The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children.
Sorry to nit-pick, but the constitution doesn't give ANY rights to ANYONE. It delegates certain powers to the federal government, and explicitly prohibits the infringement of certain rights by the federal and state governments, and in the tenth amendment it very clearly states that we have other rights as well.
This is a very common (and dangerous) misconception, that our rights derive only from that document.
There's a name for a law that declares someone guilty of some offense and then punishes them for it without a trial - it's called a bill of attainder, and it's specifically prohibited.
There are many other legal bases to ban this kind of thing, but this isn't a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is legislation to declare someone guilty, which was something that the English parliament did from time to time when the king wanted them to.
The idea that you have a 'stalker' is... a simple fact which you have confirmed on several occasions, O pink one.
Do you expect children to work from the age of four to support themselves through kindergarden?
This is a very difficult concept for pinkos to grasp, I'm sure, but have you ever heard of something called a "parent"? I mean, other than the Mommy state?
Rich. Spoilt. Brat.
Interesting, that you seem to regard "rich" is an epithet. Why is that? Have you considered seeking the help of a mental health professional to work through this jealousy issue of yours?
Religion & state are not seperate (in the US).
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" are you failing to understand?
a bunch of C frameworks that'll be obsolete within the next five years, dead wood that will have to be supported by every future version of Mac OS X for reverse compatibility reasons.
Sure, why check it out when you can just make pithy, uninformed guesses instead? Quite a zinger you launched there. It would make you look clever to anyone else who doesn't know the subject matter.
Well, my little pink stalker, let me correct a couple of your misapprehensions. First, I never worked for NeXT. Secondly, I'm not rich yet, although I left Apple with enough coasting room in my brokerage account that I don't need to work for a couple of years. Thirdly, my principles were exactly the same at the times in my life when I was flat broke.
Now then, as for the rest of your diatribe: it does not follow that because something is worth doing, that it should be mandatory. If you want to contribute to a scholarship fund, then by all means, do so! I'd applaud your generosity, and I might very well contribute to the same organization. But when you call for government funding for anything, you raise it to a level of such importance that it warrants taking money under the threat of force. There are very, very few things that are that important.
Education is a critically important thing for the future of our economy; so important I would say, that it should be as completely separated from the state as religion is. When government is involved in funding or providing schooling, it will of course be directed to the desires of the bureaucrats who administer those programs.
Living on the government teat, even for a few years as a student is fraught with peril: what if some well-meaning drug warrior decides that you should piss in a cup to get your student loan? (they're already requiring this for kids who want to play sports in high school, for christ's sake.) The worst part of fostering this dependency is that it tends to infantalize the recipients. They look to government (ie, the taxpayers) to fund their schooling, so why not demand that the taxpayers foot the bill for their medical bills, housing, child care, and anything else the bread-and-circuses crowd can dream up?
When you call for tax-funded handouts, you're not teaching a man to fish, you're teaching a child to whine until he's fed.
The submitter is jumping to conclusions. There's nothing here that indicates that they knuckled under at all. They may have just let him off without paying Apple's defense costs.
Kind of like Apple's been going out of business since 1986...
The difference is that Apple had a massive management overhaul when Amelio was shown the door. Sun has yet to do so; Schwartz is a third-rater who has no hope of stopping Sun's decline.
enthusiasts who will claim every red, yellow, or green pill is somehow "innovation" and oooo! Pretty colors.
Dude, you have no idea what Apple's development frameworks are capable of today. Take a few minutes and read up on CoreImage, CoreData, and CoreVideo.
I'm sure you thought that was a snappy comeback, but the fact is that in the USA legislation at the federal level still requires the votes of at least a majority of a quorum of both the house and the senate.
I've watched friends bailing out of that company for years. Don't let a temporary sales bump fool you; sun is following SGI down the drain. Schwartz isn't a cause, he's a symptom.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Thank goodness that legislation takes more than one pig-ignorant prat's decree.
Currently it seems quite common for various CEO's and other execs to be involved in many many companies. I think that's insane.
Then don't buy the shares of those companies. The companies are owned by their shareholders, not by you. If you don't like it, then buy 51% of the authorized shares, and vote the management out.
If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another.
I am so glad that someone like you will never be involved in the management of any publicly-traded corporation.
I don't think that error is a US/UK thing. I remember hearing the phrase used correctly for my whole life. I didn't start hearing people getting it wrong until the late '70s.
In the words of Ayn Rand: "Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."
I notice that Microsoft seems to be fixated on always having an enemy, whether it's Google, IBM, Sony or Apple. If they focused on their customers instead, their products might not suck so hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't know about the connection to those assholes who were trying to shake Apple down last year. What a pack of sleazy bastards.
-jcr
The Constitution does not give fathers a right to their children.
Sorry to nit-pick, but the constitution doesn't give ANY rights to ANYONE. It delegates certain powers to the federal government, and explicitly prohibits the infringement of certain rights by the federal and state governments, and in the tenth amendment it very clearly states that we have other rights as well.
This is a very common (and dangerous) misconception, that our rights derive only from that document.
-jcr
So this would seem to be a denial of liberty without the due process (conviction in a criminal trial for a sex offense) required for such.
which is why this proposal shouldn't stand its first test in court. Of course, neither should civil forfeiture, but that continues unabated..
-jcr
There's a name for a law that declares someone guilty of some offense and then punishes them for it without a trial - it's called a bill of attainder, and it's specifically prohibited.
There are many other legal bases to ban this kind of thing, but this isn't a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder is legislation to declare someone guilty, which was something that the English parliament did from time to time when the king wanted them to.
-jcr
The idea that you have a 'stalker' is ... a simple fact which you have confirmed on several occasions, O pink one.
