses. At no time did I ever even try to snoop or log connections - it's way too much trouble, zero profit, and 100% chance of irritating the customer to do so.
Still, I'd set up a disclaimer page of some kind, after vetting it with the business' legal staff. Something along the lines of "This free service is provided with the understanding that it will not and must not be used for illegal purposes. Use of this service constitutes acceptance of these terms".
And I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that such would be wise, and you, as the vendor/contractor should (must?) make them aware of these issues when you do this on their behalf. Covering your own ass is a good idea, too, so that you're protected as well, and you would be wise to consult your own lawyer about this.
Finally, of course, the obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, please consult your own lawyer as you see fit in this matter for competent legal advice, and for all other issues of legal import.
Seriously. I'll bet they call him Google because he thinks he knows everything.
Nah - he sounds like the 20-something MIS interns that we get... the running joke in the technical departments at my company is that if they lost access to Google they wouldn't know how to breathe, closely followed by the belief that if we cut off their Facebook access on the corporate network we'd get an immediate 50% drop in network traffic, followed by a brief spike in productivity until the withdrawal symptoms became too severe.
The biggest mistake by the framers was to not make that damn clause clearer.
It is clear. The problem is that everyone cherry-picks the Constitution to get the results that they want, and ignore the parts that would forbid it, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Why would it not make sense, to have the US charge 0% corporate tax, since in thought, these taxes just get passed to the consumer in price considerations?
I'm assuming that you're talking about the US Federal government. You are making two assumptions here:
1) That the US Federal government still exists to serve the citizens of the US and
2) That the corporations that benefit the most from the current labyrinth of Federal tax law, loopholes, etc., would actually permit that. No Federal taxes on corporations would actually help level the playing field, and there's NO way that the corporations that are benefiting from the US Federal tax code as it currently exists will ever permit that.
After all, they paid good money to lobby for them, and they're entitled to the rewards, right?
Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight.
I hate to say this, because I'm going to get pounded for it, probably: It's not that it's barely known - any competent MIS/IT department looks at Linux on the desktop, on an ongoing basis, as a replacement for Windows in their environment, simply from a financial perspective.
My company is fairly OS agnostic: While our official desktop OS is Windows: XP on the old laptops/desktops, which are being refreshed with Windows 7 Pro x64 systems, and Windows 7 Pro x64 on all new laptops and desktops, those that wish to run Linux are allowed to do so, so long as doing so doesn't represent additional costs to the company (this, despite the fact that every computer we buy comes with a Windows 7 Pro x64 license).
The same for Apple computers: Want a MacBook Pro? Good for you! Request it from your manager, make your business case for it, and you can get one. HOWEVER: If your job duties require Windows-specific programs such as Visio or Project? Denied! We will not pay additional costs for a Windows license, plus the cost for Parallels (for some reason, all of the people that want Apple computers refuse to use VirtualBox, insisting that they NEED Parallels) so that you can have access to the software tools that you need to do your job, at additional cost to the company, when our standard Windows 7 x64 laptop will run those with just the additional licensing costs of Visio and/or Project.
Cheap? No, we're not being cheap, we're being frugal, and we're also insisting that our employees understand that the computers that we provide to them are for their use while doing their jobs at our company.
In a business environment, computers are tools, provided to employees to help them do their jobs. They are not status symbols nor e-penis enhancers, nor toys.
With regards to security? I can't speak for anyone else, but among other things at my company, I build the images for the laptops and desktops that we deploy, and I can tell you that they are as secure as any Windows-based computer can be.
We build the images based upon Least User Access (LUA) principles: When issued, a user's Windows 7 laptop is secure, all installed programs are up-to-date when issued (We use WSUS to update them, later). Their domain account has no local admin rights: We provide them with a separate, local, admin account, so that they can escalate privileges, and install software as they need, above and beyond the standard image.
In addition, the user's local admin account has no domain rights: This protects our network: If someone should escalate local privileges and infect their computer, it cannot touch our network by default.
This is, BTW, my approach to Windows security, since Windows NT Workstation, in a business environment (and at home!): LUA - and, in addition to sane security update practices and a good Enterprise AV program (I like Sophos - your mileage may vary)? Once we implemented it at my current company, our infection rate has dropped to nearly zero, company-wide.
And, since we've already taken the time to address these issues, and ensure that our base images are secure, updated, etc.? Switching to Linux on the desktop for purely security reasons isn't even a "blip" on the radar anymore.
