You're correct, but I don't see how it is relevant. Sun said Microsoft had to remove the extensions or remove Java entirely. Microsoft removed Java entirely. Sun never anticipated that, and screwed themselves royally in the process. It was, however, an arrangement entirely within Sun's original demands, and completely acceptable to the court where Sun filed suit.
"Microsoft did us irreparable harm by agreeing to our demands. We will now sue Microsoft for complying with the terms we dictated to them."
So, Sun sues Microsoft over making Windows-specific extensions to Java, and Microsoft eventually responds by removing Java from IE. Now Sun is suing MS for removing Java from IE.
I licensed your product. You didn't like the way I implemented it on my platform. So I removed it. Now you're not happy that I've removed it. Since when does a license that allows you to distribute something REQUIRE you to distribute something? If it's "all or nothing", and Microsoft chooses "nothing", where does Sun have a case?
This should be laughed out of court.
Better? Not easier, cheaper, or whatever...
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 1
Isn't the real question what the better solution is for a given task? Evaluating the cost of pcs relative to macs seems to sidestep the issue, as does debating whether a product with a boatload of limitations and a one-page instruction sheet is easier to install than a complete and open Linux-based solution. Ease of installation and cost of hardware are important factors, but not necessarily deciding ones. I want to know what the best way to accomplish a given task is, and that's going to depend heavily on the nature and scope of the task.
Sounds like the old addage "when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." Sounds like all he's got is Macs...
The "educational" messages RMS suggests are derisive and condescending. I guess I should have expected nothing less.
Not that it's not unreasonable to discuss the format in which you and another person wish to exchange files, though. You should.
It used to be that you could sign an NDA with Microsoft and get a complete copy of the Word file format specifications. This was to allow third-party software developers to write code that works with.DOC files. I don't know why this option wouldn't be available to those who wish to create file converters - that was one of the primary reasons it was made available. They might balk at giving it to competitors, but for those developing utility programs, not office suites, it may be an option.
The vast majority of Word users will never feel deprived because they cannot access or modify the source code for Word (or Windows). The vast majority of Word users are not programmers. Ignoring this turns a practical discussion into a theological discussion, which may please RMS, but does little to support a reasonable argument.
Used to be you could get a lunchbox case into which you could assemble standard components. They were pricey because they included plasma screens. I'd expect you could still find one that used an LCD flat panel instead, but I'm not sure where to start looking.
I did find a few possibilities. Most are more expensive than the equivalent desktops, but portability still has its price.
WescomVoxKintek
That should be enough to give a few ideas. I wouldn't think people used to cramming components into 1U rack boxes would have too many problems putting a lunchbox together...
Used to be that the grandaddy of the "non traditional" degrees was Regents College, now Excelsior College. They give extensive credits for "life experience" and also offer a number of exams under ACT:PEP.
I haven't taken the plunge yet, but everyone I know who's gone for dsl has gone through several weeks of hell getting it installed and properly configured. Most were able to get it solid after about 3 weeks. Some never did. These are mostly end users, but some were geeks.
Everyone I've known who got a cable modem had few if any problems, but seldom saw the bandwidth they'd been promised. Might be fast, just wasn't as fast as it should be.
Let's say a known terrorist against whom a warrant has been issued comes to my house. Now MY phone is going to be tapped, and MY conversations subject to interception. It's one thing to allow the tapping of any phone registered to the suspect, but not to tap any phone the terrorist just happens to get near. That's overly broad.
Despite our differences, there are many things that most/. readers agree on.
Individual rights are at least as important as corporate rights.
New technology should not result in a loss of individual freedom, liberty, or privacy.
Protection of intellectual property should not result in irrational patents or repressive copyright restrictions.
I'm a Libertarian. One thing that quickly becomes aparent when you get to know Libertarians is that every nutcase and fringe view under the sun is represented. There are a lot of things we don't collectively agree on. But it isn't hard to find thing things that we do agree on. In most cases, it comes down to preserving rights and freedoms, and restricting the scope of government and its intrusion into our daily lives and privacy. Once that's agreed upon, most of the diffences are a matter of how we wish to exercise our rights and freedoms.
