I always wished that they would research one of the original ways to cure balding. Dying in your teens. More dead teens have full heads of hair than geriatric men.
So, will Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bruce Canepa or Ralph Lauren also volunteer to be crash test dummies? I don't think we should accept all four of them a couple will suffice. After all, you can't have a accurate crash test without end-user testing.
This should be a slashdot poll questions: Who should be the first CTD?
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
In other news, Ted Kaczynski requested that the Department of Justice release more of his personal documents and one of his pipe bombs to a local University. From said University, OSI partisans plan to conduct a "letter writing and 'special package'" campaign to the C-Level of SCO.
I don't think such dark motives lie in our community.
I think SCO has finally figured out what that vague middle step is in the concept to profit cycle. It is actually two steps instead of one.
3a. Sue major corp for 'alleged IP violations' (i.e. Pump)
3b. Board members dump stock on unsuspecting investors (i.e. Dump)
3b (alt). Get bought out by major corporation
4. Profit!
But, for all of you who are like me and have wondered what these guys have been smoking (and perhaps, where you could get some), it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are flailing in the wind to elevate stock prices so they can dump and run. They will all then quietly resign and the incoming board will reap the chaos sown.
The point is, they are going to work with SuSe, a fellow German company. The previous report of a German Stadt going with Linux and this report share the common demominator that both are working with SuSe. Sort of like "Made in the USA" for we Americans (i.e. United Statesers).
Well, I keep reading that GPL has not yet been under its test of fire in the courts. So, I am suggesting that perhaps now the lawyers can haul this baby to court and get a 'sanctified' ruling. Then we can stop guessing and start hunting SCO.
The equal protection clause means that states can only treat people differently based on their behavior and public hazard, not irrelevant factors like race, gender, or political affiliation.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you. The sentence (Section 1, Sentence 2), "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment 14) So, perhaps I misused the term "equal protection clause." However, the sentence to which that clause is mentioned understood to impose the Bill of Rights on the States. Otherwise, the Miranda Rights being read to an individual arrested under state authority would not be an obligation in the US Constitution.
Also, to quote the Wikipedia: "Prior to the adoption of [the fourteenth] amendment, the United States Bill of Rights so famously cherished by U.S. citizens acted only as a restraint on federal, not state, governments.Until that time states' control over its citizens was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws. "
. . . with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
Well, the Amendment is a Constitutional Law, not 'Federal,' but that's not my point. I thought the 14th Amendment gave equal protection, which (as I understand it, and IANALY) means that if it would be unconstitutional as a Federal Law, then it would be for a state law as well. This was the view taken to stop Texas from enforcing its Sodemy law recently.
Considering the fact that Redhat recently filed a lawsuit, it looks like the "Linux Allies" are mobilized and are opening multiple fronts. What is interesting here is IBM's fighting for GPL, which means a team of highly paid attorneys will argue the viability of GPL. If this makes it to court, then GPL will have its test.
On another point, perhaps IBM holds the patent "process of suing other companies for patent violations as a means of revenue." If so, SCO is definitely in violation.
Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.
You think this is oppression? In no assembly of humans is an individual abjectly free to do whatever. We agree to suppress some impulses for the greater good. If you think we Americans live in a truly oppressive society, then I encourage you to visit other countries and other times where oppression really is. Being imprisoned because you admittedly sought to incite violence against a government is not oppression. Having your family garrotted in their sleep by the government is. While I won't go so far as to say "until you've been oppressed, you don't know what oppression is," I opine that you don't.
This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
Too bad he took the plea. If it was such a clear case, then his lawyers, or the ACLU, should have told him so, and given him incentive to take this to a jury of peers. Then he would not be a felon now. Perhaps, then there is more to this case than meets the public eye which obscures the clarity of the violation? Not being a lawyer, I'm not ready to jump to such conclusions, but it appears that the defendant thought he was guilty enough.
I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.
Well, let us try a different set of circumstances. Imagine a web site where there are details on how to lynch a minority. Or, what if the site discusses how to bomb an abortion clinic or how to kill an abortion doctor? Would they be protected by Free Speech? If they added the purpose was "to overthrow the US Government," would that enter the site into hallowed protection? Whave if they said, "here's how to do it, but we do not advocate?"
There have been sites as I have mentioned above--sorry, no URLs to accompany. The owners of said sites were convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced to prison. This fellow met the same fate (or chose to waive his right to trial by jury and pled out). They all claimed a right, and were found not in the right. If he should go free, than so should they. I think the clause in the Premable "establish justice and secure domestic tranquility" has bearing. Looking at his site, I conclude he meant what he said, and sought to disrupt our tranquility.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since we're asserting that the Bill of Rights be fully enforced, I thought I should ask for my rocket launcher (see above 'slippery slope' discussion) now.
