If SCO wins, then the companies distributing Linux are legally obligated to change the offending code.
No, they're not. In such a (purely hypothetical and unlikely) case, they'd be obligated only to cease distributing the offending code. They could all sit around and wait for someone else to create a replacement.
After taking a look, I can't believe this place will be allowed to exist for long. It'll be cut off one way or another, just like those overseas movie download sites of last year.
Who's going to deny them existence? They're in conformance with Russian law, and international treaty on copyright. Buying music from them is no different than someone living in Texas driving over the border to Mexico to buy whatever stuff is cheaper there - except without the driving.
We've never sent humans that far. We can service it there if and only if we design, fund, and build a crew-carrying vehicle that can get there, do station-keeping, and get back. We'll have one some day, but quite probably not until long after the operational life of the JWST is over.
Allofmp3.com, in Russia, at a penny a MB will get you a whole album for under a buck. And it's easier enough than filesharing to make paying worthwhile. (Legal, too, if you're the type to let laws decide your actions.) Why the hell would I pay 99 cents a song?
If consumers were more like sheep, companies would have ads covering every visible surface everywhere
Give it a few more years. We've already got ads on gas pump handles and ads on bathroom walls. We've got trucks whose sole purpose is to be billboards on wheels. We've turned sporting events and stadiums into advertisments by selling naming rights. (For the kids, I'll explain that none of these were around "when I was your age"; and they all make me want to vomit.)
I'm sorry if you can't figure out a simple form that was proven to make sense to 5th graders, you shouldn't be able to vote.
First, there's nothing in the Constitution about having to be of a certain intelligence level to vote. (Otherwise, Dubbya probably wouldn't have been able to vote for himself...)
Second, even if it was legitimate to set a "too dumb to vote" cutoff, it's still not equal protection when some areas (containing a high proportion of Republican voters) get idiot-proof ballots and other (highly Democratic) areas have to solve a puzzle to vote, no matter how simple.
Third, ability to operate technology is absolutely no correlation with intelligent and informed opinions about politics. I think the net is adequate proof of that.
Finally, by the "5th graders" referece, I presume that you're refering to the "butterfly" ballot - except that the kids were shown a very different ballot, that was not in a holder that was often mis-aligned, and that was angled creating visual problems.
And the Palm Beach ballot had incorrect instructions, telling voters to "Vote for a Group", leading many to punch holes for President and Vice-President, and telling voters to punch the hole to the right of the candidate - even though half the holes were to the left! Of course, it violated Florida's own laws on ballot design.
Point stands: more voters, in the U.S. as a whole and in Florida, went to the polls that day to cast their ballots for Gore than for Bush.
Yup, not the first time that's happened, actually the first time it happened it was Andrew Jackson, he's the founder of the democratic party as I recall.
No. First, while the popular vote and electoral vote have differed, the only case I know of there where the electoral votes of a state were possibly given to the loser in that state was during the massively fraudulant Hayes/Tilden election of 1876, when intimidation of black voters (by the Democrats) and vote buying (by Republicans) cast the votes of four states into doubt. Second, the Democratic party was founded by Thomas Jefferson (the slaveowner), not Andrew Jackson (the Indian killer).
"Your browser doesn't support CSS"
on
BSD For Linux Users
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So right at the top of the page I'm taunted with a message that "This page uses CSS for all styling, like every page should. Your browser doesn't support CSS, so this page will look pretty bland, but you'll still be able to read every word. Tough cookies."
Except that I'm running Galeon. Which supports CSS just fine.
Flordia's constitution required a full recount and cert by x date,
I see nothing in the Florida constituion regarding this, though my look was brief. Citation, please?
the SCOTUS ordered flordia to obey its constitution.
State laws are a matter for state courts. The right of every voter to be counted trumps arbitrary deadlines anyway.
could Gore have won?
If by "won" you mean "received more votes in Florida", the answer is clearly yes. He did. A full statewide recount would have favored Gore. (Gore blew it by not demanding a full recount.)
