I would imagine that, given the amount of 'slop' in the mechanism - which was refered to in the article as a method of tracking based on the banding pattern, and given that the reason for the inability to work to close tolerances is the cheap material and wide tolerances required to keep the product cheap, your offset, to be MORE than the amount of permissable variation based on the tolerances and wear and tear would have to be large enough to be fairly obvious.
If it were obvious, it would be noticed and worked around by anyone smart enough to require this method of locating - if they knew to not leave physical evidence or DNA or fingerprints, why assume they are stupid enough to not notice the printing from their printer is not printing right.
And even if this did catch someone up, wouldn't it be quickly known and worked around? The criminal in question would know how s/he was tripped up, and it would travel around the jail/prison/criminal population quickly - ruining the usefulness of the method.
Back to pasting letters cut from magazines into ransom notes. How are those going to be tracked?
Because you are the kind of person that only associates with (or perhaps only notices) the 'rich and famous'?
I worked in an ER where one doctor was always a long time responding to calls - he was a family practitioner, not any emergency or critical service - and it turned out the reason why was because he COMMUTING TO WORK ON A TEN SPEED BIKE. He was over 200K in debt when he got out of school, and he took that job specifically because service to that area was considered to be below par and part of his loans were being forgiven for each year he worked there.
Tell me again the bullsh*t about mercedes and $1M houses, reality got in my way.
Why was your brother billed so much? I don't know, but I will bet not a penny of that went to the doctor, so computing the amount at $72,000/hr is again pure BS.
So you were 1) a child, and 2) on medicare as the parent stated?
By the way, I worked many years in health care (as a nurse)and currently work in IT in a hospital - I know that the numbers given (about $7 per visit) are accurate.
That is not what _I_ get charged, and that is not what the patient would get charged, but that is what the doctor would be paid by medicare - and they are required, by law, to accept that as payment in full; they can not bill for the difference.
I am tired of all the people that just don't get it, so it is refreshing to see someone who does 'get it.'
I don't hold any hope for sanity. If those in power make the changes needed, they will not be re-elected. Therefore they have no incentive to do what should be done. Therefore what needs to be done will never be done, and there is no hope for sanity.
Those in power probably already HAVE taken notice - it is just not worth while TO THEM to make the changes.
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
Now, before someone tries to say this is BS, here's the law as it applies, for example, to the US Department of State vis. the Freedom of Informaton Act (all departments have similar obligations for copyrighted material).
Interesting, but still BS.
IF you met the criteria for a copyrighted work, THEN the laws you quote would apply. You don't, so they don't, either.
You are submitting facts, not original creative work. You would not meet the criteria for copyright on your numbers/checkboxes/etc. Just claiming a copyright on your form would not mean you actually had a copyright if you don't meet the requirements for getting a copyright in the first place.
Although some tax returns really do fall into the 'Fiction' catagory...
Unfortunately, you are talking about implementations, i.e., devices or programs with NAT and filtering or routing or some other component.
NAT just looks at the address and if it is A changes it to B and passes it on. If it is not A then don't change it and also pass it on. No filtering, no routing - not much of anything, actually.
It can be powerful when combined with routing and filtering, but NAT, by itself, is not useful for protection.
I agree that many implementations of NAT also do routing and filtering. Without that functionality, NAT is pretty useless, which is why those other pieces are usually bundled with NAT!
About the only reason to use NAT by itself is to show one point of presence when there are actually multiple computers/servers running. I can have a hugh number of machines running at home, but my ISP only has to assign one IP address to the NAT box - all the other machines are 'hidden' behind the NAT box.
A network switch box (one port in, multiple ports out with only traffic for that specific leg being passed to each output port) is like a router, a NAT box is like a network hub box - anything on the 'in' port is sent to all segments except that a hub passes through without changing the data, and a NAT box changes the IP address as above - if address = A then change A to B and pass along, if address != A then pass along unchanged.
Your point hits home with me, but I also think it works the other way around.
I feel there is entirely too much 'Party Politics' where bad bills get voted on based not on whether they are good for the country or anyone else, but only on whether it is a 'Democrat' or a 'Republican' bill.
I hope that a President that is neither Democrat nor Republican would act as a moderator to the process.
If the Democrat/Republican House and Senate had to come up with enough votes to override a presidential veto every time a bad bill was advanced, MAYBE THEY WOULD GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES!
Second, TSG is not allowed to 'sneek new code' in to the case 'at some later point'.
