It's not about caring, it's about it not being a power delegated to the American government. The federal government is not authorized to exercise powers that aren't delegated to it, period, period, period.
Wow! A Slashdoter that actually understands the Constitution!
So I suppose trying to create peace and pro-Americanism is the wrong thing?
By bombing the hell out of foreign countries? If we've gone into the business of "liberating" countries from brutal dictators, we could have started a little closer to home. Fidel Castro has been pulling the same crap for nearly half a century, 50 miles off of our coast. I haven't seen an invasion plan for Cuba yet.
And as far as creating a spirit of pro-Americanism is concerned, if you haven't noticed, we've managed to piss off most of the planet.
Men, women and children getting slaughtered by the thousands every year, and you don't care?
What do you think we just did in Iraq? We just killed over 7000 people there.
And who said the government isn't concentrating on domestic policy?
Bush ran on a platform that included reforming Social Security, reducing the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government, and a "humbler foreign policy".
Government spending has increased (and that includes discretionary spending, not just non-discretionary spending), I don't see Social Security reform anywhere in sight. For a reduction of intrusiveness of government we get the Patriot Act, and don't get me started on the "humbler foreign policy".
Any conservative with sense ought to be screaming his head off. The last I heard, conservatives stood for limited, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Apparently not.
I don't mean to be rude, but you're believing all of the crap that comes from the media.
So where are you getting your information? Are you privy to sources the rest of us aren't?
Perhaps you need to take a break from the neocon punks at the National Review and spend some time getting familiar with some real conservative philosophers and scholars.
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq).
What you're missing here is that our government isn't charged with running other countries and ensuring their freedom. It's charged with running this country and maintaining our freedoms.
And no, I'm not a Liberal. Actually, I'm probably to the right of Attila the Hun.
...since these days the internet is almost exclusively my source for news. I gave up subscribing to dead-tree newspapers years ago. I'd just wind up grabbing them off of the porch on the way out the door, tossing them in the car on the way to work, and having them accumulate until I got around to throwing them out. Just don't have the time to sit down and read 'em.
The great thing about getting news off the 'net is that you aren't constrained to the news your local publishers feel is relevant. Interestingly, I find that some of the most relevant news about the U.S. is published in foriegn papers, and ignored domesticly.
Ten years ago, my chances of ever seeing an article that originated in the Asia Times were pretty much zero.
And then, of course, you have sites like./, which collect items of interest to a specific audience from all over the world. Things I'd probably never see otherwise.
I can't even imagine having to go back to being limited to what was published on paper. I'm glad publishers have developed a model that will make that unnecessary.
Rather than appointing someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to privacy.
That's a little harsh. After all, DoubleClick hired her to address the complaints that were coming from users. Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act. She isn't the worst possible choice.
When I was at Sun, this is exactly what I tried to feed back. Who in their right mind would want a non-standard/niche flavour of linux when they can get the real thing from RedHat. Aside from support what value would Sun be offering? The last thing Sun needs is to become another ICL.
Exactly! I found this comment to be insightful:
"Enterprises now realize that they are writing to a distribution, not to Linux in general. What works on Red Hat Advanced Server will not work on SuSE Linux," Schwartz said.
If a company is already running their in house applications on SuSE, Sun has already excluded themselves from the market. Why do they want to re-write their applications to run on Sun's distro? It would be easier, and cheaper, just to buy some more Dells.
Sun is already late to the table with a Linux solution. They have to provide a reason to switch from a Dell/HP/IBM configuration to Sun. Which means they have to adapt to the customer environment. Trying to force the customer to go through the expense of adapting a non-standard Sun distro is not a good argument to make for displacing their competition.
Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.
No, I think IBM is going to fight it. Why would they want SCO? True, it would get them off the hook for any Unix licensing issues, but it would also leave them stuck with supporting OpenServer, UnixWare... and a Linux distribution, which is a business they've made it clear they don't want to be in.
I think the closest they'd come to buying SCO is counter-suing them over their IBM's own IP, and possibly forcing them to re-negotiate their SYS V licensing. But most of SCO would be a white elephant to IBM.
Presumably then, he also anticipated getting Congress to rescind the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to a maximum of two terms in office. (Hint: Kennedy was elected President in 1960. You do the math.)
