Hundreds of drones sit in front of a view screen. Fearless Leader tells them "our enemies shall talk themselves to death... yadda yadda... We shall prevail".
Meanwhile, some athletic chick carrying a hammer is running full tilt boogie towards the screen. She lets fly with her hammer and smashes the screen whilst Dear Leader is in mid-doublespeak.
Yeah, I think I've seen this one somewhere before.
Your grammar lesson notwithstanding, the intent of the Second Amendment is open to interpretation.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In particular, be careful about using the old standby of "what the Founding Fathers meant was...". There is considerable debate that the "right to bear arms" of the Constitution refers to maintaining a properly trained militia. Whether "State" refers to the whole of the colonies, or individual states, I don't know. But in that same school of thought, it does not refer to owning/using arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.
Yes actually. The police were already on campus and looking for the gunman from the first shooting when the second shooting took place. While some responded to the location of the shooting, other LE personnel were trying to ensure the safety of other students on campus.
And from a previous Slashdot article we got:
* Genetically Modified Organisms (plants AND animals)
* Global Warming (with or without Red Mites)
* Africanized ("Killer") Bees
* Russian bees
* Capitalism and free-market economics
* Republicans subsidizing corn for votes
That should be enough topics to kick start some foil hat discussions.
GP: I would prefer a university to hold a pattern any day than any corporate
P: You are operating under the assumption that a university will act differently (better) than the average corporation.
Both of you hold the assumption that a university is not a corporation. Whether or not it has such a status in the legal sense is immaterial. In every other respect, universities are corporations. There are for-profit and not-for-profit examples. Some are good "corporate" citizens, and others are not. They produce product(s) and attempt to generate value for their stakeholders. But to think of universities (as a class) to be a less corruptible entity than corporations is delusional.
Corporations vs universities strikes me as a "distinction without a difference".
Most state and federal purchase contracts (short of "sole source" contracts) have a procedure to follow for assessing the candidates. It is up to each solicitor to publish the evaluation criteria. What you don't always get is how they graded each component in the criteria. Because technology and price are only two of many criteria, the winning bid may not be the highest score in either. In any contract of sufficient interest to the bidders, there is always contention over who won and why. Happens in federal contracts all the time. Some companies tend to avoid formal protest (even when they feel there is cause) because they don't want to adversely affect their chances in the future. Others see reason to protest and do.
Despite the typical Slashdot half-the-facts synopsis, don't read anything in Diebold protesting this contract. Diebold is after two things: to find out HOW the criteria were evaluated and to appeal the contract award. At this point, neither Diebold nor anyone on Slashdot knows how the candidates were evaluated. Therefore speculation about the validity of Diebold's case is idiotic.
No, I don't have any connection whatsoever to Diebold. I have been involved in years worth of contracting. You'd be surprised how many times I investigated after a contract was awarded elsewhere, only to find out that it was someone on the customer side who had their finger on the scale.
Never was there a finer commentary on the human condition than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
There have been plenty of thought-provoking SF movies before and after Star Wars. If anything has been harmed by his success with that franchise, it's been artistic side of his own career.
In the Mac community, will Thursby Software have anything to say? Their product DAVE, note that the name is also presented in uppercase, has been in the Mac arena for more than a decade.
Executive orders... They're unconstitutional as Hell but Congress and SCOTUS are not doing a thing about it...
Can you please cite where Executive Orders have been ruled unconstitutional? According to the National Archives, the first order was written in 1849. I would expect that in all the administrations, Houses of Congress, and Supreme Courts since that time SOMEONE would have pulled the plug if this was really unconstitutional. You may have issues with individual decrees, but that does not invalidate the entirety.
Sometimes it's difficult to rebut the kind of shoddy investigation that underpins such ecological or political protest as Greenpeace. Then again, one has to wonder whether such misinformation is the result of incompetence or outright lying to gain support. In the case of Greenpeace vs. Apple itseemsGreenpeacelied.
Apparently, sensationalist lies tend to generate more checks for the cause.
IANAL (duh), but do we know who owns the rights to the code? If the state has no legal claim on the code (I don't think paying for the code counts, it's a question of what was written in the contract), then the judge would not have the authority to open access to the code.
It seems to me quite possible that the state does not hold those rights. This is commercial code which the vendor hopes to sell in other locations. Which leads me to a separate question for all of those advocating open source code: What should be the compensation model for using the code?