The rules require TSG to present their evidence to IBM and the court, and for IBM to present their defence to TSG and the court. No hidden evidence, no 'gotchas', no 'Perry Mason' last minute suprises.
In addition, I thought ESR had ALREADY run this program against Unix System V and Linux and found a whole bunch of matches - all blank lines!
(I could be mistaken about running the COMPARATOR against Unix System V, I don't know if he had access to the source code or not.)
TSG has to show their case to IBM, and IBM has to show their case to TSG.
TSG is not doing that, and the pieces they are showing are being disproven to show what TSG claims they show.
Remember TSG said they had "millions of lines" of code, but have not shown EVEN ONE LINE that supports thier case even though they are required to do so by the rules of the court, and by TWO SEPARATE ORDERS by Judge Wells.
You seem to have a wrong idea of what the case is about - if it is about copyright (which is IBMs 10 Counter Claim and what the Summary Judgement motion addresses) then SOMETHING from the copyrighted work THAT IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT has to be found in the allegedly infringing work.
Take the two piles of software (Unix System V and Linux) and check every line of one against every line of the other. TSG can do that with Linux and the version of Unix they claim rights to, and presumably have done that.
They have not shown any of their claimed software having been copied into Linux which means their claim that IBM put their claimed software there (if there is nothing there, then IBM must have put NOTHING there) is baseless.
Remember that if you can not prove some form of copying, then there is no copyright rights being infringed.
And, by clearing LINUX in general, IBM is also clearing themselves. So if it is over for Linux in general, then it is over for IBM as well.
I think that is the reason for the frantic (and pathetic) emergency motion TSG submitted recently. Basicly "IBM are going to win IF THE COURTS DON'T INTERVENE! HELP US!" If I remember correctly, Judge Wells refused their motion.
Darl makes over $1,000,000 per year which works out to (1,040,000/2080)= $550/hour - although if you think he punches a clock or works 40 weeks you would probably be wrong.
And the only thing Darl is doing is sucking the life out of the company and riding it into bankruptcy.
Shoot, a BUNCH easier than all that studying and work to actually ACCOMPLISH something!
Interesting if true. Not true; therefore not interesting.
To be fair, noone says they aren't, except an expert who was payed a lot of money (550/hr) by IBM to say so.
To you and I that would be a lot of money, but TSG is willing to pay BS&F many multiples of that (their law firm charges over $600/hr per lawyer, more for courtroom time. Mr. Silver was paid for 3 hours in this last hearing AND HE SLEPT THROUGH PART OF IT) for their expertice, why should IBM be less willing to spend money for expertice on their side?
As far as Mr. Silver, I would be willing to sleep for a few hours at $600 per hour, where do I sign up?
Randall Davis was paid a consulting fee (less than $6000 as far as I can determine)to give his expert opinion, not to say what IBM wanted. If what he found did not fit what IBM wanted, he would have still been paid, but his opinion would not have been used.
But of course, he's a lawyer, and they're well known for their morals and are among the most honorable men and women on the earth. They would never cheapen their personal values, nor lie and twist evidence, for cash.
But of course you are wrong and he IS NOT a lawyer, he is a professor at MIT and the developer of the standard test used by the 10th curcuit court - the Abstract/Filter/Compare test -which makes him a very big gun indeed, quite like smaching the SCO Group mosquito with a piledriver - massive overkill for such vermin.
"...works against needing to leave (or enter) the cockpit"?!? I've tried several times and still can't grok that. What on earth do you mean? I'll say it again the other way around - the number of times that somebody NEEDS to get from cabin to flightdeck or vice versa vastly outnumbers the number of terrorist seizures. Because the number of terrorist incidents is tiny and the number of flights is enormous. How many people die of natural causes on flights every year?
You missed.
Unless the pilot is a doctor, there is no reason for him/her to leave the cockpit if a passenger is having a medical emergency. The ONLY reason a medical emergency should require access to the cockpit is if the pilot or co-pilot is having the medical emergency and requires assistance from a passenger or non-flight deck flight crew.
Thanks for responding, even if it did take you two days to google up some unattributed figures
My "unattributed figures" are from "SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Civil Aviation Security, Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation (Washington, DC: 2001)"
You, on the other hand are at least honest that you are pulling numbers out of your ass -"I have no idea of the actual numbers" and "(again, I don't have exact numbers, but I'm confident I'm on pretty safe ground here)." I have never understood why being honest about being stupid was something to strive for, though.
Notice, too, that I said the idea does not seem like a good idea.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Granted that flying is not specified as a method of getting to the assembly point, but the United States Supreme Court has held that restrictions on travel do in fact inpinge on the right to assemble.
