Have you read any of their laws? I don't thing they're capable of simplicity!
More seriously, a statute necessarily has many sections (I don't know how granular a "line" is -- a single sentence?) to make it cohere with existing law, to provide for financing of its various components, etc. Either Congress would nullify the veto by piling things up into single "lines" or statutes would be capable of nothing more complex than "school buses must stop at railroad crossings."
Anyway, the basic idea is that its Congress' job to decide what's in the law, the President's whether to exercise the special tool of a veto. The line-item veto would essentially invite the President to hang out on Capitol Hill, because Congress would seek to satisfy his/her preferences rather than go through a song-and-dance of sending laws over to be partially vetoed. Thus the President would gain a ton of influence over lawmaking, and could (would) introduce his or her own pork just like any representaive does now. It's like having a trial judge act as the 13th juror -- not what the framework intended.
Another person here mentions the McMunchies case -- even closer to home was an Illinois story in the Chgo Trib about a downstate family restaurant named, yes, McDonald's or something quite close to that. McDonalds decided to open a franchise in the same town and threatened, cajoled, pleaded with the man to change the name (his name) of the restaurant; he declined. Eventually the McDonalds franchise went out of business.
McDonalds is intensely litigious, like Disney and other megacorps with valuable trademarks. McDonalds will sue over just about anything "Mc" in fact. I suppose it is a business calculation -- it is safer to keep their trademark pristine, even if it means crossing the line into thuggish intimidation.
Trivia: Did you know there's beef in McDonalds french fries? True story.:) (After they retired beef tallow from their frying oils, they added beef extract to the fries to recover some of the flavor. But they didn't tell anyone, got sued by irate Hindus, and so on. It turns out teh partially hydrogenated vegetable oil they now use for frying may be as bad for you as animal fat, oh well.)
Or trademark trivia: In the movie The Secret of NIMH, based on the superb story Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, the protagonist is subtly renamed "Brisby" -- turns out they were contacted by...
The corporate domination thing has been on my mind.
Each house sets its own procedural rules. The House would explode if debate were not strictly limited -- there's just too many of 'em. The Senate is a more deliberative body. I found a brief history of the filibuster that -sounds- accurate (should be verified). I was interested to learn just now that the cloture majority required has changed over time. The filibuster has a storied history, as it has been invoked over some of the most divisive question to come before the Congress.
If you'd like another example of how the Congress doesn't work as people suppose, read about the phenomenal power of the committees to shape legislation, or keep it off the floor altogether so that it can't be voted on. One of the most powerful committees? The Rules Committee! (Pork-master Byrd -- half his state is named after him -- is often noted for his formidible command of parliamentary rules.)
Oops, are we off-topic? Nah, civics is always a good thing.
Re:Too bad it's unconstitutional - & ill-advis
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 2
Actually I did wonder about something like that -- but then you really would have to amend the Constitution. Well, rewrite part of it. At least then it would require sincere confrontation of the radical nature of the change.
Also, you ought to question the wisdom of introducing this feedback loop into a system that is plenty loopy. We already have protracted periods of the two houses bickering over reconciling a bill (when each passes a different version). This would add a third party to the party. That's spelled "G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K" -- which for anti-gov't folks is a good thing, and they support line-item veto.
To be honest, I've been so strongly opposed to the line-item veto (but note that Presidents Clinton and Bush thought it was a great idea) that I haven't thought a lot about how to "fix" it. This doesn't mean I like pork; it drags down bills I like, too. But if the President doesn't like the pork, veto the entire bill and make Congress explain itself.
I went to Harvard, simultaneously my best friend to MIT; they are very different places. How will this talk differ from the MIT presentation previously discussed? (Predictions, stated agenda, etc.)
(And has Microsoft recovered from the MIT presentation yet?:)
Gee, I was being facetious just now when I insinuated a conspiracy to kill Senator Wellstone, but some people are taking it seriously. I should not be so naive, I've been reading the last week about the "Apollo Hoax."
