Any word on how it's expected to run on older hardware: meaning, any G4 from the last 4 or 5 years?
Every newer OS X has run better than the previous version on these machines from my experience, and from what I've heard others say. Realistically, how long can that go on though until newer versions start to overwhelm older hardware?
Anyone with their hands on a pre-release version of Tiger have any insight into this?
The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial. It's an idea born of the progressive era in American history. It's an idea born of the notion that history is no guide to the present or future: therefore, experimentation based on present circumstances is the proper method for addressing the "unique" problems of the day.
There are other constitutional philosophies, notably natural law, or a principled approach to constitutional questions.
At the time of this country's founding, people were very jealous of government power and had first hand experience with what they considered tyranny. Now, with generations of americans growing up relative freedom, the american people are far less guarded when it comes to preserving their liberty; they are far more naive when it comes to how easily government can encroach upon and ultimately stifle liberty.
Make no mistake, the Second Amendment is not about hunting; it's not even about defending one's home from criminals; it is about the people -- as individuals working in concert -- reserving the use of force against government tyranny.
That government will tend towards the subjugation of its people is not a historical oddity; it's an eternal principle of politics. A "living document" philosophy does away with notions of eternal principles, and it does so at the risk of freedom.
The whole concept of eminent domain, especially when it pertains to land, stems from the idea that all the land first belongs to the king. "All your base are belong to us" was exactly what the king meant by eminent domain.
What kind of idea is this in a free county, a country where -- in theory -- government derives its sovereignty from the people and whose sole purpose and justification is to serve the people?
The idea that the government can seize property in the name of some "public good" is antithetical to a free society: it's a collectivist notion appropriate to socialism.
The whole notion of a "fair market value" as it is currently interpreted is perverse. The only "fair" value on the market is what the property owner would take in exchange for his or her property. For instance, if you live in a house currently valued at $500,000, but it's a house that's been passed on in your family for three generations, or if it's a house you designed as your dream house, or if you built it yourself by hand, you may not wish to sell at any price. No private individual or group of private individuals could ever legally force you accept a price. Why should "all" the individuals ("the people") be able to force you?
It would be a better society if we would do away with eminent domain. It belongs in the dust bin of history along with divine right and all other antiquated political notions from mankind's infancy.
I have no definitive answer as to what the Bill of Rights meant by the term "press," but I'm happy to take an educated guess.
At the time of the United States's founding, the journalistic landscape wasn't what we've had for most of the 19th and all of the 20th century: namely, media dominated by major newspapers. There were many, many individual owners of printing presses.
These printers (and Benjamin Franklin was one) handled the various printing needs of their towns. They also usually printed newsletters relating local events, political issues, weather forecasts, farming tips, and so forth. In addition to these newsletters, they printed political pamphlets, including Common Sense and the Federalist Papers.
The situation then was much closer to the blogs, e-mail newsletters, and Web forums we have today.
I think, from a constitutional standpoint, you could definitely argue that blogs -- and other Internet goodness -- are in no way second-class journalistic entitites, but instead have the same rights afforded to the New York Times, et. al. They are the modern versions of the Colonial and Revolutionary press.
Drunk driving laws are all about politics. When they had established the blood-alcohol level to 1.0, there was then nothing for the Mothers Agains Drunk Driving to do but lobby to have the level lowered to 0.8. Was there ever any scientific basis?
The joke of it is, one guy could be driving 70 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, at night, with his headlights off, and the radio blasting, with one foot hanging out the car window, and he would get off easier than someone who had two beers and got pulled over after leaving the bar.
I'm all for throwing the book at people who get behind the wheel drunk, and increasing penalties for accidents and such caused by drunk driving; but someone who gets pulled over with a small buzz ought to get a ticket.
But the real question is if a company has put you on notice that the call might be recorded, are you then under any obligation to notify them that you'll be recording the call?
I don't see why? "This call may be recorded..." is what they say. They don't tell you when they are in fact recording. The language above doesn't even say who will do the recording. It reads to me like you're free to do the recording.
People seem to talk louder on cell phones than when talking to one another. Also, I remember reading an article that said it is easier for us to tune out a conversation when we hear both sides of it than when we are hearing only one side. Apparently, a natural reaction is to try to piece together the other side of the conversation.