Seriously... You don't even have the right to drive your car!
Nope. You DO have the right to drive on private property assuming you own (or have been given access to) a car. What you DON'T have is a right to drive ON PUBLIC STREETS AND ROADS. Driving in PUBLIC AREAS is a priviledge, a priveledge that can be revoked. You should pay more attention when the traffic court judge is talking...or the traffic court judge needs to be clearer!:)
I was once ticketed for an expired tag. The officer watched me as I drove (in a large shopping area parking lot) to the ATM and made a transaction. I was pulled over when I exited the parking lot and began driving on the street. I asked why he did not pull me over while in the parking lot as it would have been safer for him to ticket me out of traffic. He said that most traffic laws did not apply on private property, but when I entered the public right-of-way they did. I paid the ticket, so I never saw the traffic court judge...
Agreed that a separate compartment is not the best idea in certain specific situations.
"[M]edical emergency on the flight deck." Ok, but how many times does that actually happen - your argument against passengers seizing control works against needing to leave (or enter) the cockpit as well.
How many times does ANYONE NEED to get into the cockpit from the plane body for any valid reason - and bringing coffee to the pilot is not a valid reason - in a year?
As for your point about passengers seizing control of an airplane - it is called 'hijacking' or 'skyjacking' and used to be a favorite occupation of anyone from DB Cooper to Cuban exiles, to the mentally ill. First one was in February of 1931.
Now compare that to how often passengers seize control of the plane.
Some numbers:
385 hijackings between 1967 and 1976. 300 hijackings between 1977 and 1986. 212 hijackings between 1987 and 1996.
(Hint: "four is" not "a good guess".)
More like average of 30 time a year _every_ _year_ for the last 30 years.
Good argument. To bad the facts don't support your position.
Actually, the 'exception driven by the airlines' is making sure the person flying is the person on the ticket.
It has been common for people to buy non-refundable tickets then, when they are unable to fly for whatever reason, sell the tickets to others. Supposedly the tickets are void if the original purchaser does not use them, and the airline can make even more money by selling the seat again - usually at a higher rate than before, as anyone traveling at the last minute would be more willing to pay a higher price for the seat.
In order to secure this additional income, the airline must check IDs to see if the flying person is the person the ticket was sold to.
I.e., in the past this was purely a method of maximizing revenues by cutting down on people buying tickets from third parties instead of buying full priced tickets from the airlines.
Another dodge was buying two tickets, one that went from A to C with a stopover in B and the other going from D to E with a stopover in B. People were finding it cheaper to fly from A to E by flying ticket 1 from A to B and ticket 2 from B to E. Of course that meant there was the other half of the ticket still available, and a thriving market arose in selling the other half of those tickets. Again, the airlines were losing out on the higher prices of the A-B-E and the C-B-D tickets. Requiring ID before boarding was an attempt to put a stop to the loss of revenue.
You say that the ID requirement is not for security, but then say that Gilmore could fly without an ID if he submitted to a search.
Explain to me how the search established his identity, 'cause I don't see it.
I agree with Gilmore, in that either valid identification is required, or it is not. If it is required, then the search is not a valid substitute as it can not establish his identity. If it is not required, then any other requirements (the "more intensive search") can not be required either as they are substituting for the ID.
I could see that possibly there were two options - a valid ID OR a "more intensive search" - and being allowed on board requires one or the other. That seems to fit the facts given.
But IF there is a govermental restriction or requirement for either a valid ID or a 'more intensive search' then the first amendment prohibition on restrictions to 'peaceably assemble' is being violated which is exactly what Gilmore (through his attorney) is claiming.
Actions by the government that violate the constitution are prohibited. The government can either work to change the constitution or change its actions. Continuing to voilate the constitution is NOT legal and NOT an option.
However, I don't feel that voting for a third party candidate makes sense either when the candidate has little chance of winning.
That is just sad, voting for which candidate you think will win instead of which candidate you think is the best leader.
The best person for the job in my opinion is the person I hope to vote for, and who I expect everyone else to vote for is not a factor in my decision of whom I believe is best.
Agreed that giving up on the system is not a good choice, what do you suggest?
Also, why is the choice limited to which candidate is the 'lesser of two evils'?
Why are we forced to vote for one of any number of evils?
Why are we not voting for the BEST POSSIBLE LEADER?
Given the choices of Bush, Kerry, Nader, Cobb, and Peroutka, I choose none of the above because none of the above have shown me they were the best possible choice.