Conspiracy theorists, I don't need to hear from you -- I'll just turn your names over the CIA.
Oh gosh, did I just say that?!? No, I'm not a conpiracy nut. The parallel to Mel Carnahan's death was eerie, though.
I mourned Wellstone's death, and the deaths in his family, and the others in the plane for that matter. It was very sad to lose a Congressman who among other things was a nice guy. And yes, who voted his conscience (a quality typically admired only when the vote was also what one wanted:), even opposing the recent war resolution. There are politicians who are fine people: our accurate gripe is that they're not a majority, not that they are nonexistent.
Whatever gave you the idea that the X10 could be used to spy on people? Perhaps the X10 ad shown a million times of a camera panning back and forth over a woman in a bikini who, of all things, is SMILING at the Peeping Tom?
I glad someone else asked this question!
There were recent reports the the completely unencoded X10 wireless signals are easy to intercept outside on the intended area -- they drove around town picking up store security and other interesting video feeds. The users had no idea, and didn't realize they were throwing out their own privacy as well. (Don't make love around a baby monitor, either.;-0)
I'm no great Safire fan -- he is occasionally credibility impaired (he makes things up), his defense of Israel verges on blindness, he continually tries to rehabilitate his former employer Nixon, and so on. But on occasion he leaps out with the ferocity contained in the NYT column to defend civil liberties -- in the libertarian get-the-hell-out-of-my-backyard-you-government-spi es tradition -- and gets it right, in the morally correct sense. Because he has credibility with the right, his words here carry much greater political influence that a stack of Mother Jones and The Nation reaching to the Moon. And I am grateful for his courage; he could just as easily sit it out, or mouth the sonorous rah-rah rant of the police state crowd.
Ensure to us citizens a country of security -- but without devastating our own. I have seriously begun to contemplate using cash more than traceable credit, and I'm not particularly paranoid, and yes I "don't have anything to hide." I just don't like buying a bag of Fritos wondering whether it will eventually raise my health insurance premiums because I don't eat right. Don't laugh, it could happen, in a thousand ways less fritoless (er, frivolous) than my example.
I was just grumbling about the line-item thing, thanks.:)
Hackers -- what they heck would be their lobbying group? I would guess the ACLU and EFF. There's no real money behind the little guy, and not enough numbers or cohesion to form a voting bloc, so civil liberties are the primary protection.
Not to be cyncical or anything, but there just aren't any political bonuses to standing up to homeland security, promoting diplomatic solutions to certain impending wars (although Gen. Powell did do so, thank you), etc. But before we blame spineless politicians, look at the voters who put them there, and who the pols are afraid to piss off. The American people as a whole are behind this stuff -- they may not understand the details, but they want to feel safe. They should be held to account if they support penalties at the expense of safeguards, and victimize a minority they don't really know or understand, like hackers.
Ronald Reagan. Honed By George Bush (#41) with the "card-carrying ACLU member" crack.
I tell people I'm a free-market liberal, which perplexes them enough that they don't go into the usual rants. It's accurate, too -- I don't think regulation and gov't involvement is good for everything, but I insist on certain hard limits on individual rights, ensured by the gov't.
There's an old saw that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged the day before; well, a liberal might be a conservative whose brother was falsely accused of mugging the day before. People do convert from right to left -- Arianna Huffington is a particularly perplexing example (read her account of her "transformation").
Don't mention Canada -- you'll just get draft-dodgers jokes and the usual grunting accusations that liberals are cowards and disloyal. Quite the contrary.
Good comment. A filibuster refers to the unlimited right of debate accorded every Senator (not Reps). So anyone can hijack the Senate on a given issue -- Senators are accorded a lot of power, and the Senate is intened to be a slow-moving body. Filibuster can be overriden by a cloture vote -- 60 Senators.
As a practical matter, this is a rare happening and very very unlikely while everyone is trying to look patriotic and distance themselves from civil liberties. There would be huge political costs to whoever stuck their neck out, and their own party would probably turn on them (cloture). These are hawkish times, for better or worse.
