So, the intent of the 2nd amendment is that all adult males in good standing be not restricted in owning, acquiring, and practicing with the type of firearms necessary to acquire good shooting skills. Can we bar felons from guns? We bar them from voting.
Convicted felons currently serving a sentence, sure, but previously-convicted felons who have done their time and been released are people too, with rights which "shall not be infringed". When your sentence has been completed, that should be the end of it. Of course, the judge should be able to add specific restrictions at the time of sentencing, for example that you should be barred from possessing a gun for 10 years after release from prison, in which case that restriction is part of your sentence. Same idea as Kevin Mitnick being barred from using a computer (just an example of a sentence; I don't condone what happened to Mitnick).
Can we restrict the kind of gun? In my opinion, we can restrict the type of gun to what is reasonable to use in training and practicing shooting skills.
The Second Amendment doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear any kind of arms they want. I don't see how reasonable restrictions on what types of guns you can buy would violate the 2nd Amendment, as long as you can buy guns.
Can we restrict where you can take a gun? Why not -- the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own guns, not the right to wave them around.
It also doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere they want.
Is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment important to people who want nothing to do with guns? Yes, because then all of the other amendments are in peril.
I meant G4 iMac; I know the G5 iMac has speakers. I could be mistaken about the G4 iMac, but I did check Apple's web site briefly before posting and couldn't find anything about speakers. In any case, the G4 Cube doesn't.
Windows on Power PC would be a boon for users, if either (or both) IBM and Freescale could ramp up production sufficiently, and...
They can't even produce enough chips to satisfy Apple's demand as it is. From MacWorld:
On the CPU front, Apple sold 836,000 computers, a 6 percent increase over the year-ago quarter but down 5 percent from the third quarter of 2004. Revenue for the entire category was $1.231 billion, up 3 percent year-over-year but down 3 percent sequentially. The company blamed the sluggish numbers on limited G5 processor availability, which delayed the introduction of the G5 iMac and affected the Power Mac G5 pipeline.
The iMac line suffered the expected double-hit from the late introduction as well as supply constraints of the G5 chip. At 229k, this is the 2nd lowest unit sales in iMac sales in the last 5 years. At $216M, it's also the 2nd lowest revenue for the iMac in the last 5 years. Apple continues to see major supply constraints despite holding back the introduction in order to build up inventory. Transitioning the iMac to the G5 at a time when IBM was not prepared to meet volume demands has contributed to further weakening of the consumer desktop line.
But it would be cool to dual-boot OSX and a WinOS, perhaps for gaming or whatever...
Except, of course, that there are a hell of a lot more games available for Mac OS X than for Windows/PPC. Of course, the hardware adequate for playing them costs significantly more than a PC adequate for the same.
(By the way, you'd have to pry my iBook from my cold dead hands - I make do without games.)
I recently worked at a school where the science department was using a ten-year-old chemistry application, designed for Windows 3.1, which requires QuickTime 2 and will not recognize later versions. This application, as well as QuickTime 2 (which fortunately was distributed with it) installed with no problems on brand new Dell PCs running Windows XP SP1 (SP2 wasn't out yet). We're talking about an application requiring a media library created before the Registry existed. No problems.
and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?
It means if some random company asks your ISP for your billing information, your ISP isn't required to give it to them. If the RIAA wants to sue you for copyright infringement, they must first file a lawsuit with a court, then the judge has to issue a subpoena which gets presented to the ISP, and THEN the ISP has to turn over your name/address/etc. Previously, ISPs would just hand over this information without any involvement by the courts, which meant 1) anyone could claim to be a representative of the RIAA and get your personal information just by asking (and you might never know about it), 2) the RIAA could harass you privately (without going through a court) and you would not be guaranteed legal representation, and 3) they could potentially coerce you into signing some kind of non-disclosure agreement, so nothing that happened could ever be made public (unless you want to face further consequences from breaking the NDA).
If they go through the courts, everything is out in the open, there's judicial review, there's due process, there's accountability. Of course, if you're guilty of copyright infringement, you're still guilty of copyright infringement, and once the suit is filed, you can still settle it out of court - but this way, your rights are protected. Plus, it makes the process slightly more of a pain in the ass for the RIAA, which might discourage them from harassing people without good reason.
Remember those lawsuits against the people who didn't own a computer, or who were supposedly sharing files with Kazaa but they had a Mac and there wasn't yet a Mac client available? This ruling might also cut down on that a bit, by making the ISP responsible to the court to turn over the correct customer information. I'm not sure.