Kennedy was elected in 1960, but he took office in January, 1961. If he had been re-elected in 1964, as he had every reason to believe he would be, he would have served until January, 1969.
The original target for a moon landing was for the fall of 1968 (in fact, Congress re-iterated this in February, 1967). Kennedy had hoped for a moon landing as the crowning achievement of his presidency.
Kennedy pretty much stated that they'd go to the moon, _knowing_ that he wouldn't be president by the time they got there
Not true! Kennedy anticipated getting to the moon by 1968, when he had a reasonable expectation of being re-elected. If it weren't for the Apollo I tragedy, more than likely we would have succeded.
In fact, the reason Kennedy chose a lunar orbital approach rather than an earth orbital approach was not because the lunar orbital approach was superior (it wasn't), but because it could be accomplished faster.
If I had any mod points, this would get moded up as "Insightful". Really, this is irrelevant. I admin Solaris, HP-UX and AIX systems, and I'd have to say that Linux isn't significantly any differnt from them than they are from each other. Arguably, Unix as a single, discrete OS expired decades ago. There's never been a time when you run out and buy a "Unix" application, throw it on J. Random Unix System and have it run. Other than in a legal sense, that is, copyrights on the name and some specific software, the term Unix hasn't had any real meaning in years. It's become a generic term, like Kleenex or Xerox.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
Did Congress have to force money on NASA? It must be the last sign. I'm going to the bomb shelter.
No, they aren't getting any additional money, their budget is already decided. This only determines how the money is allocated. They probably had other ideas about how to spend it. That's what the fighting is over.
Well, Cringely is entitled to his opinion, but I doubt Sun will be going anywhere for quite some time. I can see them getting replaced with x86 on the low end, but somehow I don't think x86 boxes will be replacing machines like the E10K or the E15K any time soon. But I can see where Sun will end up a smaller, humbler company as a result.
Truthfully, I don't think this will do much for AMD one or the other. Sun is just marketing these things to prevent current customers from looking elsewhere. You can be pretty sure the main emphasis will still be on Sparc.
But, isn't one of those situations he mentions in the interview (namely, running a large database server) what this chip is designed to be doing?
Sure, but it doesn't really do it significantly better than some of the more common RISC architectures (Sparc, Power, Alpha), and it's a lot more expensive.
As I recall, the IA64 isn't designed for the desktop user... In fact, desktop users probably don't even need 64 processing for a number of years still....
Probably not, but a lot more desktops get sold than high-end servers. If AMD manages to get a toe-hold on the desktop with their 64-bit solution, the chances are a lot better x86-64 will migrate up the food chain than ia64 will migrate down.
Perhaps we need to be more fair in the context of the usefulness of the chip, instead of considering it in all contexts and criticizing it based on that?
Well, that's the point. How useful is it really? What compelling reasons are there for using it in place of a x86-64 on the low end, or something like Power or Sparc on the high-end? All things considered, it really isn't a bad chip. But it is a solution in search of a problem.
Beware of the phrase "for the good of society". Usually someone is getting screwed by the govt. when they use this phrase.
Amen Brother!
Amiga Trombone's First Law of Social Benefit: The amount of noise an individual makes about "the Good of Society" will be inverse to the value that individual contributes to society themselves.
Actually, as an educator, my work provides a living for quite a number of people, infact it enables them to get jobs that pay substantially more than minimum wage, and that's about as beneficial as you can get.
Actually, as someone who dropped out of high-school and does earn over 100k a year, I'd consider educators to be superfluous to enabling people to get jobs. As far as I can tell, the only people who are getting jobs out of education are the people who sell education.
Now I'm sure that people could try and argue that without overpaid entertainers, western business would collapse and there would be no jobs anywhere, but we all know that's not the case.
Ditto for educators, I'm sure. But you're putting words in my mouth. I never tried to make the case that the economy would collapse without highly paid entertainers. I was responding to your whine about entertainers being more highly paid than you are.
But the point here is, why should performers think they're entitled to make hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a year? Because of their "ART"? Give me a break.
Objectively, they don't get paid for their art. Believe me, you can sing all day long and not get paid for it. Brittney Spears actually gets paid for helping record companies make money for selling little plastic discs with music on them and for helping theaters fill their seats with paying customers. In other words, she gets paid because she creates value. Effectively, she's being paid as a sales rep for record companies and venue owners. Whether or not her singing is "art" or not is irrelevant. She still sell lots of product for her employers. "Entitlement" has nothing to do with it.
