Re:The good thing about extradition to the US...
on
Email Bomber Faces Retrial
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why should they get to do it all over again with a financial punishment and a lower standard of proof?
"They" don't. The criminal case is "the state" or "the people" against the defendant. The civil case is "the families of ron goldman and nicole simpson" against the defendant. Those families didn't get to decide whether the case was prosecuted criminally. They can't force the state to seek restitution for them. Instead, they have to seek it for themselves.
What "different purpose" does that serve?
It serves to compensate people for a loss that another person has caused to them. The criminal case serves the public's desire for retribution against someone who has violated our rules.
If someone steals your car and wrecks it, they can be prosecuted by the state, regardless of whether you want them to be. Either way, you still have the right to sue them for the financial loss they have caused.
I agree. If you put warnings all over the place, there will eventually be some crazy people who think it's just a big stash of treasure and go dig it up.
As the FTA points out, people who robbed the pyramids in Egypt didn't pay any attention to the warnings about curses and such... we can't be sure that a potentially uneducated group of future beings will believe all that mumbo jumbo about radioactivity.
Well, emusic is the second largest online retailer of music after itunes, and they sell music for around 21 cents a song. Granted, they have a use it or lose it subscription model.
But that's a pretty big pricing disparity, especially considering that itunes sells much of emusic's library at 99 cents per song with no value added... unless you consider DRM an added value.
You should also note the grandparent's use of the word corporate. Red Hat is indeed a publically traded corporation, while Canonical is a privately held Limited Partnership. There's a big difference between those two when it comes to legal rights, shareholder obligations, and overall evil-ness.
Buzzz... wrong again. The suffix "Ltd." does not mean "limited partnership". Ltd. is a suffix added to British companies (and companies in some other countries) to show that the liability of investors in the company is limited to their investment... in other words, it is a corporation. See this wikipedia article for more details.
I use ubuntu on a daily basis (using it right now in fact). The fact that a corporation is behind it doesn't mean it's bad.
In order to stay competitive, MySQL will need a new storage engine... or perhaps keep updating the GPL'd version of InnoDB.
I don't think that is not an option. MySQL AB has a dual-licensing scheme for MySQL. They need another company (like Solid) from whom they can dual license an engine for use with MySQL.
Now... if they wanted to go completely GPL and quit selling MySQL for use in proprietary applications, they could keep updating the GPL version of InnoDB and keep distributing it. But then they would lose the revenue that comes from the proprietary-licensed versions of their product... and there goes their business model.
Phone use will be required, but could easily function with a Bluetooth earpiece. It will have to have a big enough screen in portrait or landscape mode to surf the web (surfing the web on my Tungsten T3 sucks), will have to be able to plug into a projector and deliver Keynote (or Powerpoint) presentations, read and annotate pdf's, have an honest 4-5hr battery life (ideally more, but this will depend upon new battery technology or fuel cells), be rugged, have a decent way to enter information through a keyboard (real or virtual) and be reasonably affordable.
As TFA points out, laptops are getting smaller and smaller. If you need all these features, why not just buy a subcompact notebook???
The point is that PDAs are great if they are cheap and simple. They don't need to be overladen with features.
Once you get to the point where your PDA does everything that a computer does, why not just add a full keyboard to it? The cost and weight will be about the same. And with a tiny laptop, you can run windows or linux and know exactly what programs are available for it without having to guess or search the web before purchasing.
Which is precisely why the Republicans are wrong here. The first Republican President warned of corporate power, corporate influence in government, and monopolies. Anti-trust law used to be something Republicans accepted as pro-capitalism, and pro-democracy. Current Republican politicians have been bought, it would seem.
Couldn't agree more. There is a very warped understanding of what it means to be pro-market and pro-capitalism now. No regulation means no rules. Capitalism without rules is not capitalism.
The answer isn't no rules. And it isn't rules about everything under the sun. The answer is moderate regulation that doesn't get too much in the way, but is only applied where necessary.
It shouldn't be necessary to tell ISPs that you can't do this... but jesus christ on a pogo-stick, they'd sell the old people into slavery now if it weren't illegal.
