Morons, the LAW says you have the freedom to assemble IF you get the proper permits.
Personal attacks aside, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about "permits;" all it says is "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." 'Course, it doesn't say anything about "Free Speech Zones," either, but schools (and municipalities) don't seem to have picked up on that disctionction any more than they've noticed that permits aren't required.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court tends to agree with me on this one. Public property (state universities, for example) cannot compel demonstrators to get a permit. The Court has held that it isn't "free" if you have to ask first. Imagine that--if you have to ask permission, it isn't really freedom. Almost makes a certain amount of sense, when you think about it.
If you can cite caselaw or Constitutional amendments to the contrary, Mr. Coward, I would love to hear it. Preferably without the ad hominem attack.
A license is simply a document saying that this software is legally yours...
Almost. A license is merely permission to use something; a license document is proof that a license was granted. Admittedly, you'd be foolish to accept a license without documentation (the BSA would rake you over the coals if you did), but a license is just permission.
By way of example, the FCC used to require posession of one's license document when operating an amateur transceiver; they changed that policy several years ago, explaining that they "grant" licenses, but they "issue" pieces of paper. That piece of paper is merely documentation of permission. Important difference--if you were given a license to use MS software verbally, you have a license, but no proof of such a grant. If the conversation was recorded, though, then you'd be able to prove that the license was granted, and the tape would supplant a paper document as proof, should it become necessary to prove anything. Same with e-mail, a videotaped handshake, whatever.
Obviously microsoft has the right to allow you to use the software, with or without a license.
Actually, no. It's a semantic difference, really, but an important one: if MS allows you to use the software, that is a license. It may be provided free of charge (gratis), but it is still a license. It's important because of the way copyright law is structured: you may not exceed your (quite limited) rights under copyright law without license from the copyright holder. He is not required to provide that license, but if he chooses to do so, it is handled like any other contract, including terms of sale. In any case, his permission, whether verbal or written, gratis or soul-stealing, constitutes a license.
If that came from an authorized rep at MS, acting in his official capacity (i.e. e-mailed at work, instead of at his home address), a strong case could be made that it is, in fact, permission from the company. The important part here is "official capacity;" if you have reason to believe (that part is important) that the person you ask is, in fact, authorized to make such a deal (and if a representative of the company is handing out software at an officially-sanctioned conference, it's probably reasonable to believe it), then you can make a strong case in court that you were, in fact, entitled to use the software. It's possible that the court may find that you didn't have the right to use it, and require that you buy a license, but a conviction generally requires intent; if you can convince the judge/jury that you had good reason to believe that you were legit (the so-called "reasonable person" test), then you'll likely be acquitted.
If, however, you e-mailed Joe Blow at home, and got the flippant and obviously-unreasonable response you just provided, well, you're going to swing.
US soldier? Nope, try British. A US serviceman would be carrying an M-16 (the shape of the rifle was the first thing that tipped me off); the color pattern on his BDUs is wrong as well. Furthermore, if there was any doubt, the story specifically mentions that the photo was of a British soldier.
I think it raises an interesting question. What would happen if the source were to be closed? The simple answer would be to fork the code at the last open version, but how well would that work? Presumably the maintainers of the closed code (as the ownwers) would maintain ownership of the name; they would also have the reputation. What would be the ramifications for the open fork, and what would the legal implications be? How would it affect perception of OSS in general? It's an important question to consider, I think.
JAG viewers (you know, the show about the Navy lawyers, with David James Elliot and Catherine Bell) will be well familiar with the real reason for this. A very similar subject was treated in an episode last March (I caught it in December). There's a plot synopsis here (the episode was titled "First Casualty"), and the title is a link to the full script. If you go to the script, search for the word "Rivet" (as in "Rivet Joint") to get to the start of the really relevant part. It's all dialogue, so it's a quick read.
For those who don't want to read, the short story is that Dunston (the reporter) used a sat phone against orders, and that his team was attacked shortly thereafter. The Navy charged Dunston with violating his orders not to use the phone, and, in the course of the trial, found out how the mission had been compromised: while talking to his producer, his sat phone had reported his GPS coordinates. Turns out his producer was working for the enemy. It wasn't the radiation that was detected--the information was conveyed by people in the news media who were opposed to the war (like that ever happens). The Law of Unintended Consequences rears it's ugly head.