It shouldn't be difficult for/. to create a "Declaration of Principles" if that was desirable. The larger question is whether/. wants to be political.
No, that anyone who wants crossplatform code is discouraged from writing for Windows. As more of these functions move into the OS, you either write for Windows, or add an undesirable layer of abstraction. That's what I meant by "reinventing the wheel."
Microsoft doesn't care about crossplatform, they care about Windows. Most commercial software MUST support Windows, and if that means writing it twice, most will ONLY support Windows. And Microsoft likes it that way.
Getting people to write native Windows code, and ONLY native Windows code is what Microsoft's after. That it also stifles competition just gives them giggles...
You can, but you're writing a native Windows application and not something portable. Otherwise, you have to reinvent the wheel. And that's pretty much the way Microsoft likes it. Not so much to force everyone else out of business, although I'm sure they don't mind that aspect, but to make the software do a windows-specific implementation if they want to access any of the features.
But how is that different from if it was built into IE, and IE was removed? You can still reinvent the wheel, you just don't get the option to make the system level calls.
From their perspective, making people write for Windows is a good thing. The more frequently that I see external code trigger native Windows functions when executing on IE, the more I wonder. Yes, it's a good thing in terms of commonality and interface, but I like the isolation of not letting external code touch my kernel, either.
Netscape and Opera don't WANT to work this way - they want platform independance. Microsoft wants Windows and nothing else. So, at best, Netscape and Opera will do things in their own code that could be done faster and easier at the Windows level, but they'd sacrifice platform independance to do so. Likewise, IE can do things at the Windows level that other browsers simply can't do, but it's not even fully compatible with the Mac version, and not even available on any other platform.
It would seem that, given the language they used, if MS believes that a function is used by Windows and by IE, it belongs in Windows. If it is ONLY used by IE, it belongs in IE. That doesn't sound irrational to me.
So they're advancing the argument that if the OS can natively read HTML, which it can, that feature is not specific to IE, and the code for HTML parsing should be built into Windows.
So, in other words, they built the majority of browser functions into the OS, then wrote IE to expose the built-in features and add additional features unique to IE. That's consistent with what they've said previously, but I'm betting that the specific wording is precisely calculated to match the wording in the Court of Appeals ruling.
Just as the Appeals Court gave the District Court very specific instructions on how they would have to adjudge specific issues, they also used very specific language in describing where the lines should be drawn with regard to unlawful tying. All Microsoft seems to be doing is trying to say "Well, if you look at it that way, we're really on the other side of the line you drew - don't you think?"
Might work. Might not. If not, it certainly gives them an additional avenue to pursue at the District Court. Any obstacles or delays they can throw up work to their advantage, especially if they're willing to settle.
I called and left a message, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've replied repeatedly to the address in the 550 and got nothing but a single form letter back in return. I performed the testing via abuse.net as suggested in the form letter, and I watched the system work as it should. This is a GroupWise system, it WILL receive the messages but it will NOT route or deliver them.
Frankly, I think it's unethical to block without any notification. WHOIS lists me as technical contact for the domain in question, and I receive any mail sent to postmaster.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm not publicly posting the address, the/. effect would kill me either way. If you'd like to check it out, and will promise not to publish the address or hostname, send me a private message.
If I wasn't as worried about availability as accessibility, I'd post it. But I can't have everyone on/. trying it out, that would bring the server down for sure.
If anyone wants to verify this behavior, please send me a private email and I'll be glad to provide the info, as long as you're willing to promise not to post it.
Having been periodically (and erroneously) blacklisted, it's fine by me if they all die. Fix the problem, and stop bitching about open relays.
My server isn't an open relay, but enough detection methods out there are useless enough to think it is. I'm still fighting Earthlink to unblock us.
BTW, this is NOT something legislation will fix. This is something that will be fixed by a) a decent replacement for SMTP that's universally accepted, and b) competent administration.
My site's just fine. We don't route spam. Leave me the hell alone.
Haven't there been numerous successful attempts to get government source code released by invoking the Freedom of Information Act? If it's publicly funded and not classified, I seem to recall it usually becoming available after enough requests.