When these two went to work at the White House they would have signed a document doing exactly that. And please, let's not pretend that this arrangement began with this White House.
Ah, the continuing saga of pundits who should not be allowed to work with numbers and write, and the bloggers who don't read that which was poorly written.
1) The folks at Forrester who conducted the original piece need a refresher course in statistically valid samples. Looking at 2,000 credit card accounts when reviewing a $1B in sales doesn't cut it. 2) If it took you 3 years to reach sales of 1 Billion (yes, Billion with a "B") units, and in the past year you sold ANOTHER Billion units that's NOT a decrease. [Check the sales graph. Units on the vertical are in Millions.] 3) There is a big difference in rate of sales and rate of sales growth. The rate of growth may be down slightly, but the rate of sales is still HUGE (see: 1 Billion in tunes alone this year)
The word you're looking for is not reimburse, but rather extortion. When you threaten someone with harm (implied or otherwise) unless the pay tribute, that's called extortion. The other definitions fit as well:
1: an exorbitant charge
2: unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority): "the
extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing
their sworn duty"
3: the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of
violence)
UMG makes the fallacious claim that all music on iPods is stolen, therefore they should be paid.
1. There is no stolen content on my iPod
2. Why should there be any fee over and above the per track charge anyway?
I love people who define their own meaning in common terms... A standard is not owned by anyone... As we keep on playing with words, one day we will no longer understand each other.
Uh, yeah. Pot meet kettle. Ignoring the other uses of the word standard for now (since we're not discussing flag stands or other such things), there are in fact two kinds of standard: de jure and de facto.
De jure standards are established by recognized national or international standards organizations such as the IEEE or ISO. These organizations provide a juried precise definition and reference for the standard. In that sense, 802.3 is a standard.
De facto standards are established by the market. They don't have to be open or based de jure standards (although you can have a standard that is both de jure and de facto). Win XP or MS Word document files are a standard because the market has declared them to be so (a majority of users recognize them as a standard).
So what you really meant to say is that de jure standards are not owned by anyone. De facto standards certainly can be.
You seem like a decent fellow, but frankly I've lost patience with current crop of polarized nitwits from the two major parties. Thoughtful, responsible, moderate candidates from either party (or a party to be named later) are encouraged to campaign for my vote.
The current crop are too much like Tweedledum and Tweedledee arguing amongst themselves. One is indistinguishable from the other. I'm getting a lot of finger pointing and name calling but no ideas, solutions, etc.
Web commerce is definitely something that handicapped people can do. This really is not that big of a deal if you use your head. Especially for such retail giants as Target, there is no reason why they can't implement ADA for their customer web sites.
And then we have Sen Allen's opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, who has been sexist innumerable times in print and on camera.
Strangely though the Washington Post, Democrats and many women's organizations are deafeningly silent about any of that. You've got to wonder if women's issues only matter some of the time (wrong). Further proof that, in politics, your warts are abhorrent crimes against humanity whilst mine, if anything, are merely odd quirks hardly worth mentioning.
The ability of these kids to hack the internals seems a very secondary goal to that of improving their educational prospects through the availability of affordable computing resources. If OSS can support that, fine. If they want to take their toys and go home, someone else WILL find a way to help without them.
It would seem that, once again, we should be subjected to inflamed egos rather than concentrating on the task at hand. Perhaps RSM and TdR should reconsider their positions in light of the real goal.
It would seem that seem that RFK Jr and many in the public have a rather myopic memory when it comes to allegations of vote fraud. One would expect that Mr Kennedy would certainly be aware of the controversy surrounding the outcome of the 1960 Presdential election especially since his uncle John F. Kennedy was elected.
Or was he? Rather than Ohio and Florida, that election came down to narrow wins in Illinois and Texas. Both states were Democrat-controlled and rifewithallegations of fraud. Did Mayor Daley of Chicago arrange for the dead to vote? Did Johnson's own political machine throw Texas? Like 2004, the answers depend on who you ask.
Slashdot Mirror
Hundreds of drones sit in front of a view screen. Fearless Leader tells them "our enemies shall talk themselves to death ... yadda yadda ... We shall prevail".
Meanwhile, some athletic chick carrying a hammer is running full tilt boogie towards the screen. She lets fly with her hammer and smashes the screen whilst Dear Leader is in mid-doublespeak.