This is the reason the military has banned GPS phones: you don't know who's going to get the info. It's the same way you write firewall rules, really: you ban everybody, then allow those you want. Doing it the other way (allowing all, then denying specifics) leads to all kinds of unexpected vulnerabilities. Indeed, it seems to me I've heard complaints about MS along just those lines: their security model is allow-by-default, *nix is deny-by-default. If deny-by-default makes sense in software, doesn't it make even more sense when people's lives are on the line?
BTW, to those of you who are going to complain "it's a TV show," yes, it is. That doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely. Also, for those who are going to complain about the same thing, I've talked to my dad, who is a real-life JAG for the Air Force (works at Materiel Command at Wright-Patt), and he said that the law on that show is usually pretty accurate and well-researched.
And for years, US politicians have made fun of Europeans because their labor costs were "too high".
And how, exactly, is this terribly ironic? The jobs aren't going to Europe; they're going to India, Taiwan, China, and other places that lack the benefits (costs) of the US, and particularly Europe.
If anything, this is proof that the politicians were right: our high labor costs are driving labor demand to other places. Whether the benefits (better standard of living) are worth the costs (more and more outsourcing) is another question entirely; regardless of your decision on that, though, it would appear that the politicians were right.
(God, I never thought I'd say that with a straight face....)
I have driven for 15 years, and had three jobs that required driving 8 hours a day. I have _never_ run a red light to "avoid" someone behind me coming up fast. Have you?
No, I haven't been in that situation, but I do run red lights. About three times a week; corner of Goddard Ave and Flood St, in Norman, OK. I ride a motorcycle. Anybody who rides is well familiar with the fact that lights with sensors frequently don't trigger on motorcycles; if my bike doesn't trip the sensor, I don't get a green light. I have two options. 1) Wait an indefinite period of time for a car to show up and trip the sensor (maybe all night, if I'm going home late), or 2) run the damned light. Guess which I choose? I've asked several cops, and they all say I'm making the right choice. If I ever get pulled over, I'll explain it to the officer, and every cop I've talked to has told me that he'd forego the ticket in that situation. Tell me how to get a machine to understand that. No, I don't want to go to court--I have better things to do than take a day off work to fight a ticket that could have been avoided by a little human contact.
Somebody else mentioned pulling through an intersection to make space for an ambulance to pass; I, too, have been in that situation. Not three days a week, mind you, but it's happened. Should I have been ticketed? The cop (it was a cop, not an ambulance) apparently didn't think so, as he didn't ticket me. Another example of human judgement. You never know when that will come in handy.
On top of that, those cameras are notoriously inaccurate; I remember reading one case of a lady who received a ticket from a camera system. She wrote back to the police department:
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I did not run that red light. I further swear, under penalty of perjury, that your system cannot tell the difference between that SUV and the sporty coupe I drive. Is this enough to correct your error, or do I need to swear at you some more?
Rather damning, really--the cameras can't even tell the difference between an SUV and a sport coupe.
Short answer: no, the cameras are not a good idea. The idea that computers don't make mistakes--even when they do, and grossly--will make a mockery of justice.
but Rebublicans stooped to a low second only to the Watergate scandal when they arranged to have Clinton questioned under oath about his sexual conduct
Pardon my ignorance, Mr. Coward, but I seem to recall that it was somebody other than the Republicans who "arranged" to have President Clinton questioned. Matter of fact, if memory serves, the arrangements were made by a prosecutor (this was long before Ken Starr), following charges by Juanita Broderick that Clinton had raped her. Yes, that's right, the whole mess came out of a criminal accusation of wrongdoing by one of his victims. The only reason that charge wasn't pursued in greater depth was the five-year statute of limitations.
Oh, and methinks you might have gotten confused in all the distraction--it was Clinton who used Saddam as a distraction during the trials; he was trying to divert attention away from his own misconduct. Hell, even Dave Barry figured that one out.
More importantly, sir, how did you manage to survive in the military without understanding this basic concept of honor? Clearly, you couldn't have gone through the service acadamies; if you did, you might recognize this phrase:
"We will not
lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate among us anybody who does. [Emphasis mine]
That would be the USAF Academy's Honor Code. The other acadamies have something similar. Even without that code, though, you should have grasped the concept that lying, among other things, is a great way to get booted. President Clinton lied under oath (sometimes referred to as "perjury"), and obstructed justice, in an attempt to cover his lies. That's why he was impeached.
Just out of curiosity, do you also think Kelly Flynn was booted because she committed adultery?
