Having grown up in a era where airlines, power companies, gas companies, the telephone company (there was only one at the time) and the cable companies were all told exactly what they could charge for their services, and what sort of services they could offer, it's impossible for me to avoid laughing when I hear about the claim that such and such a business in the United States is highly regulated. There ain't no more highly regulated entities in these parts, pardner.
A few years ago, while trying to get a PRI installed, Bellsouth told me that could not put the smart jack next to my phone system (400' from the building demarc) because it would violate state law. Data T1? No problem. Voice? Sorry, but the PUC says it's anti-competitive to drop a telecommunications circuit anywhere other than the demarc.
The sad fact is that while things are a lot less regulated than they used to be, public utility commissions still have a tremendous say in how the phone company does business, and this is often (though certainly not always) REALLY BAD for the consumer.
Sure there has, but that is searching by filename, not searching inside the contents of various kinds of file formats and extracting matching words.
Content searching has been around since at least Windows 2000. The big change in Vista is 1) the indexer (so your searches are fast, instead of having to wait for the disk to be scanned) and 2) search is pervasive (it indexes anything it can get its grubby little hands on, including the contents of databases (like access MDBs, or Outlook PSTs), exchange message stores, etc.)
It doesn't matter when you announce something. For all we know Google has had this project in the works since the day the company was founded. All that matters from a legal perspective, and sensibly from the perspective of enforcement, is what the state of the market is when MS brought it to market.
I can agree that MS has to play by at least slightly different rules given their OS monopoly position, but I think this pushes things WAY too far in the other direction. Using the theory above, a competitor (or anyone who feels like playing spoiler) can wait for MS to announce new OS features, and then implement them (poorly or otherwise) as a standalone product, forcing MS to make significant changes in the name of "fairness." Talk about unfair competition!
After all, if MS is confident theirs is better, why not give consumers a choice on startup between MS's search and Google's and let the best algorithm win. That is fair and it results in better products for everyone
I agree with this in theory (it's one of the reasons I love FOSS--while multiple efforts targeted at the same goal might not be very efficient, it has produced some wonderful results over the last quarter century plus) but my feeling is that this should ultimately be Microsoft's decision (or at least the market's decision) instead of that of a judge.
My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all! There has been a search feature in every version of windows since at least 95 (I don't remember about 3.1.)
Desktop search was also an announced feature of Vista before Google announced Google Desktop Search, so it seems disingenuous for them to claim to MS is somehow trying to muscle them. On the other hand, there were plenty of features announced for Vista that never showed up.:)
Wow, so the appeals court upholds the violation of the fourth amendment, and at the same time pisses all over the first (petition for redress.) Truly, this is an awe-inspiring day. Surely, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, almost exactly 231 years ago would sing from the rooftops in joy at what became of the nation that they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to create.
My Vista test machine got taken so an engineer could use it as a workstation, and I don't have a virtual machine set up yet, so I cannot go confirm this right now. However, IIRC, you CAN assign arbitrary rights to users/processes with UAC, instead of having to click on dialog boxes. However, setting this up IS something of a pain in the ass.:)
Both are right, but the previous point is, IMO, more right. The amount of flying you can do depends upon the mass of fuel loaded and then the mass burned. Even before the plan has built, the Specific Fueld Consumption of the engines is specified in thryust generated for mass flow of fuel.
While this may differ in turbine aircraft, in piston powered aircraft endurance figures are measured in "gallons per hour," not "pounds per hour."
Instead access to files should be further restricted by process so that eg. Firefox only has permission to read/write to its cache, bookmarks, and download folders and that's it. If you need to upload, it should be forced to use a common API to beg the user for permission to even view uploadable files.... Apple, Microsoft, and (consumer oriented) Linux devs should start working on this now.
Microsoft released it with Vista. It's called "UAC" and was almost universally hailed as a really bad idea. Apple makes fun of it in its commercials.
People claim they want secure applications, and then bitch when they have to click something to allow it to do something that appears insecure. People demand APIs to accomplish certain tasks, then bitch when malware uses the same APIs. It's a no-win situation, and Linux on the desktop is going to have to deal with it in spades when it becomes mainstream.