Our user base so loves Outlook that lacking any real competition to it, combined with Visio and Project? Sorry, but those tools are so embedded in our company that there's NO way that our userbase is ever going to change.
And, remarkably, our company is actually prospering and growing, using those tools, using Windows 7 x64-based laptops/desktops, with Office/Outlook, Visio and Project, and our computers and network are secure and stable.
business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it
*If you can afford to lawyer up and get your shit back. Otherwise they'll gladly keep it until you drag them to court."
The previous post is missing a disclaimer:
Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?
Regards,
dj
P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.
Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.
Suppose that on every single story that mentioned RAM in any context, there were guaranteed to be a hundred comments along the lines of "Isn't the Ram a pickup truck?"
Wouldn't you get just a little tired of this?
Nah, this is Slashdot, where few ever get tired of pointing out that "RAM" and "Ram" are spelled differently.
Your link makes a big issue about the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki being "far from the battlefield". To the Jehadists the "battlefield" is the entire world, especially where Sharia Law is not enforced.
None of which addresses my point, which was this: An American citizen, simply accused of being a terrorist, was assassinated, without being arrested, without being charged and without any proof of wrong doing at all, so far as we know, other than the US Federal Government saying that he was a "bad person" and so deserved to die.
So, who's the next "bad person"? You? Me? You and I will never know, will we?
Over the years, I've upgraded it to 2GB RAM, bought Windows 7 Professional x86, installed a 320GB HD, and at this point it's pretty much "maxed out", from a hardware perspective [1]. As I type this, it's running Windows 7 Pro x86, playing music via Winamp, has Outlook running, Opera, Ubuntu in a VM under VirtualBox (Why? Why not? *grin*) and 2 RDP sessions to other systems on my home network and is quick and responsive - perfectly suited for the things for which I use it.
Like most peecee users, you don't really DO anything with the machine (ie photos, slideshows, movie creation).
I think I'm doing things with it, and doing them quite well, thanks very much. YOUR problem is that you think that the tasks that you list are the ONLY things worthy of a computer.
If you did, you'd realize how outdated and underpowered it really is.
Again, bullshit. Underpowered for the tasks that you think are important? Sure. Useless, as you imply? Not hardly.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Now, for those of you who are wondering why I'd spend money to upgrade an "obsolete" laptop such as this? That's easy: I didn't pay for it. It was broken when I got it. I fixed it (because I can), and then bought RAM for it when it was dirt cheap... and bought the HD the same way. My total investment in it, from a cash perspective, was more than worth it to me. In return, I got a rock-solid laptop that is quick and responsive, to keep in my garage, which isn't heated or cooled, but despite that it keeps running, day in, day out, and gives me access to my home network, the Internet [2], when I'm puttering about in the garage, and has done so for years. I don't have to baby it, don't even back it up: I don't store anything on it that I'd miss if it stopped working, because that's what my NAS and its backups are for. Now, if the prices of the Pentium M 765 would finally drop to about $50 US, I'd buy one...
[2] I just replaced the Intel 2200 b/g WiFi NIC with a TP-Link Wireless N adapter. Had to patch the BIOS (via the commonly available No 1802 patch) to do so, but now I have Wireless N connectivity to my home network. WELL worth it, for the $ 19 US that I paid, plus a little time researching and tinkering.
Oh, I forgot - this is where people somehow don't realize that there is an actual difference between the West and actual tyranny and oppression in the world.
If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ and now he's dead. [1]
How, exactly, is this not tyranny and oppression? It appears to me that all the President has to do is point a finger and say "daveschroeder is a terrorist and I have credible evidence proving it." You'll never know what, if anything, that evidence is, because it's protected by "National Security", you know.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] And you know what? I don't care whether or not he was a "bad person", as many claim. What I care about is that our President ignored the Constitution, deprived a US citizen of their rights and had him killed without being arrested, without be charged and without a trial.
it's concise, immediately recognisiable [sic], and perfectly convey the essence and nuance of the whole situation.
No, it doesn't. Watergate was about criminal political misdeeds at the Federal level in the US, and the attempt to cover up the same: This is not.
when something gets used by a lot of people, it often becomes the de facto standard.
And in so doing, distorts not only the original, but also alters that to which it is applied, in an attempt to create "sound bite" representations, simplifications of complex issues.
I'd rather we have tools we don't need than need tools we don't have.
The problem that I have with this statement is calling them tools. In my opinion, while a tool can be a weapon, treating a weapon as a tool is a potentially dangerous way to view weapons in general [1]. A weapon is a weapon, it's a VERY specialized tool, at best, and should always be viewed, and treated, as such. Its procurement, stockpiling, shouldn't be treated as one would toilet paper - e.g., just to have around.
