Show me a judge who handles sensitive court correspondence by e-mail and I'll show you a judge I dearly want to smack in the face really, really hard. Probably the type of judge who downloads 3000 illegal images.
I could buy some of the same music content I'd be missing by ending my Sirius subscriptions, but I would never be able to replicate the sheer variety available. Listening to Sirius has expanded my musical tastes, whereas I'd probably just be buying the stuff I already like if I were to spend that money in a music store. I also couldn't get Howard, which is 90% of the reason my family and I subscribe anyway.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this merger. I assume the regulatory agencies will approve it because it doesn't really make sense to say a particular form of content distribution such as satellite radio has to come in multiple, competing formats. There aren't two incompatible types of terrestrial radio, are there? The fact is, both companies were in a "war" trying to outspend each other for content and technology. There were obviously be substantial savings if Sirius does buyout its lesser. I hope Mel, in addition to being CEO, also has a seat on the board so that he won't have to take crap from the company Howard conquered (as he predicted).
I hope this post was a joke, but if it wasn't everyone who is currently with Network Solutions should know what kind of company it is. You can read all about it on various sites, or you can read my personal horror story with NetSol. NetSol stinks.
The only type of in-game advertising I like is advertising for products in reality simulators, such as car sims. If I'm racing around in a hot car, I expect to see billboards for products. I think such advertising enhances the immersion effect. As long as game developers do not go overboard with in-game advertising by only placing it in natural, reality-based settings where one would expect to see them, I don't have a problem.
http://www.captaincopyright.ca/
In August 2006, we took the Captain Copyright website offline so that we could revise its content in response to the criticisms the site had received. We worked extensively on revising the original lessons and we commissioned someone with expertise on the creation of educational materials to prepare new lessons on the Creative Commons, fair dealing and the public domain. We also sought the assistance of an advisory panel of educators and copyright experts with a range of perspectives on copyright, and every lesson was submitted to them for rigorous review. We then incorporated their revisions to the lessons so that they could be thoroughly teacher-tested.
Despite the significant progress we made on addressing the concerns raised about the original Captain Copyright initiative, as well as the positive feedback and requests for literally hundreds of lesson kits from teachers and librarians, we have come to the conclusion that the current climate around copyright issues will not allow a project like this one to be successful. It is difficult for organizations to reach agreement on copyright issues at this time and we know that, in the face of continuing opposition, the materials will not be used in the classroom. Under these circumstances there is no point in our continuing to work on this project.
We began this project because teachers told us that copyright had become too much a part of their students' daily lives for it not to be taught in the classroom, and they told us they needed a teaching tool to help them do it. We still believe that creating such a tool is important, but we also now believe that no single organization can take the lead on such an initiative. We truly hope that there will come a time when the copyright community - including educators, librarians and copyright collectives - can work together to provide a unbiased teaching tool that provides teachers and students with a balanced view of copyright.
It seems to me to be something of a return to the Old Testament version of God, and an eye for an eye. If someone strikes you, give 'em hell, but don't start fights if you can help it. .. I would be happy if fewer people would cling to the incorrect interpretation of Exodus 21:23. It is not prescribing strict retributivist mirror justice - as in, you poke out his eye, he pokes out your eye in return. Such a system of justice would be very difficult, if not impossible, to exercise, and such justice was not carried out under the Biblical commonwealths of Israel. Instead, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" refers to a system of civil penalties in which monetary damages are assessed based on the injury done.
The noted authoritative source Wikipedia describes the Jewish application "to mean equivalent monetary compensation, even to the exclusion of mirror punishment." Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak (Rashi) comments on the verses in this way: "If [a person] blinds his neighbor's eye, he must give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his price to be sold in the marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the meaning of all of them [i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following verses], but not the actual amputation of a limb. .." Keep in mind that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is a holy and just God, who expects a high standard of conduct from His holy nation, Israel. Furthermore, the Hebrew Scriptures are meant to be understood in a Jewish context. Those who fail to understand such facts will take away only a shallow understanding of the holy text.
Personally, I don't think a fork would necessarily be a bad thing. WP built the perfect setup for the initial stages of creating a large, low-quality encyclopedia. What they're utterly failing to do at this point is to move beyond that. Moving beyond that stage and finding creative ways to make it into a high quality encyclopedia would require experimenting with the rules, and since nobody knows for sure what rules would work, it would probably require some competition. Terrific post. We should be thinking about a fork to Wikipedia because there has to be a competing content model out there that's superior. A model with a superior form of moderation, particularly for controversial subjects. Perhaps, in the case of controversies, more than one version has to be marked authoritative, and then viewers will have to choose which version to believe. And what about a model that offers more user accountability? As it stands, Wikipedia is valuable as a very convenient source for most any type of information, but there must be ways to ensure a higher standard of quality for said information. I'd love to have a greater feeling of trust when I browse articles. Let's hope the Internet community's allegiance to it does not prevent the concept from maturing and improving in the future.
