I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
just "the right of the people."
II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"the right of the people" depends upon the condition requiring "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
just "the right of the people"
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
just "the people"
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
just "the people"
Those are the only of the first 10 amendments which contain the words "the people." It all seems perfectly clear to me.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
In other words: If the government relies on militias forming out of everyday citizens as its means of defense, people should be able to have guns so they will be well-equipped to defend their country. Since the government no longer relies on militias of the people and has instead formed a military (since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written), this amendment is essentially deprecated.
Amendment II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
And shooting looters has what, exactly, to do with a "well regulated militia?"
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association:
314.xx Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.
Can't quickly find an online transcription and don't feel like typing it all, so check it out at your local library and read up on the diagnostic criteria. Probably a lot of people who are taking ritalin don't actually meet all the criteria.
Actually, if they got rid of some deprecated elements and did more formatting with CSS, they'd probably save 100 bytes or so, not gain it. Six align=center could be replaced with a single style rule.
The table layout could be replaced with posisioned div's, which should save seven instances of <td> </td> and other needless table tag mess. Not to mention that the logo is in a single-celled table all by itself. Why??
And if it were designed well, it could deprecate nicely for Netscape 4 and earlier or even Lynx! Google currently looks pretty crappy in Lynx.
Why the hell don't you have the ringer silent on the phone if you and Tivo only use it to occasionally call out? If there should be no incoming calls, just let it silently ring forever when telemarketers call.
It has, on several occasions, occured to me that it is ridiculous that humans still excrete stinking sticky waste out of an orifice that is lodged in a deep crevice of skin.
Seems like, being the 21st century, we'd have a more civilized way to do it nowadays....
You really want to lock your users from making any changes to the browser? I seriously doubt you will be able to do this (and even if you could, what would be the point?)
I can see the arguments both ways for disallowing company employees from changing settings, but I can definitely think of a situation where such a lock-down would be very nice: libraries and similar public kiosk situations. No interface changes, limited menu options, no adding bookmarks, delete all cookies at end of session.
And for electronic stuff too... I was searching for the best price on a particular model of scanner. Pricewatch vs Froogle. Froogle found the best price.
At about 3:30-4:30am I saw a meteor once about every 90 seconds during the Leonids. Not quite 75/hour but still not bad. And I'm just barely outside a medium-sized capital city, it was partly cloudy and the moon was very bright. Tonight it's clear and less moon, could be about as good as the Leonids.
Or maybe they'll force everyone to bring their own reusable canvas bags: reducing waste, cutting costs, and lowering prices.
My question is, what is going to happen to all the students and unskilled workers who will be out of a job now?
Re:The solution to problems like this...
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 0
The line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional. It gives an unfair power to the president.
The way the system should work is that the legislators should vote against any legislation with pork. However, if a legislator votes against a popular bill that happens to have pork, he/she will be later condemned for being "against" the main point of the bill. This makes for fuel for opponents in the next election.
So the way it works in practice is that, as a legislator who wants to get reelected, one must vote for a bill only on the basis of its main topic, regardless of pork.
When it goes to the president, it's the same deal. If the president vetoes the bill, he/she will be criticized; more fuel for the opponent in the next election. Not to mention that few, if any, bills would ever be made law.
Laws could be passed to try to limit the amount of pork (requiring relevence, etc.) but there would likely always be loopholes. Looks like we're screwed.
It seems to me that this guy is kind of on the right track, but his fantastic visions just aren't quite enough for me.
The Operating System, file system, and any other technical aspects of computing should be totally invisible to the user who wants them to be, but completely accessible to users who want to have access to them. Most users simply don't care how it works as long as it works. Technical users, however, feel stifled if they don't have access to the "how it works" side of things.
Software should exist in pairs: creation tools and rendering tools. First the rendering tools: The perfect example out there today is a web browser. Although it doesn't work perfectly (yet?), any web browser should render HTML exactly the same. Shouldn't matter who made the program. In fact, the concept of "brand naming" should be invisible to the user. To render a web page, the user should click on "Web Browser," not "Mozilla," "Netscape Navigator," or (although this is the best name so far) "Internet Explorer." The brand name is irrelevent and probably not the most useful description of the program; hide it from the user completely. Only if you are a technical user should you want or need to know who made the software.
Now creation tools: It should not matter what software you use to create a word processing document. Any word processing document should be viewable in any word processing renderer! That means that what is needed is standard, open file formats. This is probably the biggest hurdle to realize this "new vision." Proprietary formats are the barriers to "information-based" computing culture.
The complex part about all this is that all the software needs to be able to work together. Boundaries between programs should be somewhat nebulous. If part of the information that your word processor needs to render is an image, it should be able to call up the image rendering program to do it inline. If you are creating an email and want to include a picture, you should be able to touch up the picture with your image editing program without noticiably moving away from the primary task: creating an email.
A step further: An operating system is nothing more than an application rendering program. It should not matter what operating system you use--and the non-technical user, again, should neither care nor even know. Any operating system should be able to render a piece of software absolutely the same way.
This last paragraph is what the author of the article didn't get. There are two ways to make it work: 1. only one operating system for everyone, or 2. total interoperability. He chose number 1. He chose it because, as I have stated, the non-technical user doesn't care and shouldn't care. His mistake is not catering to the technical user. The technical user wants to pick the operating system and every application that he/she wants. You can't ignore the technical user.
Sound far-fetched? Probably. But is it feasible? I think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it wan't that petty. Taxation without representation is worthwhile to bitch about.