What bothers me most though is the damn Nextels. These people having their walkie-talkie conversations on speaker phone, punctuating ever sentence with a chirp piss me off. There are times when I've wished they would literally drop dead.
Several years ago my mother wanted a computer. She uses a Windows box at work, of course, but I and my brothers are all Mac people. I told her that she could buy a PC if she wanted, but if something went wrong I wouldn't know how to help her. At the time that was true. Since them I'm (un)fortunate enough to know something about Win-PC's.
She bought an iMac and has never had any real problems.
My girlfriend on the other hand bought a Compaq running Windows XP. Every time I hear her complaining about some "annoyance" I scratch my head and wonder why 90% of the computing world puts up with this crap.
I read an interesting book several years ago, Revolt of the Elites, that is very much on topic. The author argues that a global economy represents the breakdown of the nation state as the central political-economic unit, as the global economy encourages a cosmopolitan mindset among those at the top who benefit from it.
While I don't agree that this represents "a threat to democracy" (just the opposite in my opinion), I think the book is very perceptive.
That some Americans think that the 1st Amendment might not be about political speech is testimony to just how corrupt our understanding of freedom and our own constitution has become during the 20th century (and now into the 21st). The ACLU and other so called lovers of liberty will spend money and make much hue and cry defending pornography and the right of teenagers to wear t-shirts to school sporting every kind of profanity; but when an issue threatening the very fabric of liberty in the US comes along, there comes no worthwhile comment. It's sad, really.
Story was a US Supreme Court justice from 1811-1845 and his commentaries on the Constitution were the first, most influencial work of its kind. Regarding the reasoning behind the 1st Amendment I quote from the book:
[The first amendment] is in fact designed to guard against those abuses of power, by which, in some foreign governments, men are not permitted to speak upon political subjects, or to write or publish anything without the express license of the government for that purpose.
(The above quote is italicized in the original.)
Nowadays, under the influence of Marxian scholarship, all sorts of "interpretations" of the Constitution have taken hold. What we risk is a gross equivocation that encourages people to think they are guaranteed all sorts of rights, when in fact any meaningful interpretation of these rights has been supplanted. What we risk is a United States in name only.
That the United States government should regulate political speech is arguably the most un-American notion that could possibly take hold -- excepting of course all the other "notions" that will inevitably follow from the infringement of the right to speak and write on political topics.
I urge everyone: don't remain ignorant on what the Constitution protects and what this country is supposed to be about. The only thing that can maintain the integrity of the US (or rebuild it) is people committed to a vigilant guarding and tireless espousing of the ideals on which this country was founded.
You know, I was going to start this reply with: "Since you obviously don't know how notoriously difficult it is to express irony in e-mail, hence the development of emoticons..."
On second thought though, I'll let the tenor of your comment slide. Okay, you got me! I should have noticed the quotes around "dirty, dirty evil," and taken that as an indication of irony. My bad!
What would Ayn Rand have against Linux? Linux isn't communism.
Open source is either a hobby or a different business model -- and that includes the GPL. Programmers contribute to open source or free software for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's to acquire status (i.e. make business connections); sometimes it is to develop a product and establish themselves as experts in that product, which will then make it easy to position themselves as consultants; and sometimes it is merely for the joy of working on something cutting edge with a group of other intelligent, motivated people.
What in the above is anti-capitalistic?
The phenomenon that is open source or free software merely illustrates that there are a lot of talented, motivated, and ambitious individuals in programming. Additionally, it arises from the fact that software is difficult to design. A small shop or lone consultant could not design meaningful, robust software (barring very few exceptions). Open source is a way for small entrepreneurs to strike out on their own.
Sure, there are "hippies" in open source -- but so what? A capitalistic society makes room for free software as it does "free love."
I remember the idea from Starship Troopers where only veterans could claim citizenship. Non-citizens were allowed to live in a country and enjoy all sorts of rights, but they were not allowed to vote. The reason was something along the lines of those willing to put their lives on the line for "the nation" were the only ones worth of having a say in its politics.
Heinlen usually gets credit for being "Libertarian." This veteran-voting thing however is a collectivist nightmare. Let me see if I understand him correctly: the electorate should be restricted to those who endured years of government indoctrination in the armed forces?
Libertarians rail against the "government sponsored indoctrination" of public schools! How could any Libertarian come up with an idea like Heinlen's?