Yeah, I think I've seen this one somewhere before.
In particular, be careful about using the old standby of "what the Founding Fathers meant was...". There is considerable debate that the "right to bear arms" of the Constitution refers to maintaining a properly trained militia. Whether "State" refers to the whole of the colonies, or individual states, I don't know. But in that same school of thought, it does not refer to owning/using arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.
Yes actually. The police were already on campus and looking for the gunman from the first shooting when the second shooting took place. While some responded to the location of the shooting, other LE personnel were trying to ensure the safety of other students on campus.
And from a previous Slashdot article we got:
* Genetically Modified Organisms (plants AND animals)
* Global Warming (with or without Red Mites)
* Africanized ("Killer") Bees
* Russian bees
* Capitalism and free-market economics
* Republicans subsidizing corn for votes
That should be enough topics to kick start some foil hat discussions.
Someone HAS to have put a router in space before...
They did. It's called Iridium. To date, the only system of its kind.
Thank you Pot. Now back to you, Kettle.
GP: I would prefer a university to hold a pattern any day than any corporate
P: You are operating under the assumption that a university will act differently (better) than the average corporation.
Both of you hold the assumption that a university is not a corporation. Whether or not it has such a status in the legal sense is immaterial. In every other respect, universities are corporations. There are for-profit and not-for-profit examples. Some are good "corporate" citizens, and others are not. They produce product(s) and attempt to generate value for their stakeholders. But to think of universities (as a class) to be a less corruptible entity than corporations is delusional.
Corporations vs universities strikes me as a "distinction without a difference".
Most state and federal purchase contracts (short of "sole source" contracts) have a procedure to follow for assessing the candidates. It is up to each solicitor to publish the evaluation criteria. What you don't always get is how they graded each component in the criteria. Because technology and price are only two of many criteria, the winning bid may not be the highest score in either. In any contract of sufficient interest to the bidders, there is always contention over who won and why. Happens in federal contracts all the time. Some companies tend to avoid formal protest (even when they feel there is cause) because they don't want to adversely affect their chances in the future. Others see reason to protest and do.
Despite the typical Slashdot half-the-facts synopsis, don't read anything in Diebold protesting this contract. Diebold is after two things: to find out HOW the criteria were evaluated and to appeal the contract award. At this point, neither Diebold nor anyone on Slashdot knows how the candidates were evaluated. Therefore speculation about the validity of Diebold's case is idiotic.
No, I don't have any connection whatsoever to Diebold. I have been involved in years worth of contracting. You'd be surprised how many times I investigated after a contract was awarded elsewhere, only to find out that it was someone on the customer side who had their finger on the scale.
Never was there a finer commentary on the human condition than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
There have been plenty of thought-provoking SF movies before and after Star Wars. If anything has been harmed by his success with that franchise, it's been artistic side of his own career.
In the Mac community, will Thursby Software have anything to say? Their product DAVE, note that the name is also presented in uppercase, has been in the Mac arena for more than a decade.
Executive orders... They're unconstitutional as Hell but Congress and SCOTUS are not doing a thing about it...
Can you please cite where Executive Orders have been ruled unconstitutional? According to the National Archives, the first order was written in 1849. I would expect that in all the administrations, Houses of Congress, and Supreme Courts since that time SOMEONE would have pulled the plug if this was really unconstitutional. You may have issues with individual decrees, but that does not invalidate the entirety.
Let's see: Gasse, Spindler, Sculley, Amelio.
Without Steve Jobs, Apple is Dell: a blind squirrel looking for the occasional nut.
Sometimes it's difficult to rebut the kind of shoddy investigation that underpins such ecological or political protest as Greenpeace. Then again, one has to wonder whether such misinformation is the result of incompetence or outright lying to gain support. In the case of Greenpeace vs. Apple it seems Greenpeace lied.
Apparently, sensationalist lies tend to generate more checks for the cause.
Or perhaps it was a matter of jurisdiction?
IANAL (duh), but do we know who owns the rights to the code? If the state has no legal claim on the code (I don't think paying for the code counts, it's a question of what was written in the contract), then the judge would not have the authority to open access to the code.
It seems to me quite possible that the state does not hold those rights. This is commercial code which the vendor hopes to sell in other locations. Which leads me to a separate question for all of those advocating open source code: What should be the compensation model for using the code?
