The post is at +4 right now. If she thought doing a little MS bashing people would mod her up, she was right.
Re:A little Supreme Court Analysis re: Federalism
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
I just brought up Kyllso as one positive sign that the court's staunchest conservatives might be capable of putting constitutional limits on government ahead of their own personal feelings on drugs.
Re:A little Supreme Court Analysis re: Federalism
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
OK, that was my first big worry. My second was stupid and I decided not to post it, but I forgot to delete "my two big worries:" [Insert Spanish Inquisition joke here.]
Re:A little Supreme Court Analysis re: Federalism
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 2
Nice work there! My two big worries:
There have not been many cases where states' rights have been tested in such a way that going with the states would go against the desires of the Republican party. Bush v. Gore was one, and the Court invoked the 14th pretty heavily there. Then again, in Kyllo v. United States, Scalia and Thomas took a position that went AGAINST states' rights but was applauded by drug war opponents. So it'll be really interesting to see what they do if they hear some 10th amendment drug prohibition cases.
Re:Wrong on one important point
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
I wish I were as optimistic as you are about the future of federalism....
I think we should ditch either Troll or Flamebait as a moderation option and replace it with "Ad Hominem". It's a lot more clear cut, and it would seriously cut down on some of the least meaningful political discussion that goes on here.
I noticed the same thing living in dorms, but there seems to be another factor in my case.
I have horrible distance vision, and I'm always behind on seeing the eye doctor to upgrade my lens prescriptions. But frequently I'll notice something familiar about the vaguely humanoid blur approaching me from 100 yards away. More often than not it's the rhythm of their walk. I can't help but suspect I'd never have used or noticed this skill if I'd had the eye sight to identify people the traditional way.
I also have really big feet, and as a result, when I walk, I bounce up and down with a larger "amplitude" than the average guy. Friends call it my "bounce".
1. It is not illegal to obtain a monopoly in a particular market. However, it is illegal to use that monopoly to crush competition and move into other markets.
Of course, this would mean that in elections, we would all have to vote the same way, and most "geeks" (I hate that word) are too damn stubburn, independent, and argumentative to vote a certain way because our union endorses a certain candidate.
What, pray tell, would be the "geek candidate"'s position on abortion? What about gun control? Taxes? Drugs? And what if I didn't agree with her on one or more of them? Would I just be stubborn if I put those issues ahead of my union?
Answer me this: if your skills are less valuable, by what logic should you even be paid the same for them, let alone more?
I've always wondered about that. It seems to me that if a company is forced to keep workers who are useless to it, they should be sent home but paid every month as if they were working. That way the company would at least save on the office space, supplies, etc. Plus it would drive home how completely ridiculous it is to pay workers for nothing.
The laptop mainly runs Windows, but it has a working Debian partition.
What I really had in mind was something completely transparent. Something that works like this:
Mozilla asks network interface for a socket connection to slashdot.org:80. Network interface - which got my ssh login and password for the workstation at startup - immediately opens a tunnel through the Linux box to slashdot.org:80, and hands that tunnel to the browser somehow. Does that make sense? And does such a product exist?
If it doesn't, it'd make a nice transparent VPN client. The problem, of course, is that it wouldn't support UDP or ICMP off the bat....
The best thing to do, if you have the option, is to have a box somewhere on the network with inbound ssh access. At work and at home, I've got a laptop and a Linux workstation. I SSH-tunnel everything sensitive (IMAP, AIM, even web pages) through the work station. People can sniff my traffic all they want and without breaking SSH2, they can't do anything with it.
At some point, I'd like to write a tool that would set this all up transparently, but that's in the distant future. (Is there a way to add a tunnel to a running SSH session?)
The trouble is that they were then trying to prevent French consumers from buying in Britain and importing directly into France. Now, the EU is an internal free-trade area, so controlling imports between member states is a big no-no.
Hmmm. I'm confused. How do you "prevent" people from doing that, if there's no law? I'm assuming Nintendo didn't have these guys swimming the English channel forcibly preventing people from carrying consoles across. What exactly were they doing?
In Philadelphia, where I grew up, public (as in somebody-else-driving, not as in government) transit is tightly controlled by the government.
You'd think a city with widespread poverty would let people with a car and a driver's license and not much else to offer start their own taxi businesses, but each cab is required to have a medallion, which costs tens of thousands of dollars. I thought many times while waiting hours for overcrowded government-run buses that I could buy an old yellow schoolbus, run the same route as the bus I was waiting for but at half the fare, and recoup my costs pretty fast, but it's not that easy. There are any number of government barriers - I'd be using nonunion workers (i.e. myself), and I'd be lacking any number of permits.
And I don't know what CmdrTaco is talking about. I'll try not to use spoilers here, but you CAN NOT BEAT GTA3 without doing a certain mission that involves killing a member of one gang you were allied with using another gang's car in order to provoke a war between the two. That's neither peaceful nor ethical.
I don't know of any phone that has AOL Instant Messenger built in that doesn't have other forms of text messaging.