I've got to get myself an aussie mail drop, bank account, and credit card within the next six months.
Unless I misread the compromise, you can collect your winnings but aren't liable for your losses. But there will always be someone who'll take your bets...
I'm currently manager of my department for a small law firm. It's a small department, just me, my assistant, and a part-time trainer. My annual budget includes a total of six weeks of paid training, nominally divided into three weeks for me, two weeks for my assistant, and one week for the trainer. In actuality, it's treated as one pool and allocated as needed. We often have a surplus. For training paid for by the Firm and considered a job requirement, we train off-site during the day. If an employee wants to attend other training that is job-related but not required, that is covered under educational benefits and reimbursed, I believe at 80% if there is no grade or exam, and at 100% if a passing grade or exam is completed. That has the side effect of paying for certification exams where they wouldn't otherwise be covered, as passing the exam will raise the reimbursement.
My previous employer would pay for required training, and grudgingly allowed us to attend during the day if we refused to take the required classes on our own time. There was supposed to be an educational benefit available, but it required both prior approval and availability of funds. Approval was seldom granted, usually denied as being job-related but outside our job requirements. Funds were seldom available as they were usually snapped up by the managers before any approved requests were processed.
My second prior employer would pay for any job related training if the department head approved it. If it was required training, it was done during working hours. If it was not required, it was expected to be completed after hours. Exams were not covered and not required. This resulted in a lot of people taking a lot of training, but with little actual retention or benefit to the Firm.
My third prior employer would pay for training when it was required for performance of duties under our contract AND the customer approved the costs. It was normally done during the day. Education benefits did not cover job-related training unless college credit was given.
Overall, it's always been my impression that it was an employer's obligation to pay for required training and to allow the employee to attend daytime sessions during working hours - in other words, give you work time to complete the training. I've always considered it unacceptable when companies either denied required training or insisted that it be completed on the employees time. I've often seen educational benefits that would cover the cost of desired training, provided it was done on the employees time, and often certification exams could be covered, if only by claiming that they were necessary to substantiate the required passing grade in classes that otherwise offered only certificates of attendance.
We had a long discussion of this topic, since the existing arrangement was not fair. The resulting arrangement wasn't fair either, but somewhat less so.
We had both salaried and hourly employees in our department. By and large, only the managers were salaried. I was an exception.
The tech staff were required on a rotating basis to carry the pager and cell phone for evening/weekend support. We were finally able to settle things for the hourly workers, so that there was a stipend for the week in which it was your turn (I think it was $150 just to carry the stuff around), and if you were required to respond to a call, you billed your actual time. If you had to come on site, you billed a minimum of three hours.
We never did work out the deal for the salaried ones (me, that is), but as you were allowed to trade off, it was just a matter of asking everyone else "Who wants $150?" and I never had a problem finding a volunteer.
I was a nerd. I got picked on. I got beat up. I was harassed. I think I got kicked out for a day once for fighting. With a friend. His parents took us to see a play on the evening after we were suspended. Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
Jocks have always had problems with nerds and geeks. We didn't care about athletics, they hated anyone smarter than they were. Match made in heaven. But how many boys can say they got beat up by the captain of the GIRLS team?
But our administrators didn't have their heads up their asses. If these things were brought to their attention, they did something about it. You might be a nerd and a loser, but they'd try and make sure you at least had a chance. They seemed to think that keeping the jocks in line was part of their job - not getting rid of the "troublemaking" nerds who narced on them.
I was one of the founders of our high school computer club. We were allowed to get away with murder (do I really need to say that I mean that figuratively?). As long as we were pursuing a high-profile academic activity, we were allowed as much lattitude as the jocks who were on a winning team.
We showed weird movies in the auditorium for fund raisers. We did co-op marketing with Radio Shack. I went and testified in front of the county coucil to get more computer money in the school board budget - drawing praise from the principal of another high school in the county.
Somewhere along the line, the emphasis has shifted from encouraging excellence in whatever area the student has chosen to pursue to knee-jerk reactionary explusions of anyone the administrators can't understand or relate to. I don't get it. When I was in high school, none of the administrators understood computers, but they understood that we were good at something important and that we brought positive attention to ourselves and the school as a result.