Interesting, since socialism (total control by government) is the opposite of communism (no control by government).
Fine then. The boxed set has about 0.59 slugs of mass. Yippee.
Nope. Now that Netscape is gone, Mozilla is its own consumer-oriented product.
Those are the only of the first 10 amendments which contain the words "the people." It all seems perfectly clear to me.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), published by the American Psychiatric Association:
Can't quickly find an online transcription and don't feel like typing it all, so check it out at your local library and read up on the diagnostic criteria. Probably a lot of people who are taking ritalin don't actually meet all the criteria.
Then ASCII pr0n will finally rise again!!
That's why I use Whitespace, of course!
Actually, if they got rid of some deprecated elements and did more formatting with CSS, they'd probably save 100 bytes or so, not gain it. Six align=center could be replaced with a single style rule.
The table layout could be replaced with posisioned div's, which should save seven instances of <td> </td> and other needless table tag mess. Not to mention that the logo is in a single-celled table all by itself. Why??
And if it were designed well, it could deprecate nicely for Netscape 4 and earlier or even Lynx! Google currently looks pretty crappy in Lynx.
And to this day, many (most?) school computer labs with Macs and non-Mac users in the same room have signs posted that say something like:
Why the hell don't you have the ringer silent on the phone if you and Tivo only use it to occasionally call out? If there should be no incoming calls, just let it silently ring forever when telemarketers call.
soylent black is people!!!!!
It has, on several occasions, occured to me that it is ridiculous that humans still excrete stinking sticky waste out of an orifice that is lodged in a deep crevice of skin.
Seems like, being the 21st century, we'd have a more civilized way to do it nowadays....
The last time I remember 2 movie sequels within one year was Back to the Future II, and III.
I'll try to keep myself from prejudgement....
I can see the arguments both ways for disallowing company employees from changing settings, but I can definitely think of a situation where such a lock-down would be very nice: libraries and similar public kiosk situations. No interface changes, limited menu options, no adding bookmarks, delete all cookies at end of session.
I use Netbank and have absolutely no problems with Phoenix on WinXP on my PII-300. Everything renders faster than using IE6 on the same machine.
And for electronic stuff too... I was searching for the best price on a particular model of scanner. Pricewatch vs Froogle. Froogle found the best price.
At about 3:30-4:30am I saw a meteor once about every 90 seconds during the Leonids. Not quite 75/hour but still not bad. And I'm just barely outside a medium-sized capital city, it was partly cloudy and the moon was very bright. Tonight it's clear and less moon, could be about as good as the Leonids.
digital signatures
Or maybe they'll force everyone to bring their own reusable canvas bags: reducing waste, cutting costs, and lowering prices.
My question is, what is going to happen to all the students and unskilled workers who will be out of a job now?
The line-item veto was ruled unconstitutional. It gives an unfair power to the president.
The way the system should work is that the legislators should vote against any legislation with pork. However, if a legislator votes against a popular bill that happens to have pork, he/she will be later condemned for being "against" the main point of the bill. This makes for fuel for opponents in the next election.
So the way it works in practice is that, as a legislator who wants to get reelected, one must vote for a bill only on the basis of its main topic, regardless of pork.
When it goes to the president, it's the same deal. If the president vetoes the bill, he/she will be criticized; more fuel for the opponent in the next election. Not to mention that few, if any, bills would ever be made law.
Laws could be passed to try to limit the amount of pork (requiring relevence, etc.) but there would likely always be loopholes. Looks like we're screwed.
It seems to me that this guy is kind of on the right track, but his fantastic visions just aren't quite enough for me.
The Operating System, file system, and any other technical aspects of computing should be totally invisible to the user who wants them to be, but completely accessible to users who want to have access to them. Most users simply don't care how it works as long as it works. Technical users, however, feel stifled if they don't have access to the "how it works" side of things.
Software should exist in pairs: creation tools and rendering tools. First the rendering tools: The perfect example out there today is a web browser. Although it doesn't work perfectly (yet?), any web browser should render HTML exactly the same. Shouldn't matter who made the program. In fact, the concept of "brand naming" should be invisible to the user. To render a web page, the user should click on "Web Browser," not "Mozilla," "Netscape Navigator," or (although this is the best name so far) "Internet Explorer." The brand name is irrelevent and probably not the most useful description of the program; hide it from the user completely. Only if you are a technical user should you want or need to know who made the software.
Now creation tools: It should not matter what software you use to create a word processing document. Any word processing document should be viewable in any word processing renderer! That means that what is needed is standard, open file formats. This is probably the biggest hurdle to realize this "new vision." Proprietary formats are the barriers to "information-based" computing culture.
The complex part about all this is that all the software needs to be able to work together. Boundaries between programs should be somewhat nebulous. If part of the information that your word processor needs to render is an image, it should be able to call up the image rendering program to do it inline. If you are creating an email and want to include a picture, you should be able to touch up the picture with your image editing program without noticiably moving away from the primary task: creating an email.
A step further: An operating system is nothing more than an application rendering program. It should not matter what operating system you use--and the non-technical user, again, should neither care nor even know. Any operating system should be able to render a piece of software absolutely the same way.
This last paragraph is what the author of the article didn't get. There are two ways to make it work: 1. only one operating system for everyone, or 2. total interoperability. He chose number 1. He chose it because, as I have stated, the non-technical user doesn't care and shouldn't care. His mistake is not catering to the technical user. The technical user wants to pick the operating system and every application that he/she wants. You can't ignore the technical user.
Sound far-fetched? Probably. But is it feasible? I think so.