The mere fact that one HAS "tools (read:weapons) that we don't need" CREATES the option to use them simply by their existence. If they didn't exist then someone saying, for example: "Hey, we've got all of these bombers/drones/etc. just sitting around - why not just bomb the shit of them?" wouldn't be an immediate option.
And I don't see that as a bad thing. I think that war should always be the very last resort for any nation, and think that the "non-wars" [2] that we in the US have been waging around the world since World War II have resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths, to no good purpose, and with no moral authority in many (if not most) cases, because we in the US [3] have been the creators of many of the very same despots against which we've later fought in the name of freedom (Oh, and Truth, Justice and The American Way, of course!)
In addition, the amount of money spent on such is now measured in the trillions, over the past 60+ years, which has resulted in the eternal debt of our Federal Government (read: The eternal debt of the citizens that it is supposed to be serving), and again, for what?
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Please note the "in general" qualifier. I own a number of weapons, all of them legal, and my knowledge of their potential use, my respect for that and my understanding of my responsibilities with regards to such stems from the fact that they are NOT "just tools" to me.
[2] I call them "non-wars", because I am of the firm opinion that deployment of the US military should always be in direct defense of it, and such should be declared by Congress. I do not believe that "The best defense is a good offense", nor that US citizens in the military should be deployed on a constant basis overseas. I think that it's time for us, as a nation, to bring our troops home, from everywhere, to focus on fixing what's wrong in our country, first, and correct that, and to stop trying to force others to fix what we think is wrong with their countries. Once we have done so, once we've restored our Republic to its former promise as a true bastion of freedom, restored our freedom for ourselves as citizens of the United States of America, taken responsibility for our country once again, then we will learn, finally, that we have no need for Empire, that such has always been driven by the greedy and the mad, by the selfish and the corrupt. And when that is done? We will never again listen to the fear mongers, the war hawks, the power mad, the greedy and selfish that currently constitute and control our Federal Government, and their power over us will finally be broken, because we will be once again united against them, watchful over them, as we should be, where we are now divided and exploited by them, and we will once again truly be free.
[3] And I say "we in the US", because, unlike many here, I understand something that very few talk about now: As a citizen of the United States of America, *I* am, ultimately, responsible for the actions of the US Federal Government, as are ALL of you who are citizens. It doesn't matter that you didn't create the mess, doesn't matter that you didn't vote for whoever, that they are corrupt, that they do not represent you properly: You are STILL responsible for them, because they represent you, and MORE SO, when they represent you badly. When will you become offended enough to stand up for yourselves, as citizens?
The Federal Government of the United States exists NOT
Why mess with custom framing, etc., at all? If you have the means, just get a datacenter-class enclosure, and put it in the basement: http://www.werackyourworld.com/, and be done with it.
All of this guff about building this, that or the other thing? Screw that - it just adds to construction costs, and limits flexibility. A standard enclosure will suit all of your needs now, and in the future, won't ever require reconstruction, and you'll be guaranteed of future compatibility, since it's made to industry specs.
In addition, it will be accessible from all sides, assuming you place it so. And, if you have to, you can move it.
Every time I read about this issue on Slashdot, some idiot wants to proclaim how his "closet" solution is best. You don't want it in a closet, unless you want to have to deal with cooling. In a home, a basement is ideal to help cooling, and noise, and since you're building your home, you can do this, with appropriate planning.
Get an enclosure, put it it in your basement, with sufficient clearance all around, put in an overhead cable tray if you want to make it all pretty, and be done with it.
Our survival depends on our intelligence, or more precisely, our ability to produce the occasional genius whose intelligence will benefit everyone else.
While intelligence is certainly important to our survival, and is, I think, our defining trait as a species, I think that true genius, on the order of Leonardo da Vinci, as an extreme example, occurs so rarely that humanity as a whole, while benefiting from such in extraordinary ways, isn't dependent on it from an evolutionary perspective, and certainly not for its survival overall.
To help its progress? Certainly - human genius, to me, is the "wild card" that contributes, often enormously, to our advancement. But to state that our overall survival as a species depends on such? I don't see that to be true. Much of our advancement comes from day-to-day progression, after all, in absence of genius, and many enormous advances have been made by people of varying levels of intelligence.
I think that, regardless of classification, ratings, etc.? Our individual use of our individual intelligence as human beings, our curiosity, our drive, and what we do with our intelligence, genius or not, is ultimately what will ensure our survival as a species.