More voters - in the U.S. as a whole and in Florida - went to the polls to cast their ballots for Gore than for Bush. The fact that in Florida, more Gore voters had trouble getting their votes counted shows the absence of equal protection when different methods of vote-counting are used in different areas. (With rich counties generally having more accurate tabulation.)
Thats because you dont understand the electoral process and think the US is actually a democracy, id be ticked if I were your father..
It's a constitutional democratic republic, which is a form of democracy.
The ones who don't understand - or chose to ignore - the electoral process are the justices who overrode the laws, and the will of the people, of Florida and sent illegimate electors on Florida's behalf.
If we're going to talk science - there isn't any. AD(H)D, like almost all "mental illnesses", is not diagnosed by objective critera. Claims are made that this is a chemical problem with chemical fix - yet, no chemical diagnosis is made.
Often, especially in children, these subjective evaluations are strongly influenced by teachers, parents, or caregivers who find that the kid in question doesn't behave the way they want. (My own brother was subject to a bogus attempt by a teacher to stick him with the label "hyperactive", back before they called it AD(H)D.)
The people who actually suffer with it, and whose suffering you mock and trivialize every time you pretend it's a label invented by The Conspiracy Of Fogies rather than a very real problem.
People have very real problems, yes. That doesn't mean that a problem between an individual's behavior and other people's expectations and desires for that behavior lies with the individual, or that if it does that illness is a good model for dealing with these problems.
Understanding that is not mocking or trivializing anyone. Calling people with these problems sick is what is mocking and trivializing.
Subjecting them to a mental health system that is one step above bloodletting is what is mocking and trivializing.
But what I DON'T oppose is taking out Saddam. Or should we have done nothing? What would YOU have done?
First, I wouldn't have put him in power in the first place. The CIA helped put him in power, and Reagan funneled him all sorts of aid during the Iran-Iraq war. Not dissimilar to the story with our support for Osama Bin Laden and the mujahideen. Our foreign policy for the past few decades has largely consisted of backing bad guys and then knocking them down.
But given the reality on the ground, was Saddam evil enough to go kill thousands of Iraqi civilians, and destroy a functioning nation, to get rid of him? Compared to, say, China, with its domestic repression and the ongoing genocide of the Tibetian people?
Iraq was no threat to any other nation, and while Hussein's regime was brutal, Iraq was hardly alone in being a serious human-rights violator. And the odds are good that someone as bad, or worse, will replace him; or that the country will dissolve into the control of local strongmen.
If sanctions had been used with intelligent, achievable goals, they could have helped bring more freedom to Iraqi without bloodshed. Instead the U.S. unilaterally decreed that sanctions would end only when Hussein was no longer in power - and kept them in place long enough to kill hundreds of thousands from malnutrition and contaminated water.
Trail of Tears - 1838...quite a while ago. Can you really blame the people in charge today for this?
I'm not talking about individual people. I'm talking about an institution. The rules, powers, and mindset of that institution are largely continuous with those of 1838.
Fugitive Slave Act - when was this? 3 centurys ago?
You're only off by a factor or two...
Also, the pre-emptive ware based on lies is out there. People talk about it too. It's not covered up.
So it's ok to commit atrocities so long as you don't cover them up?
As for the war on drugs...it's wrong. I agree. But is it the people in charge that do that? No, it's little old ladies in Virginia that complain about it and want this and that and how drugs are bad and they don't want heroin blah blah blah.
So the people in charge aren't in charge? The government is not responsible for the government's actions? Do you realize how little sense you're making?
Also, notice that as I write this, or you write what you want in rebuttle there are no people breaking down our doors to silence us?
Damning with faint praise, aren't you?
Yes, that's not happening much yet, though many non-citizens have been disappeared, and anti-war and anti-globalization protestors have been arrested for speaking their minds. And they may be checking on our library lending records and our bank accounts, tapping our phones, and putting us on lists for "special attention" at the airports.
Last time I checked the goal of any military was to protect the country and it's government, at any means necessary.