Too bad it's unconstitutional -- and ill-advised
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The immediate problem with the line-item veto is that it is unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supremes get it right (6-3).:)
So of course it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment. This would be a grave error IMHO, as law-making authority belongs with the lawmakers, in Congress, not the White House, which has the veto as final sanity check on Congress (and over which the Framers pointedly permitted a 2/3 vote of Congress to override). A line-item veto would wreak havoc: the President would be able to "pass" a statute other than Congress intended (there's no reason the President would be limited to so-called pork -- why not dissect the statute's principal topic?). Why would anyone have this great faith in a single person to do the right thing -- Presidents engage in pork barrel politics, too, and surely we can all think of at least one President on the last thirty years we wouldn't have trusted with this.
If you have a problem with the lawmaking process, don't increase the power of a lone executive with whatever agenda; focus on the 535-member Congress, as the Framers intended. They did not want a monarch, or even an imitation one.
In fairness the debate on this is long and complex. I won't pretend to present or be able to present a full balanced picture. But grant that the issue is much more complex than a magic bullet for pork-barrel abuses, and look into it more than sound bites permit.
...how nice to hear a passel of good news, satisified customers, etc. -- and in the computer industry! OMG.
Thanks for the good vibes. All this carping about Microsoft and the evil spying government gives us indigestion. (It's merely a question of proportions in the "omelette.")
What are you, nuts? Referring to actual sources of information in your comments???:)
I think his use of begrudgingly is mildly amusing. The word suggests envy or ill-will towards another person, in its common usage.
By contrast, I was impressed by Apple's maintenance of backwards compatibility for the longest periods. My 15 y.o. dumb little CS apps still run fine without any sense of "emulation" going on, and as they went from 16-bit to 32-bit and other advances,, for the most part the only apps that broke were the ones that flouted the programming rule set out in Apple's detailed manuals re API and such. Now they seem to be honoring this a little less (OS X obviously is a big step), but I thought that was cool. Maybe the little fish just has to be more polite.
In what sense do they have an "obligation"? Morally, perhaps; legally, maybe in some circumstances.
Oh, that about covers it.:)
What I suggested was to not be distracted by the fact the complainer happened to be with the same ISP as the spammer. As a practical matter a subscriber does have greater leverage, as they can threaten to cancel.
Myself, I am soooo glad I never have to contact my ISP about anything. So far, so good.
I've met no small number of people in their 30's and older whom many would classify as a child. (Me too.)
Don't you just hate smart-alecks who go running for the dictionaries right about now? Well, I'm not like that, I...
kid
n 1: a young person of either sex (between birth and puberty); "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters" [syn: child, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry, tiddler, tike, tyke, fry, nestling]... 3: a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age;...
You didn't say "dads with sons" so presumably being old and female is the handicap? I went to school down the road from MIT and met plenty of women gifted with the geeky arts.;-)
I hate to reveal my Mac OS affiliation here in Linux heaven -- but does anyone know of any Apple plans on this front? Tablets have interested me for a really long time, so what if laptops are probably better for most things?;-)
This is a disadvantage of a single-source hardware platform. Or not: oddly enough Apple has been an innovator there many times over -- SCSI, USB, Firewire, flat-panel iMac, dropping-the-floppy, Newton (oops), Superdrive and so on (please don't bother to correct the ones I got wrong) -- not to say these were all earthshaking, but you'd expect the innovation to come from the huge Wintel market (or not I now have learned, given the slender margins, 3rd-party hardware headaches, and pressure for cloning over novelty).
Yep, I understand his moves have been calculated to make money. That's what most of us do (within reason) but it does make his work less interesting to me. It's also a little odd given his theme of making fun of droid-driven capitalism.
I do think he changed. I remember when Dilbert was quietly passed around the interet to people whose papers didn't carry it, and it was innovative that he put his email on his strips so people could suggest ideas. Now Dilbert is standard-issue in every office and does ads. When he explained why he launched his online store, "It makes money. We like money."