Slashdot Mirror
I present to you, a person who goes by the nickname "lexsird", who thinks that the solution to these kinds of problems is to compell members of the military, eligible to muster out honorably, to participate in forced manual labor for the "greater good", because "lexsird" wants a North/South American highway system, wants to rebuild the infrastructure in the US, and thinks that forced labor is the way to go.
Sure, sure, we'll pay 'em well, and it's for their own good, after all - Hell, ain't no kinda mental problem can't be fixed by some good, old-fashioned manual labor! And, if'n they get outta line? Well, we gots lotsa ways to deal with that, too!
You ARE correct in stating that the highway infrastructure in the US needs rebuilding, and since you seem so concerned about it? Rather than volunteer others for it, why not volunteer yourself? Oh, yeah, that's right - manual labor isn't for the likes of you, right?
Goddamn right! Fuck the veterans!
That's the only thing in your post with which I agree. However, that something isn't roads, it's their lives. THEIR lives, on THEIR terms. Your complete lack of empathy, your cookie-cutter approach to what is an enormously complex and difficult issue, one which you've proven by your words that you've never experienced, tells me that you're clueless, at best.
Yes, that's exactly what advanced civilizations do: Public works using forced labor comprised of miltary veterans returned from the battlefield after serving their country honorably. Yup, that's exactly correct.
So, what do you do for an encore? Forced sterilization of people with physical or mental defects?
Sorry, but I am not interested in your ideas, nor do I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Regards,
dj
Actually, it is, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, which just about everyone in the US Federal Government ignores these days.
The reasoning, which you will no doubt find specious, is as follows: The 10th Amendment explicitly states that if a right isn't *granted* to the US Federal government by the Constitution, then it does not have that right. Rather, it is reserved to the States or to the People.
The biggest problem that I see when people have arguments about the US Constitution here is that people tend to cherry-pick it to support their position, rather than considering it as a whole, as it should be, a practice that is now even the norm, with hordes of lawyers nit-picking this, that and the other thing and obtaining rulings in their favor based upon interpretations of the minuscule, extended far beyond such.
The design and intent of the Constitution and its Amendments as a whole, complete, living document was to ensure the most constraint possible upon the Federal government, while still allowing it to function on behalf of the entire Union and its citizens as they envisioned, and to accommodate change, as those that came later saw fit, which they created via the Amendment process. It actually worked quite well until people (Read: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, which I deem pretty much the same thing, only in different phases of their parasitic lives with regards to the Federal government) started emphasizing one section or phrase out of context to obtain the results they wanted.
Now, in your example, the states are explicitly forbidden from issuing legal tender that is not gold or silver. This means they they cannot create fiat money, but does NOT mean that they can't coin legal tender from gold or silver, should they so desire.
And, by simple logic, applying the 10th Amendment as it should be used, The Federal government, not having been granted the power to create fiat money, does not have the right to do so, as Article I, Section 8 states, in part: "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Now, call me old-fashioned, but I'd hardly call paper money/fiat money or other forms of non-specie currency "coining".
The rationalizations that led to the belief that the Federal government can do so are detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases
Of course, the deed is long since done, and will not be undone easily, especially now that Federal Reserve holds sway over the Federal government, and by extension, over all of the citizens of the US.
Now, you might ask "Why would the Founders explicitly state that the States cannot use anything other than gold or silver to create legal tender, yet not explicitly forbid the Federal government from doing the same?"
The answer is a simple one, and is a result of their fundamental philosophy with regards to a Federal government and the framing of the Constitution. Barring an explicit statement concerning legal tender and its creation with regards to the States, nothing would prohibit them from creating fiat money on their own, potentially leading to disastrous economic results. This view is further bolstered by the fact that, again, by the 10th Amendment, as the Federal government was never explicitly granted the right to create fiat money as legal tender, that right *would have* fallen to either the States or the People, again because of the 10th Amendment, so they sought to prevent that, knowing as they did, that the 10th Amendment would also prevent the Federal government from doing the same, as the Constitution only explicitly *grants" powers to the Federal government, and the Federal government sho
Isn't it obvious? From home, while lounging, with a Cisco 891 router somewhere at home which provides VPN tunnels to the corporate office for voice and data, And of course, with hospital-style trays at various levels and angles suspended over you, to hold your laptop, monitors, keyboard, mouse.
With of course, various liquid-dispensing tubes (water, caffeine, alcohol), suspended from hospital-style "trees", which you use as needed/justified *grin*.
