Allow me to quote Dr. Mirecki verbaitum:
"I don't think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms and some of them beat their wives and husbands." (Found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531697/p osts)
Could the problem perhaps be less a matter of him loudly disagreeing with the teaching of pseudoscience than a matter of him just being loudly disagreeable? If he had made a similar statement about people of Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist faith I doubt he would have many defenders. Let's recognize this for the straw-man it is.
The RIAA seems bent on distrupting every new distribution channel for music. I wonder if because of this they could be legally construed as a "combination in restraint of free trade" such as was made illegal by USC Title 15 section 3(a)? IANAL, but it seems to me that an organization of large corporations colluding to prevent new ways of distributing a product they, in combination, have an apparent monopoly on is exactly the sort of thing anti-trust laws are designed to prevent.
Perhaps a petition demanding that the US DOJ attempt to enforce this law against the RIAA is in order. Are there any actual lawyers who would care to comment?
While you are quite likely correct that the president does not have the constitutional authority to use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive" strike, this change does not bear on the president's authority to deploy or utilize nuclear weapons.
The Pentagon is changing the its doctrine for inventing nucelar war plans, and presumably some of those plans. (The latter changes would, of course, be all classified. ..)
I haven't had time to review the entire document, but it appears to be that the Pentagon is assuming a significantly more aggressive nuclear posture from the one adopted after the last "Nuclear Posture Review" in the mid-1990's.
All this "pre-emptive strike" business is disturbing, though some of it does make a certain amount of sense. For example, making plans to utilize a nuclear weapon to destroy a biological weapon immediately before it can be use does make sense given the nature of biological weapons. In the sick-but-unavoidable logic of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons strategy, it would clearly be better to destroy a city of a million which has been contaminated with weaponized smallpox instead of allowing the weaponized smallpox to kill billions as it spreads.
More disturbing in my mind, however, is the apparent focus on "theatre nuclear support." It appears that they're taking measures such as putting nuclear warheads back on the Tomahawk cruise missile, which probably means that other tactical nuclear weapons are being put back into service. (All tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn from service by Bush Sr. in 1991) Furthermore, according to the executive summary "The geographic combatant commander is responsible for requesting nuclear support." I believe this is a break from past policy (I could be wrong), and inviting regional commanders to ask for the button to be pressed really strikes me as asking for trouble.
No matter how you slice it this is a disturbing shift towards a much more aggressive U.S. nuclear posture.
I recall an error message on a system a long time ago, in a network I ran far, far away. Said box was running an early beta version of NT that somebody pointy-haired had insisted I install, and occasionally when it crashed it spit out something to the effect of "OS/2 has detected a problem. Please contact IBM at 1-800-???-????"
True, ANI is inextricably linked to the switching data on the PSTN. However, you don't have to have the PSTN route it all the way back to "you," just to your VoIP provider, which, IIRC, is going to pass the switching data it gets from you via IP. Thus, the IP routing data which gets it back to you is largely independent of PSTN switching data which gets it back to your VoIP provider. (At least that's my understanding of it. Perhaps there a VoIP programmer around who cares to comment?)
I don't know of any VoIP solutions that will defeat ANI out-of-the-box, but in theory it wouldn't be that hard to mod a VoIP phone to do so.
ANI is hard to crack on a traditional phone network because it is out-of-band. The user never has any access to it or to the switching information. In a VoIP system, the important letters are "IP." It doesn't take a genius to dissect the IP packets which are carrying both the conversation and the switching data and then recomboobelate the switching data as he sees fit. Ergo, yes, in the grand scheme of things it does affect ANI.
Yes, yes, little old ladies who don't understand technology deserve to be fleeced out of their savings.
Civilized societies attempt to protect the weak from the unscrupulous. The fact that a person, for whatever reason, is too weak in comprehension of the way computers work to protect him or her self from a scam like this does not make that person a "moron." It simply means that person doesn't understand how computers work.
If you wish to invoke Darwinism, remember that that means survival of the fittest, lex talonis. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky that you live in a society where the weak are not allowed to prey on the strong, because we are all weak at some times and in some ways, and the ultimate implication of any sort of social Darwinism, financial or otherwise, is that if I am stronger than you I can overpower you and take from you what I want.
Furthermore, the deceptive advertizing practices of many U.S. corporations do not bear on the fact that this was an outright scam which preyed upon people who didn't know any better.
I would have to wonder if this could affect transactions which are not between an Ohio seller and an Ohio buyer. IANAL, but couldn't an attempt to apply this to a transaction between an Ohio seller and, say, a buyer in Nebraska be construed as the State of Ohio attempting to regulate interstate commerce?
Well maybe they really mean intensive purposes, say, for instance, code used in machinery in an intensive care unit. I can picture it:
Nurse: "Doctor MBongo? There's a man here who says he's from SCO, and that unless we give him some money, we'll have to shut off all out ventilators and intra-aortic ballon pumps and our telemetry equipment because he's going to revoke the license for the code that runs it." Dr. MBongo: "There goes my malpractice insurance." Patient (As SCO lawyer disconnects ballon pump: "ARRRggghh. . . (Expires)"
Actually, you shouldn't pick on these "Intensive purposes" people. Perhaps they're not illiterate nitwits: they've got quite the angle for attacking SCO! Let's face it, the only people with more lawyers than the MS-Man Behind The Curtain are the insurance companies, and if the insurance companies think that this whole business will cost them some malpractice claims then they'll swarm all over MS-SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to quote Dr. Mirecki verbaitum: "I don't think most Catholics really know what they are supposed to believe, they just go home and use condoms and some of them beat their wives and husbands." (Found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531697/p osts)
Could the problem perhaps be less a matter of him loudly disagreeing with the teaching of pseudoscience than a matter of him just being loudly disagreeable? If he had made a similar statement about people of Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist faith I doubt he would have many defenders. Let's recognize this for the straw-man it is.
