Holy Lord. You call Photoshop a niche application?
I don't have any numbers, but I doubt that it is installed on more than 5% of all PCs. That's still a large number of installations (and worth a lot of money), but I call 5% a niche. If you have any concrete numbers that show me to be wrong, I will gladly withdraw my comment.
Regarding Word vs. Openoffice Writer -- I have found capabilities in the latter that do not exist in the former (and the reverse). Writer is a very capable tool, suitable for the majority of users. And don't get me talking about un-improvements in Office: useful features that worked in prior versions, but do not in later versions. Yuk!
The Open Source model just doesn't suit mass markets: mass markets generate mass money, which is a big stimulus for companies.
The mere existence of OpenOffice as a viable tool shows that this comment is not relevent.
... and Photoshop, Illustrator, and video editing apps.
Those may be important to you, but they are niche applications, with replacements in the open source world. The Outlook/Exchange combo is much more difficult, partly because there has to be a migration path to effect a replacement (ie. replace one at a time) and there is no good migration path.
I believe it is a small but important subset of Apps that supports the MS lock-in: Outlook/Exchange/Blackberry. Outlook does not work well with Exchange replacements (it can work with the aid of a plug-in, but there are all kinds of limitations).
Sorry, I didn't realize you were Justice Whoever57. I'll try to remember from now on that you're the decider of what is constitutional.
Ad-Hominem argument
This order does not intend to be the whole of US law. Any powers claimed in it are still subject to the Constitution. Therefore, due process exists whether or not it is specifically stated otherwise in the order. The only difference here is that it is claimed that the Executive branch can do this before notifying the courts instead of asking for permission first.
But where in the order is there any provision for an affected person challenge such "blocking"? I keep asking this and you keep dancing around the question. There is no process described in the order. The only challenge that you can point to is to challenge its constitutionality and a successful challenge would void it for everyone.
That's a dangerous step, but it does not run counter entirely to the powers the Supreme Court has found the Executive branch to have on numerous other occasions. It's basically the same idea that if a city police officer believes he is curtailing an imminent threat to bystanders that he can take your car on the spot without so much as calling his superior back at the station. The car gets impounded, which is the same thing as freezing an account, and the government agencies involved argue against the defendant in court after the car is taken.
Again, what rights does the order give to people to challege a blocking of assets? Answer, it does not. So, an affected person only has the right to challenge to order's constitutionality, not the blocking applied to him/her. In your example above, there are established procedures to challenge such an impounding, where are the similar procedures in this order?
Why is it that you keep reading stuff into this order that is simply not present?
1. for up to 48 hours without being charged with a crime, and after that until the arraignment.
The arraignment is "due process". Thus in example given above, there is due process.
Please quote from the actual executive order to show exactly where there is any due process involved. Also, your argument that if the money if frozen only the bank benefits is not right. The government prints money. It is effectively the same if you give money back to the government or if you burn your banknotes, or if the money becomes otherwise unusable (eg. frozen).
Really, the only difference here from what the executive could do to you for any suspected crime is that since there's declared state of national emergency in regards to terrorism, they're claiming the rights to do this without a court order. It's already been possible with one.
Or to rephrase, the difference between this order and what has happened before is due process. The Fifth Amendment does not say that people cannot be deprived of libery or property, only that there must be due process. This order has no due process -- what's so hard to understand about that?
So these people, once they know about the block, or if they are apprehended beforehand, will have the courts just like everyone else.
Oh really, where does the order spell out any rights they have regarding this. The only right they have is to challenge it's constitutionality -- which is my point -- it is unconstitutional.
That's what freezing is. It's a temporary block on access to the assets while legal action is taken. If it was to be permanent, it'd be called seizure or confiscation.
1. So, using your argument, you could be sent to jail without any due process, since this is only a temporary deprivation of your liberty?
2. Freezing may usually be temporary, but, the word "freezing" is not used in the order and just because it may have been normal practice for a freeze to be temporary, why should you assume that the "blocking" in this order will continue to be temporary in the future? There is no language that indicate that it would be temporary.
IMHO, there is a difference between seizure due to exigent circumstances which is followed by due process, and "blocking" with no prospect of due process.