I refuse to vote FOR a person I don't believe deserves the job, and I also won't vote FOR someone just because they are not Bush (who I believe is worse).
Given that either I vote FOR someone or don't vote, I quite possibly won't vote for a presidential candidate.
I agree that it is sad that the country is getting into such a mess, but that is what happens when the presidential election is a popularity contest instead of a job interview - you wind up with the president that is best able to mold themselves into the most popular SEEMING person, instead of the best leader.
As an aside, I refuse to believe that, from the hundreds of millions of people that are US Citizens and meet the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States (natural born US citizen, 35 years of age, must have lived in US at least 14 years), the current crop of peckerwoods are the best possible leaders.
I expect one of them will be elected. I don't think any of them should be elected.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]
If you are not allowed to travel to assemble with like-minded people except by jumping through legal hoops and over legislative obstacles, then your right to 'peaceably assemble' is reduced. That is not allowed under the Constitution as it stands.
There should be some method of meta-metamoderation so that those who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are doing are ejected from the moderation pool before screwing things up as badely as the moderator in this case.
Someone should get this moderator a clue as they obviously don't currently have one.
The reason legal contracts are worded the way they are is to prevent ANY misunderstanding or obscurity if it ever comes down to litigation.
You are so right on the money!
Oh wait a minute, I forgot about SCO v DC, SCO v AutoZone, SCO v IBM...
Most people seem to have the idea that the language used in a legal document is purposefully obtuse or is written in some language that is nigh impossible to comprehend.
Reading a legal document is not impossible, they don't contain make believe words...
Ya know, just the other day "res ipsa loquitur" came up in conversation right after someone brought up the topic of habeas corpus. When it was pointed out that 'The predominant inquiry on habeas is a legal one: whether the "petitioner's custody simpliciter" is valid as measured by the Constitution.', the reply was 'res ipsa loquitur.'
...and therefore equate a legal document with being impossible to decipher.
So, what would someone with a high school education - what the heck, let's give them a college degree - say is the definition of 'petitioner's custody simpliciter'? What odds would you give that they were even close to the meaning under the law? How about 'habeas corpus', or 'res ipsa loquitur'?
I understand that the point you were trying to make is that the law should be easily understood by whomever wishes to take a look...
I agree entirely with this. If the law applies to me, I should be able to read AND UNDERSTAND it. One often hears 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', but how can you reconcile that with laws that are secret (as in the article) or crafted with 'basic concepts and jargon which apply to the legal field' that non-legal profession persons would not be expected to know?
How can I logically be required to comply with a law that either I may not read (as in not allowed to read) or can not understand because of the language or jargon used?
Are you saying that, square foot for square foot the roofing costs more, or that, because the dome can be all roof the roofing costs more?
Any dome less than half of a sphere can be all roof in most building codes and so has a lower strength requirement - building the dome is less expensive than building the upright walls and adding a roof.
If you are saying that, square foot for square foot the dome is more expensive than a typical flat roof, then I have no data to make any kind of response other than to point out that the smae materials can be used, the cost of hte labor may be more, though. In addition, the odd shapes and sizes may mean more wasteage than in regular roofing...
Since it is the government which is saying that they will not allow certain cds/tapes/whatever to be in the public library based on their content it is a form of censorship.
If that were the case, I would agree. As that is not the case, I don't agree.
The way I would have written it is
"Since it is the government which is saying that they will not put certain cds/tapes/whatever in the public library based on their content (although the libraries are free to get the cds/tapes/whatever somewhere else), it is NOT a form of censorship."
Again, censorship is when those with the authority to impose their will on others says "you CAN NOT see/hear/read/whatever this thing, and it can not be made available to you to read/hear/see - no matter the source."
That is not the case here.
Here, those in authority are saying to the libraries "you CAN provide to your patrons the music/cds you want, and you can get it where ever such things are made available - but WE won't make it available for you because we don't think it is appropriate. If you want it, go to any other source and get it."
That is not censorship. It may be a lot of things - ill advised, shortsighted, unthought out, secularly inspired, politics as usual, or even just plain dumb - but it is not censorship.
Regardless, Kansas has bigger problems than worrying about what cds it will accept in its libraries.
Hey, it is a Presidential election year, and the two top candidates are Bush and Kerry. The whole country has bigger problems!
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that, given the amount of 'slop' in the mechanism - which was refered to in the article as a method of tracking based on the banding pattern, and given that the reason for the inability to work to close tolerances is the cheap material and wide tolerances required to keep the product cheap, your offset, to be MORE than the amount of permissable variation based on the tolerances and wear and tear would have to be large enough to be fairly obvious.