I'm not sure why this is even a question - doesn't everyone work this way? *grin*
However, for those of you that have to work for long hours at your office? Get 2 desks, one a normal one, the other one that can be adjusted for height. Get 2 sets of monitors and keyboards and mice. One set you use when you're seated at your desk, the other that you can use while standing at the other desk. Alternate between them, as needed. And of course, you just undock your laptop when you go home.
Regards,
dj
P.S.
Oh, and for those of you whose employers won't agree to pay for such a setup, despite working long hours for them? Start looking for another job. We've a LOT of people with this setup in their cubicles where I work, and the money spent to set it up is FAR less than the money that they earn.
Regards,
dj
And YOU go, Tough Love! Rail against the Borg, from your basement lair!
It makes me nostalgic for the Slashdot of yore.
Thanks for that!
Regards,
dj
P.S.
It's a joke. Honest. You'd have to have been there, to appreciate it now, though.
No, you're taking a *copy* of it by violating the copyright holders rights under the law. Regardless of whether or not it deprives the copyright holder of the work, it deprives them of the remuneration to which they are entitled - that is what copyright is, after all.
You are confusing physical goods and property with copyrighted materials. Whether the infringement costs the copyright holder additional money or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are entitled to be compensated for their copyrighted work as they deem fit.
It has *everything* do do with entitlement: What other motivation would you ascribe to copyright infringement other that that? Regardless of their rationalizations, the end result is that people that infringe other's copyright believe that they are justified in doing so for whatever reason, or no reason at all: In short, they do so because they believe that they are entitled to do so.
The content is there illegally.
And hyperbole such as that doesn't make for any kind of argument at all, as all it attempts to do is to obscure the true argument.
Now, all that being said, here's my position on copyright. I believe that copyright law in the US has been preempted by large corporations, who have lobbied for laws that have enormously extended it in not just time, but in reach. I'd like to see all extension to it revoked, leaving only the terms in the Constitution. If people want to change it, they are free to do so by the amendment process currently in place.
Further, nearly all of the rationalizations I've read on Slashdot start with flawed premises, with many of them stating or implying that copyrighted materials should be treated as physical property with regards to manufacture and pricing, i.e., since it costs next to nothing over time to reproduce, the people that create such should at least pass along the cost savings, or in your case, not care if you obtain it without paying them, as you seem to imply.
This, of course, is is simply an attempt to avoid paying for your entertainment, and no matter how you phrase it, it's selfish and greedy, the very same attributes that those who are pro-copyright infringement often attribute to organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA.
I believe that copyright owners are entitled to be paid for their works and to set prices for them as they see fit. This, in my estimation, is fair
Regards,
dj
Who said anything about admiring him? Even if your assessment is true, he's still entitled to due process under US law, by definition, from "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as quoted in
http://open.salon.com/blog/scottstarr/2010/03/20/despite_recent_demagoguery_non-citizens_also_have_constitut
Most relevant part quoted here:
The truth of the matter is, this is actually the best approach he could take, and one that he SHOULD take. By US law, his assets MUST be unfrozen at this point, because he has yet to be found guilty of any crime by due process of US law.
The real question is: Will the US Federal Government actually OBEY their own laws as interpreted by SCOTUS?
Somehow, I doubt it. There's too much money at stake, potentially, and there's no way that our Facist Overlords in the US are ever going to permit this: Crippling him by freezing his accounts worldwide, regardless of due process, gives them leverage, and there's NO way that they'll give up that advantage without a huge fight.
Look for the US Federal Government to try to turn this into a RICO case, to keep his assets frozen, by arguing that this is a case of "organized crime", in response to this.
You heard it here first.
Cynically,
dj br
Yes, not only does the RIAA/MPAA have the ability to extend their influence overseas via the US Federal Government, so does the DEA: Stoned money in other countries is *definitely* under its jurisdiction, obviously it became stoned via illegal drugs!
Irreverently yours,
dj
Well, I'd hope that those businessmen are using VPN connections for those highly confidential business communications.
At my company, while we offer email access to our users' Exchange mailboxes via OWA and Outlook Anywhere, both are encrypted.
Access to internal company servers where work product is stored can only be accomplished from the outside world via our VPN, and so snooping at Internet cafes, airports, hotels, etc. wouldn't really be an issue.
Still, I'd set up a disclaimer page of some kind, after vetting it with the business' legal staff. Something along the lines of "This free service is provided with the understanding that it will not and must not be used for illegal purposes. Use of this service constitutes acceptance of these terms".