You say millions of people still love the strip. Well, millions of people love professional wrestling. So what's your point?;-)
I'll check out your work. Who are your cartoonist heros, anyway?
Before everyone launches a game of Internet doorbell-ditch: it is legitimate to send a real email or make a phone call criticizing what she does (politely -- remember, you're with the good guys). Collectively/. should be able to produce a lot of feedback, at one per person. If she just gets snowed by abuse, so you really think she'll going to think, golly, my ways are in error and I better change jobs? Or just, there are a lot of jerks out there and I better never give another interview?
Harassment is no better than spam. It's using illegitimate needs to get what you want. She is doing something wrong (ethically if not legally; and in many states, legally too) but that entitles us to complain, not retaliate. Two wrongs don't make a right, something like that.
She honestly appears not to get it, or is in serious denial. (By contrast, some spammers do appear to have struck a deal with the Dark Prince.) Explain to her, and everyone else, that spam is a serious problem and not just another form of junk mail.
And most important of all, support laws to regulate spam at the national level, as was done for junk faxes. Make it unquestionable that this hijacking of our tiem and resources is illegal.
(I do detest spam. When email arrives, half the time I switch apps over it's for junk. Currently 2/3 of my unfiltered inbox is spam, and the number keeps growing. I don't even want to think of the theoretical maximum to daily spam.)
The ISP has the same obligation to suppress spam by its subscriber regardless of whether the target is on or off their service. The victim should use all means of complaint available; he or she suffers an economic injury from these intrusions. Even if it only takes fifteen minutes to learn about and implement port blocking, my time is worth money.
Practically, the ISP is going to deal with this unwelcoming messaging after enough annoyed complaints come in. But how?
I'm getting criticism like this from folks who don't read closely enough.
The poster said should not and not can not. In other words, this is the way the poster wants things to be, or thinks they ought to be, or hopes they will be, for the reasons given, but not the way they must be. That filtering is "not the right thing" is a policy assertion, and it is implicit the poster will switch ISP's if the current one downgrades its service. However, the supply of ISP's, esp. broadband, is not infinite, and if ISP's react in a kneejerk fashion the availability of alternative service could dry up quickly -- and unnecessarily.
Wrong on all counts. A few minutes of research proves it.
Neither the Long March nor any other Chinese missile is capable of greater than 8000 km or so. If I'm wrong, provide a cite. A word to the wise -- when the alarmists cite Chinese or North Korean missiles able to reach the "United States" they mean Alaska or maybe Guam. Not that I don't care about Alaska, but they are being deliberately misleading as to the state of the technology, by implying that out enemies can strike anywhere at will.
It is VERY tough to develop ICBM's, or even medium-range, technology. Lots of countries are trying, besides the Chinese and North Koreans. If we're afraid of these countries having nukes we should be afraid of a short-range low-tech delivery that SDI can't address.
Iraq? A long range missile? Ha! The Scuds in the Gulf War were their effort to enhance 1950's Soviet tech to get a few extra miles of range, and we saw how pathetic and unreliable they were. their range was no better than several hundred miles, and they have only a few left. (This doesn't mean the Israelis have nothing to fear, and they know already they can't rely on Patriot... perhaps their Arrow will do better.)
Anyway, the existence or nonexistence of the missile is beside the point. The current ABM tech doesn't yet exist, won't for a long time, will cost a fortune, and can't possibly deliver the level of security advertised. We could never fend off a Soviet attack, especially with SLBM's. Whatever technology we come up with will be easy to work around, until perhaps we have a space-based laser capable of attacking during the launch phase. Don't hold your breath, or bet national security on it.
As throughout the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation is more than sufficient to deter an easily-traced missile attack. Even Saddam wants to live. If the nuclear of biological attack comes -- and I do fear that it will -- it will be by other deniable means, and we had better focus our work there, rather than the exotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read any of their laws? I don't thing they're capable of simplicity!