Then you checked through rose-colored glasses.
Were the Koreans about to attack the United States? Were the Vietnamese? The Iraqis (then or now)? Was Panama? Was Granada?
Most American military deployments over the past 100 years haven't had squat to do with protecting our country. They've been about protecting "U.S. interests" - that is, the political and financial interests of the ruling class.
Even Pearl Harbor was not an attack on the U.S., as Hawaii wasn't a state but a territory (invaded and illegally annexed); there hasn't been a direct military defense of the States against foreign attack since 1814. (Terrorism by non-state entities not being a military action.)
The U.S. Government: the people who brought you the Fugitive Slave Act, the Trail of Tears, Prohibition, concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to intimidate the USSR, MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, the War on (some) Drugs, and "pre-emptive" war based on lies, among other great hits. So is a high degree of skepticism appropriate when analyzing its actions? You bet your liberty.
The querent noted that he had a W-2 position with the contract agency. Thus, he had a job. The fact that the job was hourly wage rather than a salary and had no benefits doesn't make it less of a job.
Unfortunately we live in a world that demands that we "stay focused" and have great "organizational skills", so the practical considerations must be taken into account.
And that's the problem. Many, if not most, mild cases of "mental illnesses" like AD(H)D, depression, and "social phobia" - are better labeled "failure to be a good cog in the machine". It's not an illness to be different, especially in a society as sick as ours.
"And isn't sanity really just a one trick pony anyway? I mean all of you
get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh
oooh oooh, the sky is the limit!" --
The Tick
Personally, I'd really like to see biometrics more. It'd just hard to loose.
You don't have to lose your hand. Break a finger and splint it, sprain your wrist and put a brace on it around it, cut your thumb and put a band-aid on it, and you've "lost" your hand geometry, palm print, or thumb print.
Modern langauge is much looser and less formal, and almost universally, full of mistakes
"Mistakes" according to whom? If that's the way educated native speakers use the language, it's correct. The fact that educated native speakers of American English in 2004 use lanuage differently than educated native speakers of American English in 1804 is hardly reason to dispair.
My children are to young to work, thus they have no money. That being the case then there is no way for me, or anybody else to borrow money from them.
The government borrows money. In the future, it will have to turn to taxpayers to pay it back. But taxpayers of the future are the kids of today.
So, yes, the government does borrow from your children, against their future status as taxpayers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they're not. In such a (purely hypothetical and unlikely) case, they'd be obligated only to cease distributing the offending code. They could all sit around and wait for someone else to create a replacement.
Who's going to deny them existence? They're in conformance with Russian law, and international treaty on copyright. Buying music from them is no different than someone living in Texas driving over the border to Mexico to buy whatever stuff is cheaper there - except without the driving.
We've never sent humans that far. We can service it there if and only if we design, fund, and build a crew-carrying vehicle that can get there, do station-keeping, and get back. We'll have one some day, but quite probably not until long after the operational life of the JWST is over.
Allofmp3.com, in Russia, at a penny a MB will get you a whole album for under a buck. And it's easier enough than filesharing to make paying worthwhile. (Legal, too, if you're the type to let laws decide your actions.) Why the hell would I pay 99 cents a song?
Of course, when clicking a link, my powers of clairvoyance allow me to know beforehand what sort of ads appear on the site.
Give it a few more years. We've already got ads on gas pump handles and ads on bathroom walls. We've got trucks whose sole purpose is to be billboards on wheels. We've turned sporting events and stadiums into advertisments by selling naming rights. (For the kids, I'll explain that none of these were around "when I was your age"; and they all make me want to vomit.)
Uninstall Windows Media Player. Or better yet, uninstall Windows.
Can I have my fortune now? Preferably in unmarked twenties and hundreds. Thanks.
First, there's nothing in the Constitution about having to be of a certain intelligence level to vote. (Otherwise, Dubbya probably wouldn't have been able to vote for himself...)