Of course, the "if you have nothing to hide..." crowd are likely to be out, but what about rogue agents? What about investigations that target the wrong people by accident?
I suspect that getting such a tool installed on my Linux box would be much harder.
Do you think someone's nail clippers or their liquid medicines being confiscated at an airport because they forgot to pack them separately is "due process"? Actually, you generally have a choice there, as in not taking the flight in order to keep your stuff, but that's not much of a choice. Is that more or less troubling than temporary freezing of an account?
As you point out, such items are not technically confiscated -- you either hand them over voluntarily or you don't fly. So: yes, it is much less troubling than freezing of an account.
Also, did I miss the part about temporary freezing of accounts in the executive order? No, I just checked. It says nothing about temporary freezing, just freezing.
As much fault as I tend to find in the current executive branch, I have to agree with the parent on this one. Reading through the actual order I see no mention of seizing anything, merely blocking the transfer of property (which, presumably, includes assets both physical and monetary).
And that would be interesting and relevent if the Fifth Amendment has a provision blocking siezure without due process, but it does not. It has a provision banning persons from being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. I think that losing access to your money constitutes being deprived of it.
OK so your position is that all freezing of assets by the government is unconstitutional, an that it's unconstitutional no matter who is POTUS when it occurs?
No, that is not my position. My postion is that freezing of assets constitutes being "deprived" and if this happens without due process then it is unconstitutional. I also consider that there may be some wiggle room about the definition or "person" -- for example, foreign entities may not qualify as "persons".
You can probably imagine the problems of a prosecutor who's not allowed to show a chain of custody for evidence at trial. Now, imagine that the suspect has not been deprived, temporarily, the use of his gun, ammo, drugs, car, PDA, nor meth lab equipment. How are those things going to be used as evidence when the suspect simply disposes of all of them after the arrest?
Errr.... get a warrant? You know, due process! Due process does not have to be a criminal trial.
I disagree, when assets are frozen it means nobody can touch it, if it were seized it would be taken by the government and kept. After due process someone with frozen assets can get their assets back.
As I was trying to point out, the Fifth Amendment does not refer to "siezure", it refers to being "deprived". I think that losing access to your money is a clear case of being "deprived".
Now tell me where the Constitution gives the President the authority to do this, since it is banned by the Fifth amendment. It appears to my reading that even war does not allow the taking of life, liberty or property without due process.
This isn't about seizure of anything, it's about freezing of assets,
This is a distinction without a difference. If you cannot access the money in your account, it is no different from the money being siezed. You have still been "deprived" of it (which is the actual word used in the fifth amendment).
You don't actually use your ISP's DNS servers, do you? You know that many large ISPs don't respect TTL data, so there is no guarantee of actually getting the correct IP address when using many large ISPs' name servers, don't you?
I notice that the settlement offer explicitly excludes any claims for sanctions that the defendant has already requested. Can you give more information on possible sanctions against the RIAA and/or their lawyers?
I have also seen good speeds (>15Mbps) when downloading using Comcast. However, upload speeds can be problematic. Just today, I was uploading using sftp and it started out at 150kBps and quickly dropped to ~40kBps (somewhat greater than 320kbps, depending on the overhead)
I have also seen slow ssh speeds to my work LAN, yet when I go via an external server, the ssh speed is much better.
Newsflash: If you're checking the results of monitoring software, you're not a manager,
Nice touch, taking that comment out of context. My point was that the critical answer is to ensure that procedures are in place to monitor vital equipment, processes, etc.. That does not require that you put them in place personally.
Also, "checking the results of the automated monitoring" might mean asking the team.
This question has to be answered with more context -- as an IT manager, one should have put in place automated monitoring and backup processes. One should answer the question by discussing these first -- at least at a very high level.
Then, the first thing one does on arrival is to check the results of the automated monitoring. However, the key point to get over to the interviewer is the proactive setup of the automated monitoring.
Of course for many people, they will already have checked the results of the automated systems from home, so then, the first thing one can do as a manager is to talk to the team -- get updates, opinions, ideas, or just bonding.
Tell them to check out the latest versions of OpenOffice first. OpenOffice has got very good recently, but the key is to get the MS TrueType corefonts installed (on gentoo: "emerge corefonts").