I agree with what you say about the word "regulated", but I don't agree that "militia" meant "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms".
To quote the Supreme Court in US v. Miller (a favorite of those in favor of gun control) the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Still, I can accept that we disagree on this definition. I'll even agree that the founding fathers didn't really mean "everyone" because, given the context of the time, the definition would certainly not have encompassed women or slaves. However, you've defined who the militia is NOT ("everybody") without defining who the militia is--so for purposes of this conversation, who would you say constitutes the militia?
In fact, if the 2nd amendment was supposed to allow guns for everyone, the whole first part would be redundant.
My own view of this is that the first part is essentially redundant. It is the subordinate clause, the reasoning for what follows. There's also the problem that under your interpretation, the second part is redundant. If the amendment simply said "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state," it would accomplish the same thing as what you propose. So I think we are at something of an impasse on construction.
That said, you've hit the nail on the head as to why this is such a hard debate. The second amendment is the only one in the original bill of rights that is constructed in that manner--it has its own preamble, and it is the source of all the ambiguity. However, I think this hurdle can be overcome: look at the history. Look at the state constitutions that were adopted at the time, and what they had to say on the subject. Look at what the people who wrote it said and wrote elsewhere.
To go off on a slight tangent, let's look at "separation of church and state." Most reasonable people who look at the constitution objectively come to the conclusion that this is logical. However, the only real supporting information we have is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson some years later, where the subject is mentioned briefly. But that letter leaves little doubt as to the meaning, doesn't it? If we can do this for the first amendment, why is it so hard to do it for the second? The body of evidence out there is significantly larger.
I read the second amendment as saying that gun ownership cannot be interfered with by the US federal government insofar as that gun ownership is a requirement for states to organise their own militias for their own self defense.
There's a catch here: individual gun ownership is not a requirement for states to organize their own militias. Modern day national guard members do not own the arms they take on duty, after all--the state (actually, Uncle Sam) does. As for the suggestion that this is about the several states, I'll leave that for below.
But, that's not the same as saying that every tom dick and harry can carry a gun
I'm not making that argument--in fact, I'm seriously against the notion that "anyone" should be allowed to own a firearm. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon rights, without doing these rights harm (though I hate the analogy (look up the origin some time) think "shouting fire in a crowded theater.") It is obviously not in anyone's interest to allow convicted violent criminals to bear arms, for example, and it is easily established that they forfeited these rights when they were convicted of their crimes. There are others that can be similarly restricted (wards of the state, for example, who are a danger to themselves and/or others.) But no law abiding citizen of sound mind should be excluded, just as they should not be excluded from voting, or any other right or duty of a citizen.
I'd also argue that by implication the 2nd amendment allow
What part of "well regulated militia" is so hard to understand?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes a lot more sense if you view if through the language of the 18th century instead of the 21st. Or, to put it less politely, and to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
"Regulate," as in "to keep in good order," and not "let's make all sorts of laws governing this." "Militia," as in "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms," and not "crazy guys in Montana." In other words, what is necessary to the security of a free state is for all citizens to be well trained in the use of arms. To that end, the government cannot infringe upon their rights to keep and bear said arms.
At some point in all of the above, man will discover magic--and promptly stop using it when he discovers that it takes the form of ten-minute-long animations that cannot be skipped.
(by the way, when do the Chocobos become involved?)
Or worse, target people in apartments that are being closed down with attractive looking ARMs- and don't bother to explain what the A stands for.
When I bought my house, at the closing there was an EXHAUSTIVE explanation provided by an attorney as to what every single form was for, and what every single term meant, and the consequences of each and every signature and initial I had to put on those documents.
My opinion is that--absent a small percentage who actually were lied to--almost everybody who is facing an ARM adjustment knew what they were in for. They just DID NOT CARE because they absolutely, positively "HAD to have THAT house" and, after all, that adjustment was TWO WHOLE YEARS away! Why, the value of the house will have gone up 30% by then, so if we can't afford the payments at that point, we'll just sell. It'll only take a couple of days, and people will be lining up to pay us more than our asking price... right?
