That is one of the things I love about PmWiki.org. It is a very clean, customizeable wiki. The philosophy is that the local administrator should be free to customize while not being afraid of upgrading. By that, I mean that a PmWiki installation only touches its own directories, while it assumes you have your own "local" directories that it should not monkey with.
I have my servers set up so that I can install a new code base and revert if there are any problems with the ease of changing a symlink. I keep all the code off the Webroot for security.
Permissions are whatever you'd like. They could be "come on in" open, password only, user authentication. You can restrict the entire site, a group of pages, or just a page itself. Restriction can be by user or by user group.
Recent releases have really played up the dynamic code. There are now ways to track a set of changed pages by creating your own live bookmark. You can create page lists and have them presented in using customizeable formats.
It works on LAMP servers as well as IIS (so I've heard). It is file-based, so there is no need to link to a database server.
Finally, there is an active community who have many plugins to choose from.
Try Pmwiki.org, it is a PHP-based wiki that runs on IIS. I'm a Linux man (go figure), but the discussion list frequently has somebody resolving an installation issue. I've used this wiki on several sites for a couple of years now and love its flexibility and maintainability.
"Still ridiculous, of coarse, after all anyone with a computer or a cassette deck can accomplish the same thing."
Yes, but you don't pay a subscription to the radio station. Neither do you purchase a proprietary unit from the radio station to listen to their music.
However, I believe the ship will sail on this when it gets through the courts. Not that I'm a master tea leaf reader, but this could go the way of the old law suits over VHS and cassettes--users can make Fair Use copies of music on their own.
I just scanned the level five posts. Every one of them are rampantly anti-Bush. Most lack one iota of actual fact. All operate under hyperbole.
The point is this: somebody leaked classified information. It does not matter what information was leaked. The fact that it was leaked is absolutely criminal. When you think the information leaked helps your side, you don't care. Screw you all. Based on an adult life protecting this country and having a clearance, I understand the importance of protecting classified information--even if I don't agree with what that classification protects.
What you do not realize is that information kept secure is kept that way for a reason. The people who leaked decided that they were above the law. They decided that what could be short-term political gain was more important that your personal security. This is not civil disobedience any more than flying a passenger liner into a tall building a protected speach.
You guys need to get over your petty political opinions and accept that a crime that affects you has been committed. The fact that certain reporters were complicit in the prepetration of the crime gives sufficient cause to investigate them.
If Bush were really trying to silence opposition via an investigation, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will see to it that the Justice Department will dot all the Ies and cross all the Ts to ensure that those who need to go down do.
So, does the 2.0 series allow XUL coding in Python instead of Javascript. I have heard about this for some time. However, I've not heard what 'live' Firefox version would start offering this sweet gem.
"Keep a minimum balance in a bank account, say $7000."
I like to follow the general rule of thumb: first accumulate six months easily-liquidatable assets. That is, six months of your current salary. Then, acquire two years of non-retirement assets--of your current salary. When you get fired, you won't continue to consume income at the same pace. However, you will have a rough guess as to how long you can coast . . .
Some would consider $7k one-month's assets. It's probably good to have a month in your primary bank account as part of those six months. My wife and I put ours into a money market fund.
"I do hope that someone has patented this wonderful new technology!"
I know you're being cheeky, but the U.S. Government does not have to honor (at least U.S.) patents. That sort of goes with being the sovereign who gives out the patent rights.
"Those are both active. I'm pretty sure you meant to write something like this: Passive: The bike is ridden by the boy to the store."
Actually, "is riding" creates a nominative sentence--not active. It describes the boy as having a state of being: "riding." The word "riding" is a verbal noun (gerund), which is also used as an adjective. So "Subject (helping verb) adjective" - nominative. The sentence is not active at all, but passive.
Also, the best way to avoid the "it's" and "its" issues is advice I received from a professor: never write a sentence requiring either. A sentence is less ambiguous when the sentence does not contain the word "it," although takes a bit of effort. He dropped a paper's grade by one letter if he saw the word "it" used anywhere in a final draft. Back then, I just took "it" out of the spell checker. Besides, one typically does not apply a contraction (e.g. it's) in formal writing.
What has helped me with my writing is law school. I tend to write a lot more concisely, a lot more coherently, and spend a lot more time ensuring that I say what I mean.
"Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper? While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive?"