Most providers have a web gateway that lets you send a message to the phone by filling out a form. A perl script could easily manipulate that. Even better, most of them let the phone receive emails sent to phonenumber@whatever.provider.com, and usually the phone can send some kind of reply. A year ago I got sick of hovering by my computer waiting for an important email, and I set up procmail to forward all messages from that person to my cell phone. I really think an AIM gateway is overkill.
I can tell you from experience that neither VoiceStream (GSM) nor Cingular (TDMA and free roaming on every other TDMA network) has given me anything but "No Service" when airborne. I have no idea what this means. Either the people on flights 77 and 93 belonged to networks (PCS? CDMA?) with better high-up coverage than the above-mentioned two, or the planes were flying much lower than normal.
The government has not formed a software company to compete with anyone -- the government simply solves problems and provides services.
That's what every company does. Some companies are funded by customers who choose to pay them for solving problems and providing services. Others are funded by taxes on the former.
But frankly, if a focused private entity can't compete with an organization which incidentally produces a viable solution all in a days work, they shouldn't be in the market in the first place.
But the private entity is PAYING for that organization. They're paying for two products - their own, and the government's. Competing with that is really hard.
The day the competitors provide better/cheaper service is the day the gov't entity goes out of business.
Or it could just be the day the gov't entity demands further handouts. How exactly can the NSA's Linux development "go out of business"? They're not in business in the first place. A government program can't go out of business except by political decree, and eliminating government programs is rarely in a politician's best interests.
The day MS can produce something better than NSA secure linux (hah) is the day that the GPL should cease to matter in gov't funded projects.
You mean the day MS can produce something better than the NSA WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PAYING FOR THE NSA! That's a much taller order!
The fact that any product that the government contributes to could be useful -- competetive, even -- in the same space that a commercial product is shouldn't disqualify it from being used and developed.
That's true, but it should exempt those who stand to be hurt from paying for it.
If I ran a business, and I paid taxes, and I found out that my taxes were going to something that was directly in competition in my product, I'd oppose it too.
Hell, as a buyer of Windows, I oppose it. Some of the cost of MS Windows goes to pay Microsoft's taxes. And some of Microsoft's taxes are going to fund Linux development? So when I buy a copy of Windows, I'm funding Linux. WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
100 bucks says 3 out of ever 4 on-topic posts on this article won't take into account that basic fact from the article.
The post is at +4 right now. If she thought doing a little MS bashing people would mod her up, she was right.
I just brought up Kyllso as one positive sign that the court's staunchest conservatives might be capable of putting constitutional limits on government ahead of their own personal feelings on drugs.
OK, that was my first big worry. My second was stupid and I decided not to post it, but I forgot to delete "my two big worries:" [Insert Spanish Inquisition joke here.]
Nice work there! My two big worries:
There have not been many cases where states' rights have been tested in such a way that going with the states would go against the desires of the Republican party. Bush v. Gore was one, and the Court invoked the 14th pretty heavily there. Then again, in Kyllo v. United States , Scalia and Thomas took a position that went AGAINST states' rights but was applauded by drug war opponents. So it'll be really interesting to see what they do if they hear some 10th amendment drug prohibition cases.
I wish I were as optimistic as you are about the future of federalism....
I know of a much cheaper two-command method to accomplish this goal....
1. apt-get install dsniff
2. msgsnarf
That'll be $35 per employee, please. No personal checks without ID.
I think we should ditch either Troll or Flamebait as a moderation option and replace it with "Ad Hominem". It's a lot more clear cut, and it would seriously cut down on some of the least meaningful political discussion that goes on here.
I noticed the same thing living in dorms, but there seems to be another factor in my case.
I have horrible distance vision, and I'm always behind on seeing the eye doctor to upgrade my lens prescriptions. But frequently I'll notice something familiar about the vaguely humanoid blur approaching me from 100 yards away. More often than not it's the rhythm of their walk. I can't help but suspect I'd never have used or noticed this skill if I'd had the eye sight to identify people the traditional way.
I also have really big feet, and as a result, when I walk, I bounce up and down with a larger "amplitude" than the average guy. Friends call it my "bounce".
1. It is not illegal to obtain a monopoly in a particular market. However, it is illegal to use that monopoly to crush competition and move into other markets.
Oh man. Jennifer Love Hewitt is in big trouble.
Of course, this would mean that in elections, we would all have to vote the same way, and most "geeks" (I hate that word) are too damn stubburn, independent, and argumentative to vote a certain way because our union endorses a certain candidate.
What, pray tell, would be the "geek candidate"'s position on abortion? What about gun control? Taxes? Drugs? And what if I didn't agree with her on one or more of them? Would I just be stubborn if I put those issues ahead of my union?
Answer me this: if your skills are less valuable, by what logic should you even be paid the same for them, let alone more?
I've always wondered about that. It seems to me that if a company is forced to keep workers who are useless to it, they should be sent home but paid every month as if they were working. That way the company would at least save on the office space, supplies, etc. Plus it would drive home how completely ridiculous it is to pay workers for nothing.
from friends and family who have worked in unions, and around others who are in unions.