These days, from everything I hear and read, the main concern is on stifling individuality, and most of the time, athletics is the only really supported outlet for individual achievement.
The Bill of Rights is comprised of the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution, and both were published concurrently as a single document. As such, get your historical facts straight before you call me a nimrod.
The law is a matter of black and white. Interpretation of the law is where the grey areas are both created and dispelled. That process, by the way is set forth in the Constitution. Get your facts straight before you call me a nerd.
And if you hadn't noticed, both the 7th and 9th ammendments make it clear that common law otherwise remains in effect.
But I'm obviously shouting at a wall, here.
I have served honorably in the US Navy. I know exactly what rights I gave up to do so. I have held high clearances and dealt with matters of national security. I know exactly what rights I gave up to do so. And I know that you are wrong when you state that the law requires responsibilites in exchange for those rights - read the Constitution, this is not at anywhere in the document. Nowhere is it stated that these rights have a minimum age requirement, or that you must do such and so forth to be granted these rights. By committing a criminal act you may place yourself in a position where you may be judicially relieved of certain rights. Don't confuse due process with individual responsibility. Due process is in and of itself a right in this country.
These are rights of citizenship, which most of us have received as a birthright. That is why the abortion debate is difficult, as it poses the question of when an unborn child attains individual rights separate and distinct from those of the mother. I agree that the debate itself is pointless as both sides are hopelessly intractable, I simply wanted to point out that this is the exact legal point you were attempting to avoid.
You're wrong, but you have a right to express your opinion.
Think of rights of guardianship as being similar to a durable power of attorney. The child has all the rights, and the state cannot deprive them of those rights, but their parents have the legal authority to conduct affairs on the child's behalf, often against the child's wishes. This is where the concept of "emmancipated minor" came from.
Slashdot Mirror
You're correct, but I don't see how it is relevant. Sun said Microsoft had to remove the extensions or remove Java entirely. Microsoft removed Java entirely. Sun never anticipated that, and screwed themselves royally in the process. It was, however, an arrangement entirely within Sun's original demands, and completely acceptable to the court where Sun filed suit.
"Microsoft did us irreparable harm by agreeing to our demands. We will now sue Microsoft for complying with the terms we dictated to them."
So, Sun sues Microsoft over making Windows-specific extensions to Java, and Microsoft eventually responds by removing Java from IE. Now Sun is suing MS for removing Java from IE.
I licensed your product. You didn't like the way I implemented it on my platform. So I removed it. Now you're not happy that I've removed it. Since when does a license that allows you to distribute something REQUIRE you to distribute something? If it's "all or nothing", and Microsoft chooses "nothing", where does Sun have a case?
This should be laughed out of court.
Isn't the real question what the better solution is for a given task? Evaluating the cost of pcs relative to macs seems to sidestep the issue, as does debating whether a product with a boatload of limitations and a one-page instruction sheet is easier to install than a complete and open Linux-based solution. Ease of installation and cost of hardware are important factors, but not necessarily deciding ones. I want to know what the best way to accomplish a given task is, and that's going to depend heavily on the nature and scope of the task.
Sounds like the old addage "when all you've got is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail." Sounds like all he's got is Macs...
Always doubt the universal solution.
The "educational" messages RMS suggests are derisive and condescending. I guess I should have expected nothing less.
.DOC files. I don't know why this option wouldn't be available to those who wish to create file converters - that was one of the primary reasons it was made available. They might balk at giving it to competitors, but for those developing utility programs, not office suites, it may be an option.
Not that it's not unreasonable to discuss the format in which you and another person wish to exchange files, though. You should.
It used to be that you could sign an NDA with Microsoft and get a complete copy of the Word file format specifications. This was to allow third-party software developers to write code that works with
The vast majority of Word users will never feel deprived because they cannot access or modify the source code for Word (or Windows). The vast majority of Word users are not programmers. Ignoring this turns a practical discussion into a theological discussion, which may please RMS, but does little to support a reasonable argument.