Do you expect children to work from the age of four to support themselves through kindergarden?
This is a very difficult concept for pinkos to grasp, I'm sure, but have you ever heard of something called a "parent"? I mean, other than the Mommy state?
Rich. Spoilt. Brat.
Interesting, that you seem to regard "rich" is an epithet. Why is that? Have you considered seeking the help of a mental health professional to work through this jealousy issue of yours?
Religion & state are not seperate (in the US).
What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" are you failing to understand?
You really don't know anything about life do you?
Maybe not, but I sure as hell know more than you.
Naive little boy.
Yes, you are indeed.
-jcr
Schwartz is a third-rater who has no hope of stopping Sun's decline.
Except he has.
I hope you keep on believing that. Someone's got to eat the downside of every options trade. Might as well be you.
-jcr
a bunch of C frameworks that'll be obsolete within the next five years, dead wood that will have to be supported by every future version of Mac OS X for reverse compatibility reasons.
Sure, why check it out when you can just make pithy, uninformed guesses instead? Quite a zinger you launched there. It would make you look clever to anyone else who doesn't know the subject matter.
-jcr
Well, my little pink stalker, let me correct a couple of your misapprehensions. First, I never worked for NeXT. Secondly, I'm not rich yet, although I left Apple with enough coasting room in my brokerage account that I don't need to work for a couple of years. Thirdly, my principles were exactly the same at the times in my life when I was flat broke.
Now then, as for the rest of your diatribe: it does not follow that because something is worth doing, that it should be mandatory. If you want to contribute to a scholarship fund, then by all means, do so! I'd applaud your generosity, and I might very well contribute to the same organization. But when you call for government funding for anything, you raise it to a level of such importance that it warrants taking money under the threat of force. There are very, very few things that are that important.
Education is a critically important thing for the future of our economy; so important I would say, that it should be as completely separated from the state as religion is. When government is involved in funding or providing schooling, it will of course be directed to the desires of the bureaucrats who administer those programs.
Living on the government teat, even for a few years as a student is fraught with peril: what if some well-meaning drug warrior decides that you should piss in a cup to get your student loan? (they're already requiring this for kids who want to play sports in high school, for christ's sake.) The worst part of fostering this dependency is that it tends to infantalize the recipients. They look to government (ie, the taxpayers) to fund their schooling, so why not demand that the taxpayers foot the bill for their medical bills, housing, child care, and anything else the bread-and-circuses crowd can dream up?
When you call for tax-funded handouts, you're not teaching a man to fish, you're teaching a child to whine until he's fed.
-jcr
The submitter is jumping to conclusions. There's nothing here that indicates that they knuckled under at all. They may have just let him off without paying Apple's defense costs.
-jcr
Kind of like Apple's been going out of business since 1986...
The difference is that Apple had a massive management overhaul when Amelio was shown the door. Sun has yet to do so; Schwartz is a third-rater who has no hope of stopping Sun's decline.
enthusiasts who will claim every red, yellow, or green pill is somehow "innovation" and oooo! Pretty colors.
Dude, you have no idea what Apple's development frameworks are capable of today. Take a few minutes and read up on CoreImage, CoreData, and CoreVideo.
-jcr
Who would have thought it?
-jcr
I'm a halfway competent network administrator...where do I send my resume?
Sorry, you're overqualified.
-jcr
In my day, we had ASR-33's and our only bulk storage was paper tape! And we were grateful!
-jcr
I'm sure you thought that was a snappy comeback, but the fact is that in the USA legislation at the federal level still requires the votes of at least a majority of a quorum of both the house and the senate.
-jcr
Yeah, it looks bad for Sun, all right.
I've watched friends bailing out of that company for years. Don't let a temporary sales bump fool you; sun is following SGI down the drain. Schwartz isn't a cause, he's a symptom.
-jcr
I think this practice should be illegal.
Oh, for fuck's sake. Thank goodness that legislation takes more than one pig-ignorant prat's decree.
Currently it seems quite common for various CEO's and other execs to be involved in many many companies. I think that's insane.
Then don't buy the shares of those companies. The companies are owned by their shareholders, not by you. If you don't like it, then buy 51% of the authorized shares, and vote the management out.
If someone is involved in one company, it should be illegal to be involved in another.
I am so glad that someone like you will never be involved in the management of any publicly-traded corporation.
-jcr
Wasn't there an article recently about how Apple was one of the least environmentally-friendly tech companies?
More like Greenpeace wanted some attention, and decided to get it by bashing a company that gets a lot more press than they do.
-jcr
Good news I guess, but what does it really mean?
It means that Apple gains the benefit of advice from one more highly qualifed computer entrepeneur and corporate executive.
-jcr
If Schmidt were still at Sun, they might have some hope of long-term survival. Kudos to Apple for getting him on the board.
-jcr
I have to install cygwin, msvc, mplayer, gaim, openoffice, etc before my windows box is of any use.
Did I at any time recommend that you should use Windows?
-jcr
Competition got the funding to get to the moon. I doubt that most of the engineers in the program were primarily motivated by beating the Russians.
-jcr
I don't think that error is a US/UK thing. I remember hearing the phrase used correctly for my whole life. I didn't start hearing people getting it wrong until the late '70s.
-jcr
In the words of Ayn Rand: "Competition is a by-product of productive work, not its goal. A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others."
I notice that Microsoft seems to be fixated on always having an enemy, whether it's Google, IBM, Sony or Apple. If they focused on their customers instead, their products might not suck so hard.
-jcr
You're presuming that I want the whole album, which may not be the case.
-jcr
I know one person whose sole source of television content is iTunes.
The iTMS is about 30% or so of what I watch. The rest of it is movies either from local retailers or Amazon.
-jcr