I wouldn't equate predictability with "making sense".
It hardly makes sense to allow an ISP to charge other companies to allow their companies to access the other company's website, when the ISP's customers are already paying for that privilege.
It only makes sense in that it is predictable that Republicans would go for this.
Republicans always vote for big businesses above small businesses and individuals. After all, that's where their bread is buttered. But in any substantive sense, it doesn't make sense at all.
This would be totally legal, and 100% possible given majority voting rights.
Majority rule is not the only rule. Nor is it the most important.
Not sure where you got the idea for this, but it's very far from legal. As a majority shareholder, you have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders in how you govern the company. That means you have a legal obligation to look out for their best interests. Ripping people off is obviously not looking out for their best interests.
Also, you cannot discriminate against shareholders within a class of shares. They have to be treated as one group.
I find it pretty offensive that you use the term "gay" as a derogatory term.
I find it funny that you're offended.
Perhaps you aren't aware that "gay" is in common usage by the youngsters as a pejorative term, and this is nothing but a parody of that usage.
If you would relax your offensive sensors a little, we wouldn't have to parse words so carefully for you, and you would instantly become a more attractive person.
That certainly wasn't how it was seen at the time it was ratified.
You are correct. As I already pointed out, the 14th Amendment caused a major shift in the way individual rights are enforced in the US. It applies the Bill of Rights to the states and specifically empowers Congress to pass laws that enforce those rights.
The state constituition in question clearly permitted the action and the US Consitituition as a general rule only limits what the US Government can do. So they upheld the taking and noted that if the state laws were different they would have ruled differently...
The US Constitution is a "baseline" as far as rights go. State constitutions can provide more protection for individual liberties, but they cannot reduce the protections that the Federal constitution provides.
For over a hundred years, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply almost all of the first ten amendments to the states. The Supreme Court would not have even decided the case if it were based entirely on state law. Kelo is a case where the Court interprets the Fifth Amendment as it applies to and limits a city government (a unit of the state).
You ought to read the case before speculating on the Court's rationale.
I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court...
There are no strict constructionists on the Supreme Court and there never will be, because there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. When a judge thinks the text is ambiguous he makes a decision based on what he thinks is right. Sometimes, they will even do this when people disagree on whether the text is ambiguous.
Scalia has done this. Thomas has done this. Rhenquist did it. Every single one of them has done it.
So have fun waiting on your strict constructionists. You might as well wait for Godot.
Seriously, why did they place this issue under the umbrella of privacy?
Because there was already precedent for treating birth control as a privacy issue. Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a state's attempt to stop its citizens from using birth control.
Any divisive issue has two sides to it, and abortion is no exception. The privacy perspective is that it is the woman's body, and as long as the pregnancy has not reached a point of "viability" it is her private decision. The other perspective is that at some point it becomes a viable human being and no longer a private matter.
I completely disagree with the term "activist judges". It's a dangerous bit of political agit-prop, designed to erode respect for the judicial system. If we didn't have judges, we wouldn't have a free country.
We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.
This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."
Slashdot Mirror
Why should they get to do it all over again with a financial punishment and a lower standard of proof?
"They" don't. The criminal case is "the state" or "the people" against the defendant. The civil case is "the families of ron goldman and nicole simpson" against the defendant. Those families didn't get to decide whether the case was prosecuted criminally. They can't force the state to seek restitution for them. Instead, they have to seek it for themselves.
What "different purpose" does that serve?
It serves to compensate people for a loss that another person has caused to them. The criminal case serves the public's desire for retribution against someone who has violated our rules.
If someone steals your car and wrecks it, they can be prosecuted by the state, regardless of whether you want them to be. Either way, you still have the right to sue them for the financial loss they have caused.
Look at OJ, even if you believe he was guilty you have to admit the process is fucked up.
The hell I do. The civil and criminal systems exist for different purposes and have differing standards of proof.
After probably having killed their mother, OJ still has custody of their kids... now that's fucked up.
At least you know if you win the first trial, they don't get to do it over.
I remember bearshare vaguely. Wasn't that a gnutella client with built-in spyware?