Exactly. I wouldn't want my ISP handing over my billing information just because some company asks for it, and this means my ISP doesn't have to be afraid of serious legal repercussions if they refuse such requests.
does it also do the "diiiiiiing" when you start up? should not, as the usual PC has no built-in speaker. that will take away a big chunk from the experience....
Um, if you plug in (non-USB) speakers or headphones, the startup chime will come out of that, rather than the internal speaker. Also, some Macs don't have internal speakers (the G4 iMac and G4 Cube, for example) and some PCs do (some Dell and Compaq desktops I've seen, probably many others). The G4 Cube actually doesn't have sound card functionality at all; it can only play audio through USB devices.
Of course, I'm not referring to the "PC speaker" that mostly just makes beeping sounds - although about 10 years ago I remember seeing a driver for Windows 3.1 that would let you play WAV files through the PC speaker, and I think Linux 2.6 now has a PC speaker driver as well? I wonder how well that works.
Actually, the main problem is when an app tries to write to files that aren't in the user's home directory, i.e. tries to write to something in C:\Windows or C:\Program Files instead of assuming those locations are read-only and only trying to write to C:\Documents and Settings\username like it should. Sadly, Mozilla is still (intermittently) guilty of this (although it sounds like this time it's a new bug that will be fixed in the next release).
It's more likely they've an odd mutant gene that by coincadence makes them immune to the virus.
I'm thinking you don't understand the basic concept of how evolution works?
A species doesn't try to evolve, in reaction to a threat or danger or disease. Rather, by random chance, some freak is born, quite by accident, who is immune to HIV (in this case). That's the first step. Step two is, they reproduce, and pass it on to their kids, who pass it on to their kids. Step three is, people who aren't immune to HIV die of AIDS, while those who are immune live normal lives. Voilà, evolution in action.
(By the way, I'm a Creationist; I do not believe humans evolved from lesser animals.)
Moral men do not accuse others of "flip-flopping" if they themselves have "flip-flopped" repeatedly - i.e. moral men are not hypocrites.
Funny how Bush keeps repeating Kerry's sound bite about how Kerry voted for the $87 billion, before he voted against it. Of course, the version of the bill that Kerry voted for, Bush threatened to veto, and the version that Kerry voted against, Bush signed. Why Kerry doesn't frequently accuse Bush of flip-flopping on that issue, I'm not sure... maybe something to do with what you said?
Liberal Attacks: "Michael Moore is a liar and a fatass. He's trying to undermine the security of this nation! He must hate America."
Patterns of Birth: "I really don't like what Bush has been doing lately, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for a Democrat. I mean, I don't know... I just couldn't do it."
One-Issue Paramount: Bush doesn't really oppose abortion personally, he just opposes it officially because a lot of voters oppose it and consider it an important issue. He slipped up during his 2000 campaign when a reporter asked him about this.
Shared Beliefs: See this site. I'm a Christian, and although I do support a couple things Bush has done (e.g. allowing religious as well as secular charities to receive federal funding [although admittedly I haven't paid close enough attention to the details of this policy - it may have some problems]), I believe most of that has nothing to do with his own personal religious beliefs and everything to do with pandering to his right-wing constituents.
Shared Geography: Sure, he's spent time in Texas, but went to college in Conneticut... As an Oregonian I don't hear much about this from people I talk to, but I've heard of it being an issue for people from the South. What about John Edwards, though?
I would agree that a majority of Americans will make the reasoned compromise you suggest, but not the majority of voters. The people who are actually passionate enough to vote are doing so because of one of these (or some other) stupid issues, not because they've come to a reasoned compromise. The ones who do that don't bother to vote.
The single for his latest album, "Poodle Hat", is a song called "Couch Potato", which is a parody of a song by Eminem. Weird Al got permission from Eminem to do the parody and release the single, but Eminem asked that Al not release a music video of Couch Potato... so he didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent points. Let me expand slightly:
So, the intent of the 2nd amendment is that all adult males in good standing be not restricted in owning, acquiring, and practicing with the type of firearms necessary to acquire good shooting skills. Can we bar felons from guns? We bar them from voting.
Convicted felons currently serving a sentence, sure, but previously-convicted felons who have done their time and been released are people too, with rights which "shall not be infringed". When your sentence has been completed, that should be the end of it. Of course, the judge should be able to add specific restrictions at the time of sentencing, for example that you should be barred from possessing a gun for 10 years after release from prison, in which case that restriction is part of your sentence. Same idea as Kevin Mitnick being barred from using a computer (just an example of a sentence; I don't condone what happened to Mitnick).