Second, even if it was legitimate to set a "too dumb to vote" cutoff, it's still not equal protection when some areas (containing a high proportion of Republican voters) get idiot-proof ballots and other (highly Democratic) areas have to solve a puzzle to vote, no matter how simple.
Third, ability to operate technology is absolutely no correlation with intelligent and informed opinions about politics. I think the net is adequate proof of that.
Finally, by the "5th graders" referece, I presume that you're refering to the "butterfly" ballot - except that the kids were shown a very different ballot, that was not in a holder that was often mis-aligned, and that was angled creating visual problems.
And the Palm Beach ballot had incorrect instructions, telling voters to "Vote for a Group", leading many to punch holes for President and Vice-President, and telling voters to punch the hole to the right of the candidate - even though half the holes were to the left! Of course, it violated Florida's own laws on ballot design.
Point stands: more voters, in the U.S. as a whole and in Florida, went to the polls that day to cast their ballots for Gore than for Bush.
No. First, while the popular vote and electoral vote have differed, the only case I know of there where the electoral votes of a state were possibly given to the loser in that state was during the massively fraudulant Hayes/Tilden election of 1876, when intimidation of black voters (by the Democrats) and vote buying (by Republicans) cast the votes of four states into doubt. Second, the Democratic party was founded by Thomas Jefferson (the slaveowner), not Andrew Jackson (the Indian killer).
So right at the top of the page I'm taunted with a message that "This page uses CSS for all styling, like every page should. Your browser doesn't support CSS, so this page will look pretty bland, but you'll still be able to read every word. Tough cookies."
Except that I'm running Galeon. Which supports CSS just fine.
So why should I listen to this guy?
(/.ed now anyway, so I only saw the first page.)
I see nothing in the Florida constituion regarding this, though my look was brief. Citation, please?
State laws are a matter for state courts. The right of every voter to be counted trumps arbitrary deadlines anyway.
If by "won" you mean "received more votes in Florida", the answer is clearly yes. He did. A full statewide recount would have favored Gore. (Gore blew it by not demanding a full recount.)
That's not even considering the many voters - mostly black, and more likely to be Gore voters - illegal disenfranchised, or the illegal and self-contradictory Palm Beach "butterfly ballot", or the invalid absentee ballots that were counted. (I assume the later are the ones you're refering to. However, Gore didn't challenge such absentee ballots - if he had, the Bush team might have had a harder time committing their fraud. Another blown opportunity.)
More voters - in the U.S. as a whole and in Florida - went to the polls to cast their ballots for Gore than for Bush. The fact that in Florida, more Gore voters had trouble getting their votes counted shows the absence of equal protection when different methods of vote-counting are used in different areas. (With rich counties generally having more accurate tabulation.)
It's a constitutional democratic republic, which is a form of democracy.
The ones who don't understand - or chose to ignore - the electoral process are the justices who overrode the laws, and the will of the people, of Florida and sent illegimate electors on Florida's behalf.
Yep, that's a good 'un. Pick it up if you come across it, folks, you won't be sorry.
If we're going to talk science - there isn't any. AD(H)D, like almost all "mental illnesses", is not diagnosed by objective critera. Claims are made that this is a chemical problem with chemical fix - yet, no chemical diagnosis is made.
Often, especially in children, these subjective evaluations are strongly influenced by teachers, parents, or caregivers who find that the kid in question doesn't behave the way they want. (My own brother was subject to a bogus attempt by a teacher to stick him with the label "hyperactive", back before they called it AD(H)D.)
People have very real problems, yes. That doesn't mean that a problem between an individual's behavior and other people's expectations and desires for that behavior lies with the individual, or that if it does that illness is a good model for dealing with these problems.
Understanding that is not mocking or trivializing anyone. Calling people with these problems sick is what is mocking and trivializing. Subjecting them to a mental health system that is one step above bloodletting is what is mocking and trivializing.
First, I wouldn't have put him in power in the first place. The CIA helped put him in power, and Reagan funneled him all sorts of aid during the Iran-Iraq war. Not dissimilar to the story with our support for Osama Bin Laden and the mujahideen. Our foreign policy for the past few decades has largely consisted of backing bad guys and then knocking them down.