If it were obvious, it would be noticed and worked around by anyone smart enough to require this method of locating - if they knew to not leave physical evidence or DNA or fingerprints, why assume they are stupid enough to not notice the printing from their printer is not printing right.
And even if this did catch someone up, wouldn't it be quickly known and worked around? The criminal in question would know how s/he was tripped up, and it would travel around the jail/prison/criminal population quickly - ruining the usefulness of the method.
Back to pasting letters cut from magazines into ransom notes. How are those going to be tracked?
Because you are the kind of person that only associates with (or perhaps only notices) the 'rich and famous'?
I worked in an ER where one doctor was always a long time responding to calls - he was a family practitioner, not any emergency or critical service - and it turned out the reason why was because he COMMUTING TO WORK ON A TEN SPEED BIKE. He was over 200K in debt when he got out of school, and he took that job specifically because service to that area was considered to be below par and part of his loans were being forgiven for each year he worked there.
Tell me again the bullsh*t about mercedes and $1M houses, reality got in my way.
Why was your brother billed so much? I don't know, but I will bet not a penny of that went to the doctor, so computing the amount at $72,000/hr is again pure BS.
So you were 1) a child, and 2) on medicare as the parent stated?
By the way, I worked many years in health care (as a nurse)and currently work in IT in a hospital - I know that the numbers given (about $7 per visit) are accurate.
That is not what _I_ get charged, and that is not what the patient would get charged, but that is what the doctor would be paid by medicare - and they are required, by law, to accept that as payment in full; they can not bill for the difference.
I am tired of all the people that just don't get it, so it is refreshing to see someone who does 'get it.'
I don't hold any hope for sanity. If those in power make the changes needed, they will not be re-elected. Therefore they have no incentive to do what should be done. Therefore what needs to be done will never be done, and there is no hope for sanity.
Those in power probably already HAVE taken notice - it is just not worth while TO THEM to make the changes.
"Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
Now, before someone tries to say this is BS, here's the law as it applies, for example, to the US Department of State vis. the Freedom of Informaton Act (all departments have similar obligations for copyrighted material).
Interesting, but still BS.
IF you met the criteria for a copyrighted work, THEN the laws you quote would apply. You don't, so they don't, either.
You are submitting facts, not original creative work. You would not meet the criteria for copyright on your numbers/checkboxes/etc. Just claiming a copyright on your form would not mean you actually had a copyright if you don't meet the requirements for getting a copyright in the first place.
Although some tax returns really do fall into the 'Fiction' catagory...
Unfortunately, you are talking about implementations, i.e., devices or programs with NAT and filtering or routing or some other component.
NAT just looks at the address and if it is A changes it to B and passes it on. If it is not A then don't change it and also pass it on. No filtering, no routing - not much of anything, actually.
It can be powerful when combined with routing and filtering, but NAT, by itself, is not useful for protection.
I agree that many implementations of NAT also do routing and filtering. Without that functionality, NAT is pretty useless, which is why those other pieces are usually bundled with NAT!
About the only reason to use NAT by itself is to show one point of presence when there are actually multiple computers/servers running. I can have a hugh number of machines running at home, but my ISP only has to assign one IP address to the NAT box - all the other machines are 'hidden' behind the NAT box.
A network switch box (one port in, multiple ports out with only traffic for that specific leg being passed to each output port) is like a router, a NAT box is like a network hub box - anything on the 'in' port is sent to all segments except that a hub passes through without changing the data, and a NAT box changes the IP address as above - if address = A then change A to B and pass along, if address != A then pass along unchanged.
Your point hits home with me, but I also think it works the other way around.
I feel there is entirely too much 'Party Politics' where bad bills get voted on based not on whether they are good for the country or anyone else, but only on whether it is a 'Democrat' or a 'Republican' bill.
I hope that a President that is neither Democrat nor Republican would act as a moderator to the process.
If the Democrat/Republican House and Senate had to come up with enough votes to override a presidential veto every time a bad bill was advanced, MAYBE THEY WOULD GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR ASSES!
First, not exponential.
Second, TSG is not allowed to 'sneek new code' in to the case 'at some later point'.
The rules require TSG to present their evidence to IBM and the court, and for IBM to present their defence to TSG and the court. No hidden evidence, no 'gotchas', no 'Perry Mason' last minute suprises.
In addition, I thought ESR had ALREADY run this program against Unix System V and Linux and found a whole bunch of matches - all blank lines!