I'm sort of pinging on the other poster. However, having just spent the past semester in a law school class on Health Law, the U.S. health care system is _not_ free market. It is the most regulated industry. Our professor said that such tight control by the government was a _good_ thing because it ensured higher quality of care.
The stricture comes in the form of Medicare. Normally, health care would be regulated by the states. However, because of Congress' Spending Power, the Medicare system has enabled the government to put shackles on the industry. That is, in order to receive a penny of Medicare, you must accept all these regulations. And as my professor said, without the Medicare revenue stream, a hospital cannot keep its doors open for long.
Of course, for all those griping about the cost of health care, I should say that in the past 16 years, I've only gone to the doctor's office four times spending less than $1000 total. Maybe you could add on for dental visits at a rate of $200 per year. So, I'd like my money back.
"The researchers' hypothesis is that societies with a large gap between the rich and poor have a more hierarchical organization. Such an organization is based on coercion and resignation. More egalitarian societies do not engender the negative emotions needed to sustain a hierarchy."
So, the solution is Communism or Anarchy? Name a truely egalitarian society where everybody is content.
"Turns out it was only a ten-minute walk away. And virtually every car I passed on the way honked at me. Why? Because they thought I was a bum - after all, only bums don't have cars, right?"
No, they weren't honking at you because they thought you were a bum. They honked because they did not recognize you. Because they did not recognize you, they knew you were a _foreign_ visitor. So, they were trying to help you feel more welcome. I would not be surprised if some of them gave you the national one-finger salute as well.
In other news, the U.S. Treasury Department has hired a software firm to create a special MMO where they will be able to "print" as many magic swords as necessary to pay off the national deficit.
Seriously, though. Since it would be virtually impossible (like the pun?) to track all the magic swords and other assundary virtual objects, the more cost effective way for the government to manage this is via point-of-sale and income tax. That is, Ebay and other online payment systems will need to track all those little sales you make, then the IRS can audit you to see if you were actually making money, or if it were for some other "secondhand" endeavor.
That's very strange. I tried zooming in to get a better look. However, after a few levels, the interweb told me that they did not have the imagery, that there were some things that man was not meant to know, and that I have amazing pectorals.
When I lived in Northern Virginia, I used to get to work around 4a after about a 15 minute commute. Normally, there were only three other cars on the road. I found that if I left ten minutes later I would encounter about a dozen cars. Twenty minutes later I would encounter enough traffic to have to really pay attention.
The rest of my team got in at 6a, and we would go have breakfast--or my second breakfast. I would call my wife to wake her up. It really annoyed her to hear me awake and chipper: "Honey! Get up!"
Of course, I'd leave work between 12-2p--and maybe catch a matinee.
I have a friend in law school who was a victim of this last patch. She was complaining that attempting to use the menubar of any IE-based interface caused her system to lock up. She could double click on an icon to open a document, but she could not save it without locking up. (I don't know if she could use CTRL-S.)
I noticed that my laptop's touchpad started acting the way the little markings said it should (i.e., the scroll part of the pad finally scrolls). This is quite annoying after having gotten used to it _not_ working.
Yes, but rules of statutory construction are predominately common law, with canons that stretch back before the U.S. Constitution.
As another poster has said, the Constitution did not abolish common law. It stands as more of a super statute (because it should not be readily modified by an act of Congress). So, it molded U.S. common law that passes down from the British. If you're talking about a "school of thought," though, it might be the one that belives that precedent should count for something and that judges are activist when they chose to radically reverse a strong-holding precedent without blushing.
"NOTE: The use of speeches contained on this site are the property of Michael Crichton and may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without express permission. For information about reprinting this speech please email postmaster@janklow.com and be sure to put "Attention: Permissions Dept. / Michael Crichton" in the subject box."
"Darwin was his pupil (Henslow helped arrange for Darwin's presence on the Beagle), but Darwin made the intellectual leap that allowed him to interpret Henslow's records of variation - not as evidence of a fixed set of created species with variations, but as evidence of the evolution of new species in action."
Hmm, I read recently that Darwin's grandfather was also a Naturalist, as was Chuck. So, I don't think Darwin made the "leap," so much as his family was already in that direction. Methinks the article presumes Darwin was first in a family of thought--rather than merely one in a clan. He is just the first to gain widespread noteriety for it. (See "Darwin Amongst the Machines.")
"Don't get too hung up on names. Our moon was called that long before the seventeenth century, which was the first time anything was found orbiting a body other than the sun."