But given the reality on the ground, was Saddam evil enough to go kill thousands of Iraqi civilians, and destroy a functioning nation, to get rid of him? Compared to, say, China, with its domestic repression and the ongoing genocide of the Tibetian people?
Iraq was no threat to any other nation, and while Hussein's regime was brutal, Iraq was hardly alone in being a serious human-rights violator. And the odds are good that someone as bad, or worse, will replace him; or that the country will dissolve into the control of local strongmen.
If sanctions had been used with intelligent, achievable goals, they could have helped bring more freedom to Iraqi without bloodshed. Instead the U.S. unilaterally decreed that sanctions would end only when Hussein was no longer in power - and kept them in place long enough to kill hundreds of thousands from malnutrition and contaminated water.
I'm not talking about individual people. I'm talking about an institution. The rules, powers, and mindset of that institution are largely continuous with those of 1838.
You're only off by a factor or two...
So it's ok to commit atrocities so long as you don't cover them up?
So the people in charge aren't in charge? The government is not responsible for the government's actions? Do you realize how little sense you're making?
Damning with faint praise, aren't you?
Yes, that's not happening much yet, though many non-citizens have been disappeared, and anti-war and anti-globalization protestors have been arrested for speaking their minds. And they may be checking on our library lending records and our bank accounts, tapping our phones, and putting us on lists for "special attention" at the airports.
Then you checked through rose-colored glasses.
Were the Koreans about to attack the United States? Were the Vietnamese? The Iraqis (then or now)? Was Panama? Was Granada?
Most American military deployments over the past 100 years haven't had squat to do with protecting our country. They've been about protecting "U.S. interests" - that is, the political and financial interests of the ruling class.
Even Pearl Harbor was not an attack on the U.S., as Hawaii wasn't a state but a territory (invaded and illegally annexed); there hasn't been a direct military defense of the States against foreign attack since 1814. (Terrorism by non-state entities not being a military action.)
But very little of that is things that should be done.
If you want to server cartoons, by all means use Flash. If you want to serve information, use HTML.
Then you are much more fortunate than the millions put in cages for exercising private choices about their bodies, or the handful whose religion was not ATF approved, or those denied the right to travel freely for holding politically incorrect views...
The U.S. Government: the people who brought you the Fugitive Slave Act, the Trail of Tears, Prohibition, concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to intimidate the USSR, MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, the War on (some) Drugs, and "pre-emptive" war based on lies, among other great hits. So is a high degree of skepticism appropriate when analyzing its actions? You bet your liberty.
The querent noted that he had a W-2 position with the contract agency. Thus, he had a job. The fact that the job was hourly wage rather than a salary and had no benefits doesn't make it less of a job.
And that's the problem. Many, if not most, mild cases of "mental illnesses" like AD(H)D, depression, and "social phobia" - are better labeled "failure to be a good cog in the machine". It's not an illness to be different, especially in a society as sick as ours.
Er, it's bread. So, no, I don't think it's low carb.
Then again, according to Catholic doctrine it's supposed to be human flesh ("body of Christ"). Which I suppose would be low carb.
So I suppose that whether a communion wafer is low carb or not, depends on whether one accepts the doctrine of transubstantiation.
(Not that I hold any truck with Catholicism or low-carb diets.)
You don't have to lose your hand. Break a finger and splint it, sprain your wrist and put a brace on it around it, cut your thumb and put a band-aid on it, and you've "lost" your hand geometry, palm print, or thumb print.
"Mistakes" according to whom? If that's the way educated native speakers use the language, it's correct. The fact that educated native speakers of American English in 2004 use lanuage differently than educated native speakers of American English in 1804 is hardly reason to dispair.
The government borrows money. In the future, it will have to turn to taxpayers to pay it back. But taxpayers of the future are the kids of today. So, yes, the government does borrow from your children, against their future status as taxpayers.