Your friends and family are in on the corporate conspiracy to control our minds?!
The laptop mainly runs Windows, but it has a working Debian partition.
What I really had in mind was something completely transparent. Something that works like this:
Mozilla asks network interface for a socket connection to slashdot.org:80. Network interface - which got my ssh login and password for the workstation at startup - immediately opens a tunnel through the Linux box to slashdot.org:80, and hands that tunnel to the browser somehow. Does that make sense? And does such a product exist?
If it doesn't, it'd make a nice transparent VPN client. The problem, of course, is that it wouldn't support UDP or ICMP off the bat....
The best thing to do, if you have the option, is to have a box somewhere on the network with inbound ssh access. At work and at home, I've got a laptop and a Linux workstation. I SSH-tunnel everything sensitive (IMAP, AIM, even web pages) through the work station. People can sniff my traffic all they want and without breaking SSH2, they can't do anything with it.
At some point, I'd like to write a tool that would set this all up transparently, but that's in the distant future. (Is there a way to add a tunnel to a running SSH session?)
The trouble is that they were then trying to prevent French consumers from buying in Britain and importing directly into France. Now, the EU is an internal free-trade area, so controlling imports between member states is a big no-no.
Hmmm. I'm confused. How do you "prevent" people from doing that, if there's no law? I'm assuming Nintendo didn't have these guys swimming the English channel forcibly preventing people from carrying consoles across. What exactly were they doing?
Good thing I always get confirmation of the shipping/handling/insurance charges before bidding.
In Philadelphia, where I grew up, public (as in somebody-else-driving, not as in government) transit is tightly controlled by the government.
You'd think a city with widespread poverty would let people with a car and a driver's license and not much else to offer start their own taxi businesses, but each cab is required to have a medallion, which costs tens of thousands of dollars. I thought many times while waiting hours for overcrowded government-run buses that I could buy an old yellow schoolbus, run the same route as the bus I was waiting for but at half the fare, and recoup my costs pretty fast, but it's not that easy. There are any number of government barriers - I'd be using nonunion workers (i.e. myself), and I'd be lacking any number of permits.
Nobody wants to go trick-or-treating with Ellen Feiss. She keeps eating everyone else's candy.
Brilliant.
And I don't know what CmdrTaco is talking about. I'll try not to use spoilers here, but you CAN NOT BEAT GTA3 without doing a certain mission that involves killing a member of one gang you were allied with using another gang's car in order to provoke a war between the two. That's neither peaceful nor ethical.
:)
It does, however, rock.
I don't know of any phone that has AOL Instant Messenger built in that doesn't have other forms of text messaging.
Most providers have a web gateway that lets you send a message to the phone by filling out a form. A perl script could easily manipulate that. Even better, most of them let the phone receive emails sent to phonenumber@whatever.provider.com, and usually the phone can send some kind of reply. A year ago I got sick of hovering by my computer waiting for an important email, and I set up procmail to forward all messages from that person to my cell phone. I really think an AIM gateway is overkill.
I can tell you from experience that neither VoiceStream (GSM) nor Cingular (TDMA and free roaming on every other TDMA network) has given me anything but "No Service" when airborne. I have no idea what this means. Either the people on flights 77 and 93 belonged to networks (PCS? CDMA?) with better high-up coverage than the above-mentioned two, or the planes were flying much lower than normal.
The government has not formed a software company to compete with anyone -- the government simply solves problems and provides services.
That's what every company does. Some companies are funded by customers who choose to pay them for solving problems and providing services. Others are funded by taxes on the former.
But frankly, if a focused private entity can't compete with an organization which incidentally produces a viable solution all in a days work, they shouldn't be in the market in the first place.
But the private entity is PAYING for that organization. They're paying for two products - their own, and the government's. Competing with that is really hard.
The day the competitors provide better/cheaper service is the day the gov't entity goes out of business.
Or it could just be the day the gov't entity demands further handouts. How exactly can the NSA's Linux development "go out of business"? They're not in business in the first place. A government program can't go out of business except by political decree, and eliminating government programs is rarely in a politician's best interests.
The day MS can produce something better than NSA secure linux (hah) is the day that the GPL should cease to matter in gov't funded projects.
You mean the day MS can produce something better than the NSA WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PAYING FOR THE NSA! That's a much taller order!
The fact that any product that the government contributes to could be useful -- competetive, even -- in the same space that a commercial product is shouldn't disqualify it from being used and developed.
That's true, but it should exempt those who stand to be hurt from paying for it.
If I ran a business, and I paid taxes, and I found out that my taxes were going to something that was directly in competition in my product, I'd oppose it too.
Hell, as a buyer of Windows, I oppose it. Some of the cost of MS Windows goes to pay Microsoft's taxes. And some of Microsoft's taxes are going to fund Linux development? So when I buy a copy of Windows, I'm funding Linux. WTF?