Not so fast, Slick. Prior to Copernicus, all heavenly bodies orbited Earth. It's a fact. After Copernicus, things started orbiting the Sun. At least, that's what I learned in an Arkansas' public school.
Taser screams "take this and use it on me." Much better to carry a S&W or Glock. However, in either case (Taser, gun) you won't be able to go into D.C. and other non-gun owner-friendly states.
You make a good point. I should have been more clear as to my logic--which is typically murky.
I used obscene in the older meaning, which was to mean something abhorrent. I neglected the sexual use because at least obscenity does not carry an immediacy element. Obscentity can also mean speech deemed to be against community standards. This might include using swear words at a circus with lots of young children around, but would not include the same words used at a bar.
However, I believe the same test is applied to incitement or fighting words, which fits the shouting Fire anecdote. However, incitement is clearly prohibited speech that is intended to provoke others to commit violence. The words must present a clear and imminent (present) danger. Since video games are more like printed material there is no imminent element--so no incitement. So, I thought that only obscenity would fit.
Granted, I should read the judge's actual opinion to know his rational. But on/. it's more fun to argue absent RTFA.:-) Based on my reading of the article it appeared he might have been applying the same rational basis test--and telling MI they did not even have a rational basis for their law. That would make sense to me.
Although, I should point out that the Supreme Court has said in the past (by upholding campaign finance restrictions) that corporations may not have First Amendment rights. A corporation is not "the People" for whom the Constitution protects in this context, IMO.
It appears the state saw the video game law as an answer to obscenity in gaming. The S.Ct. allows government censorship of obscenity provided the government can show a rational relation between what they have done and what legitimate state purpose they are hoping to serve. This is considered the lowest threshhold for the Government to justify the Constitutionality of one of its acts. It is by this same rational basis that allows state, local, and Federal governments to seize land from one property owner and give to another if they believe it is better economically, thus turning a property right into an economic right.
What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.
This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.
Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.
Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.
What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.
Slashdot Mirror
That is one of the things I love about PmWiki.org. It is a very clean, customizeable wiki. The philosophy is that the local administrator should be free to customize while not being afraid of upgrading. By that, I mean that a PmWiki installation only touches its own directories, while it assumes you have your own "local" directories that it should not monkey with.
I have my servers set up so that I can install a new code base and revert if there are any problems with the ease of changing a symlink. I keep all the code off the Webroot for security.
Permissions are whatever you'd like. They could be "come on in" open, password only, user authentication. You can restrict the entire site, a group of pages, or just a page itself. Restriction can be by user or by user group.
Recent releases have really played up the dynamic code. There are now ways to track a set of changed pages by creating your own live bookmark. You can create page lists and have them presented in using customizeable formats.
It works on LAMP servers as well as IIS (so I've heard). It is file-based, so there is no need to link to a database server.
Finally, there is an active community who have many plugins to choose from.
Try Pmwiki.org, it is a PHP-based wiki that runs on IIS. I'm a Linux man (go figure), but the discussion list frequently has somebody resolving an installation issue. I've used this wiki on several sites for a couple of years now and love its flexibility and maintainability.
"Still ridiculous, of coarse, after all anyone with a computer or a cassette deck can accomplish the same thing."
Yes, but you don't pay a subscription to the radio station. Neither do you purchase a proprietary unit from the radio station to listen to their music.
However, I believe the ship will sail on this when it gets through the courts. Not that I'm a master tea leaf reader, but this could go the way of the old law suits over VHS and cassettes--users can make Fair Use copies of music on their own.
I just scanned the level five posts. Every one of them are rampantly anti-Bush. Most lack one iota of actual fact. All operate under hyperbole.
The point is this: somebody leaked classified information. It does not matter what information was leaked. The fact that it was leaked is absolutely criminal. When you think the information leaked helps your side, you don't care. Screw you all. Based on an adult life protecting this country and having a clearance, I understand the importance of protecting classified information--even if I don't agree with what that classification protects.
What you do not realize is that information kept secure is kept that way for a reason. The people who leaked decided that they were above the law. They decided that what could be short-term political gain was more important that your personal security. This is not civil disobedience any more than flying a passenger liner into a tall building a protected speach.
You guys need to get over your petty political opinions and accept that a crime that affects you has been committed. The fact that certain reporters were complicit in the prepetration of the crime gives sufficient cause to investigate them.