In hindsight, I probably should have not thrown the bit about Bill Clinton in there, but at the time, I couldn't resist. I find it a particularly sad commentary on our society that 99% of the people who were defending Bill Clinton ten years ago are screaming for Libby to hang, and 99% of the people who were screaming for Clinton to hang are defending Libby. It's the same damned crime, both of which were committed in the name of politics. That being the case, I hope you can see why I couldn't resist at least alluding to it?
That out of the way, I agree with your suggestion that at least SOME jail time would have been appropriate, but I disagree that this undermines the rule of law. Again, there is still punishment, and it is still pretty severe. I agree that there might be an element of cronyism involved (yourself and others have noted that Joe Average probably wouldn't have received any clemency here) though I still maintain that Joe Average probably wouldn't have been in that position to begin with.
How will presently serving government officals and offices be motivated to be forthright and honest if they know political alliances will bail them out in the end?
Even though the jail time was removed, the punishment is NOT a slap on the wrist. If Bush pardons him in 2009, then I agree that will be a bail out, and a truly offensive act.
Realize that this isn't just about Libby--it's about respect and regard to the law. Is Libby made an example of in that way? It would seem so, but as we're not in a utopian society, there *must* be a clear message to current and future officals that they are not exempt from the law.
I concur. I don't believe you and I are that far apart on this--the only point that we seem to disagree on is what constitutes a sufficient punishment.
You think the commuted punishment is fair. In what way? According to your own personal sense of crime and punishment, or according to the punishment a normal person would have gotten for the crimes?
Honestly? Both. To be frank, while I consider myself an objective person, of course my own personal sense of ethics is going to come into play here and color my opinion (I wouldn't be human otherwise.) That said, I really do not think that Libby was treated like a "normal person" throughout the investigation or the trial. I think he served as a proxy for the entire Bush administration in general, and the Iraq war in particular.
I still remain unconvinced that Libby committed any crime.
FWIW, I disagree with you. I think it's been well established that he lied to a grand jury. I don't buy the "I misremembered" angle--while it's reasonable that one does not remember EVERY conversation they have with any amount of detail, when the subject of one of them ends up on the front page of the New York Times a few days later it's a pretty good memory aid!
Punishment is required in this situation. I think the punishment that remains intact as a result of Bush's commutation is fair.
The latter does not seem to have been established as fact--and I think that you're just proving my point: the Libby trial wasn't about Libby, it was about Bush.
Libby was charged on obstruction of justice and perjury because his refusal to cooperate prevented the case from going any further. If he had cooperated, bigger fish would have fried.
This also does not appear to be the case. Exactly WHAT did Libby's obstruction accomplish? Do we know any less today than we would other wise? (I don't think that we do--we know who the leak was, we know that Cheney's office discussed the issue and probably was the source of the Plame outing.) What else do you need to know to fry these other fish, and how did Libby prevent it?
Are you conservatives now going to send that fucker back to the Hill as a congressman, just like Ollie Fucking North?
I'm just some random guy on the internet, not some Republican operative. Honestly, do I sound like someone who would vote for Libby?? It's been my experience that the ability to reason and think objectively about a situation is NOT near the top of skill list for those guys. Were I one of them, my post would probably have been something along the lines of "Pardon Scooter!" rather than "he deserved to be punished."
High crimes are high crimes, but obstructing investigations into high crimes is no biggie. If you're honest, and not a troll, a moment's thought will show that to be a foolish policy.
I can see your point, but the actual root issue here (Plame's outing, and whether or not it was actually a crime, "high" or otherwise) seems to have been completely lost in the shuffle. The end result seems to be that Libby was put forth as the sacrificial goat that was going to take on all the sins of the Bush administration. Like I said above, that does not seem "just" to me.
What you suggest--that there were serious crimes that occurred, and Libby was involved in covering them up--would be a conspiracy, and is covered by other laws. If warranted, those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of those laws. However, I will not agree that someone should suffer a more severe punishment for something that they were not even charged with.
And Libby's career is far from over. In 2009 he will be pardoned.
I sincerely hope not. FWIW, had THAT happened today, I'd be screaming as loudly as anyone else.
This may surprise you, but I share your opinion of the war in Iraq (other than it being "illegal") and almost everything leading up to it. However, I also believe that a man should be tried for his own crimes, not the crimes of others. I am not convinced that happened here, therefore I agree with what Bush did today.