More seriously, a statute necessarily has many sections (I don't know how granular a "line" is -- a single sentence?) to make it cohere with existing law, to provide for financing of its various components, etc. Either Congress would nullify the veto by piling things up into single "lines" or statutes would be capable of nothing more complex than "school buses must stop at railroad crossings."
Anyway, the basic idea is that its Congress' job to decide what's in the law, the President's whether to exercise the special tool of a veto. The line-item veto would essentially invite the President to hang out on Capitol Hill, because Congress would seek to satisfy his/her preferences rather than go through a song-and-dance of sending laws over to be partially vetoed. Thus the President would gain a ton of influence over lawmaking, and could (would) introduce his or her own pork just like any representaive does now. It's like having a trial judge act as the 13th juror -- not what the framework intended.
Another person here mentions the McMunchies case -- even closer to home was an Illinois story in the Chgo Trib about a downstate family restaurant named, yes, McDonald's or something quite close to that. McDonalds decided to open a franchise in the same town and threatened, cajoled, pleaded with the man to change the name (his name) of the restaurant; he declined. Eventually the McDonalds franchise went out of business.
:) (After they retired beef tallow from their frying oils, they added beef extract to the fries to recover some of the flavor. But they didn't tell anyone, got sued by irate Hindus, and so on. It turns out teh partially hydrogenated vegetable oil they now use for frying may be as bad for you as animal fat, oh well.)
McDonalds is intensely litigious, like Disney and other megacorps with valuable trademarks. McDonalds will sue over just about anything "Mc" in fact. I suppose it is a business calculation -- it is safer to keep their trademark pristine, even if it means crossing the line into thuggish intimidation.
Trivia: Did you know there's beef in McDonalds french fries? True story.
Or trademark trivia: In the movie The Secret of NIMH, based on the superb story Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, the protagonist is subtly renamed "Brisby" -- turns out they were contacted by...
The corporate domination thing has been on my mind.
Each house sets its own procedural rules. The House would explode if debate were not strictly limited -- there's just too many of 'em. The Senate is a more deliberative body. I found a brief history of the filibuster that -sounds- accurate (should be verified). I was interested to learn just now that the cloture majority required has changed over time. The filibuster has a storied history, as it has been invoked over some of the most divisive question to come before the Congress.
If you'd like another example of how the Congress doesn't work as people suppose, read about the phenomenal power of the committees to shape legislation, or keep it off the floor altogether so that it can't be voted on. One of the most powerful committees? The Rules Committee! (Pork-master Byrd -- half his state is named after him -- is often noted for his formidible command of parliamentary rules.)
Oops, are we off-topic? Nah, civics is always a good thing.
Actually I did wonder about something like that -- but then you really would have to amend the Constitution. Well, rewrite part of it. At least then it would require sincere confrontation of the radical nature of the change.
Also, you ought to question the wisdom of introducing this feedback loop into a system that is plenty loopy. We already have protracted periods of the two houses bickering over reconciling a bill (when each passes a different version). This would add a third party to the party. That's spelled "G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K" -- which for anti-gov't folks is a good thing, and they support line-item veto.
To be honest, I've been so strongly opposed to the line-item veto (but note that Presidents Clinton and Bush thought it was a great idea) that I haven't thought a lot about how to "fix" it. This doesn't mean I like pork; it drags down bills I like, too. But if the President doesn't like the pork, veto the entire bill and make Congress explain itself.
I went to Harvard, simultaneously my best friend to MIT; they are very different places. How will this talk differ from the MIT presentation previously discussed? (Predictions, stated agenda, etc.)
:)
(And has Microsoft recovered from the MIT presentation yet?
Gee, I was being facetious just now when I insinuated a conspiracy to kill Senator Wellstone, but some people are taking it seriously. I should not be so naive, I've been reading the last week about the "Apollo Hoax."
Conspiracy theorists, I don't need to hear from you -- I'll just turn your names over the CIA.
Yes, and look what happened to him.
:), even opposing the recent war resolution. There are politicians who are fine people: our accurate gripe is that they're not a majority, not that they are nonexistent.