If Bush were really trying to silence opposition via an investigation, you can bet your sweet bippy that he will see to it that the Justice Department will dot all the Ies and cross all the Ts to ensure that those who need to go down do.
So, does the 2.0 series allow XUL coding in Python instead of Javascript. I have heard about this for some time. However, I've not heard what 'live' Firefox version would start offering this sweet gem.
"Keep a minimum balance in a bank account, say $7000."
I like to follow the general rule of thumb: first accumulate six months easily-liquidatable assets. That is, six months of your current salary. Then, acquire two years of non-retirement assets--of your current salary. When you get fired, you won't continue to consume income at the same pace. However, you will have a rough guess as to how long you can coast . . .
Some would consider $7k one-month's assets. It's probably good to have a month in your primary bank account as part of those six months. My wife and I put ours into a money market fund.
"I do hope that someone has patented this wonderful new technology!"
I know you're being cheeky, but the U.S. Government does not have to honor (at least U.S.) patents. That sort of goes with being the sovereign who gives out the patent rights.
"Those are both active. I'm pretty sure you meant to write something like this:
Passive: The bike is ridden by the boy to the store."
Actually, "is riding" creates a nominative sentence--not active. It describes the boy as having a state of being: "riding." The word "riding" is a verbal noun (gerund), which is also used as an adjective. So "Subject (helping verb) adjective" - nominative. The sentence is not active at all, but passive.
Also, the best way to avoid the "it's" and "its" issues is advice I received from a professor: never write a sentence requiring either. A sentence is less ambiguous when the sentence does not contain the word "it," although takes a bit of effort. He dropped a paper's grade by one letter if he saw the word "it" used anywhere in a final draft. Back then, I just took "it" out of the spell checker. Besides, one typically does not apply a contraction (e.g. it's) in formal writing.
What has helped me with my writing is law school. I tend to write a lot more concisely, a lot more coherently, and spend a lot more time ensuring that I say what I mean.
"Wait, I thought the free market and privatization was supposed to make things cheaper? While state-run systems like the British NHS were supposed to be horribly inefficient and expensive?"
I'm sort of pinging on the other poster. However, having just spent the past semester in a law school class on Health Law, the U.S. health care system is _not_ free market. It is the most regulated industry. Our professor said that such tight control by the government was a _good_ thing because it ensured higher quality of care.
The stricture comes in the form of Medicare. Normally, health care would be regulated by the states. However, because of Congress' Spending Power, the Medicare system has enabled the government to put shackles on the industry. That is, in order to receive a penny of Medicare, you must accept all these regulations. And as my professor said, without the Medicare revenue stream, a hospital cannot keep its doors open for long.
Of course, for all those griping about the cost of health care, I should say that in the past 16 years, I've only gone to the doctor's office four times spending less than $1000 total. Maybe you could add on for dental visits at a rate of $200 per year. So, I'd like my money back.
"The researchers' hypothesis is that societies with a large gap between the rich and poor have a more hierarchical organization. Such an organization is based on coercion and resignation. More egalitarian societies do not engender the negative emotions needed to sustain a hierarchy."
So, the solution is Communism or Anarchy? Name a truely egalitarian society where everybody is content.
"Turns out it was only a ten-minute walk away. And virtually every car I passed on the way honked at me. Why? Because they thought I was a bum - after all, only bums don't have cars, right?"
No, they weren't honking at you because they thought you were a bum. They honked because they did not recognize you. Because they did not recognize you, they knew you were a _foreign_ visitor. So, they were trying to help you feel more welcome. I would not be surprised if some of them gave you the national one-finger salute as well.
In other news, the U.S. Treasury Department has hired a software firm to create a special MMO where they will be able to "print" as many magic swords as necessary to pay off the national deficit.
Seriously, though. Since it would be virtually impossible (like the pun?) to track all the magic swords and other assundary virtual objects, the more cost effective way for the government to manage this is via point-of-sale and income tax. That is, Ebay and other online payment systems will need to track all those little sales you make, then the IRS can audit you to see if you were actually making money, or if it were for some other "secondhand" endeavor.
That's very strange. I tried zooming in to get a better look. However, after a few levels, the interweb told me that they did not have the imagery, that there were some things that man was not meant to know, and that I have amazing pectorals.