Used to be you could get a lunchbox case into which you could assemble standard components. They were pricey because they included plasma screens. I'd expect you could still find one that used an LCD flat panel instead, but I'm not sure where to start looking. I did find a few possibilities. Most are more expensive than the equivalent desktops, but portability still has its price. Wescom Vox Kintek That should be enough to give a few ideas. I wouldn't think people used to cramming components into 1U rack boxes would have too many problems putting a lunchbox together...
Used to be that the grandaddy of the "non traditional" degrees was Regents College, now Excelsior College. They give extensive credits for "life experience" and also offer a number of exams under ACT:PEP.
I haven't taken the plunge yet, but everyone I know who's gone for dsl has gone through several weeks of hell getting it installed and properly configured. Most were able to get it solid after about 3 weeks. Some never did. These are mostly end users, but some were geeks.
Everyone I've known who got a cable modem had few if any problems, but seldom saw the bandwidth they'd been promised. Might be fast, just wasn't as fast as it should be.
Let's say a known terrorist against whom a warrant has been issued comes to my house. Now MY phone is going to be tapped, and MY conversations subject to interception. It's one thing to allow the tapping of any phone registered to the suspect, but not to tap any phone the terrorist just happens to get near. That's overly broad.
Despite our differences, there are many things that most /. readers agree on.
/. to create a "Declaration of Principles" if that was desirable. The larger question is whether /. wants to be political.
Individual rights are at least as important as corporate rights.
New technology should not result in a loss of individual freedom, liberty, or privacy.
Protection of intellectual property should not result in irrational patents or repressive copyright restrictions.
I'm a Libertarian. One thing that quickly becomes aparent when you get to know Libertarians is that every nutcase and fringe view under the sun is represented. There are a lot of things we don't collectively agree on. But it isn't hard to find thing things that we do agree on. In most cases, it comes down to preserving rights and freedoms, and restricting the scope of government and its intrusion into our daily lives and privacy. Once that's agreed upon, most of the diffences are a matter of how we wish to exercise our rights and freedoms.
It shouldn't be difficult for
No, that anyone who wants crossplatform code is discouraged from writing for Windows. As more of these functions move into the OS, you either write for Windows, or add an undesirable layer of abstraction. That's what I meant by "reinventing the wheel."
Microsoft doesn't care about crossplatform, they care about Windows. Most commercial software MUST support Windows, and if that means writing it twice, most will ONLY support Windows. And Microsoft likes it that way.
Getting people to write native Windows code, and ONLY native Windows code is what Microsoft's after. That it also stifles competition just gives them giggles...
You can, but you're writing a native Windows application and not something portable. Otherwise, you have to reinvent the wheel. And that's pretty much the way Microsoft likes it. Not so much to force everyone else out of business, although I'm sure they don't mind that aspect, but to make the software do a windows-specific implementation if they want to access any of the features.
But how is that different from if it was built into IE, and IE was removed? You can still reinvent the wheel, you just don't get the option to make the system level calls.
From their perspective, making people write for Windows is a good thing. The more frequently that I see external code trigger native Windows functions when executing on IE, the more I wonder. Yes, it's a good thing in terms of commonality and interface, but I like the isolation of not letting external code touch my kernel, either.
Netscape and Opera don't WANT to work this way - they want platform independance. Microsoft wants Windows and nothing else. So, at best, Netscape and Opera will do things in their own code that could be done faster and easier at the Windows level, but they'd sacrifice platform independance to do so. Likewise, IE can do things at the Windows level that other browsers simply can't do, but it's not even fully compatible with the Mac version, and not even available on any other platform.
It would seem that, given the language they used, if MS believes that a function is used by Windows and by IE, it belongs in Windows. If it is ONLY used by IE, it belongs in IE. That doesn't sound irrational to me.
So they're advancing the argument that if the OS can natively read HTML, which it can, that feature is not specific to IE, and the code for HTML parsing should be built into Windows.
So, in other words, they built the majority of browser functions into the OS, then wrote IE to expose the built-in features and add additional features unique to IE. That's consistent with what they've said previously, but I'm betting that the specific wording is precisely calculated to match the wording in the Court of Appeals ruling.