Oh gosh, did I just say that?!? No, I'm not a conpiracy nut. The parallel to Mel Carnahan's death was eerie, though.
I mourned Wellstone's death, and the deaths in his family, and the others in the plane for that matter. It was very sad to lose a Congressman who among other things was a nice guy. And yes, who voted his conscience (a quality typically admired only when the vote was also what one wanted
Whatever gave you the idea that the X10 could be used to spy on people? Perhaps the X10 ad shown a million times of a camera panning back and forth over a woman in a bikini who, of all things, is SMILING at the Peeping Tom?
;-0)
I glad someone else asked this question!
There were recent reports the the completely unencoded X10 wireless signals are easy to intercept outside on the intended area -- they drove around town picking up store security and other interesting video feeds. The users had no idea, and didn't realize they were throwing out their own privacy as well. (Don't make love around a baby monitor, either.
I'm no great Safire fan -- he is occasionally credibility impaired (he makes things up), his defense of Israel verges on blindness, he continually tries to rehabilitate his former employer Nixon, and so on. But on occasion he leaps out with the ferocity contained in the NYT column to defend civil liberties -- in the libertarian get-the-hell-out-of-my-backyard-you-government-spi es tradition -- and gets it right, in the morally correct sense. Because he has credibility with the right, his words here carry much greater political influence that a stack of Mother Jones and The Nation reaching to the Moon. And I am grateful for his courage; he could just as easily sit it out, or mouth the sonorous rah-rah rant of the police state crowd.
Ensure to us citizens a country of security -- but without devastating our own. I have seriously begun to contemplate using cash more than traceable credit, and I'm not particularly paranoid, and yes I "don't have anything to hide." I just don't like buying a bag of Fritos wondering whether it will eventually raise my health insurance premiums because I don't eat right. Don't laugh, it could happen, in a thousand ways less fritoless (er, frivolous) than my example.
Thanks.
I was just grumbling about the line-item thing, thanks. :)
Hackers -- what they heck would be their lobbying group? I would guess the ACLU and EFF. There's no real money behind the little guy, and not enough numbers or cohesion to form a voting bloc, so civil liberties are the primary protection.
Not to be cyncical or anything, but there just aren't any political bonuses to standing up to homeland security, promoting diplomatic solutions to certain impending wars (although Gen. Powell did do so, thank you), etc. But before we blame spineless politicians, look at the voters who put them there, and who the pols are afraid to piss off. The American people as a whole are behind this stuff -- they may not understand the details, but they want to feel safe. They should be held to account if they support penalties at the expense of safeguards, and victimize a minority they don't really know or understand, like hackers.
Ronald Reagan. Honed By George Bush (#41) with the "card-carrying ACLU member" crack.
I tell people I'm a free-market liberal, which perplexes them enough that they don't go into the usual rants. It's accurate, too -- I don't think regulation and gov't involvement is good for everything, but I insist on certain hard limits on individual rights, ensured by the gov't.
There's an old saw that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged the day before; well, a liberal might be a conservative whose brother was falsely accused of mugging the day before. People do convert from right to left -- Arianna Huffington is a particularly perplexing example (read her account of her "transformation").
Don't mention Canada -- you'll just get draft-dodgers jokes and the usual grunting accusations that liberals are cowards and disloyal. Quite the contrary.
Good comment. A filibuster refers to the unlimited right of debate accorded every Senator (not Reps). So anyone can hijack the Senate on a given issue -- Senators are accorded a lot of power, and the Senate is intened to be a slow-moving body. Filibuster can be overriden by a cloture vote -- 60 Senators.
As a practical matter, this is a rare happening and very very unlikely while everyone is trying to look patriotic and distance themselves from civil liberties. There would be huge political costs to whoever stuck their neck out, and their own party would probably turn on them (cloture). These are hawkish times, for better or worse.