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Many people consider a court overturning an election and appointing a leader undemocratic.
My guess is that you're complaining about the US Supreme Court "appointing" Bush.
You're wrong.
The election board in Florida found Bush to be the winner by the slimmest of margins. Regardless of what you think happened in the election, that's what the board said. Gore didn't like it, so he took it to the Florida Supreme Court. They said to count again--they overturned the election result. Bush filed in the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court agreed with Bush that the election result, as determined by the Florida Elections Board, should stand--that is, the US Supreme Court refused to overturn the election. And regardless of any court's determination, he would not have been "appointed;" that word has specific meaning, and the court didn't do it. Appointment implies an open field for selection; the court made a determination about the validity of an election, and their determination may have affected the results certified by the Board (though recent studies and recounts indicate that Bush would have won under any recount with objective standards), but that is not the same as an appointment.
And seeing as how America is a democracy...
Really? I thought we were a Republic. Do me a favor, please, and point out to me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution/Amendments, or the like, the word "democracy" (or derivative). I'd love to see it, because in my reading (of every word, I might add), I never came across it.
All the previous aside, though, regardless of what you think of the process, George W. Bush is the President. He holds the office, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the military takes orders from him, he signs the bills, and, most importantly, he took the oath of office. Like it or not, he is the President.
Sort of. Some Russian fighters (I don't recall which model, but one is a MiG--I read about it in MiG Pilot, the biography of Viktor Belenko, a Russian fighter pilot and defector) use alcohol as a coolant for the engine. The proof is 200--pure alcohol. In his book, Belenko relates stories of aircrews burning the jet fuel and pencil-whipping the training flights in order to drink the alcohol (because it was much better than the stuff available for consumption). Hardcore stuff--certainly stiffer than I've ever consumed.
By the way, I highly recommend reading MiG Pilot; absolutely fabulous book, both as a pilot story, and as a look into life in Soviet Russia.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
How about dropping something in the sample; say, a gram of cocaine? Definite failure, with the advantage of being well in excess of LD50--make it show up as "so high, he died a long time ago." Has the added advantage of shaking faith in the drug testing system, if somebody can come out with an impossible combination. On the second test, substitute an entirely different drug. Really mess with 'em.
Re:Why not the FSF/Emacs/GCC/GDB month?
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 1
Not much of a brief, to be sure. For an outstanding bit of law (on a totally unrelated matter, to be sure), I recommend Judge Samuel B. Kent. Yes, folks, this is his actual opinion. Well worth a read. Why can't all lawyers write like this?
This isn't exactly news; I gave a briefing on this subject, oh, three or so years ago. The highlights:
The airframe is a Boeing 747-400F, a standard commercial freighter, with modifications to house the laser.
Testing is slated to begin as early as 2003, with a seven-plane operational fleet in service as early as 2009.
The laser is to be a multi-megawatt oxygen-iodine system. A multi-hundred-kilowatt system was successfully flight-tested in 1998.
The system uses "adaptive optics," mirrors which can be deformed to correct for atmospheric effects such as "thermal bloom," the heating of air by the laser, causing distortion (like looking down a hot road).
The project is run by the Air Force Research Labs Directed Energy Directorate, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, and has been around in some form or other for at least 20 years.
Contractors include Boeing, TRW Space and Electronics Group (developing laser), and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (developing beam- and fire-control systems).
Boeing and Rockwell competed for a $22 million concept-definition contract, with Boeing winning that contract, and the $1.3 billion Airborne Laser Program Definition and Risk Reduction contract.
The program call(ed) for destruction of a boosting theater ballistic missile by the fall of 2002. (I haven't heard whether that happened.)
A follow-on contract of about $4.5 billion to complete engineering, manufacturing, development and production efforts of a seven aircraft fleet will be awarded following successful completion of the initial contract.
There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil, as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.ht ml. Incidentally, the best description I've ever found of the optical technology can be found in Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin.
An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.
And just how do they prove themselves to you again if you won't deal with them?
Simple. I ask around. When I stop hearing horror stories from other owners (Did I mention I'm a sysadmin at a major university? Even their corporate support has been spotty for us.), I'll reconsider. As long as I hear people (sysadmins, people I know and respect) saying "steer clear," I'll avoid them.
This is a neat laptop, and I'm sure it would make a great desktop replacement, or even a good gaming laptop. That said, though, I can't bring myself to buy another Dell machine until they re-earn my trust.