Sure there's lots of jobs created from their work, but a lot of jobs result from MY work.
I know. Teacher's jobs, principal's jobs, administrator's jobs, politician's jobs, etc. My tax bill tells the tale.
Sure I'd like to get paid more, but I'm under no illusions that my work is worth millions a year, why should they think that their work is? Probably just based on history.
Has nothing to do with history. When you're generating as much revenue for your employers as Brittney generates for hers, come back and tell me about it.
And that's the problem with the music industry - they want to hold on to the past - themselves as the only distribution outlet, and of course, the performers want to hold onto their multi-million dollar contracts.
Of course they do. You would, too. But as more efficient and lower cost distribution channels are created, the older ones will be obsoleted. Which is exactly the way markets are supposed to work.
Times are changing, and in the end, performers and record labels may not (as pointed out in the article about China) be able to count on historical revenues and lifestyles when planning their careers these days.
Actually, it isn't historical. The 20th century was an aberation in that regard. Before performers had the technological means to mass produce and distribute their work, they only got paid per performance. Now that they're losing their single point of control over the distribution, I expect they'll have to go back to that model. But if you're popular enough to fill the seats of a large venue, your still going to be able to make plenty of money.
I'm not a musician, yet the work I do is just as (or arguably MORE) beneficial to society than a "new top 40 song", yet I have to work a day-job and put in 9-5 hours and make under $100k/year.
I swear, Slashdoters must be constitutionaly incapable of understanding economics.
When you a pay a kid to mow your lawn, do you pay him based on his benefit to "society" or do you pay him based on his benefit to you?
Also, consider that popular entertainers don't just earn an income for themselves, they help earn a living for the thousands of people who work at the record companies, the music publishers, the radio DJ's, the operators of the theaters and clubs where they perform, and all sorts of industries associated tangentially.
How many people does your work provide a living for?
There are a whole load of angry and dis-satisfied former HP, Compaq and DEC customers who are being forced to change simply for change's sake, because it suits intel's plans for world domination, and not for solid technical reasons.
As a current HP-UX admin, I can certainly tell you there's plenty of truth in that! And it isn't just the platform change - since the HP-Compaq merger, service and support has gone straight to hell. We just did a complete refresh of our HP servers. Talk about a nightmare! I don't have time to document all of the details, but suffice it to say that our procurement department has already given the word that any new HP procurements are verbotten. The next hardware refresh, our applications that are running on HP-UX get migrated to Sun or IBM. If they can't support their customers in a satisfactory manner on their current platform, the chances of bringing them along to a new platform are just about nill.
We're talking about a state that has banned smoking in bars, fer crissake! Is anyone really surprised they're anal-retentive enough to ban a scooter? By the year 2010, everything will be illegal in California.
I'm not sure I'd call girls lack of interest in IT the problem. I'd say the problem is our absurd obsession with "equallity". It's all well and good that everybody has the same opportunities, but trying to force certain groups into occupations/situations that they're just not interested in just to produce a balanced outcome is silly. How about just trusting indivduals to know what they want for themselves?
The US Constitution does not grant any rights to companies. It (should) only grant rights to people, not companies.
The US Constitution does not grant any rights at all. It prohibits government from infringing on rights that are deemed to be self-evident (i.e. "natural rights"). Note, every one of the rights "granted" in the Constitution is expressed as a negative (Congress shall not...).
That said, my companies new Z900 (1.2 million dollar machine), comes with a OS/2 box to manage it.
Yes, we have several IBM tape libraries for use with ADSM (or now, TSM) that have OS/2 boxes to manage them. Old technologies never die at IBM, they just get re-incarnated! I wouldn't be surprised if OS/2, or at least some peices of it, resurfaced under a new name and a new paint job eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about caring, it's about it not being a power delegated to the American government. The federal government is not authorized to exercise powers that aren't delegated to it, period, period, period.
Wow! A Slashdoter that actually understands the Constitution!
Sir (or Madam), you've just made a friend!
Only ancient servers use os/2 to run legacy apps.
Not entirely true - I know of several large banks and financial institutions that are still running it on the desktop for custom applications.
They love the stuff. Can't talk 'em into migrating for anything.
So I suppose trying to create peace and pro-Americanism is the wrong thing?