The immediate problem with the line-item veto is that it is unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supremes get it right (6-3). :)
So of course it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment. This would be a grave error IMHO, as law-making authority belongs with the lawmakers, in Congress, not the White House, which has the veto as final sanity check on Congress (and over which the Framers pointedly permitted a 2/3 vote of Congress to override). A line-item veto would wreak havoc: the President would be able to "pass" a statute other than Congress intended (there's no reason the President would be limited to so-called pork -- why not dissect the statute's principal topic?). Why would anyone have this great faith in a single person to do the right thing -- Presidents engage in pork barrel politics, too, and surely we can all think of at least one President on the last thirty years we wouldn't have trusted with this.
If you have a problem with the lawmaking process, don't increase the power of a lone executive with whatever agenda; focus on the 535-member Congress, as the Framers intended. They did not want a monarch, or even an imitation one.
In fairness the debate on this is long and complex. I won't pretend to present or be able to present a full balanced picture. But grant that the issue is much more complex than a magic bullet for pork-barrel abuses, and look into it more than sound bites permit.
...how nice to hear a passel of good news, satisified customers, etc. -- and in the computer industry! OMG.
Thanks for the good vibes. All this carping about Microsoft and the evil spying government gives us indigestion. (It's merely a question of proportions in the "omelette.")
What are you, nuts? Referring to actual sources of information in your comments??? :)
I think his use of begrudgingly is mildly amusing. The word suggests envy or ill-will towards another person, in its common usage.
By contrast, I was impressed by Apple's maintenance of backwards compatibility for the longest periods. My 15 y.o. dumb little CS apps still run fine without any sense of "emulation" going on, and as they went from 16-bit to 32-bit and other advances,, for the most part the only apps that broke were the ones that flouted the programming rule set out in Apple's detailed manuals re API and such. Now they seem to be honoring this a little less (OS X obviously is a big step), but I thought that was cool. Maybe the little fish just has to be more polite.
In what sense do they have an "obligation"? Morally, perhaps; legally, maybe in some circumstances.
:)
Oh, that about covers it.
What I suggested was to not be distracted by the fact the complainer happened to be with the same ISP as the spammer. As a practical matter a subscriber does have greater leverage, as they can threaten to cancel.
Myself, I am soooo glad I never have to contact my ISP about anything. So far, so good.
No, worse: her "baby" ;-)
... 3: a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age; ...
I've met no small number of people in their 30's and older whom many would classify as a child. (Me too.)
Don't you just hate smart-alecks who go running for the dictionaries right about now? Well, I'm not like that, I...
kid
n 1: a young person of either sex (between birth and puberty); "she writes books for children"; "they're just kids"; "`tiddler' is a British term for youngsters" [syn: child, youngster, minor, shaver, nipper, small fry, tiddler, tike, tyke, fry, nestling]
How about moms?
;-)
You didn't say "dads with sons" so presumably being old and female is the handicap? I went to school down the road from MIT and met plenty of women gifted with the geeky arts.
Well, there you go. :)
I hate to reveal my Mac OS affiliation here in Linux heaven -- but does anyone know of any Apple plans on this front? Tablets have interested me for a really long time, so what if laptops are probably better for most things? ;-)
This is a disadvantage of a single-source hardware platform. Or not: oddly enough Apple has been an innovator there many times over -- SCSI, USB, Firewire, flat-panel iMac, dropping-the-floppy, Newton (oops), Superdrive and so on (please don't bother to correct the ones I got wrong) -- not to say these were all earthshaking, but you'd expect the innovation to come from the huge Wintel market (or not I now have learned, given the slender margins, 3rd-party hardware headaches, and pressure for cloning over novelty).
Yep, I understand his moves have been calculated to make money. That's what most of us do (within reason) but it does make his work less interesting to me. It's also a little odd given his theme of making fun of droid-driven capitalism.
;-)
I do think he changed. I remember when Dilbert was quietly passed around the interet to people whose papers didn't carry it, and it was innovative that he put his email on his strips so people could suggest ideas. Now Dilbert is standard-issue in every office and does ads. When he explained why he launched his online store, "It makes money. We like money."