The short version of the story is that I bought a laptop from them and tried to get it fixed under warranty. They failed to fix all of the problems when I sent it back, and failed to note the problems as unfixed. When I got it back, outside of warranty, with the problems unfixed, I called Dell, and Dell refused to fix them, saying that it was out of warranty. They did, however, fix the problems they caused while it was being repaired. When I got it back from the second repair, there was an additional problem, a cracked access panel. It took a good half-hour of arguing to get them to replace the panel. I did finally get them to fix the original problem, but it took a sternly-worded letter to senior management to make it happen. That letter details several of the problems I've had with Dell over the years; it also contains the full version of this story.
Short answer is that I have lost my faith in Dell, and until they prove themselves to me again, I won't buy their products, and I advise other people to do the same, no matter now nifty-cool they may be.
My wife and I both predict that within 10 years (most likely less) it will be required to carry "papers" while you travel, even in your car....
Hrmm. I wonder what they'll make you carry. Probably some sort of identification and license, a registration of some sort (to "prove" you own the car--nothing like making you prove your innocence), documentation of compliance with other laws (insurance cards, perhaps), and a few others. Maybe we can have the police ask where you're going when they pull you over, and react negatively to you telling them, even politely, that it isn't their business.
Ten years, my arse.
Seriously, though, does it bother anybody that we have to carry all these papers, and produce them on demand, just to run our normal, daily lives. I know somebody's going to jump on me and say I don't need a car, that I can ride my bike, or the bus, or something, but unless you live in a large city (I don't), no, you really can't. Furthermore, modern Constitutional jurisprudence has determined that citizens have the right to travel freely between the states. With aviation and train requiring security screening and government permission, and roadway requiring licenses and government permission, how are we permitted to exercise that right? Walking, bicycling, horse-drawn carriage, etc? All are illegal along Interstate highways. Can't trespass on others' private property, either. As a practical matter, you can't exercise your freedom to travel without government permission; that being the case, is it really a freedom?
The short answer is the government has already gone way too far, and that We the People have let them. We complain about what they do, but turn around and re-elect the same people. Talk is cheap; try putting somebody new in office. If you don't like the choices, run for office yourself. I intend to, at my earliest opportunity. Not because I want to be a politician--God forbid!--but because I'm sick and tired of seeing our rights (that's yours and mine) trampled by a government that doesn't respect us.
Slashdot Mirror
Morons, the LAW says you have the freedom to assemble IF you get the proper permits.
Personal attacks aside, my copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about "permits;" all it says is "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble...." 'Course, it doesn't say anything about "Free Speech Zones," either, but schools (and municipalities) don't seem to have picked up on that disctionction any more than they've noticed that permits aren't required.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court tends to agree with me on this one. Public property (state universities, for example) cannot compel demonstrators to get a permit. The Court has held that it isn't "free" if you have to ask first. Imagine that--if you have to ask permission, it isn't really freedom. Almost makes a certain amount of sense, when you think about it.
If you can cite caselaw or Constitutional amendments to the contrary, Mr. Coward, I would love to hear it. Preferably without the ad hominem attack.
A license is simply a document saying that this software is legally yours...
Almost. A license is merely permission to use something; a license document is proof that a license was granted. Admittedly, you'd be foolish to accept a license without documentation (the BSA would rake you over the coals if you did), but a license is just permission.
By way of example, the FCC used to require posession of one's license document when operating an amateur transceiver; they changed that policy several years ago, explaining that they "grant" licenses, but they "issue" pieces of paper. That piece of paper is merely documentation of permission. Important difference--if you were given a license to use MS software verbally, you have a license, but no proof of such a grant. If the conversation was recorded, though, then you'd be able to prove that the license was granted, and the tape would supplant a paper document as proof, should it become necessary to prove anything. Same with e-mail, a videotaped handshake, whatever.
Obviously microsoft has the right to allow you to use the software, with or without a license.
Actually, no. It's a semantic difference, really, but an important one: if MS allows you to use the software, that is a license. It may be provided free of charge (gratis), but it is still a license. It's important because of the way copyright law is structured: you may not exceed your (quite limited) rights under copyright law without license from the copyright holder. He is not required to provide that license, but if he chooses to do so, it is handled like any other contract, including terms of sale. In any case, his permission, whether verbal or written, gratis or soul-stealing, constitutes a license.
Actually...