From my company's weblogs, Linux has gone from approximately 6% in December to approximately 11% in June (not counting the "OS Unknown" and "known robots").
Wasn't there a Slashdot story recently proclaiming the CD to be obsolete?
Even though digital music sales are up, for many people, the CD is still the way you carry and purchase music.
I prefer to get CDs and use my fair use rights to rip the music. OK, I could also download from iTunes (well, I could, if I ran Windows of OS-X), but I prefer to buy CDs off ebay and then rip the good tracks.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding Word vs. Openoffice Writer -- I have found capabilities in the latter that do not exist in the former (and the reverse). Writer is a very capable tool, suitable for the majority of users. And don't get me talking about un-improvements in Office: useful features that worked in prior versions, but do not in later versions. Yuk! The mere existence of OpenOffice as a viable tool shows that this comment is not relevent.
Do employees never leave MS? Where are the "Xx Yy is leaving MS, Windows must be dying" stories?
Why is it that you keep reading stuff into this order that is simply not present?
Please quote from the actual executive order to show exactly where there is any due process involved. Also, your argument that if the money if frozen only the bank benefits is not right. The government prints money. It is effectively the same if you give money back to the government or if you burn your banknotes, or if the money becomes otherwise unusable (eg. frozen).
Or to rephrase, the difference between this order and what has happened before is due process. The Fifth Amendment does not say that people cannot be deprived of libery or property, only that there must be due process. This order has no due process -- what's so hard to understand about that?
Oh really, where does the order spell out any rights they have regarding this. The only right they have is to challenge it's constitutionality -- which is my point -- it is unconstitutional.
1. So, using your argument, you could be sent to jail without any due process, since this is only a temporary deprivation of your liberty?
2. Freezing may usually be temporary, but, the word "freezing" is not used in the order and just because it may have been normal practice for a freeze to be temporary, why should you assume that the "blocking" in this order will continue to be temporary in the future? There is no language that indicate that it would be temporary.
IMHO, there is a difference between seizure due to exigent circumstances which is followed by due process, and "blocking" with no prospect of due process.
Of course, the "if you have nothing to hide..." crowd are likely to be out, but what about rogue agents? What about investigations that target the wrong people by accident?
I suspect that getting such a tool installed on my Linux box would be much harder.
Also, did I miss the part about temporary freezing of accounts in the executive order? No, I just checked. It says nothing about temporary freezing, just freezing.
Very good.
Now tell me where the Constitution gives the President the authority to do this, since it is banned by the Fifth amendment. It appears to my reading that even war does not allow the taking of life, liberty or property without due process.
I have a 64-bit-native Linux desktop. Flash works on it, through the magic of nspluginwrapper.
I notice that the settlement offer explicitly excludes any claims for sanctions that the defendant has already requested. Can you give more information on possible sanctions against the RIAA and/or their lawyers?
I have also seen good speeds (>15Mbps) when downloading using Comcast. However, upload speeds can be problematic. Just today, I was uploading using sftp and it started out at 150kBps and quickly dropped to ~40kBps (somewhat greater than 320kbps, depending on the overhead)
I have also seen slow ssh speeds to my work LAN, yet when I go via an external server, the ssh speed is much better.
Also, "checking the results of the automated monitoring" might mean asking the team.
This question has to be answered with more context -- as an IT manager, one should have put in place automated monitoring and backup processes. One should answer the question by discussing these first -- at least at a very high level.
Then, the first thing one does on arrival is to check the results of the automated monitoring. However, the key point to get over to the interviewer is the proactive setup of the automated monitoring.
Of course for many people, they will already have checked the results of the automated systems from home, so then, the first thing one can do as a manager is to talk to the team -- get updates, opinions, ideas, or just bonding.
Tell them to check out the latest versions of OpenOffice first. OpenOffice has got very good recently, but the key is to get the MS TrueType corefonts installed (on gentoo: "emerge corefonts").
From my company's weblogs, Linux has gone from approximately 6% in December to approximately 11% in June (not counting the "OS Unknown" and "known robots").
Perhaps you should have googled "dan lyons linux" before replying to him?