The RIAA seems bent on distrupting every new distribution channel for music. I wonder if because of this they could be legally construed as a "combination in restraint of free trade" such as was made illegal by USC Title 15 section 3(a)? IANAL, but it seems to me that an organization of large corporations colluding to prevent new ways of distributing a product they, in combination, have an apparent monopoly on is exactly the sort of thing anti-trust laws are designed to prevent.
Perhaps a petition demanding that the US DOJ attempt to enforce this law against the RIAA is in order. Are there any actual lawyers who would care to comment?
While you are quite likely correct that the president does not have the constitutional authority to use nuclear weapons in a "pre-emptive" strike, this change does not bear on the president's authority to deploy or utilize nuclear weapons.
.)
The Pentagon is changing the its doctrine for inventing nucelar war plans, and presumably some of those plans. (The latter changes would, of course, be all classified. .
I haven't had time to review the entire document, but it appears to be that the Pentagon is assuming a significantly more aggressive nuclear posture from the one adopted after the last "Nuclear Posture Review" in the mid-1990's.
All this "pre-emptive strike" business is disturbing, though some of it does make a certain amount of sense. For example, making plans to utilize a nuclear weapon to destroy a biological weapon immediately before it can be use does make sense given the nature of biological weapons. In the sick-but-unavoidable logic of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons strategy, it would clearly be better to destroy a city of a million which has been contaminated with weaponized smallpox instead of allowing the weaponized smallpox to kill billions as it spreads.
More disturbing in my mind, however, is the apparent focus on "theatre nuclear support." It appears that they're taking measures such as putting nuclear warheads back on the Tomahawk cruise missile, which probably means that other tactical nuclear weapons are being put back into service. (All tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn from service by Bush Sr. in 1991) Furthermore, according to the executive summary "The geographic combatant commander is responsible for requesting nuclear support." I believe this is a break from past policy (I could be wrong), and inviting regional commanders to ask for the button to be pressed really strikes me as asking for trouble.
No matter how you slice it this is a disturbing shift towards a much more aggressive U.S. nuclear posture.
I seem to recall Microsoft making the same announcement that Longhorn will not fully support the 486 when the 486 came out.
Anyway, I'm sure that the Itanium will be obsolete by the time Longhorn comes out. . .
I recall an error message on a system a long time ago, in a network I ran far, far away. Said box was running an early beta version of NT that somebody pointy-haired had insisted I install, and occasionally when it crashed it spit out something to the effect of "OS/2 has detected a problem. Please contact IBM at 1-800-???-????"
True, ANI is inextricably linked to the switching data on the PSTN. However, you don't have to have the PSTN route it all the way back to "you," just to your VoIP provider, which, IIRC, is going to pass the switching data it gets from you via IP. Thus, the IP routing data which gets it back to you is largely independent of PSTN switching data which gets it back to your VoIP provider. (At least that's my understanding of it. Perhaps there a VoIP programmer around who cares to comment?)
I don't know of any VoIP solutions that will defeat ANI out-of-the-box, but in theory it wouldn't be that hard to mod a VoIP phone to do so.
ANI is hard to crack on a traditional phone network because it is out-of-band. The user never has any access to it or to the switching information. In a VoIP system, the important letters are "IP." It doesn't take a genius to dissect the IP packets which are carrying both the conversation and the switching data and then recomboobelate the switching data as he sees fit. Ergo, yes, in the grand scheme of things it does affect ANI.
Yes, yes, little old ladies who don't understand technology deserve to be fleeced out of their savings.
Civilized societies attempt to protect the weak from the unscrupulous. The fact that a person, for whatever reason, is too weak in comprehension of the way computers work to protect him or her self from a scam like this does not make that person a "moron." It simply means that person doesn't understand how computers work.
If you wish to invoke Darwinism, remember that that means survival of the fittest, lex talonis. Otherwise, consider yourself lucky that you live in a society where the weak are not allowed to prey on the strong, because we are all weak at some times and in some ways, and the ultimate implication of any sort of social Darwinism, financial or otherwise, is that if I am stronger than you I can overpower you and take from you what I want.
Furthermore, the deceptive advertizing practices of many U.S. corporations do not bear on the fact that this was an outright scam which preyed upon people who didn't know any better.
I would have to wonder if this could affect transactions which are not between an Ohio seller and an Ohio buyer. IANAL, but couldn't an attempt to apply this to a transaction between an Ohio seller and, say, a buyer in Nebraska be construed as the State of Ohio attempting to regulate interstate commerce?
Well maybe they really mean intensive purposes, say, for instance, code used in machinery in an intensive care unit. I can picture it:
Nurse: "Doctor MBongo? There's a man here who says he's from SCO, and that unless we give him some money, we'll have to shut off all out ventilators and intra-aortic ballon pumps and our telemetry equipment because he's going to revoke the license for the code that runs it."
Dr. MBongo: "There goes my malpractice insurance."
Patient (As SCO lawyer disconnects ballon pump: "ARRRggghh. . . (Expires)"
Actually, you shouldn't pick on these "Intensive purposes" people. Perhaps they're not illiterate nitwits: they've got quite the angle for attacking SCO! Let's face it, the only people with more lawyers than the MS-Man Behind The Curtain are the insurance companies, and if the insurance companies think that this whole business will cost them some malpractice claims then they'll swarm all over MS-SCO.