If that came from an authorized rep at MS, acting in his official capacity (i.e. e-mailed at work, instead of at his home address), a strong case could be made that it is, in fact, permission from the company. The important part here is "official capacity;" if you have reason to believe (that part is important) that the person you ask is, in fact, authorized to make such a deal (and if a representative of the company is handing out software at an officially-sanctioned conference, it's probably reasonable to believe it), then you can make a strong case in court that you were, in fact, entitled to use the software. It's possible that the court may find that you didn't have the right to use it, and require that you buy a license, but a conviction generally requires intent; if you can convince the judge/jury that you had good reason to believe that you were legit (the so-called "reasonable person" test), then you'll likely be acquitted.
If, however, you e-mailed Joe Blow at home, and got the flippant and obviously-unreasonable response you just provided, well, you're going to swing.
I, of course, ANAL.
Prosecutor: This guy looked at child porn.
Defendant: It isn't child porn!
Judge: OK, let's show the jury this alleged porn.
Prosecutor: No, we can't do that! It's illegal for the jurors to look at child porn!
Judge: Well, then let me look at it.
Prosecutor: But, Your Honor, it's illegal for you to look at child porn, too!
Judge: Well, dammit, what if it's not porn?
Prosecutor: Well, then you could look at it. But you realize that if you deem it porn, we can charge you with having viewed it.
Judge: Well, Mr. Prosecutor, how do you know that it's child porn?
to make the U.S. soldier
US soldier? Nope, try British. A US serviceman would be carrying an M-16 (the shape of the rifle was the first thing that tipped me off); the color pattern on his BDUs is wrong as well. Furthermore, if there was any doubt, the story specifically mentions that the photo was of a British soldier.
RTFA.
I think it raises an interesting question. What would happen if the source were to be closed? The simple answer would be to fork the code at the last open version, but how well would that work? Presumably the maintainers of the closed code (as the ownwers) would maintain ownership of the name; they would also have the reputation. What would be the ramifications for the open fork, and what would the legal implications be? How would it affect perception of OSS in general? It's an important question to consider, I think.
JAG viewers (you know, the show about the Navy lawyers, with David James Elliot and Catherine Bell) will be well familiar with the real reason for this. A very similar subject was treated in an episode last March (I caught it in December). There's a plot synopsis here (the episode was titled "First Casualty"), and the title is a link to the full script. If you go to the script, search for the word "Rivet" (as in "Rivet Joint") to get to the start of the really relevant part. It's all dialogue, so it's a quick read.
For those who don't want to read, the short story is that Dunston (the reporter) used a sat phone against orders, and that his team was attacked shortly thereafter. The Navy charged Dunston with violating his orders not to use the phone, and, in the course of the trial, found out how the mission had been compromised: while talking to his producer, his sat phone had reported his GPS coordinates. Turns out his producer was working for the enemy. It wasn't the radiation that was detected--the information was conveyed by people in the news media who were opposed to the war (like that ever happens). The Law of Unintended Consequences rears it's ugly head.
This is the reason the military has banned GPS phones: you don't know who's going to get the info. It's the same way you write firewall rules, really: you ban everybody, then allow those you want. Doing it the other way (allowing all, then denying specifics) leads to all kinds of unexpected vulnerabilities. Indeed, it seems to me I've heard complaints about MS along just those lines: their security model is allow-by-default, *nix is deny-by-default. If deny-by-default makes sense in software, doesn't it make even more sense when people's lives are on the line?
BTW, to those of you who are going to complain "it's a TV show," yes, it is. That doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely. Also, for those who are going to complain about the same thing, I've talked to my dad, who is a real-life JAG for the Air Force (works at Materiel Command at Wright-Patt), and he said that the law on that show is usually pretty accurate and well-researched.
And for years, US politicians have made fun of Europeans because their labor costs were "too high".
And how, exactly, is this terribly ironic? The jobs aren't going to Europe; they're going to India, Taiwan, China, and other places that lack the benefits (costs) of the US, and particularly Europe.
If anything, this is proof that the politicians were right: our high labor costs are driving labor demand to other places. Whether the benefits (better standard of living) are worth the costs (more and more outsourcing) is another question entirely; regardless of your decision on that, though, it would appear that the politicians were right.
(God, I never thought I'd say that with a straight face....)
I have driven for 15 years, and had three jobs that required driving 8 hours a day. I have _never_ run a red light to "avoid" someone behind me coming up fast. Have you?