When I lived in Northern Virginia, I used to get to work around 4a after about a 15 minute commute. Normally, there were only three other cars on the road. I found that if I left ten minutes later I would encounter about a dozen cars. Twenty minutes later I would encounter enough traffic to have to really pay attention.
The rest of my team got in at 6a, and we would go have breakfast--or my second breakfast. I would call my wife to wake her up. It really annoyed her to hear me awake and chipper: "Honey! Get up!"
Of course, I'd leave work between 12-2p--and maybe catch a matinee.
Hmm. Rule of 13? So, if I drive to work at 6a, then I must remain until 7p? Those numbers do add up to 13.
I have a friend in law school who was a victim of this last patch. She was complaining that attempting to use the menubar of any IE-based interface caused her system to lock up. She could double click on an icon to open a document, but she could not save it without locking up. (I don't know if she could use CTRL-S.)
I noticed that my laptop's touchpad started acting the way the little markings said it should (i.e., the scroll part of the pad finally scrolls). This is quite annoying after having gotten used to it _not_ working.
Yes, but rules of statutory construction are predominately common law, with canons that stretch back before the U.S. Constitution.
As another poster has said, the Constitution did not abolish common law. It stands as more of a super statute (because it should not be readily modified by an act of Congress). So, it molded U.S. common law that passes down from the British. If you're talking about a "school of thought," though, it might be the one that belives that precedent should count for something and that judges are activist when they chose to radically reverse a strong-holding precedent without blushing.
"NOTE: The use of speeches contained on this site are the property of Michael Crichton and may not be reproduced, copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without express permission. For information about reprinting this speech please email postmaster@janklow.com and be sure to put "Attention: Permissions Dept. / Michael Crichton" in the subject box."
"Darwin was his pupil (Henslow helped arrange for Darwin's presence on the Beagle), but Darwin made the intellectual leap that allowed him to interpret Henslow's records of variation - not as evidence of a fixed set of created species with variations, but as evidence of the evolution of new species in action."
Hmm, I read recently that Darwin's grandfather was also a Naturalist, as was Chuck. So, I don't think Darwin made the "leap," so much as his family was already in that direction. Methinks the article presumes Darwin was first in a family of thought--rather than merely one in a clan. He is just the first to gain widespread noteriety for it. (See "Darwin Amongst the Machines.")
"Don't get too hung up on names. Our moon was called that long before the seventeenth century, which was the first time anything was found orbiting a body other than the sun."
Not so fast, Slick. Prior to Copernicus, all heavenly bodies orbited Earth. It's a fact. After Copernicus, things started orbiting the Sun. At least, that's what I learned in an Arkansas' public school.
"For Self-protection, I'd want a Taser."
Taser screams "take this and use it on me." Much better to carry a S&W or Glock. However, in either case (Taser, gun) you won't be able to go into D.C. and other non-gun owner-friendly states.
You make a good point. I should have been more clear as to my logic--which is typically murky.
/. it's more fun to argue absent RTFA. :-) Based on my reading of the article it appeared he might have been applying the same rational basis test--and telling MI they did not even have a rational basis for their law. That would make sense to me.
I used obscene in the older meaning, which was to mean something abhorrent. I neglected the sexual use because at least obscenity does not carry an immediacy element. Obscentity can also mean speech deemed to be against community standards. This might include using swear words at a circus with lots of young children around, but would not include the same words used at a bar.
However, I believe the same test is applied to incitement or fighting words, which fits the shouting Fire anecdote. However, incitement is clearly prohibited speech that is intended to provoke others to commit violence. The words must present a clear and imminent (present) danger. Since video games are more like printed material there is no imminent element--so no incitement. So, I thought that only obscenity would fit.
Granted, I should read the judge's actual opinion to know his rational. But on
Although, I should point out that the Supreme Court has said in the past (by upholding campaign finance restrictions) that corporations may not have First Amendment rights. A corporation is not "the People" for whom the Constitution protects in this context, IMO.
It appears the state saw the video game law as an answer to obscenity in gaming. The S.Ct. allows government censorship of obscenity provided the government can show a rational relation between what they have done and what legitimate state purpose they are hoping to serve. This is considered the lowest threshhold for the Government to justify the Constitutionality of one of its acts. It is by this same rational basis that allows state, local, and Federal governments to seize land from one property owner and give to another if they believe it is better economically, thus turning a property right into an economic right.
What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.
This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.
Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.
Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.
What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.