What parts of computers would break in box? FYI, I used 7.1 for years (didn't upgrade until OS 8), and for the time it was a damn good OS with a tiny memory foot print. I don't know what those customers were complaining about. Apple does, on occasion leave support for older computers out of new OS releases even if those older machines are capable of running the OS - that much is true. But if you compare Apple's track record to M$'s, you'll find that Apple has mostly been generous with hardware support. One big exception was when it cut PPC 604 Macs out of official OS X support. That infuriated me at the time, but now that I look back on it the decision really didn't have the impact I thought it would. OS X's release slipped as time went on, and by the time it actually came out it didn't make sense to care the issue anymore. You're bringing up trivial issues from the distant past.
The Holocaust wasn't really all that long ago, and the dark side of human nature that perpetrated it remains a part of humanity. Besides, an entire region is steeped in Nazi-like propaganda this very day, and Iran is promising to perpetrate another Holocaust while the world remains mostly silent. I don't think the German people should be punished for the evil of their previous generations, but they shouldn't be allowed to forget what happened, either.
According to your reasoning, Bush could climb a bell tower, aim a machine gun at the crowd of churchgoers below, mow them down in a hail of lead, and he could not be arrested. . .. IANAL, but I do believe that while he certainly could be detained by authorities in order to stop the commission of a crime, he could not be prosecuted for said crime by authorities other than Congress until impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. I agree with you that the clause also means that impeachment is no excuse for prohibiting further prosecution, but it also means that removal from office by way of impeachment must precede further prosecution.
Again, the text reads "but the party convincted shall nevertheless," with the clear implication being that one not convicted by the impeachment process may not be indicted, tried, etc., for the duration of his term(s) in office. If the Constitution meant that despite whatever outcome of impeachment, the party will still face outside charges, the clause should have read, "but the party impeached. .." And if the Constitution meant that the party were liable to prosecution immediately and aside from any impeachment proceeding, the clause should have read, "but the party shall also face indictment. .." It is obvious to me that "but the party convicted" means precisely that impeachment must proceed to conviction before outside prosecution may occur. And furthermore, since outside prosecution and possible conviction would necessarily disqualify a person from serving in office, and since impeachment is the only specified path to removal from office for the listed officials, it again confirms that impeachment must precede outside proseuction. I'd love to cite you some case law, but I don't know of any off-hand. Of course, I also don't know of any precedent on your side, and I can think of a lot of precedent on mine.
Article 1 Section 3 states "impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. . . . but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable. .." Clearly, the party impeached, once convicted, shall then face indictment. Only once the party is convicted through impeachment can additional prosecution commence. That's rather apparent from a straight reading of the text, IMO. If the provision were supposed to be interpreted as you wish, it would have omitted the word convicted.
Thank you for your response. Now in response to your response, I content that the fact that you could ever mix up Jefferson and Madison regarding the authorship of the Constitution casts severe doubt on your ability to critique the Constitution: You can't even get the history right. No matter how tired I may be, you'll never catch me making such an error in print. (You sound a bit like the stripper type on Howard Stern who claims she got elementary questions wrong because she didn't get enough sleep and is up too early.)
Secondly, my point about Gonzales is that whether or not he sees wiggle room does not mean wiggle room is there. His interpretation of the clause is defective, not the clause itself. You've agreed to as much. And finally, when I challenged you to write a better Constitution, it was on the basis of your critique of the original. I don't see any glaring problems with the original. If you do, please list the problems to which you allude so that we can discuss the substantive topics further. On my end, I am a textualist, and I do not have difficulty with the text as it is composed. Obviously I won't claim the Constitution is perfect, but it is the closest humanity has ever come to a perfect founding document. Certainly the framers did not anticipate many important problems posed by constitutional law, but it is highly presumptuous and arrogant to assume we could have done any better than they did, or that we could do any better today if we started with a clean slate. We most likely could improve upon various things that have already been solved by 200+ years of jurisprudence, but in the process we would also probably harm the delicate framework that makes our republic the most stable and enduring form of government on earth.
To me, the problem boils down to one thing: Jefferson was more interested in writing a document that was flowery and sounded nice than one that was airtight in a manner that a properly trained lawyer would appreciate. That and the grammatical error that has caused so much consternation with the Second Amendment for God knows how many years.