(I could be mistaken about running the COMPARATOR against Unix System V, I don't know if he had access to the source code or not.)
It is called 'Discovery'.
TSG has to show their case to IBM, and IBM has to show their case to TSG.
TSG is not doing that, and the pieces they are showing are being disproven to show what TSG claims they show.
Remember TSG said they had "millions of lines" of code, but have not shown EVEN ONE LINE that supports thier case even though they are required to do so by the rules of the court, and by TWO SEPARATE ORDERS by Judge Wells.
You seem to have a wrong idea of what the case is about - if it is about copyright (which is IBMs 10 Counter Claim and what the Summary Judgement motion addresses) then SOMETHING from the copyrighted work THAT IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT has to be found in the allegedly infringing work.
Take the two piles of software (Unix System V and Linux) and check every line of one against every line of the other. TSG can do that with Linux and the version of Unix they claim rights to, and presumably have done that.
They have not shown any of their claimed software having been copied into Linux which means their claim that IBM put their claimed software there (if there is nothing there, then IBM must have put NOTHING there) is baseless.
Remember that if you can not prove some form of copying, then there is no copyright rights being infringed.
And, by clearing LINUX in general, IBM is also clearing themselves. So if it is over for Linux in general, then it is over for IBM as well.
I think that is the reason for the frantic (and pathetic) emergency motion TSG submitted recently. Basicly "IBM are going to win IF THE COURTS DON'T INTERVENE! HELP US!" If I remember correctly, Judge Wells refused their motion.
Or become a CEO of TSG...
Darl makes over $1,000,000 per year which works out to (1,040,000/2080)= $550/hour - although if you think he punches a clock or works 40 weeks you would probably be wrong.
And the only thing Darl is doing is sucking the life out of the company and riding it into bankruptcy.
Shoot, a BUNCH easier than all that studying and work to actually ACCOMPLISH something!
Interesting if true. Not true; therefore not interesting.
To be fair, noone says they aren't, except an expert who was payed a lot of money (550/hr) by IBM to say so.
To you and I that would be a lot of money, but TSG is willing to pay BS&F many multiples of that (their law firm charges over $600/hr per lawyer, more for courtroom time. Mr. Silver was paid for 3 hours in this last hearing AND HE SLEPT THROUGH PART OF IT) for their expertice, why should IBM be less willing to spend money for expertice on their side?
As far as Mr. Silver, I would be willing to sleep for a few hours at $600 per hour, where do I sign up?
Randall Davis was paid a consulting fee (less than $6000 as far as I can determine)to give his expert opinion, not to say what IBM wanted. If what he found did not fit what IBM wanted, he would have still been paid, but his opinion would not have been used.
But of course, he's a lawyer, and they're well known for their morals and are among the most honorable men and women on the earth. They would never cheapen their personal values, nor lie and twist evidence, for cash.
But of course you are wrong and he IS NOT a lawyer, he is a professor at MIT and the developer of the standard test used by the 10th curcuit court - the Abstract/Filter/Compare test -which makes him a very big gun indeed, quite like smaching the SCO Group mosquito with a piledriver - massive overkill for such vermin.
"...works against needing to leave (or enter) the cockpit"?!? I've tried several times and still can't grok that. What on earth do you mean? I'll say it again the other way around - the number of times that somebody NEEDS to get from cabin to flightdeck or vice versa vastly outnumbers the number of terrorist seizures. Because the number of terrorist incidents is tiny and the number of flights is enormous. How many people die of natural causes on flights every year?
You missed.
Unless the pilot is a doctor, there is no reason for him/her to leave the cockpit if a passenger is having a medical emergency. The ONLY reason a medical emergency should require access to the cockpit is if the pilot or co-pilot is having the medical emergency and requires assistance from a passenger or non-flight deck flight crew.
The pilot should fly the plane. period.
Source for my numbers is here and here.
Thanks for responding, even if it did take you two days to google up some unattributed figures
My "unattributed figures" are from "SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Civil Aviation Security, Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation (Washington, DC: 2001)"
You, on the other hand are at least honest that you are pulling numbers out of your ass -"I have no idea of the actual numbers" and "(again, I don't have exact numbers, but I'm confident I'm on pretty safe ground here)." I have never understood why being honest about being stupid was something to strive for, though.
Notice, too, that I said the idea does not seem like a good idea.
Is it before or after the 4th amendment?
:)
Before.
Try #1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Granted that flying is not specified as a method of getting to the assembly point, but the United States Supreme Court has held that restrictions on travel do in fact inpinge on the right to assemble.
Seriously... You don't even have the right to drive your car!