By bombing the hell out of foreign countries? If we've gone into the business of "liberating" countries from brutal dictators, we could have started a little closer to home. Fidel Castro has been pulling the same crap for nearly half a century, 50 miles off of our coast. I haven't seen an invasion plan for Cuba yet.
And as far as creating a spirit of pro-Americanism is concerned, if you haven't noticed, we've managed to piss off most of the planet.
Men, women and children getting slaughtered by the thousands every year, and you don't care?
What do you think we just did in Iraq? We just killed over 7000 people there.
And who said the government isn't concentrating on domestic policy?
Bush ran on a platform that included reforming Social Security, reducing the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government, and a "humbler foreign policy".
Government spending has increased (and that includes discretionary spending, not just non-discretionary spending), I don't see Social Security reform anywhere in sight. For a reduction of intrusiveness of government we get the Patriot Act, and don't get me started on the "humbler foreign policy".
Any conservative with sense ought to be screaming his head off. The last I heard, conservatives stood for limited, constitutional government and a non-interventionist foreign policy.
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
Apparently not.
I don't mean to be rude, but you're believing all of the crap that comes from the media.
So where are you getting your information? Are you privy to sources the rest of us aren't?
Perhaps you need to take a break from the neocon punks at the National Review and spend some time getting familiar with some real conservative philosophers and scholars.
It's interesting that the same people who question our government and its laws are the same people who don't care about freedoms in OTHER countries (Iraq).
What you're missing here is that our government isn't charged with running other countries and ensuring their freedom. It's charged with running this country and maintaining our freedoms.
And no, I'm not a Liberal. Actually, I'm probably to the right of Attila the Hun.
...since these days the internet is almost exclusively my source for news. I gave up subscribing to dead-tree newspapers years ago. I'd just wind up grabbing them off of the porch on the way out the door, tossing them in the car on the way to work, and having them accumulate until I got around to throwing them out. Just don't have the time to sit down and read 'em.
./, which collect items of interest to a specific audience from all over the world. Things I'd probably never see otherwise.
The great thing about getting news off the 'net is that you aren't constrained to the news your local publishers feel is relevant. Interestingly, I find that some of the most relevant news about the U.S. is published in foriegn papers, and ignored domesticly.
Ten years ago, my chances of ever seeing an article that originated in the Asia Times were pretty much zero.
And then, of course, you have sites like
I can't even imagine having to go back to being limited to what was published on paper. I'm glad publishers have developed a model that will make that unnecessary.
Rather than appointing someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to privacy.
That's a little harsh. After all, DoubleClick hired her to address the complaints that were coming from users. Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act. She isn't the worst possible choice.
No mention of which titles will be affected, but Arista is the home of Santana, Whitney Houston, Pink, TLC and Kenny G.
Therefore I will not buy ANY of those titles.
Since I cannot back them up.
If you're buying titles like these, I hope you're not backing them up now!
Exactly! I found this comment to be insightful: If a company is already running their in house applications on SuSE, Sun has already excluded themselves from the market. Why do they want to re-write their applications to run on Sun's distro? It would be easier, and cheaper, just to buy some more Dells.
Sun is already late to the table with a Linux solution. They have to provide a reason to switch from a Dell/HP/IBM configuration to Sun. Which means they have to adapt to the customer environment. Trying to force the customer to go through the expense of adapting a non-standard Sun distro is not a good argument to make for displacing their competition.
Well, in recent history, about 87 I.Q. points
Horsefeathers! That "study" is a hoax. See Snopes.
For a more honest accounting of presidential IQ's, see this article.
Just as an indicator of how accurate that "study" is, note that the recorded IQ of Kennedy was 119, and Nixon's was 143.
Fearless prediction: SCO's lawsuit isn't going to get a chance to happen. IBM buys SCO. End of lawsuit, end of story. I think this is the outcome the tattered remnants of SCO wanted in the first place.
No, I think IBM is going to fight it. Why would they want SCO? True, it would get them off the hook for any Unix licensing issues, but it would also leave them stuck with supporting OpenServer, UnixWare... and a Linux distribution, which is a business they've made it clear they don't want to be in.
I think the closest they'd come to buying SCO is counter-suing them over their IBM's own IP, and possibly forcing them to re-negotiate their SYS V licensing. But most of SCO would be a white elephant to IBM.