You say millions of people still love the strip. Well, millions of people love professional wrestling. So what's your point?
I'll check out your work. Who are your cartoonist heros, anyway?
Before everyone launches a game of Internet doorbell-ditch: it is legitimate to send a real email or make a phone call criticizing what she does (politely -- remember, you're with the good guys). Collectively /. should be able to produce a lot of feedback, at one per person. If she just gets snowed by abuse, so you really think she'll going to think, golly, my ways are in error and I better change jobs? Or just, there are a lot of jerks out there and I better never give another interview?
Harassment is no better than spam. It's using illegitimate needs to get what you want. She is doing something wrong (ethically if not legally; and in many states, legally too) but that entitles us to complain, not retaliate. Two wrongs don't make a right, something like that.
She honestly appears not to get it, or is in serious denial. (By contrast, some spammers do appear to have struck a deal with the Dark Prince.) Explain to her, and everyone else, that spam is a serious problem and not just another form of junk mail.
And most important of all, support laws to regulate spam at the national level, as was done for junk faxes. Make it unquestionable that this hijacking of our tiem and resources is illegal.
(I do detest spam. When email arrives, half the time I switch apps over it's for junk. Currently 2/3 of my unfiltered inbox is spam, and the number keeps growing. I don't even want to think of the theoretical maximum to daily spam.)
The ISP has the same obligation to suppress spam by its subscriber regardless of whether the target is on or off their service. The victim should use all means of complaint available; he or she suffers an economic injury from these intrusions. Even if it only takes fifteen minutes to learn about and implement port blocking, my time is worth money.
Practically, the ISP is going to deal with this unwelcoming messaging after enough annoyed complaints come in. But how?
I'm getting criticism like this from folks who don't read closely enough.
The poster said should not and not can not. In other words, this is the way the poster wants things to be, or thinks they ought to be, or hopes they will be, for the reasons given, but not the way they must be. That filtering is "not the right thing" is a policy assertion, and it is implicit the poster will switch ISP's if the current one downgrades its service. However, the supply of ISP's, esp. broadband, is not infinite, and if ISP's react in a kneejerk fashion the availability of alternative service could dry up quickly -- and unnecessarily.
Moron? Wow, you know how to hurt a guy. Ouch.
... perhaps their Arrow will do better.)
Wrong on all counts. A few minutes of research proves it.
Neither the Long March nor any other Chinese missile is capable of greater than 8000 km or so. If I'm wrong, provide a cite. A word to the wise -- when the alarmists cite Chinese or North Korean missiles able to reach the "United States" they mean Alaska or maybe Guam. Not that I don't care about Alaska, but they are being deliberately misleading as to the state of the technology, by implying that out enemies can strike anywhere at will.
It is VERY tough to develop ICBM's, or even medium-range, technology. Lots of countries are trying, besides the Chinese and North Koreans. If we're afraid of these countries having nukes we should be afraid of a short-range low-tech delivery that SDI can't address.
Iraq? A long range missile? Ha! The Scuds in the Gulf War were their effort to enhance 1950's Soviet tech to get a few extra miles of range, and we saw how pathetic and unreliable they were. their range was no better than several hundred miles, and they have only a few left. (This doesn't mean the Israelis have nothing to fear, and they know already they can't rely on Patriot
Anyway, the existence or nonexistence of the missile is beside the point. The current ABM tech doesn't yet exist, won't for a long time, will cost a fortune, and can't possibly deliver the level of security advertised. We could never fend off a Soviet attack, especially with SLBM's. Whatever technology we come up with will be easy to work around, until perhaps we have a space-based laser capable of attacking during the launch phase. Don't hold your breath, or bet national security on it.
As throughout the Cold War, the threat of massive retaliation is more than sufficient to deter an easily-traced missile attack. Even Saddam wants to live. If the nuclear of biological attack comes -- and I do fear that it will -- it will be by other deniable means, and we had better focus our work there, rather than the exotic.