"Oops, I did it again!" is basically the reaction from Microsoft everytime a new security issue is found regarding InternetExplorer. Maybe NBC gave responsibility for this headline over to its partner.
I remember the Presidential election of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running agains Jimmy Carter. (Some of us remember back this far!) It was a different world then. The US was shamed over the hostages in Iran, and many people worried about the perceived military superiority of the Soviet Union. Add to that the notion -- half-believed by some -- that the world might come to an end in the year 2000.
Now, many of you too young to remember all this might laugh in disbelief, but google the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth. This movie came out in 1979, and was basically a survey of the current world-political situation illuminated by the Bible's Apocalypse, the predictions of Nostradamus, and so forth. This movie got a lot of attention and play before the election.
At the time I was young and impressionable (12 years old), but I remember watching the movie on television (maybe cable) with my father and brothers and being scared out of my wits.
What does this have to do with the election? It was thought by many that Reagan was the only chance for America to regain power and respect on the world stage, thereby averting the triumph of evil and the likely destruction of the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Of course, this seems kind of crazy to me now. Nobody worries about such things. (Now kids and other impressionable people worry about some kind of ecological holocaust.)
I don't know how effective this movie was in getting some people to turn out to vote and vote for Reagan, and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be propaganda for Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was somewhat effective.
Michael Moore's movie could be as much hogwash as Nostradamus. That won't matter if it makes it to TV though. It will be the kind of propaganda that will make a difference. Personally, I think it is nothing but out-of-context "truths" carefully edited to promote lies. Whoever one wishes in the White House, no honest person could wish for this kind of propaganda to become a part of the American political scene. If that happens, it would be a worse thing than having the wrong guy in the White House.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you recall where you may have read any of these reports?
I mean, you wouldn't mind if I verify, right? ;-)
Any word on how it's expected to run on older hardware: meaning, any G4 from the last 4 or 5 years?
Every newer OS X has run better than the previous version on these machines from my experience, and from what I've heard others say. Realistically, how long can that go on though until newer versions start to overwhelm older hardware?
Anyone with their hands on a pre-release version of Tiger have any insight into this?
The idea that the Constitution is a "living document" is not uncontroversial. It's an idea born of the progressive era in American history. It's an idea born of the notion that history is no guide to the present or future: therefore, experimentation based on present circumstances is the proper method for addressing the "unique" problems of the day.
There are other constitutional philosophies, notably natural law, or a principled approach to constitutional questions.
At the time of this country's founding, people were very jealous of government power and had first hand experience with what they considered tyranny. Now, with generations of americans growing up relative freedom, the american people are far less guarded when it comes to preserving their liberty; they are far more naive when it comes to how easily government can encroach upon and ultimately stifle liberty.
Make no mistake, the Second Amendment is not about hunting; it's not even about defending one's home from criminals; it is about the people -- as individuals working in concert -- reserving the use of force against government tyranny.
That government will tend towards the subjugation of its people is not a historical oddity; it's an eternal principle of politics. A "living document" philosophy does away with notions of eternal principles, and it does so at the risk of freedom.
The whole concept of eminent domain, especially when it pertains to land, stems from the idea that all the land first belongs to the king. "All your base are belong to us" was exactly what the king meant by eminent domain.
What kind of idea is this in a free county, a country where -- in theory -- government derives its sovereignty from the people and whose sole purpose and justification is to serve the people?
The idea that the government can seize property in the name of some "public good" is antithetical to a free society: it's a collectivist notion appropriate to socialism.
The whole notion of a "fair market value" as it is currently interpreted is perverse. The only "fair" value on the market is what the property owner would take in exchange for his or her property. For instance, if you live in a house currently valued at $500,000, but it's a house that's been passed on in your family for three generations, or if it's a house you designed as your dream house, or if you built it yourself by hand, you may not wish to sell at any price. No private individual or group of private individuals could ever legally force you accept a price. Why should "all" the individuals ("the people") be able to force you?
It would be a better society if we would do away with eminent domain. It belongs in the dust bin of history along with divine right and all other antiquated political notions from mankind's infancy.
I have no definitive answer as to what the Bill of Rights meant by the term "press," but I'm happy to take an educated guess.
At the time of the United States's founding, the journalistic landscape wasn't what we've had for most of the 19th and all of the 20th century: namely, media dominated by major newspapers. There were many, many individual owners of printing presses.