Presumably then, he also anticipated getting Congress to rescind the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to a maximum of two terms in office. (Hint: Kennedy was elected President in 1960. You do the math.)
Kennedy was elected in 1960, but he took office in January, 1961. If he had been re-elected in 1964, as he had every reason to believe he would be, he would have served until January, 1969.
The original target for a moon landing was for the fall of 1968 (in fact, Congress re-iterated this in February, 1967). Kennedy had hoped for a moon landing as the crowning achievement of his presidency.
Kennedy pretty much stated that they'd go to the moon, _knowing_ that he wouldn't be president by the time they got there
Not true! Kennedy anticipated getting to the moon by 1968, when he had a reasonable expectation of being re-elected. If it weren't for the Apollo I tragedy, more than likely we would have succeded.
In fact, the reason Kennedy chose a lunar orbital approach rather than an earth orbital approach was not because the lunar orbital approach was superior (it wasn't), but because it could be accomplished faster.
Anyways, so what?
If I had any mod points, this would get moded up as "Insightful". Really, this is irrelevant. I admin Solaris, HP-UX and AIX systems, and I'd have to say that Linux isn't significantly any differnt from them than they are from each other. Arguably, Unix as a single, discrete OS expired decades ago. There's never been a time when you run out and buy a "Unix" application, throw it on J. Random Unix System and have it run. Other than in a legal sense, that is, copyrights on the name and some specific software, the term Unix hasn't had any real meaning in years. It's become a generic term, like Kleenex or Xerox.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...
Did Congress have to force money on NASA? It must be the last sign. I'm going to the bomb shelter.
No, they aren't getting any additional money, their budget is already decided. This only determines how the money is allocated. They probably had other ideas about how to spend it. That's what the fighting is over.
Well, Cringely is entitled to his opinion, but I doubt Sun will be going anywhere for quite some time. I can see them getting replaced with x86 on the low end, but somehow I don't think x86 boxes will be replacing machines like the E10K or the E15K any time soon. But I can see where Sun will end up a smaller, humbler company as a result.
Truthfully, I don't think this will do much for AMD one or the other. Sun is just marketing these things to prevent current customers from looking elsewhere. You can be pretty sure the main emphasis will still be on Sparc.
But, isn't one of those situations he mentions in the interview (namely, running a large database server) what this chip is designed to be doing?
Sure, but it doesn't really do it significantly better than some of the more common RISC architectures (Sparc, Power, Alpha), and it's a lot more expensive.
As I recall, the IA64 isn't designed for the desktop user... In fact, desktop users probably don't even need 64 processing for a number of years still....
Probably not, but a lot more desktops get sold than high-end servers. If AMD manages to get a toe-hold on the desktop with their 64-bit solution, the chances are a lot better x86-64 will migrate up the food chain than ia64 will migrate down.
Perhaps we need to be more fair in the context of the usefulness of the chip, instead of considering it in all contexts and criticizing it based on that?
Well, that's the point. How useful is it really? What compelling reasons are there for using it in place of a x86-64 on the low end, or something like Power or Sparc on the high-end? All things considered, it really isn't a bad chip. But it is a solution in search of a problem.
Beware of the phrase "for the good of society". Usually someone is getting screwed by the govt. when they use this phrase.
Amen Brother!
Amiga Trombone's First Law of Social Benefit:
The amount of noise an individual makes about "the Good of Society" will be inverse to the value that individual contributes to society themselves.
Actually, as an educator, my work provides a living for quite a number of people, infact it enables them to get jobs that pay substantially more than minimum wage, and that's about as beneficial as you can get.
Actually, as someone who dropped out of high-school and does earn over 100k a year, I'd consider educators to be superfluous to enabling people to get jobs. As far as I can tell, the only people who are getting jobs out of education are the people who sell education.
Now I'm sure that people could try and argue that without overpaid entertainers, western business would collapse and there would be no jobs anywhere, but we all know that's not the case.
Ditto for educators, I'm sure. But you're putting words in my mouth. I never tried to make the case that the economy would collapse without highly paid entertainers. I was responding to your whine about entertainers being more highly paid than you are.
But the point here is, why should performers think they're entitled to make hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars a year? Because of their "ART"? Give me a break.