Just as the Appeals Court gave the District Court very specific instructions on how they would have to adjudge specific issues, they also used very specific language in describing where the lines should be drawn with regard to unlawful tying. All Microsoft seems to be doing is trying to say "Well, if you look at it that way, we're really on the other side of the line you drew - don't you think?"
Might work. Might not. If not, it certainly gives them an additional avenue to pursue at the District Court. Any obstacles or delays they can throw up work to their advantage, especially if they're willing to settle.
I called and left a message, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've replied repeatedly to the address in the 550 and got nothing but a single form letter back in return. I performed the testing via abuse.net as suggested in the form letter, and I watched the system work as it should. This is a GroupWise system, it WILL receive the messages but it will NOT route or deliver them.
Frankly, I think it's unethical to block without any notification. WHOIS lists me as technical contact for the domain in question, and I receive any mail sent to postmaster.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm not publicly posting the address, the /. effect would kill me either way. If you'd like to check it out, and will promise not to publish the address or hostname, send me a private message.
If I wasn't as worried about availability as accessibility, I'd post it. But I can't have everyone on /. trying it out, that would bring the server down for sure.
If anyone wants to verify this behavior, please send me a private email and I'll be glad to provide the info, as long as you're willing to promise not to post it.
Having been periodically (and erroneously) blacklisted, it's fine by me if they all die. Fix the problem, and stop bitching about open relays.
My server isn't an open relay, but enough detection methods out there are useless enough to think it is. I'm still fighting Earthlink to unblock us.
BTW, this is NOT something legislation will fix. This is something that will be fixed by a) a decent replacement for SMTP that's universally accepted, and b) competent administration.
My site's just fine. We don't route spam. Leave me the hell alone.
Haven't there been numerous successful attempts to get government source code released by invoking the Freedom of Information Act? If it's publicly funded and not classified, I seem to recall it usually becoming available after enough requests.
I've got to get myself an aussie mail drop, bank account, and credit card within the next six months.
Unless I misread the compromise, you can collect your winnings but aren't liable for your losses. But there will always be someone who'll take your bets...
I'm currently manager of my department for a small law firm. It's a small department, just me, my assistant, and a part-time trainer. My annual budget includes a total of six weeks of paid training, nominally divided into three weeks for me, two weeks for my assistant, and one week for the trainer. In actuality, it's treated as one pool and allocated as needed. We often have a surplus. For training paid for by the Firm and considered a job requirement, we train off-site during the day. If an employee wants to attend other training that is job-related but not required, that is covered under educational benefits and reimbursed, I believe at 80% if there is no grade or exam, and at 100% if a passing grade or exam is completed. That has the side effect of paying for certification exams where they wouldn't otherwise be covered, as passing the exam will raise the reimbursement.
My previous employer would pay for required training, and grudgingly allowed us to attend during the day if we refused to take the required classes on our own time. There was supposed to be an educational benefit available, but it required both prior approval and availability of funds. Approval was seldom granted, usually denied as being job-related but outside our job requirements. Funds were seldom available as they were usually snapped up by the managers before any approved requests were processed.
My second prior employer would pay for any job related training if the department head approved it. If it was required training, it was done during working hours. If it was not required, it was expected to be completed after hours. Exams were not covered and not required. This resulted in a lot of people taking a lot of training, but with little actual retention or benefit to the Firm.
My third prior employer would pay for training when it was required for performance of duties under our contract AND the customer approved the costs. It was normally done during the day. Education benefits did not cover job-related training unless college credit was given.
Overall, it's always been my impression that it was an employer's obligation to pay for required training and to allow the employee to attend daytime sessions during working hours - in other words, give you work time to complete the training. I've always considered it unacceptable when companies either denied required training or insisted that it be completed on the employees time. I've often seen educational benefits that would cover the cost of desired training, provided it was done on the employees time, and often certification exams could be covered, if only by claiming that they were necessary to substantiate the required passing grade in classes that otherwise offered only certificates of attendance.
We had a long discussion of this topic, since the existing arrangement was not fair. The resulting arrangement wasn't fair either, but somewhat less so.
We had both salaried and hourly employees in our department. By and large, only the managers were salaried. I was an exception.