People can waive protections of them...
When these two went to work at the White House they would have signed a document doing exactly that. And please, let's not pretend that this arrangement began with this White House.
Ah, the continuing saga of pundits who should not be allowed to work with numbers and write, and the bloggers who don't read that which was poorly written.
1) The folks at Forrester who conducted the original piece need a refresher course in statistically valid samples. Looking at 2,000 credit card accounts when reviewing a $1B in sales doesn't cut it.
2) If it took you 3 years to reach sales of 1 Billion (yes, Billion with a "B") units, and in the past year you sold ANOTHER Billion units that's NOT a decrease. [Check the sales graph. Units on the vertical are in Millions.]
3) There is a big difference in rate of sales and rate of sales growth. The rate of growth may be down slightly, but the rate of sales is still HUGE (see: 1 Billion in tunes alone this year)
For more info, check this article on Blackfriars.
The word you're looking for is not reimburse, but rather extortion. When you threaten someone with harm (implied or otherwise) unless the pay tribute, that's called extortion. The other definitions fit as well:
1: an exorbitant charge
2: unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority): "the
extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing
their sworn duty"
3: the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of
violence)
UMG makes the fallacious claim that all music on iPods is stolen, therefore they should be paid.
1. There is no stolen content on my iPod
2. Why should there be any fee over and above the per track charge anyway?
I love people who define their own meaning in common terms... A standard is not owned by anyone... As we keep on playing with words, one day we will no longer understand each other.
Uh, yeah. Pot meet kettle. Ignoring the other uses of the word standard for now (since we're not discussing flag stands or other such things), there are in fact two kinds of standard: de jure and de facto.
De jure standards are established by recognized national or international standards organizations such as the IEEE or ISO. These organizations provide a juried precise definition and reference for the standard. In that sense, 802.3 is a standard.
De facto standards are established by the market. They don't have to be open or based de jure standards (although you can have a standard that is both de jure and de facto). Win XP or MS Word document files are a standard because the market has declared them to be so (a majority of users recognize them as a standard).
So what you really meant to say is that de jure standards are not owned by anyone. De facto standards certainly can be.
You seem like a decent fellow, but frankly I've lost patience with current crop of polarized nitwits from the two major parties. Thoughtful, responsible, moderate candidates from either party (or a party to be named later) are encouraged to campaign for my vote.
The current crop are too much like Tweedledum and Tweedledee arguing amongst themselves. One is indistinguishable from the other. I'm getting a lot of finger pointing and name calling but no ideas, solutions, etc.
Don't be an a**.
Web commerce is definitely something that handicapped people can do. This really is not that big of a deal if you use your head. Especially for such retail giants as Target, there is no reason why they can't implement ADA for their customer web sites.
And then we have Sen Allen's opponent, former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, who has been sexist innumerable times in print and on camera.
Strangely though the Washington Post, Democrats and many women's organizations are deafeningly silent about any of that. You've got to wonder if women's issues only matter some of the time (wrong). Further proof that, in politics, your warts are abhorrent crimes against humanity whilst mine, if anything, are merely odd quirks hardly worth mentioning.
The ability of these kids to hack the internals seems a very secondary goal to that of improving their educational prospects through the availability of affordable computing resources. If OSS can support that, fine. If they want to take their toys and go home, someone else WILL find a way to help without them.
It would seem that, once again, we should be subjected to inflamed egos rather than concentrating on the task at hand. Perhaps RSM and TdR should reconsider their positions in light of the real goal.
It would seem that seem that RFK Jr and many in the public have a rather myopic memory when it comes to allegations of vote fraud. One would expect that Mr Kennedy would certainly be aware of the controversy surrounding the outcome of the 1960 Presdential election especially since his uncle John F. Kennedy was elected.
Or was he? Rather than Ohio and Florida, that election came down to narrow wins in Illinois and Texas. Both states were Democrat-controlled and rife with allegations of fraud. Did Mayor Daley of Chicago arrange for the dead to vote? Did Johnson's own political machine throw Texas? Like 2004, the answers depend on who you ask.
Amen Brother.
How about an election where the choices aren't limited to far right or far left? Could we have some MODERATION and a helping of sense?
This isn't partisan, the Democrats have done the same thing in the past, and it sucked just as much then. But we did somethign about it.
Really? When did that happen?