Can we restrict the kind of gun? In my opinion, we can restrict the type of gun to what is reasonable to use in training and practicing shooting skills.
The Second Amendment doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear any kind of arms they want. I don't see how reasonable restrictions on what types of guns you can buy would violate the 2nd Amendment, as long as you can buy guns.
Can we restrict where you can take a gun? Why not -- the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own guns, not the right to wave them around.
It also doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms anywhere they want.
Is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment important to people who want nothing to do with guns? Yes, because then all of the other amendments are in peril.
Agreed.
C'mon Neal...you should know slashdotters better than that. We don't hit the back button, we use mouse gestures.
And you should know that despite the hype and rhetoric, most Slashdotters run Internet Explorer on Windows.
But yeah, like other people said.. keyboard navigation all the way. Command-left arrow in Safari for me.
Even the regular non-server version of OSX comes with CUPS, with a nice GUI to set it up.
I hope "used to" means you've changed the default behavior so it doesn't annoy you anymore. If not:
Open System Preferences. Under Hardware, click "CDs & DVDs". In the menu labeled "When you insert a music CD:" the options should be:
GAIM hates me. I find the official AIM client to work just fine, after spending a few minutes going through preferences to disable the annoying crap.
I meant G4 iMac; I know the G5 iMac has speakers. I could be mistaken about the G4 iMac, but I did check Apple's web site briefly before posting and couldn't find anything about speakers. In any case, the G4 Cube doesn't.
They can't even produce enough chips to satisfy Apple's demand as it is. From MacWorld:
And from the Motley Fool:
But it would be cool to dual-boot OSX and a WinOS, perhaps for gaming or whatever...
Except, of course, that there are a hell of a lot more games available for Mac OS X than for Windows/PPC. Of course, the hardware adequate for playing them costs significantly more than a PC adequate for the same.
(By the way, you'd have to pry my iBook from my cold dead hands - I make do without games.)
I recently worked at a school where the science department was using a ten-year-old chemistry application, designed for Windows 3.1, which requires QuickTime 2 and will not recognize later versions. This application, as well as QuickTime 2 (which fortunately was distributed with it) installed with no problems on brand new Dell PCs running Windows XP SP1 (SP2 wasn't out yet). We're talking about an application requiring a media library created before the Registry existed. No problems.
If there were an error, it'd be a standard Apache error message, and those aren't known for being very lickable.
What does this mean for current lawsuits,
Nothing.
and why does having john doe lawsuits make it better than if they knew your name? Who's fielding those lawsuits?
It means if some random company asks your ISP for your billing information, your ISP isn't required to give it to them. If the RIAA wants to sue you for copyright infringement, they must first file a lawsuit with a court, then the judge has to issue a subpoena which gets presented to the ISP, and THEN the ISP has to turn over your name/address/etc. Previously, ISPs would just hand over this information without any involvement by the courts, which meant 1) anyone could claim to be a representative of the RIAA and get your personal information just by asking (and you might never know about it), 2) the RIAA could harass you privately (without going through a court) and you would not be guaranteed legal representation, and 3) they could potentially coerce you into signing some kind of non-disclosure agreement, so nothing that happened could ever be made public (unless you want to face further consequences from breaking the NDA).
If they go through the courts, everything is out in the open, there's judicial review, there's due process, there's accountability. Of course, if you're guilty of copyright infringement, you're still guilty of copyright infringement, and once the suit is filed, you can still settle it out of court - but this way, your rights are protected. Plus, it makes the process slightly more of a pain in the ass for the RIAA, which might discourage them from harassing people without good reason.
Remember those lawsuits against the people who didn't own a computer, or who were supposedly sharing files with Kazaa but they had a Mac and there wasn't yet a Mac client available? This ruling might also cut down on that a bit, by making the ISP responsible to the court to turn over the correct customer information. I'm not sure.
Now if the RIAA is disallowed from using "John Doe" litigation, we can finally be (at least somewhat) proud of the justice system!
Why should they be? So you can infringe on their copyrights without fear of getting caught?
I don't like the current copyright law, but the solution is to change the law, not make it unenforceable.
Exactly. I wouldn't want my ISP handing over my billing information just because some company asks for it, and this means my ISP doesn't have to be afraid of serious legal repercussions if they refuse such requests.
does it also do the "diiiiiiing" when you start up? should not, as the usual PC has no built-in speaker. that will take away a big chunk from the experience....