Objectively, they don't get paid for their art. Believe me, you can sing all day long and not get paid for it. Brittney Spears actually gets paid for helping record companies make money for selling little plastic discs with music on them and for helping theaters fill their seats with paying customers. In other words, she gets paid because she creates value. Effectively, she's being paid as a sales rep for record companies and venue owners. Whether or not her singing is "art" or not is irrelevant. She still sell lots of product for her employers. "Entitlement" has nothing to do with it.
Sure there's lots of jobs created from their work, but a lot of jobs result from MY work.
I know. Teacher's jobs, principal's jobs, administrator's jobs, politician's jobs, etc. My tax bill tells the tale.
Sure I'd like to get paid more, but I'm under no illusions that my work is worth millions a year, why should they think that their work is? Probably just based on history.
Has nothing to do with history. When you're generating as much revenue for your employers as Brittney generates for hers, come back and tell me about it.
And that's the problem with the music industry - they want to hold on to the past - themselves as the only distribution outlet, and of course, the performers want to hold onto their multi-million dollar contracts.
Of course they do. You would, too. But as more efficient and lower cost distribution channels are created, the older ones will be obsoleted. Which is exactly the way markets are supposed to work.
Times are changing, and in the end, performers and record labels may not (as pointed out in the article about China) be able to count on historical revenues and lifestyles when planning their careers these days.
Actually, it isn't historical. The 20th century was an aberation in that regard. Before performers had the technological means to mass produce and distribute their work, they only got paid per performance. Now that they're losing their single point of control over the distribution, I expect they'll have to go back to that model. But if you're popular enough to fill the seats of a large venue, your still going to be able to make plenty of money.
I'm not a musician, yet the work I do is just as (or arguably MORE) beneficial to society than a "new top 40 song", yet I have to work a day-job and put in 9-5 hours and make under $100k/year.
I swear, Slashdoters must be constitutionaly incapable of understanding economics.
When you a pay a kid to mow your lawn, do you pay him based on his benefit to "society" or do you pay him based on his benefit to you?
Also, consider that popular entertainers don't just earn an income for themselves, they help earn a living for the thousands of people who work at the record companies, the music publishers, the radio DJ's, the operators of the theaters and clubs where they perform, and all sorts of industries associated tangentially.
How many people does your work provide a living for?
There are a whole load of angry and dis-satisfied former HP, Compaq and DEC customers who are being forced to change simply for change's sake, because it suits intel's plans for world domination, and not for solid technical reasons.
As a current HP-UX admin, I can certainly tell you there's plenty of truth in that! And it isn't just the platform change - since the HP-Compaq merger, service and support has gone straight to hell. We just did a complete refresh of our HP servers. Talk about a nightmare! I don't have time to document all of the details, but suffice it to say that our procurement department has already given the word that any new HP procurements are verbotten. The next hardware refresh, our applications that are running on HP-UX get migrated to Sun or IBM. If they can't support their customers in a satisfactory manner on their current platform, the chances of bringing them along to a new platform are just about nill.
We're talking about a state that has banned smoking in bars, fer crissake! Is anyone really surprised they're anal-retentive enough to ban a scooter? By the year 2010, everything will be illegal in California.
I'm not sure I'd call girls lack of interest in IT the problem. I'd say the problem is our absurd obsession with "equallity". It's all well and good that everybody has the same opportunities, but trying to force certain groups into occupations/situations that they're just not interested in just to produce a balanced outcome is silly. How about just trusting indivduals to know what they want for themselves?
The US Constitution does not grant any rights to companies. It (should) only grant rights to people, not companies.
The US Constitution does not grant any rights at all. It prohibits government from infringing on rights that are deemed to be self-evident (i.e. "natural rights"). Note, every one of the rights "granted" in the Constitution is expressed as a negative (Congress shall not...).
That said, my companies new Z900 (1.2 million dollar machine), comes with a OS/2 box to manage it.
Yes, we have several IBM tape libraries for use with ADSM (or now, TSM) that have OS/2 boxes to manage them. Old technologies never die at IBM, they just get re-incarnated! I wouldn't be surprised if OS/2, or at least some peices of it, resurfaced under a new name and a new paint job eventually.
"Through the most advanced technology in the world today,we can pinpoint the precise location that Lewis and Clark got down with Sacajaweya"
So, does this mean that now the satellite will get to have it's picture engraved on a faux-gold coin?