And I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems that such would be wise, and you, as the vendor/contractor should (must?) make them aware of these issues when you do this on their behalf. Covering your own ass is a good idea, too, so that you're protected as well, and you would be wise to consult your own lawyer about this.
Finally, of course, the obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, please consult your own lawyer as you see fit in this matter for competent legal advice, and for all other issues of legal import.
Regards,
dj
Nah - he sounds like the 20-something MIS interns that we get... the running joke in the technical departments at my company is that if they lost access to Google they wouldn't know how to breathe, closely followed by the belief that if we cut off their Facebook access on the corporate network we'd get an immediate 50% drop in network traffic, followed by a brief spike in productivity until the withdrawal symptoms became too severe.
It is clear. The problem is that everyone cherry-picks the Constitution to get the results that they want, and ignore the parts that would forbid it, especially the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Regards,
dj
If you don't know how to properly handle a firearm, then you shouldn't be touching it at all. That way, nobody gets killed or hurt, including you.
Regards,
dj
I'm assuming that you're talking about the US Federal government. You are making two assumptions here:
1) That the US Federal government still exists to serve the citizens of the US and
2) That the corporations that benefit the most from the current labyrinth of Federal tax law, loopholes, etc., would actually permit that. No Federal taxes on corporations would actually help level the playing field, and there's NO way that the corporations that are benefiting from the US Federal tax code as it currently exists will ever permit that.
After all, they paid good money to lobby for them, and they're entitled to the rewards, right?
Cynically,
dj
I hate to say this, because I'm going to get pounded for it, probably: It's not that it's barely known - any competent MIS/IT department looks at Linux on the desktop, on an ongoing basis, as a replacement for Windows in their environment, simply from a financial perspective.
My company is fairly OS agnostic: While our official desktop OS is Windows: XP on the old laptops/desktops, which are being refreshed with Windows 7 Pro x64 systems, and Windows 7 Pro x64 on all new laptops and desktops, those that wish to run Linux are allowed to do so, so long as doing so doesn't represent additional costs to the company (this, despite the fact that every computer we buy comes with a Windows 7 Pro x64 license).
The same for Apple computers: Want a MacBook Pro? Good for you! Request it from your manager, make your business case for it, and you can get one. HOWEVER: If your job duties require Windows-specific programs such as Visio or Project? Denied! We will not pay additional costs for a Windows license, plus the cost for Parallels (for some reason, all of the people that want Apple computers refuse to use VirtualBox, insisting that they NEED Parallels) so that you can have access to the software tools that you need to do your job, at additional cost to the company, when our standard Windows 7 x64 laptop will run those with just the additional licensing costs of Visio and/or Project.
Cheap? No, we're not being cheap, we're being frugal, and we're also insisting that our employees understand that the computers that we provide to them are for their use while doing their jobs at our company.
In a business environment, computers are tools, provided to employees to help them do their jobs. They are not status symbols nor e-penis enhancers, nor toys.
With regards to security? I can't speak for anyone else, but among other things at my company, I build the images for the laptops and desktops that we deploy, and I can tell you that they are as secure as any Windows-based computer can be.
We build the images based upon Least User Access (LUA) principles: When issued, a user's Windows 7 laptop is secure, all installed programs are up-to-date when issued (We use WSUS to update them, later). Their domain account has no local admin rights: We provide them with a separate, local, admin account, so that they can escalate privileges, and install software as they need, above and beyond the standard image.
In addition, the user's local admin account has no domain rights: This protects our network: If someone should escalate local privileges and infect their computer, it cannot touch our network by default.
This is, BTW, my approach to Windows security, since Windows NT Workstation, in a business environment (and at home!): LUA - and, in addition to sane security update practices and a good Enterprise AV program (I like Sophos - your mileage may vary)? Once we implemented it at my current company, our infection rate has dropped to nearly zero, company-wide.
And, since we've already taken the time to address these issues, and ensure that our base images are secure, updated, etc.? Switching to Linux on the desktop for purely security reasons isn't even a "blip" on the radar anymore.
Our user base so loves Outlook that lacking any real competition to it, combined with Visio and Project? Sorry, but those tools are so embedded in our company that there's NO way that our userbase is ever going to change.
And, remarkably, our company is actually prospering and growing, using those tools, using Windows 7 x64-based laptops/desktops, with Office/Outlook, Visio and Project, and our computers and network are secure and stable.