These printers (and Benjamin Franklin was one) handled the various printing needs of their towns. They also usually printed newsletters relating local events, political issues, weather forecasts, farming tips, and so forth. In addition to these newsletters, they printed political pamphlets, including Common Sense and the Federalist Papers.
The situation then was much closer to the blogs, e-mail newsletters, and Web forums we have today.
I think, from a constitutional standpoint, you could definitely argue that blogs -- and other Internet goodness -- are in no way second-class journalistic entitites, but instead have the same rights afforded to the New York Times, et. al. They are the modern versions of the Colonial and Revolutionary press.
After looking up antithetical, I'm afraid I must say I don't know what you mean.
Drunk driving laws are all about politics. When they had established the blood-alcohol level to 1.0, there was then nothing for the Mothers Agains Drunk Driving to do but lobby to have the level lowered to 0.8. Was there ever any scientific basis?
The joke of it is, one guy could be driving 70 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, at night, with his headlights off, and the radio blasting, with one foot hanging out the car window, and he would get off easier than someone who had two beers and got pulled over after leaving the bar.
I'm all for throwing the book at people who get behind the wheel drunk, and increasing penalties for accidents and such caused by drunk driving; but someone who gets pulled over with a small buzz ought to get a ticket.
Drunk drivers ought to learn from that example!
Maybe I was being a bit oblique, but my point was that I don't believe there is any impending global warming catastrophe.
I guess global warming isn't even questioned on Slashdot, huh?
Is the global warming doomsday before or after the alien invasion Mulder warned us all about?
But the real question is if a company has put you on notice that the call might be recorded, are you then under any obligation to notify them that you'll be recording the call?
I don't see why? "This call may be recorded..." is what they say. They don't tell you when they are in fact recording. The language above doesn't even say who will do the recording. It reads to me like you're free to do the recording.
There's an excellent book on the subject, small and very readable, called The Chip: How Two Americans Invented the Microchip and Launched a Revolution . I read this last year and found it to be a good story.
People seem to talk louder on cell phones than when talking to one another. Also, I remember reading an article that said it is easier for us to tune out a conversation when we hear both sides of it than when we are hearing only one side. Apparently, a natural reaction is to try to piece together the other side of the conversation.
What bothers me most though is the damn Nextels. These people having their walkie-talkie conversations on speaker phone, punctuating ever sentence with a chirp piss me off. There are times when I've wished they would literally drop dead.
I agree!
Several years ago my mother wanted a computer. She uses a Windows box at work, of course, but I and my brothers are all Mac people. I told her that she could buy a PC if she wanted, but if something went wrong I wouldn't know how to help her. At the time that was true. Since them I'm (un)fortunate enough to know something about Win-PC's.
She bought an iMac and has never had any real problems.
My girlfriend on the other hand bought a Compaq running Windows XP. Every time I hear her complaining about some "annoyance" I scratch my head and wonder why 90% of the computing world puts up with this crap.
I read an interesting book several years ago, Revolt of the Elites, that is very much on topic. The author argues that a global economy represents the breakdown of the nation state as the central political-economic unit, as the global economy encourages a cosmopolitan mindset among those at the top who benefit from it.
While I don't agree that this represents "a threat to democracy" (just the opposite in my opinion), I think the book is very perceptive.
That some Americans think that the 1st Amendment might not be about political speech is testimony to just how corrupt our understanding of freedom and our own constitution has become during the 20th century (and now into the 21st). The ACLU and other so called lovers of liberty will spend money and make much hue and cry defending pornography and the right of teenagers to wear t-shirts to school sporting every kind of profanity; but when an issue threatening the very fabric of liberty in the US comes along, there comes no worthwhile comment. It's sad, really.
Anyone who wonders whether idea of the 1st Amendment covers political speech need look no further than the writings of one of the great jurists in American history: Joseph Story. Try A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States.
Story was a US Supreme Court justice from 1811-1845 and his commentaries on the Constitution were the first, most influencial work of its kind. Regarding the reasoning behind the 1st Amendment I quote from the book:
(The above quote is italicized in the original.)
Nowadays, under the influence of Marxian scholarship, all sorts of "interpretations" of the Constitution have taken hold. What we risk is a gross equivocation that encourages people to think they are guaranteed all sorts of rights, when in fact any meaningful interpretation of these rights has been supplanted. What we risk is a United States in name only.