Apparently our leader has decided that being shamed in front of your family and having your reputation tarnished plus being fined a nominal fee is enough of a punishment for high crimes against the government.
Honestly, this is why I agree with Bush's move here. Libby was neither tried for, nor convicted of "high crimes against the government," but rather of "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" (the same two crimes that Bill Clinton was impeached for, by the way.) However, every single moment of the Libby case seems to have been a trial by proxy of the Bush administration. I can't see how that is just.
Yup, Libby committed a crime. He was convicted of it. He's not going to serve any jail time, but will be on probation for a couple of years, will pay a quarter million dollar fine, and will have the status of a convicted felon. His civil service career is over. Any political aspirations he might have had are gone. He'll probably be disbarred.
All in all, that seems to be a pretty fair punishment for the crimes he was accused and convicted of to me.
Many mass storage applications do not need a lot of speed, 90% of the data on my computer (music, videos) could be moved to a 5400RPM or even a 3600RPM drive with no noticable impact on performance.
Note, I said "king of the data center." I agree that the devices are adequate for your application. I disagree with the grandparent's suggestion that price/GB is more important than performance in enterprise computing.
Probably not in the notebook/desktop consumer market, but I can imagine enterprise/research uses for magnetic HDDs where read/write times are less important and $/GB much more so.
If cost/GB were more important than performance, the 5400rpm IDE hard drive would be king of the data center.
As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.
With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."
Slashdot Mirror
A few years ago, while trying to get a PRI installed, Bellsouth told me that could not put the smart jack next to my phone system (400' from the building demarc) because it would violate state law. Data T1? No problem. Voice? Sorry, but the PUC says it's anti-competitive to drop a telecommunications circuit anywhere other than the demarc.
The sad fact is that while things are a lot less regulated than they used to be, public utility commissions still have a tremendous say in how the phone company does business, and this is often (though certainly not always) REALLY BAD for the consumer.
Content searching has been around since at least Windows 2000. The big change in Vista is 1) the indexer (so your searches are fast, instead of having to wait for the disk to be scanned) and 2) search is pervasive (it indexes anything it can get its grubby little hands on, including the contents of databases (like access MDBs, or Outlook PSTs), exchange message stores, etc.)
I can agree that MS has to play by at least slightly different rules given their OS monopoly position, but I think this pushes things WAY too far in the other direction. Using the theory above, a competitor (or anyone who feels like playing spoiler) can wait for MS to announce new OS features, and then implement them (poorly or otherwise) as a standalone product, forcing MS to make significant changes in the name of "fairness." Talk about unfair competition!
I agree with this in theory (it's one of the reasons I love FOSS--while multiple efforts targeted at the same goal might not be very efficient, it has produced some wonderful results over the last quarter century plus) but my feeling is that this should ultimately be Microsoft's decision (or at least the market's decision) instead of that of a judge.
My big problem with this is that "search" feels like a core OS feature--your computer isn't very useful if you can't find anything, after all! There has been a search feature in every version of windows since at least 95 (I don't remember about 3.1.)
:)
Desktop search was also an announced feature of Vista before Google announced Google Desktop Search, so it seems disingenuous for them to claim to MS is somehow trying to muscle them. On the other hand, there were plenty of features announced for Vista that never showed up.
Wow, so the appeals court upholds the violation of the fourth amendment, and at the same time pisses all over the first (petition for redress.) Truly, this is an awe-inspiring day. Surely, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, almost exactly 231 years ago would sing from the rooftops in joy at what became of the nation that they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to create.
My Vista test machine got taken so an engineer could use it as a workstation, and I don't have a virtual machine set up yet, so I cannot go confirm this right now. However, IIRC, you CAN assign arbitrary rights to users/processes with UAC, instead of having to click on dialog boxes. However, setting this up IS something of a pain in the ass. :)
While this may differ in turbine aircraft, in piston powered aircraft endurance figures are measured in "gallons per hour," not "pounds per hour."
Microsoft released it with Vista. It's called "UAC" and was almost universally hailed as a really bad idea. Apple makes fun of it in its commercials.