Nope. You DO have the right to drive on private property assuming you own (or have been given access to) a car. What you DON'T have is a right to drive ON PUBLIC STREETS AND ROADS. Driving in PUBLIC AREAS is a priviledge, a priveledge that can be revoked. You should pay more attention when the traffic court judge is talking...or the traffic court judge needs to be clearer!
I was once ticketed for an expired tag. The officer watched me as I drove (in a large shopping area parking lot) to the ATM and made a transaction. I was pulled over when I exited the parking lot and began driving on the street. I asked why he did not pull me over while in the parking lot as it would have been safer for him to ticket me out of traffic. He said that most traffic laws did not apply on private property, but when I entered the public right-of-way they did. I paid the ticket, so I never saw the traffic court judge...
YMMV
Agreed that a separate compartment is not the best idea in certain specific situations.
"[M]edical emergency on the flight deck." Ok, but how many times does that actually happen - your argument against passengers seizing control works against needing to leave (or enter) the cockpit as well.
How many times does ANYONE NEED to get into the cockpit from the plane body for any valid reason - and bringing coffee to the pilot is not a valid reason - in a year?
As for your point about passengers seizing control of an airplane - it is called 'hijacking' or 'skyjacking' and used to be a favorite occupation of anyone from DB Cooper to Cuban exiles, to the mentally ill. First one was in February of 1931.
Now compare that to how often passengers seize control of the plane.
Some numbers:
385 hijackings between 1967 and 1976.
300 hijackings between 1977 and 1986.
212 hijackings between 1987 and 1996.
(Hint: "four is" not "a good guess".)
More like average of 30 time a year _every_ _year_ for the last 30 years.
Good argument. To bad the facts don't support your position.
Actually, the 'exception driven by the airlines' is making sure the person flying is the person on the ticket.
It has been common for people to buy non-refundable tickets then, when they are unable to fly for whatever reason, sell the tickets to others. Supposedly the tickets are void if the original purchaser does not use them, and the airline can make even more money by selling the seat again - usually at a higher rate than before, as anyone traveling at the last minute would be more willing to pay a higher price for the seat.
In order to secure this additional income, the airline must check IDs to see if the flying person is the person the ticket was sold to.
I.e., in the past this was purely a method of maximizing revenues by cutting down on people buying tickets from third parties instead of buying full priced tickets from the airlines.
Another dodge was buying two tickets, one that went from A to C with a stopover in B and the other going from D to E with a stopover in B. People were finding it cheaper to fly from A to E by flying ticket 1 from A to B and ticket 2 from B to E. Of course that meant there was the other half of the ticket still available, and a thriving market arose in selling the other half of those tickets. Again, the airlines were losing out on the higher prices of the A-B-E and the C-B-D tickets. Requiring ID before boarding was an attempt to put a stop to the loss of revenue.
OK, I don't get it.
You say that the ID requirement is not for security, but then say that Gilmore could fly without an ID if he submitted to a search.
Explain to me how the search established his identity, 'cause I don't see it.
I agree with Gilmore, in that either valid identification is required, or it is not. If it is required, then the search is not a valid substitute as it can not establish his identity. If it is not required, then any other requirements (the "more intensive search") can not be required either as they are substituting for the ID.
I could see that possibly there were two options - a valid ID OR a "more intensive search" - and being allowed on board requires one or the other. That seems to fit the facts given.
But IF there is a govermental restriction or requirement for either a valid ID or a 'more intensive search' then the first amendment prohibition on restrictions to 'peaceably assemble' is being violated which is exactly what Gilmore (through his attorney) is claiming.
Actions by the government that violate the constitution are prohibited. The government can either work to change the constitution or change its actions. Continuing to voilate the constitution is NOT legal and NOT an option.
Double Secret Probation, of course!
I like what you are saying - except for this -
However, I don't feel that voting for a third party candidate makes sense either when the candidate has little chance of winning.
That is just sad, voting for which candidate you think will win instead of which candidate you think is the best leader.
The best person for the job in my opinion is the person I hope to vote for, and who I expect everyone else to vote for is not a factor in my decision of whom I believe is best.
Agreed that giving up on the system is not a good choice, what do you suggest?
Also, why is the choice limited to which candidate is the 'lesser of two evils'?
Why are we forced to vote for one of any number of evils?
Why are we not voting for the BEST POSSIBLE LEADER?
Given the choices of Bush, Kerry, Nader, Cobb, and Peroutka, I choose none of the above because none of the above have shown me they were the best possible choice.