No, I haven't been in that situation, but I do run red lights. About three times a week; corner of Goddard Ave and Flood St, in Norman, OK. I ride a motorcycle. Anybody who rides is well familiar with the fact that lights with sensors frequently don't trigger on motorcycles; if my bike doesn't trip the sensor, I don't get a green light. I have two options. 1) Wait an indefinite period of time for a car to show up and trip the sensor (maybe all night, if I'm going home late), or 2) run the damned light. Guess which I choose? I've asked several cops, and they all say I'm making the right choice. If I ever get pulled over, I'll explain it to the officer, and every cop I've talked to has told me that he'd forego the ticket in that situation. Tell me how to get a machine to understand that. No, I don't want to go to court--I have better things to do than take a day off work to fight a ticket that could have been avoided by a little human contact.
Somebody else mentioned pulling through an intersection to make space for an ambulance to pass; I, too, have been in that situation. Not three days a week, mind you, but it's happened. Should I have been ticketed? The cop (it was a cop, not an ambulance) apparently didn't think so, as he didn't ticket me. Another example of human judgement. You never know when that will come in handy.
On top of that, those cameras are notoriously inaccurate; I remember reading one case of a lady who received a ticket from a camera system. She wrote back to the police department:
Rather damning, really--the cameras can't even tell the difference between an SUV and a sport coupe.Short answer: no, the cameras are not a good idea. The idea that computers don't make mistakes--even when they do, and grossly--will make a mockery of justice.
...as opposed to the baked Powerbook G4 owner ?
but Rebublicans stooped to a low second only to the Watergate scandal when they arranged to have Clinton questioned under oath about his sexual conduct
Pardon my ignorance, Mr. Coward, but I seem to recall that it was somebody other than the Republicans who "arranged" to have President Clinton questioned. Matter of fact, if memory serves, the arrangements were made by a prosecutor (this was long before Ken Starr), following charges by Juanita Broderick that Clinton had raped her. Yes, that's right, the whole mess came out of a criminal accusation of wrongdoing by one of his victims. The only reason that charge wasn't pursued in greater depth was the five-year statute of limitations.
Oh, and methinks you might have gotten confused in all the distraction--it was Clinton who used Saddam as a distraction during the trials; he was trying to divert attention away from his own misconduct. Hell, even Dave Barry figured that one out.
More importantly, sir, how did you manage to survive in the military without understanding this basic concept of honor? Clearly, you couldn't have gone through the service acadamies; if you did, you might recognize this phrase:
That would be the USAF Academy's Honor Code. The other acadamies have something similar. Even without that code, though, you should have grasped the concept that lying, among other things, is a great way to get booted. President Clinton lied under oath (sometimes referred to as "perjury"), and obstructed justice, in an attempt to cover his lies. That's why he was impeached.
Just out of curiosity, do you also think Kelly Flynn was booted because she committed adultery?
Many people consider a court overturning an election and appointing a leader undemocratic.
My guess is that you're complaining about the US Supreme Court "appointing" Bush.
You're wrong.
The election board in Florida found Bush to be the winner by the slimmest of margins. Regardless of what you think happened in the election, that's what the board said. Gore didn't like it, so he took it to the Florida Supreme Court. They said to count again--they overturned the election result. Bush filed in the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court agreed with Bush that the election result, as determined by the Florida Elections Board, should stand--that is, the US Supreme Court refused to overturn the election. And regardless of any court's determination, he would not have been "appointed;" that word has specific meaning, and the court didn't do it. Appointment implies an open field for selection; the court made a determination about the validity of an election, and their determination may have affected the results certified by the Board (though recent studies and recounts indicate that Bush would have won under any recount with objective standards), but that is not the same as an appointment.
And seeing as how America is a democracy...
Really? I thought we were a Republic. Do me a favor, please, and point out to me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution/Amendments, or the like, the word "democracy" (or derivative). I'd love to see it, because in my reading (of every word, I might add), I never came across it.
All the previous aside, though, regardless of what you think of the process, George W. Bush is the President. He holds the office, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the military takes orders from him, he signs the bills, and, most importantly, he took the oath of office. Like it or not, he is the President.
No, I'm not particularly fond of it either.
And final approach etc is of course never based on GPS.
Eh? Just how do all of those GPS approaches I teach work, then?