That the United States government should regulate political speech is arguably the most un-American notion that could possibly take hold -- excepting of course all the other "notions" that will inevitably follow from the infringement of the right to speak and write on political topics.
I urge everyone: don't remain ignorant on what the Constitution protects and what this country is supposed to be about. The only thing that can maintain the integrity of the US (or rebuild it) is people committed to a vigilant guarding and tireless espousing of the ideals on which this country was founded.
You know, I was going to start this reply with: "Since you obviously don't know how notoriously difficult it is to express irony in e-mail, hence the development of emoticons..."
On second thought though, I'll let the tenor of your comment slide. Okay, you got me! I should have noticed the quotes around "dirty, dirty evil," and taken that as an indication of irony. My bad!
What would Ayn Rand have against Linux? Linux isn't communism.
Open source is either a hobby or a different business model -- and that includes the GPL. Programmers contribute to open source or free software for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's to acquire status (i.e. make business connections); sometimes it is to develop a product and establish themselves as experts in that product, which will then make it easy to position themselves as consultants; and sometimes it is merely for the joy of working on something cutting edge with a group of other intelligent, motivated people.
What in the above is anti-capitalistic?
The phenomenon that is open source or free software merely illustrates that there are a lot of talented, motivated, and ambitious individuals in programming. Additionally, it arises from the fact that software is difficult to design. A small shop or lone consultant could not design meaningful, robust software (barring very few exceptions). Open source is a way for small entrepreneurs to strike out on their own.
Sure, there are "hippies" in open source -- but so what? A capitalistic society makes room for free software as it does "free love."
Okay, well, I read the book when I was 16. Did I miss some kind of "subtlety"?
I remember the idea from Starship Troopers where only veterans could claim citizenship. Non-citizens were allowed to live in a country and enjoy all sorts of rights, but they were not allowed to vote. The reason was something along the lines of those willing to put their lives on the line for "the nation" were the only ones worth of having a say in its politics.
Heinlen usually gets credit for being "Libertarian." This veteran-voting thing however is a collectivist nightmare. Let me see if I understand him correctly: the electorate should be restricted to those who endured years of government indoctrination in the armed forces?
Libertarians rail against the "government sponsored indoctrination" of public schools! How could any Libertarian come up with an idea like Heinlen's?
But, tell us how you really feel ;-)
"Flamebait," huh? Sorry! I meant it to be funny.
"Oops, I did it again!" is basically the reaction from Microsoft everytime a new security issue is found regarding InternetExplorer. Maybe NBC gave responsibility for this headline over to its partner.
I remember the Presidential election of 1980 when Ronald Reagan was running agains Jimmy Carter. (Some of us remember back this far!) It was a different world then. The US was shamed over the hostages in Iran, and many people worried about the perceived military superiority of the Soviet Union. Add to that the notion -- half-believed by some -- that the world might come to an end in the year 2000.
Now, many of you too young to remember all this might laugh in disbelief, but google the movie, The Late Great Planet Earth. This movie came out in 1979, and was basically a survey of the current world-political situation illuminated by the Bible's Apocalypse, the predictions of Nostradamus, and so forth. This movie got a lot of attention and play before the election.
At the time I was young and impressionable (12 years old), but I remember watching the movie on television (maybe cable) with my father and brothers and being scared out of my wits.
What does this have to do with the election? It was thought by many that Reagan was the only chance for America to regain power and respect on the world stage, thereby averting the triumph of evil and the likely destruction of the planet in a nuclear holocaust. Of course, this seems kind of crazy to me now. Nobody worries about such things. (Now kids and other impressionable people worry about some kind of ecological holocaust.)
I don't know how effective this movie was in getting some people to turn out to vote and vote for Reagan, and I'm sure it wasn't meant to be propaganda for Reagan, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was somewhat effective.
Michael Moore's movie could be as much hogwash as Nostradamus. That won't matter if it makes it to TV though. It will be the kind of propaganda that will make a difference. Personally, I think it is nothing but out-of-context "truths" carefully edited to promote lies. Whoever one wishes in the White House, no honest person could wish for this kind of propaganda to become a part of the American political scene. If that happens, it would be a worse thing than having the wrong guy in the White House.
Another person made a post to the parent of this thread that supports my observation:
wcrowe's comment
(I hope cross posts aren't in poor taste!)