This paragraph diminishes any intellectual merit your previous paragraphs may have had: Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, while the Constitution was largely crafted by Madison. Secondly, simply because Gonzalez may or may not see wiggle room in habeas corpus does not mean the clause is defective. Finally, I doubt you could write a superior version of the Constitution.
You're asking for friend codes to be swapped based on zip code. Hmmmm, wouldn't Nintendo be accused of calling for all pedophiles if such an option were available? Sometimes I wonder if people use any brain processing cycles before they commit words to a page.
I don't know what you're talking about. One iTunes library can have an unlimited number of iPods synched to it, and there's nothing preventing one from moving a library from one computer to another. The only major restrictions found in iTunes are on burning audio CDs with protected tracks (5 times) and on sharing protected tracks between computers (5 computers). You may not like the concept of DRM, but iTunes DRM is reasonable. There's no need to spread misinformation.
While I was furiously searching for something insightful to write, I determined that this story is essentially devoid of value. I don't even know if there is an opportunity to trash Gates here. I know this is effectively a four day holiday for many people, but certainly there must be other stories with a modicum of news value worth posting.
I'm going to have to go a bit farther in researching this matter than reading the headline, but my tendency is to give Godaddy the benefit of the doubt. That choice has been influenced by unfortunate events that gripped my father's organization. A year ago some former members of my father's organization decided to end their affiliation with us, except that they chose to attempt a hostile, unlawful takeover instead of forming a separate entity. This minor faction concealed considerable resentment for us prior to the break-away, and they believed that they would be able to easily compel us to acquiesce and hand the corporation over to them. Settlement would not come easily. Long story short, after a year long legal battle and a year's worth of high-priced lawyer fees, the other side got crushed in a pre-trail ruling and had to begrudgingly accept our (relatively) generous terms.
Now here's the Internet angle: A few months into the conflict, they started targeting our web hosts and domain registrars with unlawful DMCA notices and other underhanded legal tactics. We had been advised by one of our attorneys to go with Network Solutions instead of the smaller registrar we had been with since our domain's original creation; we chose to take the legal advice despite my grave misgivings. Predictably enough (given the myriad of horror stories about the company), Network Solutions locked down our domain on the basis of the opposition's lawsuit and refused to unlock it until the termination of legal proceedings. Plus, our domain was locked down while its DNS record pointed to a hosting company that also denied us service. It was terrifically devastating to effectively lose our domain and site for that period, as it had been our official domain since 1996. As for Godaddy, once our site got taken down indefinitely we transferred over to one of our secondary domains that was registered with Godaddy. Godaddy never took action against that domain - we never even got notice from them about the mater despite the fact the opposition obviously attempted the same maneuver against Godaddy that it used on NetSol. The only troubling thing about Godaddy's service was an automated message sent to us concerning an illegitimate challenge to our DNS contact information. Notably, the message claimed to give us only a few days to respond to the challenge before Godaddy would take action, which could have included registration deletion. We were able to take care of that issue with one phone call, and we were even given an unusually candid apology for the previous notice. Nonetheless, that experience was disconcerting. Despite that occurrence, Godaddy did not falter for us even in those adverse conditions, so I'll be staying with it unless and until it no longer merits my appreciation. (And for less important domains, I use the slightly cheaper 1and1.)
How could the 360 be a factor in determining the outcome of this format battle? The 360 is a standard definition DVD unit, and very few people are going to buy this vaporous external HD-DVD add-on. They have already paid more than they're accustomed to for the 360, and unless the HD player can add some key enhancement to the gaming experience it will be perceived as superfluous. No, the only way a new format can be helped by a game console is if it's standard equipment, as the PS2's DVD player was and as the PS3's BD player will be (as long as they finally commit to releasing it sometime this decade).
Slashdot Mirror
I could buy some of the same music content I'd be missing by ending my Sirius subscriptions, but I would never be able to replicate the sheer variety available. Listening to Sirius has expanded my musical tastes, whereas I'd probably just be buying the stuff I already like if I were to spend that money in a music store. I also couldn't get Howard, which is 90% of the reason my family and I subscribe anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens with this merger. I assume the regulatory agencies will approve it because it doesn't really make sense to say a particular form of content distribution such as satellite radio has to come in multiple, competing formats. There aren't two incompatible types of terrestrial radio, are there? The fact is, both companies were in a "war" trying to outspend each other for content and technology. There were obviously be substantial savings if Sirius does buyout its lesser. I hope Mel, in addition to being CEO, also has a seat on the board so that he won't have to take crap from the company Howard conquered (as he predicted).