Dave Buckles
CFII 2711311 06/04
Sort of. Some Russian fighters (I don't recall which model, but one is a MiG--I read about it in MiG Pilot, the biography of Viktor Belenko, a Russian fighter pilot and defector) use alcohol as a coolant for the engine. The proof is 200--pure alcohol. In his book, Belenko relates stories of aircrews burning the jet fuel and pencil-whipping the training flights in order to drink the alcohol (because it was much better than the stuff available for consumption). Hardcore stuff--certainly stiffer than I've ever consumed.
By the way, I highly recommend reading MiG Pilot; absolutely fabulous book, both as a pilot story, and as a look into life in Soviet Russia.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
How about dropping something in the sample; say, a gram of cocaine? Definite failure, with the advantage of being well in excess of LD50--make it show up as "so high, he died a long time ago." Has the added advantage of shaking faith in the drug testing system, if somebody can come out with an impossible combination. On the second test, substitute an entirely different drug. Really mess with 'em.
--no Emacs
You promise?
The story isn't clear, but reading the article reveals that it must be a ground vehicle. Pity; I had a great suggestion: a Tomahawk cruise missile.
Matter of fact, I have a second great suggestion: run the challenge from Vegas to LA.
Not much of a brief, to be sure. For an outstanding bit of law (on a totally unrelated matter, to be sure), I recommend Judge Samuel B. Kent. Yes, folks, this is his actual opinion. Well worth a read. Why can't all lawyers write like this?
There are a hell of a lot of killers out there. Bin Laden is only noticed as much because he does so much of it.
This isn't exactly news; I gave a briefing on this subject, oh, three or so years ago. The highlights:
There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil, as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.h
An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.
And just how do they prove themselves to you again if you won't deal with them?
Simple. I ask around. When I stop hearing horror stories from other owners (Did I mention I'm a sysadmin at a major university? Even their corporate support has been spotty for us.), I'll reconsider. As long as I hear people (sysadmins, people I know and respect) saying "steer clear," I'll avoid them.
This is a neat laptop, and I'm sure it would make a great desktop replacement, or even a good gaming laptop. That said, though, I can't bring myself to buy another Dell machine until they re-earn my trust.
The short version of the story is that I bought a laptop from them and tried to get it fixed under warranty. They failed to fix all of the problems when I sent it back, and failed to note the problems as unfixed. When I got it back, outside of warranty, with the problems unfixed, I called Dell, and Dell refused to fix them, saying that it was out of warranty. They did, however, fix the problems they caused while it was being repaired. When I got it back from the second repair, there was an additional problem, a cracked access panel. It took a good half-hour of arguing to get them to replace the panel. I did finally get them to fix the original problem, but it took a sternly-worded letter to senior management to make it happen. That letter details several of the problems I've had with Dell over the years; it also contains the full version of this story.
Short answer is that I have lost my faith in Dell, and until they prove themselves to me again, I won't buy their products, and I advise other people to do the same, no matter now nifty-cool they may be.
My wife and I both predict that within 10 years (most likely less) it will be required to carry "papers" while you travel, even in your car....
Hrmm. I wonder what they'll make you carry. Probably some sort of identification and license, a registration of some sort (to "prove" you own the car--nothing like making you prove your innocence), documentation of compliance with other laws (insurance cards, perhaps), and a few others. Maybe we can have the police ask where you're going when they pull you over, and react negatively to you telling them, even politely, that it isn't their business.
Ten years, my arse.
Seriously, though, does it bother anybody that we have to carry all these papers, and produce them on demand, just to run our normal, daily lives. I know somebody's going to jump on me and say I don't need a car, that I can ride my bike, or the bus, or something, but unless you live in a large city (I don't), no, you really can't. Furthermore, modern Constitutional jurisprudence has determined that citizens have the right to travel freely between the states. With aviation and train requiring security screening and government permission, and roadway requiring licenses and government permission, how are we permitted to exercise that right? Walking, bicycling, horse-drawn carriage, etc? All are illegal along Interstate highways. Can't trespass on others' private property, either. As a practical matter, you can't exercise your freedom to travel without government permission; that being the case, is it really a freedom?
The short answer is the government has already gone way too far, and that We the People have let them. We complain about what they do, but turn around and re-elect the same people. Talk is cheap; try putting somebody new in office. If you don't like the choices, run for office yourself. I intend to, at my earliest opportunity. Not because I want to be a politician--God forbid!--but because I'm sick and tired of seeing our rights (that's yours and mine) trampled by a government that doesn't respect us.