People claim they want secure applications, and then bitch when they have to click something to allow it to do something that appears insecure. People demand APIs to accomplish certain tasks, then bitch when malware uses the same APIs. It's a no-win situation, and Linux on the desktop is going to have to deal with it in spades when it becomes mainstream.
To quote the Supreme Court in US v. Miller (a favorite of those in favor of gun control) the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Still, I can accept that we disagree on this definition. I'll even agree that the founding fathers didn't really mean "everyone" because, given the context of the time, the definition would certainly not have encompassed women or slaves. However, you've defined who the militia is NOT ("everybody") without defining who the militia is--so for purposes of this conversation, who would you say constitutes the militia?
My own view of this is that the first part is essentially redundant. It is the subordinate clause, the reasoning for what follows. There's also the problem that under your interpretation, the second part is redundant. If the amendment simply said "a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state," it would accomplish the same thing as what you propose. So I think we are at something of an impasse on construction.
That said, you've hit the nail on the head as to why this is such a hard debate. The second amendment is the only one in the original bill of rights that is constructed in that manner--it has its own preamble, and it is the source of all the ambiguity. However, I think this hurdle can be overcome: look at the history. Look at the state constitutions that were adopted at the time, and what they had to say on the subject. Look at what the people who wrote it said and wrote elsewhere.
To go off on a slight tangent, let's look at "separation of church and state." Most reasonable people who look at the constitution objectively come to the conclusion that this is logical. However, the only real supporting information we have is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson some years later, where the subject is mentioned briefly. But that letter leaves little doubt as to the meaning, doesn't it? If we can do this for the first amendment, why is it so hard to do it for the second? The body of evidence out there is significantly larger.
There's a catch here: individual gun ownership is not a requirement for states to organize their own militias. Modern day national guard members do not own the arms they take on duty, after all--the state (actually, Uncle Sam) does. As for the suggestion that this is about the several states, I'll leave that for below.
I'm not making that argument--in fact, I'm seriously against the notion that "anyone" should be allowed to own a firearm. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon rights, without doing these rights harm (though I hate the analogy (look up the origin some time) think "shouting fire in a crowded theater.") It is obviously not in anyone's interest to allow convicted violent criminals to bear arms, for example, and it is easily established that they forfeited these rights when they were convicted of their crimes. There are others that can be similarly restricted (wards of the state, for example, who are a danger to themselves and/or others.) But no law abiding citizen of sound mind should be excluded, just as they should not be excluded from voting, or any other right or duty of a citizen.
Oh, come on... if we can banter back and forth about my sig, surely you can answer my reply to your original question! :)
Actually, that would be my sig.
Yeah, I was rather stunned myself.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes a lot more sense if you view if through the language of the 18th century instead of the 21st. Or, to put it less politely, and to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
"Regulate," as in "to keep in good order," and not "let's make all sorts of laws governing this." "Militia," as in "the entire body of the people capable of bearing arms," and not "crazy guys in Montana." In other words, what is necessary to the security of a free state is for all citizens to be well trained in the use of arms. To that end, the government cannot infringe upon their rights to keep and bear said arms.
Happy Independence Day.
At some point in all of the above, man will discover magic--and promptly stop using it when he discovers that it takes the form of ten-minute-long animations that cannot be skipped.
(by the way, when do the Chocobos become involved?)
When I bought my house, at the closing there was an EXHAUSTIVE explanation provided by an attorney as to what every single form was for, and what every single term meant, and the consequences of each and every signature and initial I had to put on those documents.
My opinion is that--absent a small percentage who actually were lied to--almost everybody who is facing an ARM adjustment knew what they were in for. They just DID NOT CARE because they absolutely, positively "HAD to have THAT house" and, after all, that adjustment was TWO WHOLE YEARS away! Why, the value of the house will have gone up 30% by then, so if we can't afford the payments at that point, we'll just sell. It'll only take a couple of days, and people will be lining up to pay us more than our asking price... right?