The previous post is missing a disclaimer:
Today, in the United Fascist States of America (UFSA for short, spread it around!), you're more likely to be branded a cyberterrorist, and then you'll be in a world of shit: You won't get any due process, because you are, after all, a terrorist. Hell, if you're overseas, President Obama might just authorize your assassination, because obviously the US Constitution doesn't apply in foreign lands, right?
Regards,
dj
P.S. I had an account on the Illuminati BBS when it was seized (had to call long distance from NY to get to it), and I was shocked, appalled and angered when I learned of the raid.
Although it worked out in the end, and Steve Jackson Games won, doing so was an enormous hardship for the company at the time. It was, in addition to the fact that they make great games, another reason that I bought as many of their games as I could at the time, and continue to do so to this day.
Beg your pardon, but AMD is not a European company, it is a US company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd
Regards,
dj
Nah, this is Slashdot, where few ever get tired of pointing out that "RAM" and "Ram" are spelled differently.
None of which addresses my point, which was this: An American citizen, simply accused of being a terrorist, was assassinated, without being arrested, without being charged and without any proof of wrong doing at all, so far as we know, other than the US Federal Government saying that he was a "bad person" and so deserved to die.
So, who's the next "bad person"? You? Me? You and I will never know, will we?
Regards,
dj
So, what you're saying is that Anwar al-Awlaki seceded from the Union and was assassinated as a result? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
Regards,
dj
That's complete bullshit. I'm typing this on an IBM ThinkPad T42: http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-57838
Over the years, I've upgraded it to 2GB RAM, bought Windows 7 Professional x86, installed a 320GB HD, and at this point it's pretty much "maxed out", from a hardware perspective [1]. As I type this, it's running Windows 7 Pro x86, playing music via Winamp, has Outlook running, Opera, Ubuntu in a VM under VirtualBox (Why? Why not? *grin*) and 2 RDP sessions to other systems on my home network and is quick and responsive - perfectly suited for the things for which I use it.
I think I'm doing things with it, and doing them quite well, thanks very much. YOUR problem is that you think that the tasks that you list are the ONLY things worthy of a computer.
Again, bullshit. Underpowered for the tasks that you think are important? Sure. Useless, as you imply? Not hardly.
:)
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Now, for those of you who are wondering why I'd spend money to upgrade an "obsolete" laptop such as this? That's easy: I didn't pay for it. It was broken when I got it. I fixed it (because I can), and then bought RAM for it when it was dirt cheap... and bought the HD the same way. My total investment in it, from a cash perspective, was more than worth it to me. In return, I got a rock-solid laptop that is quick and responsive, to keep in my garage, which isn't heated or cooled, but despite that it keeps running, day in, day out, and gives me access to my home network, the Internet [2], when I'm puttering about in the garage, and has done so for years. I don't have to baby it, don't even back it up: I don't store anything on it that I'd miss if it stopped working, because that's what my NAS and its backups are for. Now, if the prices of the Pentium M 765 would finally drop to about $50 US, I'd buy one...
[2] I just replaced the Intel 2200 b/g WiFi NIC with a TP-Link Wireless N adapter. Had to patch the BIOS (via the commonly available No 1802 patch) to do so, but now I have Wireless N connectivity to my home network. WELL worth it, for the $ 19 US that I paid, plus a little time researching and tinkering.
[3] This note has no reference from above
If you're talking about the US, I fail to see where the difference is. The current President of the US authorized the assassination of a US citizen overseas without due process: http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/ and now he's dead. [1]
Worse, to this day even the head of the FBI doesn't know whether or not this applies to US citizens on US soil: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-have-to-check-with-holder-whether-targeted-killing-rule-is-outside-us/
How, exactly, is this not tyranny and oppression? It appears to me that all the President has to do is point a finger and say "daveschroeder is a terrorist and I have credible evidence proving it." You'll never know what, if anything, that evidence is, because it's protected by "National Security", you know.
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] And you know what? I don't care whether or not he was a "bad person", as many claim. What I care about is that our President ignored the Constitution, deprived a US citizen of their rights and had him killed without being arrested, without be charged and without a trial.
No, it doesn't. Watergate was about criminal political misdeeds at the Federal level in the US, and the attempt to cover up the same: This is not.
And in so doing, distorts not only the original, but also alters that to which it is applied, in an attempt to create "sound bite" representations, simplifications of complex issues.
Regards,
dj
Did you mean down/up?
The problem that I have with this statement is calling them tools. In my opinion, while a tool can be a weapon, treating a weapon as a tool is a potentially dangerous way to view weapons in general [1]. A weapon is a weapon, it's a VERY specialized tool, at best, and should always be viewed, and treated, as such. Its procurement, stockpiling, shouldn't be treated as one would toilet paper - e.g., just to have around.