The tech staff were required on a rotating basis to carry the pager and cell phone for evening/weekend support. We were finally able to settle things for the hourly workers, so that there was a stipend for the week in which it was your turn (I think it was $150 just to carry the stuff around), and if you were required to respond to a call, you billed your actual time. If you had to come on site, you billed a minimum of three hours.
We never did work out the deal for the salaried ones (me, that is), but as you were allowed to trade off, it was just a matter of asking everyone else "Who wants $150?" and I never had a problem finding a volunteer.
I remember high school. I graduated in '82.
I was a nerd. I got picked on. I got beat up. I was harassed. I think I got kicked out for a day once for fighting. With a friend. His parents took us to see a play on the evening after we were suspended. Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.
Jocks have always had problems with nerds and geeks. We didn't care about athletics, they hated anyone smarter than they were. Match made in heaven. But how many boys can say they got beat up by the captain of the GIRLS team?
But our administrators didn't have their heads up their asses. If these things were brought to their attention, they did something about it. You might be a nerd and a loser, but they'd try and make sure you at least had a chance. They seemed to think that keeping the jocks in line was part of their job - not getting rid of the "troublemaking" nerds who narced on them.
I was one of the founders of our high school computer club. We were allowed to get away with murder (do I really need to say that I mean that figuratively?). As long as we were pursuing a high-profile academic activity, we were allowed as much lattitude as the jocks who were on a winning team.
We showed weird movies in the auditorium for fund raisers. We did co-op marketing with Radio Shack. I went and testified in front of the county coucil to get more computer money in the school board budget - drawing praise from the principal of another high school in the county.
Somewhere along the line, the emphasis has shifted from encouraging excellence in whatever area the student has chosen to pursue to knee-jerk reactionary explusions of anyone the administrators can't understand or relate to. I don't get it. When I was in high school, none of the administrators understood computers, but they understood that we were good at something important and that we brought positive attention to ourselves and the school as a result.
These days, from everything I hear and read, the main concern is on stifling individuality, and most of the time, athletics is the only really supported outlet for individual achievement.
What the hell happened?
So if I use my Hotmail account to mail my manuscript to my publisher, I've granted Microsoft the copyright to my work?
The Bill of Rights is comprised of the first 10 ammendments to the Constitution, and both were published concurrently as a single document. As such, get your historical facts straight before you call me a nimrod.
The law is a matter of black and white. Interpretation of the law is where the grey areas are both created and dispelled. That process, by the way is set forth in the Constitution. Get your facts straight before you call me a nerd.
And if you hadn't noticed, both the 7th and 9th ammendments make it clear that common law otherwise remains in effect.
But I'm obviously shouting at a wall, here.
I have served honorably in the US Navy. I know exactly what rights I gave up to do so. I have held high clearances and dealt with matters of national security. I know exactly what rights I gave up to do so. And I know that you are wrong when you state that the law requires responsibilites in exchange for those rights - read the Constitution, this is not at anywhere in the document. Nowhere is it stated that these rights have a minimum age requirement, or that you must do such and so forth to be granted these rights. By committing a criminal act you may place yourself in a position where you may be judicially relieved of certain rights. Don't confuse due process with individual responsibility. Due process is in and of itself a right in this country.
These are rights of citizenship, which most of us have received as a birthright. That is why the abortion debate is difficult, as it poses the question of when an unborn child attains individual rights separate and distinct from those of the mother. I agree that the debate itself is pointless as both sides are hopelessly intractable, I simply wanted to point out that this is the exact legal point you were attempting to avoid.
You're wrong, but you have a right to express your opinion.
Think of rights of guardianship as being similar to a durable power of attorney. The child has all the rights, and the state cannot deprive them of those rights, but their parents have the legal authority to conduct affairs on the child's behalf, often against the child's wishes. This is where the concept of "emmancipated minor" came from.
Your other example is completely bogus.
First, as was pointed out, this was an opinion piece. Somewhat of a summary overview without citation or supporting detail.
Second, from the religious point of view, this is heresy, even blasphemy. As such, any technical merit is completely beside the point.
Religion has been at odds with science for millenia. Decrypting the genome isn't going to convince true believers.
Now if we could find the genes that control religion, we'd be on to something...