I hope this post was a joke, but if it wasn't everyone who is currently with Network Solutions should know what kind of company it is. You can read all about it on various sites, or you can read my personal horror story with NetSol. NetSol stinks.
The only type of in-game advertising I like is advertising for products in reality simulators, such as car sims. If I'm racing around in a hot car, I expect to see billboards for products. I think such advertising enhances the immersion effect. As long as game developers do not go overboard with in-game advertising by only placing it in natural, reality-based settings where one would expect to see them, I don't have a problem.
Yesterday evening my brother and I saw four PS3 boxes behind the glass at the electronics section of Target in Duarte, CA.
Give me an MMO with the quality of WoW and a higher caliber of people to play with, and I'm there.
Despite the significant progress we made on addressing the concerns raised about the original Captain Copyright initiative, as well as the positive feedback and requests for literally hundreds of lesson kits from teachers and librarians, we have come to the conclusion that the current climate around copyright issues will not allow a project like this one to be successful. It is difficult for organizations to reach agreement on copyright issues at this time and we know that, in the face of continuing opposition, the materials will not be used in the classroom. Under these circumstances there is no point in our continuing to work on this project.
We began this project because teachers told us that copyright had become too much a part of their students' daily lives for it not to be taught in the classroom, and they told us they needed a teaching tool to help them do it. We still believe that creating such a tool is important, but we also now believe that no single organization can take the lead on such an initiative. We truly hope that there will come a time when the copyright community - including educators, librarians and copyright collectives - can work together to provide a unbiased teaching tool that provides teachers and students with a balanced view of copyright.
The noted authoritative source Wikipedia describes the Jewish application "to mean equivalent monetary compensation, even to the exclusion of mirror punishment." Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak (Rashi) comments on the verses in this way: "If [a person] blinds his neighbor's eye, he must give him the value of his eye, [which is] how much his price to be sold in the marketplace has decreased [without the eye]. So is the meaning of all of them [i.e., all the injuries enumerated in the following verses], but not the actual amputation of a limb. . ." Keep in mind that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is a holy and just God, who expects a high standard of conduct from His holy nation, Israel. Furthermore, the Hebrew Scriptures are meant to be understood in a Jewish context. Those who fail to understand such facts will take away only a shallow understanding of the holy text.
What parts of computers would break in box? FYI, I used 7.1 for years (didn't upgrade until OS 8), and for the time it was a damn good OS with a tiny memory foot print. I don't know what those customers were complaining about. Apple does, on occasion leave support for older computers out of new OS releases even if those older machines are capable of running the OS - that much is true. But if you compare Apple's track record to M$'s, you'll find that Apple has mostly been generous with hardware support. One big exception was when it cut PPC 604 Macs out of official OS X support. That infuriated me at the time, but now that I look back on it the decision really didn't have the impact I thought it would. OS X's release slipped as time went on, and by the time it actually came out it didn't make sense to care the issue anymore. You're bringing up trivial issues from the distant past.
No, I'm pretty sure the original 10GB iPod cost no more than $499.
The Holocaust wasn't really all that long ago, and the dark side of human nature that perpetrated it remains a part of humanity. Besides, an entire region is steeped in Nazi-like propaganda this very day, and Iran is promising to perpetrate another Holocaust while the world remains mostly silent. I don't think the German people should be punished for the evil of their previous generations, but they shouldn't be allowed to forget what happened, either.
Again, the text reads "but the party convincted shall nevertheless," with the clear implication being that one not convicted by the impeachment process may not be indicted, tried, etc., for the duration of his term(s) in office. If the Constitution meant that despite whatever outcome of impeachment, the party will still face outside charges, the clause should have read, "but the party impeached. .
Article 1 Section 3 states "impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office. . . . but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable. . ." Clearly, the party impeached, once convicted, shall then face indictment. Only once the party is convicted through impeachment can additional prosecution commence. That's rather apparent from a straight reading of the text, IMO. If the provision were supposed to be interpreted as you wish, it would have omitted the word convicted.
Thank you for your response. Now in response to your response, I content that the fact that you could ever mix up Jefferson and Madison regarding the authorship of the Constitution casts severe doubt on your ability to critique the Constitution: You can't even get the history right. No matter how tired I may be, you'll never catch me making such an error in print. (You sound a bit like the stripper type on Howard Stern who claims she got elementary questions wrong because she didn't get enough sleep and is up too early.)