IIRC, it was yet another gnutella client, which also turned your computer into a web server with a browseable listing of your shared files.
I agree. If you put warnings all over the place, there will eventually be some crazy people who think it's just a big stash of treasure and go dig it up.
As the FTA points out, people who robbed the pyramids in Egypt didn't pay any attention to the warnings about curses and such... we can't be sure that a potentially uneducated group of future beings will believe all that mumbo jumbo about radioactivity.
Well, emusic is the second largest online retailer of music after itunes, and they sell music for around 21 cents a song. Granted, they have a use it or lose it subscription model.
But that's a pretty big pricing disparity, especially considering that itunes sells much of emusic's library at 99 cents per song with no value added... unless you consider DRM an added value.
Ubuntu picked up my AC97 audio automatically, both version 5.04 and 5.10.
Same here. Ditto for the Dapper Drake prerelease. Didn't have to "install" anything as far as drivers.
shoot it into the motherfucking sun!!!
In a plane... a plane with motherfucking snakes on it!
As far as I know, the Ubuntu foundation operates independently of Canonical, Ltd.
How does a post that starts with "as far as I know" get modded +4 informative?
All you have to do is look at the bottom of the page at ubuntu.com.
"© 2005 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd."
You should also note the grandparent's use of the word corporate. Red Hat is indeed a publically traded corporation, while Canonical is a privately held Limited Partnership. There's a big difference between those two when it comes to legal rights, shareholder obligations, and overall evil-ness.
Buzzz... wrong again. The suffix "Ltd." does not mean "limited partnership". Ltd. is a suffix added to British companies (and companies in some other countries) to show that the liability of investors in the company is limited to their investment... in other words, it is a corporation. See this wikipedia article for more details.
I use ubuntu on a daily basis (using it right now in fact). The fact that a corporation is behind it doesn't mean it's bad.
The 770 is available for retail sale, but not really intended for the general public.
If you sell it to the general public, then you are intending that they will buy it.
The fact that it is open source should NEVER be an excuse for putting out a buggy retail product.
Gentoo and Ubuntu ought to be enough for anyone. That's it. No more corporate Linuxes.
Ubuntu, like RedHat, is maintained by a for-profit corporation whose goal is to make money for its shareholders.
SHOCKERS!
In order to stay competitive, MySQL will need a new storage engine... or perhaps keep updating the GPL'd version of InnoDB.
I don't think that is not an option. MySQL AB has a dual-licensing scheme for MySQL. They need another company (like Solid) from whom they can dual license an engine for use with MySQL.
Now... if they wanted to go completely GPL and quit selling MySQL for use in proprietary applications, they could keep updating the GPL version of InnoDB and keep distributing it. But then they would lose the revenue that comes from the proprietary-licensed versions of their product... and there goes their business model.
Phone use will be required, but could easily function with a Bluetooth earpiece. It will have to have a big enough screen in portrait or landscape mode to surf the web (surfing the web on my Tungsten T3 sucks), will have to be able to plug into a projector and deliver Keynote (or Powerpoint) presentations, read and annotate pdf's, have an honest 4-5hr battery life (ideally more, but this will depend upon new battery technology or fuel cells), be rugged, have a decent way to enter information through a keyboard (real or virtual) and be reasonably affordable.
As TFA points out, laptops are getting smaller and smaller. If you need all these features, why not just buy a subcompact notebook???
The point is that PDAs are great if they are cheap and simple. They don't need to be overladen with features.
Once you get to the point where your PDA does everything that a computer does, why not just add a full keyboard to it? The cost and weight will be about the same. And with a tiny laptop, you can run windows or linux and know exactly what programs are available for it without having to guess or search the web before purchasing.
Which is precisely why the Republicans are wrong here. The first Republican President warned of corporate power, corporate influence in government, and monopolies. Anti-trust law used to be something Republicans accepted as pro-capitalism, and pro-democracy. Current Republican politicians have been bought, it would seem.
Couldn't agree more. There is a very warped understanding of what it means to be pro-market and pro-capitalism now. No regulation means no rules. Capitalism without rules is not capitalism.