The mere fact that one HAS "tools (read:weapons) that we don't need" CREATES the option to use them simply by their existence. If they didn't exist then someone saying, for example: "Hey, we've got all of these bombers/drones/etc. just sitting around - why not just bomb the shit of them?" wouldn't be an immediate option.
And I don't see that as a bad thing. I think that war should always be the very last resort for any nation, and think that the "non-wars" [2] that we in the US have been waging around the world since World War II have resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths, to no good purpose, and with no moral authority in many (if not most) cases, because we in the US [3] have been the creators of many of the very same despots against which we've later fought in the name of freedom (Oh, and Truth, Justice and The American Way, of course!)
In addition, the amount of money spent on such is now measured in the trillions, over the past 60+ years, which has resulted in the eternal debt of our Federal Government (read: The eternal debt of the citizens that it is supposed to be serving), and again, for what?
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Please note the "in general" qualifier. I own a number of weapons, all of them legal, and my knowledge of their potential use, my respect for that and my understanding of my responsibilities with regards to such stems from the fact that they are NOT "just tools" to me.
[2] I call them "non-wars", because I am of the firm opinion that deployment of the US military should always be in direct defense of it, and such should be declared by Congress. I do not believe that "The best defense is a good offense", nor that US citizens in the military should be deployed on a constant basis overseas. I think that it's time for us, as a nation, to bring our troops home, from everywhere, to focus on fixing what's wrong in our country, first, and correct that, and to stop trying to force others to fix what we think is wrong with their countries. Once we have done so, once we've restored our Republic to its former promise as a true bastion of freedom, restored our freedom for ourselves as citizens of the United States of America, taken responsibility for our country once again, then we will learn, finally, that we have no need for Empire, that such has always been driven by the greedy and the mad, by the selfish and the corrupt. And when that is done? We will never again listen to the fear mongers, the war hawks, the power mad, the greedy and selfish that currently constitute and control our Federal Government, and their power over us will finally be broken, because we will be once again united against them, watchful over them, as we should be, where we are now divided and exploited by them, and we will once again truly be free.
[3] And I say "we in the US", because, unlike many here, I understand something that very few talk about now: As a citizen of the United States of America, *I* am, ultimately, responsible for the actions of the US Federal Government, as are ALL of you who are citizens. It doesn't matter that you didn't create the mess, doesn't matter that you didn't vote for whoever, that they are corrupt, that they do not represent you properly: You are STILL responsible for them, because they represent you, and MORE SO, when they represent you badly. When will you become offended enough to stand up for yourselves, as citizens?
The Federal Government of the United States exists NOT
Hi,
Why mess with custom framing, etc., at all? If you have the means, just get a datacenter-class enclosure, and put it in the basement: http://www.werackyourworld.com/, and be done with it.
All of this guff about building this, that or the other thing? Screw that - it just adds to construction costs, and limits flexibility. A standard enclosure will suit all of your needs now, and in the future, won't ever require reconstruction, and you'll be guaranteed of future compatibility, since it's made to industry specs.
In addition, it will be accessible from all sides, assuming you place it so. And, if you have to, you can move it.
Every time I read about this issue on Slashdot, some idiot wants to proclaim how his "closet" solution is best. You don't want it in a closet, unless you want to have to deal with cooling. In a home, a basement is ideal to help cooling, and noise, and since you're building your home, you can do this, with appropriate planning.
Get an enclosure, put it it in your basement, with sufficient clearance all around, put in an overhead cable tray if you want to make it all pretty, and be done with it.
Regards,
dj
While intelligence is certainly important to our survival, and is, I think, our defining trait as a species, I think that true genius, on the order of Leonardo da Vinci, as an extreme example, occurs so rarely that humanity as a whole, while benefiting from such in extraordinary ways, isn't dependent on it from an evolutionary perspective, and certainly not for its survival overall.
To help its progress? Certainly - human genius, to me, is the "wild card" that contributes, often enormously, to our advancement. But to state that our overall survival as a species depends on such? I don't see that to be true. Much of our advancement comes from day-to-day progression, after all, in absence of genius, and many enormous advances have been made by people of varying levels of intelligence.
I think that, regardless of classification, ratings, etc.? Our individual use of our individual intelligence as human beings, our curiosity, our drive, and what we do with our intelligence, genius or not, is ultimately what will ensure our survival as a species.
Regards,
dj