In hindsight, I probably should have not thrown the bit about Bill Clinton in there, but at the time, I couldn't resist. I find it a particularly sad commentary on our society that 99% of the people who were defending Bill Clinton ten years ago are screaming for Libby to hang, and 99% of the people who were screaming for Clinton to hang are defending Libby. It's the same damned crime, both of which were committed in the name of politics. That being the case, I hope you can see why I couldn't resist at least alluding to it?
That out of the way, I agree with your suggestion that at least SOME jail time would have been appropriate, but I disagree that this undermines the rule of law. Again, there is still punishment, and it is still pretty severe. I agree that there might be an element of cronyism involved (yourself and others have noted that Joe Average probably wouldn't have received any clemency here) though I still maintain that Joe Average probably wouldn't have been in that position to begin with.
See above.
Even though the jail time was removed, the punishment is NOT a slap on the wrist. If Bush pardons him in 2009, then I agree that will be a bail out, and a truly offensive act.
I concur. I don't believe you and I are that far apart on this--the only point that we seem to disagree on is what constitutes a sufficient punishment.
Honestly? Both. To be frank, while I consider myself an objective person, of course my own personal sense of ethics is going to come into play here and color my opinion (I wouldn't be human otherwise.) That said, I really do not think that Libby was treated like a "normal person" throughout the investigation or the trial. I think he served as a proxy for the entire Bush administration in general, and the Iraq war in particular.
FWIW, I disagree with you. I think it's been well established that he lied to a grand jury. I don't buy the "I misremembered" angle--while it's reasonable that one does not remember EVERY conversation they have with any amount of detail, when the subject of one of them ends up on the front page of the New York Times a few days later it's a pretty good memory aid!
Punishment is required in this situation. I think the punishment that remains intact as a result of Bush's commutation is fair.
The latter does not seem to have been established as fact--and I think that you're just proving my point: the Libby trial wasn't about Libby, it was about Bush.
This also does not appear to be the case. Exactly WHAT did Libby's obstruction accomplish? Do we know any less today than we would other wise? (I don't think that we do--we know who the leak was, we know that Cheney's office discussed the issue and probably was the source of the Plame outing.) What else do you need to know to fry these other fish, and how did Libby prevent it?
I'm just some random guy on the internet, not some Republican operative. Honestly, do I sound like someone who would vote for Libby?? It's been my experience that the ability to reason and think objectively about a situation is NOT near the top of skill list for those guys. Were I one of them, my post would probably have been something along the lines of "Pardon Scooter!" rather than "he deserved to be punished."
I can see your point, but the actual root issue here (Plame's outing, and whether or not it was actually a crime, "high" or otherwise) seems to have been completely lost in the shuffle. The end result seems to be that Libby was put forth as the sacrificial goat that was going to take on all the sins of the Bush administration. Like I said above, that does not seem "just" to me.
What you suggest--that there were serious crimes that occurred, and Libby was involved in covering them up--would be a conspiracy, and is covered by other laws. If warranted, those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of those laws. However, I will not agree that someone should suffer a more severe punishment for something that they were not even charged with.
I sincerely hope not. FWIW, had THAT happened today, I'd be screaming as loudly as anyone else.
This may surprise you, but I share your opinion of the war in Iraq (other than it being "illegal") and almost everything leading up to it. However, I also believe that a man should be tried for his own crimes, not the crimes of others. I am not convinced that happened here, therefore I agree with what Bush did today.
Honestly, this is why I agree with Bush's move here. Libby was neither tried for, nor convicted of "high crimes against the government," but rather of "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" (the same two crimes that Bill Clinton was impeached for, by the way.) However, every single moment of the Libby case seems to have been a trial by proxy of the Bush administration. I can't see how that is just.
Yup, Libby committed a crime. He was convicted of it. He's not going to serve any jail time, but will be on probation for a couple of years, will pay a quarter million dollar fine, and will have the status of a convicted felon. His civil service career is over. Any political aspirations he might have had are gone. He'll probably be disbarred.
All in all, that seems to be a pretty fair punishment for the crimes he was accused and convicted of to me.
Note, I said "king of the data center." I agree that the devices are adequate for your application. I disagree with the grandparent's suggestion that price/GB is more important than performance in enterprise computing.
If cost/GB were more important than performance, the 5400rpm IDE hard drive would be king of the data center.
With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."