After all, the SC has upheld that yelling "Fire!" in a theatre is not protected under Free Speech. So, I think advocating violent insurrection would probably not be upheld. Then again, with the SC using extra-US legal documents to interpret the Constitution, anything is possible.
[C]ertainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.
In an interview with Mike Tyson, he made a rather interesting quote, which I must paraphrase. Prison does not rehabilitate. Prison trains the inmate to be better at what got him in prison. So, will this fellow skew more towards the horrific in the future?
Fascism: a
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Emphasis mine)
Capitalism: an
economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. (Emphais mine)
Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. (Emphasis mine, again)
I've always had it explained that fascism is a political philosophy and capitalism is an economic system. The Nazis were socialist (German National Social Worker's Party), not capitalists.
Although, I'm curious to hear of a free market, socialist economy.
. . . even 100,000 terrorists in the US is only 0.0004% . . .
Which brings me to a rather insightful premise. Why don't we just have each passenger provide his occupation and purpose of his trip? If he puts "terrorist," then we know he may be a threat. If he puts "to do Allah|God|Limbaugh's Will," then we know he needs to be pulled off the plane. Because, not every terrorist is going to hijack any plane they travel on. Some need to make it to terrorist training camps, or Redmond, WA.
Slashdot Mirror
but will this postpone any manned lunar missions? (Emphasis mine)
Nope, the current X-Ray survey of the Lunar surface will not affect any of the Apollo Lunar missions. The last one was over thirty years ago.
So, we are one step closer to transparent aluminum, aren't we?
I always wished that they would research one of the original ways to cure balding. Dying in your teens. More dead teens have full heads of hair than geriatric men.
So, will Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bruce Canepa or Ralph Lauren also volunteer to be crash test dummies? I don't think we should accept all four of them a couple will suffice. After all, you can't have a accurate crash test without end-user testing.
This should be a slashdot poll questions: Who should be the first CTD?
With Roomba you can always go into another room, or leave the house entirely for complete quiet while Roomba cleans. (Web FAQ) (Emphasis Mine)
This is good general advice you can use to handle any noisy problem in the home (spouse, dog, etc.), not just the Roomba.
I'm a little concerned about the side threat "As the president of OSI, defending the community of open-source hackers against predators and carpetbaggers is mine -- and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next." It worries me that Raymond would phrase things this way.
In other news, Ted Kaczynski requested that the Department of Justice release more of his personal documents and one of his pipe bombs to a local University. From said University, OSI partisans plan to conduct a "letter writing and 'special package'" campaign to the C-Level of SCO.
I don't think such dark motives lie in our community.
The legal team for SCO were disbarred for being total morons.
The SEC investigates SCO for Pump N Dump.
Guys, if you accept that they are intentionally spreading FUD, then life becomes easier.
I think SCO has finally figured out what that vague middle step is in the concept to profit cycle. It is actually two steps instead of one.
3a. Sue major corp for 'alleged IP violations' (i.e. Pump)3b. Board members dump stock on unsuspecting investors (i.e. Dump)
3b (alt). Get bought out by major corporation 4. Profit!
But, for all of you who are like me and have wondered what these guys have been smoking (and perhaps, where you could get some), it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are flailing in the wind to elevate stock prices so they can dump and run. They will all then quietly resign and the incoming board will reap the chaos sown.
Various Arkansas Government agencies are afflicted, too.
Perhaps when a site is offered that requires username/password for access, the submitter can create a 'slashdot' account for all?
For example, I provide 'slashdot4' with password 'slashdot' so anybody here can visit the site.
The point is, they are going to work with SuSe, a fellow German company. The previous report of a German Stadt going with Linux and this report share the common demominator that both are working with SuSe. Sort of like "Made in the USA" for we Americans (i.e. United Statesers).
Well, I keep reading that GPL has not yet been under its test of fire in the courts. So, I am suggesting that perhaps now the lawyers can haul this baby to court and get a 'sanctified' ruling. Then we can stop guessing and start hunting SCO.
The equal protection clause means that states can only treat people differently based on their behavior and public hazard, not irrelevant factors like race, gender, or political affiliation.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you. The sentence (Section 1, Sentence 2), "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment 14) So, perhaps I misused the term "equal protection clause." However, the sentence to which that clause is mentioned understood to impose the Bill of Rights on the States. Otherwise, the Miranda Rights being read to an individual arrested under state authority would not be an obligation in the US Constitution.
Also, to quote the Wikipedia: "Prior to the adoption of [the fourteenth] amendment, the United States Bill of Rights so famously cherished by U.S. citizens acted only as a restraint on federal, not state, governments.Until that time states' control over its citizens was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws. "
. . . with the notion that obscenity is a state-level affair, despite the First Amendment being a Federal law.