Um, if you plug in (non-USB) speakers or headphones, the startup chime will come out of that, rather than the internal speaker. Also, some Macs don't have internal speakers (the G4 iMac and G4 Cube, for example) and some PCs do (some Dell and Compaq desktops I've seen, probably many others). The G4 Cube actually doesn't have sound card functionality at all; it can only play audio through USB devices.
Of course, I'm not referring to the "PC speaker" that mostly just makes beeping sounds - although about 10 years ago I remember seeing a driver for Windows 3.1 that would let you play WAV files through the PC speaker, and I think Linux 2.6 now has a PC speaker driver as well? I wonder how well that works.
Wow, there is a recipe for a slashdotting-- let people run OS X on the cheapest ahrdware they can find...
If their web server were running OSX, it might work a little better...
Actually, the main problem is when an app tries to write to files that aren't in the user's home directory, i.e. tries to write to something in C:\Windows or C:\Program Files instead of assuming those locations are read-only and only trying to write to C:\Documents and Settings\username like it should. Sadly, Mozilla is still (intermittently) guilty of this (although it sounds like this time it's a new bug that will be fixed in the next release).
It's more likely they've an odd mutant gene that by coincadence makes them immune to the virus.
I'm thinking you don't understand the basic concept of how evolution works?
A species doesn't try to evolve, in reaction to a threat or danger or disease. Rather, by random chance, some freak is born, quite by accident, who is immune to HIV (in this case). That's the first step. Step two is, they reproduce, and pass it on to their kids, who pass it on to their kids. Step three is, people who aren't immune to HIV die of AIDS, while those who are immune live normal lives. Voilà, evolution in action.
(By the way, I'm a Creationist; I do not believe humans evolved from lesser animals.)
Tax levels and social security should not be under the power of the Executive branch.
The power to declare war shouldn't be either.
Moral men do not accuse others of "flip-flopping" if they themselves have "flip-flopped" repeatedly - i.e. moral men are not hypocrites.
Funny how Bush keeps repeating Kerry's sound bite about how Kerry voted for the $87 billion, before he voted against it. Of course, the version of the bill that Kerry voted for, Bush threatened to veto, and the version that Kerry voted against, Bush signed. Why Kerry doesn't frequently accuse Bush of flip-flopping on that issue, I'm not sure... maybe something to do with what you said?
Damn. How ignorant.
Sorry, but the grandparent poster is right.
Liberal Attacks: "Michael Moore is a liar and a fatass. He's trying to undermine the security of this nation! He must hate America."
Patterns of Birth: "I really don't like what Bush has been doing lately, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for a Democrat. I mean, I don't know... I just couldn't do it."
One-Issue Paramount: Bush doesn't really oppose abortion personally, he just opposes it officially because a lot of voters oppose it and consider it an important issue. He slipped up during his 2000 campaign when a reporter asked him about this.
Shared Beliefs: See this site. I'm a Christian, and although I do support a couple things Bush has done (e.g. allowing religious as well as secular charities to receive federal funding [although admittedly I haven't paid close enough attention to the details of this policy - it may have some problems]), I believe most of that has nothing to do with his own personal religious beliefs and everything to do with pandering to his right-wing constituents.
Shared Geography: Sure, he's spent time in Texas, but went to college in Conneticut... As an Oregonian I don't hear much about this from people I talk to, but I've heard of it being an issue for people from the South. What about John Edwards, though?
I would agree that a majority of Americans will make the reasoned compromise you suggest, but not the majority of voters. The people who are actually passionate enough to vote are doing so because of one of these (or some other) stupid issues, not because they've come to a reasoned compromise. The ones who do that don't bother to vote.
Why would anyone want to pay 36 USD for an operating system which isn't capable of networking and multitasking past 3 programs?
Do you have any idea how many bajillions of people there are who don't have an Internet connection and never run more than one or two apps at a time?
Microsoft loses money on the deal, everyone is happy.
Uhh.. sorry, but unlike the X-Box, copies of WinXP don't cost them anything.
And our PHP apps to 8086 Assembly....
Now you just have to write an 8086 emulator in PHP, and the circle will be complete.
Can I have my cease and desist Mr. Lucas?
Not until you start offering copies of those tapes for sale.
The single for his latest album, "Poodle Hat", is a song called "Couch Potato", which is a parody of a song by Eminem. Weird Al got permission from Eminem to do the parody and release the single, but Eminem asked that Al not release a music video of Couch Potato... so he didn't.