The answer isn't no rules. And it isn't rules about everything under the sun. The answer is moderate regulation that doesn't get too much in the way, but is only applied where necessary.
It shouldn't be necessary to tell ISPs that you can't do this... but jesus christ on a pogo-stick, they'd sell the old people into slavery now if it weren't illegal.
I wouldn't equate predictability with "making sense".
It hardly makes sense to allow an ISP to charge other companies to allow their companies to access the other company's website, when the ISP's customers are already paying for that privilege.
It only makes sense in that it is predictable that Republicans would go for this.
Republicans always vote for big businesses above small businesses and individuals. After all, that's where their bread is buttered. But in any substantive sense, it doesn't make sense at all.
From the FTA:
Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.
What an unfair statement to make. I'm sure that Microsoft is just looking out for everyone's best interest.
They did say "It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business".
Sounds like they're just trying to be helpful. Gosh!
This would be totally legal, and 100% possible given majority voting rights.
Majority rule is not the only rule. Nor is it the most important.
Not sure where you got the idea for this, but it's very far from legal. As a majority shareholder, you have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders in how you govern the company. That means you have a legal obligation to look out for their best interests. Ripping people off is obviously not looking out for their best interests.
Also, you cannot discriminate against shareholders within a class of shares. They have to be treated as one group.
Linux Kernel Mailing List slashdotted.
I find it pretty offensive that you use the term "gay" as a derogatory term.
I find it funny that you're offended.
Perhaps you aren't aware that "gay" is in common usage by the youngsters as a pejorative term, and this is nothing but a parody of that usage.
If you would relax your offensive sensors a little, we wouldn't have to parse words so carefully for you, and you would instantly become a more attractive person.
That certainly wasn't how it was seen at the time it was ratified. You are correct. As I already pointed out, the 14th Amendment caused a major shift in the way individual rights are enforced in the US. It applies the Bill of Rights to the states and specifically empowers Congress to pass laws that enforce those rights.
The state constituition in question clearly permitted the action and the US Consitituition as a general rule only limits what the US Government can do. So they upheld the taking and noted that if the state laws were different they would have ruled differently ...
The US Constitution is a "baseline" as far as rights go. State constitutions can provide more protection for individual liberties, but they cannot reduce the protections that the Federal constitution provides.
For over a hundred years, the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply almost all of the first ten amendments to the states. The Supreme Court would not have even decided the case if it were based entirely on state law. Kelo is a case where the Court interprets the Fifth Amendment as it applies to and limits a city government (a unit of the state).
You ought to read the case before speculating on the Court's rationale.
I await the day when we get enough strict constructionists on the Supreme Court ...
There are no strict constructionists on the Supreme Court and there never will be, because there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. When a judge thinks the text is ambiguous he makes a decision based on what he thinks is right. Sometimes, they will even do this when people disagree on whether the text is ambiguous.
Scalia has done this. Thomas has done this. Rhenquist did it. Every single one of them has done it.
So have fun waiting on your strict constructionists. You might as well wait for Godot.
Um, no it isn't.
Seriously, why did they place this issue under the umbrella of privacy?
Because there was already precedent for treating birth control as a privacy issue. Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a state's attempt to stop its citizens from using birth control.
Any divisive issue has two sides to it, and abortion is no exception. The privacy perspective is that it is the woman's body, and as long as the pregnancy has not reached a point of "viability" it is her private decision. The other perspective is that at some point it becomes a viable human being and no longer a private matter.
I completely disagree with the term "activist judges". It's a dangerous bit of political agit-prop, designed to erode respect for the judicial system. If we didn't have judges, we wouldn't have a free country.
Citizen Ruth, great movie.
We would have been better off without a Bill of Rights. Since the first ten amendments are enumerations of things government CAN NOT do, government has plausible (but still wrong) ground to assume there are other powers it can take on because nothing says it can't. The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded.
This was actually an argument that some of the Founding Fathers made against the Bill of Rights at the time it was drafted. That argument was the reason that the 9th Amendment was tacked on. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But in spite of the 9th Amendment, the fact that a declared right is not enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments is frequently used to argue that we do not have that right. For example, the argument against abortion rights almost always begins with "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say..."