Well, the Amendment is a Constitutional Law, not 'Federal,' but that's not my point. I thought the 14th Amendment gave equal protection, which (as I understand it, and IANALY) means that if it would be unconstitutional as a Federal Law, then it would be for a state law as well. This was the view taken to stop Texas from enforcing its Sodemy law recently.
Considering the fact that Redhat recently filed a lawsuit, it looks like the "Linux Allies" are mobilized and are opening multiple fronts. What is interesting here is IBM's fighting for GPL, which means a team of highly paid attorneys will argue the viability of GPL. If this makes it to court, then GPL will have its test.
On another point, perhaps IBM holds the patent "process of suing other companies for patent violations as a means of revenue." If so, SCO is definitely in violation.
Meanwhile, this is the kind of oppression that does lead to a revolution.
You think this is oppression? In no assembly of humans is an individual abjectly free to do whatever. We agree to suppress some impulses for the greater good. If you think we Americans live in a truly oppressive society, then I encourage you to visit other countries and other times where oppression really is. Being imprisoned because you admittedly sought to incite violence against a government is not oppression. Having your family garrotted in their sleep by the government is. While I won't go so far as to say "until you've been oppressed, you don't know what oppression is," I opine that you don't.
This case is a clear violation of the first amendment protection of political speech through intimidation of the defendant.
Too bad he took the plea. If it was such a clear case, then his lawyers, or the ACLU, should have told him so, and given him incentive to take this to a jury of peers. Then he would not be a felon now. Perhaps, then there is more to this case than meets the public eye which obscures the clarity of the violation? Not being a lawyer, I'm not ready to jump to such conclusions, but it appears that the defendant thought he was guilty enough.
I don't see how that isn't protected speech. Lets be clear here. He wasn't plotting with particular individuals to carry out an act of terror or violence. He was saying that this goverment sucks and should be overthrown -- by violent needs if necessary. And should anyone think that's a good idea, then here's some information on how you can forward those aims.
Well, let us try a different set of circumstances. Imagine a web site where there are details on how to lynch a minority. Or, what if the site discusses how to bomb an abortion clinic or how to kill an abortion doctor? Would they be protected by Free Speech? If they added the purpose was "to overthrow the US Government," would that enter the site into hallowed protection? Whave if they said, "here's how to do it, but we do not advocate?"
There have been sites as I have mentioned above--sorry, no URLs to accompany. The owners of said sites were convicted by a jury of peers and sentenced to prison. This fellow met the same fate (or chose to waive his right to trial by jury and pled out). They all claimed a right, and were found not in the right. If he should go free, than so should they. I think the clause in the Premable "establish justice and secure domestic tranquility" has bearing. Looking at his site, I conclude he meant what he said, and sought to disrupt our tranquility.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since we're asserting that the Bill of Rights be fully enforced, I thought I should ask for my rocket launcher (see above 'slippery slope' discussion) now.
After all, the SC has upheld that yelling "Fire!" in a theatre is not protected under Free Speech. So, I think advocating violent insurrection would probably not be upheld. Then again, with the SC using extra-US legal documents to interpret the Constitution, anything is possible.
[C]ertainly he shouldn't be given a 20 year terrorist sentence - indeed I think the judge was wrong for superceding the prosecutor's recomendation of 4 months. However, this guy was real close to the boundary between harmless and horrific.
In an interview with Mike Tyson, he made a rather interesting quote, which I must paraphrase. Prison does not rehabilitate. Prison trains the inmate to be better at what got him in prison. So, will this fellow skew more towards the horrific in the future?
Or, is my quoting M. Tyson horrific? Both?
I've always had it explained that fascism is a political philosophy and capitalism is an economic system. The Nazis were socialist (German National Social Worker's Party), not capitalists.
Although, I'm curious to hear of a free market, socialist economy.
. . . even 100,000 terrorists in the US is only 0.0004% . . .
Which brings me to a rather insightful premise. Why don't we just have each passenger provide his occupation and purpose of his trip? If he puts "terrorist," then we know he may be a threat. If he puts "to do Allah|God|Limbaugh's Will," then we know he needs to be pulled off the plane. Because, not every terrorist is going to hijack any plane they travel on. Some need to make it to terrorist training camps, or Redmond, WA.
2. written in an over-abstract, PhD-thesis prose-style
Perhaps, then, somebody should write the "In Plain English" or "Clearly Explained" version?
Don't you mean?
def waiting (trolls)Perhaps they should have gone with the woman who is the model for Lara Croft, Nell McAndrew. Here's a shot here and here.