Secondly, my point about Gonzales is that whether or not he sees wiggle room does not mean wiggle room is there. His interpretation of the clause is defective, not the clause itself. You've agreed to as much. And finally, when I challenged you to write a better Constitution, it was on the basis of your critique of the original. I don't see any glaring problems with the original. If you do, please list the problems to which you allude so that we can discuss the substantive topics further. On my end, I am a textualist, and I do not have difficulty with the text as it is composed. Obviously I won't claim the Constitution is perfect, but it is the closest humanity has ever come to a perfect founding document. Certainly the framers did not anticipate many important problems posed by constitutional law, but it is highly presumptuous and arrogant to assume we could have done any better than they did, or that we could do any better today if we started with a clean slate. We most likely could improve upon various things that have already been solved by 200+ years of jurisprudence, but in the process we would also probably harm the delicate framework that makes our republic the most stable and enduring form of government on earth.
This paragraph diminishes any intellectual merit your previous paragraphs may have had: Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, while the Constitution was largely crafted by Madison. Secondly, simply because Gonzalez may or may not see wiggle room in habeas corpus does not mean the clause is defective. Finally, I doubt you could write a superior version of the Constitution.
FYI, I think you're referring to the Book of Revelation; beliefs derived therefrom would only apply to a subset of Christians, not Jews or Muslims.
This is yet another tactic from Microsoft to discourage the development of multi-platform titles by tying games to Windows even more.
You're asking for friend codes to be swapped based on zip code. Hmmmm, wouldn't Nintendo be accused of calling for all pedophiles if such an option were available? Sometimes I wonder if people use any brain processing cycles before they commit words to a page.
I don't know what you're talking about. One iTunes library can have an unlimited number of iPods synched to it, and there's nothing preventing one from moving a library from one computer to another. The only major restrictions found in iTunes are on burning audio CDs with protected tracks (5 times) and on sharing protected tracks between computers (5 computers). You may not like the concept of DRM, but iTunes DRM is reasonable. There's no need to spread misinformation.
While I was furiously searching for something insightful to write, I determined that this story is essentially devoid of value. I don't even know if there is an opportunity to trash Gates here. I know this is effectively a four day holiday for many people, but certainly there must be other stories with a modicum of news value worth posting.
I'm going to have to go a bit farther in researching this matter than reading the headline, but my tendency is to give Godaddy the benefit of the doubt. That choice has been influenced by unfortunate events that gripped my father's organization. A year ago some former members of my father's organization decided to end their affiliation with us, except that they chose to attempt a hostile, unlawful takeover instead of forming a separate entity. This minor faction concealed considerable resentment for us prior to the break-away, and they believed that they would be able to easily compel us to acquiesce and hand the corporation over to them. Settlement would not come easily. Long story short, after a year long legal battle and a year's worth of high-priced lawyer fees, the other side got crushed in a pre-trail ruling and had to begrudgingly accept our (relatively) generous terms.
Now here's the Internet angle: A few months into the conflict, they started targeting our web hosts and domain registrars with unlawful DMCA notices and other underhanded legal tactics. We had been advised by one of our attorneys to go with Network Solutions instead of the smaller registrar we had been with since our domain's original creation; we chose to take the legal advice despite my grave misgivings. Predictably enough (given the myriad of horror stories about the company), Network Solutions locked down our domain on the basis of the opposition's lawsuit and refused to unlock it until the termination of legal proceedings. Plus, our domain was locked down while its DNS record pointed to a hosting company that also denied us service. It was terrifically devastating to effectively lose our domain and site for that period, as it had been our official domain since 1996. As for Godaddy, once our site got taken down indefinitely we transferred over to one of our secondary domains that was registered with Godaddy. Godaddy never took action against that domain - we never even got notice from them about the mater despite the fact the opposition obviously attempted the same maneuver against Godaddy that it used on NetSol. The only troubling thing about Godaddy's service was an automated message sent to us concerning an illegitimate challenge to our DNS contact information. Notably, the message claimed to give us only a few days to respond to the challenge before Godaddy would take action, which could have included registration deletion. We were able to take care of that issue with one phone call, and we were even given an unusually candid apology for the previous notice. Nonetheless, that experience was disconcerting. Despite that occurrence, Godaddy did not falter for us even in those adverse conditions, so I'll be staying with it unless and until it no longer merits my appreciation. (And for less important domains, I use the slightly cheaper 1and1.)
. . . then China does not have to accept the standard for its domestic routers, right? What's the big deal?
How could the 360 be a factor in determining the outcome of this format battle? The 360 is a standard definition DVD unit, and very few people are going to buy this vaporous external HD-DVD add-on. They have already paid more than they're accustomed to for the 360, and unless the HD player can add some key enhancement to the gaming experience it will be perceived as superfluous. No, the only way a new format can be helped by a game console is if it's standard equipment, as the PS2's DVD player was and as the PS3's BD player will be (as long as they finally commit to releasing it sometime this decade).