I refuse to vote FOR a person I don't believe deserves the job, and I also won't vote FOR someone just because they are not Bush (who I believe is worse).
Given that either I vote FOR someone or don't vote, I quite possibly won't vote for a presidential candidate.
I agree that it is sad that the country is getting into such a mess, but that is what happens when the presidential election is a popularity contest instead of a job interview - you wind up with the president that is best able to mold themselves into the most popular SEEMING person, instead of the best leader.
As an aside, I refuse to believe that, from the hundreds of millions of people that are US Citizens and meet the requirements for holding the office of President of the United States (natural born US citizen, 35 years of age, must have lived in US at least 14 years), the current crop of peckerwoods are the best possible leaders.
I expect one of them will be elected. I don't think any of them should be elected.
Exactly right.
The amendment in question:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]
If you are not allowed to travel to assemble with like-minded people except by jumping through legal hoops and over legislative obstacles, then your right to 'peaceably assemble' is reduced. That is not allowed under the Constitution as it stands.
There should be some method of meta-metamoderation so that those who have absolutely no idea what the hell they are doing are ejected from the moderation pool before screwing things up as badely as the moderator in this case.
Someone should get this moderator a clue as they obviously don't currently have one.
You are so right on the money!
Oh wait a minute, I forgot about SCO v DC, SCO v AutoZone, SCO v IBM...
Most people seem to have the idea that the language used in a legal document is purposefully obtuse or is written in some language that is nigh impossible to comprehend.
Reading a legal document is not impossible, they don't contain make believe words...
Ya know, just the other day "res ipsa loquitur" came up in conversation right after someone brought up the topic of habeas corpus. When it was pointed out that 'The predominant inquiry on habeas is a legal one: whether the "petitioner's custody simpliciter" is valid as measured by the Constitution.', the reply was 'res ipsa loquitur.'
So, what would someone with a high school education - what the heck, let's give them a college degree - say is the definition of 'petitioner's custody simpliciter'? What odds would you give that they were even close to the meaning under the law? How about 'habeas corpus', or 'res ipsa loquitur'?
I understand that the point you were trying to make is that the law should be easily understood by whomever wishes to take a look...
I agree entirely with this. If the law applies to me, I should be able to read AND UNDERSTAND it. One often hears 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', but how can you reconcile that with laws that are secret (as in the article) or crafted with 'basic concepts and jargon which apply to the legal field' that non-legal profession persons would not be expected to know?
How can I logically be required to comply with a law that either I may not read (as in not allowed to read) or can not understand because of the language or jargon used?
Are you saying that, square foot for square foot the roofing costs more, or that, because the dome can be all roof the roofing costs more?
Any dome less than half of a sphere can be all roof in most building codes and so has a lower strength requirement - building the dome is less expensive than building the upright walls and adding a roof.
If you are saying that, square foot for square foot the dome is more expensive than a typical flat roof, then I have no data to make any kind of response other than to point out that the smae materials can be used, the cost of hte labor may be more, though. In addition, the odd shapes and sizes may mean more wasteage than in regular roofing...
Second of all, wasn't the Antarctic continent still near the south pole 780k years ago?
Nope.
Pre pole-reversal, it was the NORTH POLE.
Bastards was gunning for SANTA! DAMN them, damn them all!
Unless you mean the continent traveled from one pole to the other with the reversal...
I know, but _I_ thought it was funny...
Thanks.
Since it is the government which is saying that they will not allow certain cds/tapes/whatever to be in the public library based on their content it is a form of censorship.
If that were the case, I would agree. As that is not the case, I don't agree.
The way I would have written it is
"Since it is the government which is saying that they will not put certain cds/tapes/whatever in the public library based on their content (although the libraries are free to get the cds/tapes/whatever somewhere else), it is NOT a form of censorship."
Again, censorship is when those with the authority to impose their will on others says "you CAN NOT see/hear/read/whatever this thing, and it can not be made available to you to read/hear/see - no matter the source."
That is not the case here.
Here, those in authority are saying to the libraries "you CAN provide to your patrons the music/cds you want, and you can get it where ever such things are made available - but WE won't make it available for you because we don't think it is appropriate. If you want it, go to any other source and get it."
That is not censorship. It may be a lot of things - ill advised, shortsighted, unthought out, secularly inspired, politics as usual, or even just plain dumb - but it is not censorship.
Regardless, Kansas has bigger problems than worrying about what cds it will accept in its libraries.
Hey, it is a Presidential election year, and the two top candidates are Bush and Kerry. The whole country has bigger problems!