The company I worked for last year, for instance, poured a significant quantity of time and money into a corporate VPN based on FreeS/WAN, and even bundled it into products. They don't have the resources or experience to support FreeS/WAN in house themselves, so they'll be in for an intersting ride if problems are discovered.
So you worked for a company that bundled something into a product they sell, but has no resources or experience to actually support it? Tell me who they are, so I can avoid them like the plague!
This is the funniest thing I've seen this week. A slashdotting described as "a slight problem with the database"
That's the funniest thing you could pick out of that message? My personal favorite has GOTTA be "Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser."
Note that your privileges and immunities are defined by the (federal) constitution, including the 10th Amendment.
The 10th amendment doesn't only reserve rights for the people--it also delegates powers to the states. This certainly leaves things open for debate just what constitutes a "right" and I agree that the proper venue to determine this (since it's a federal issue based on Article I as you note) would be the Supreme Court. That said, due to the controversial nature of the entire issue (is a fetus a child?) I don't believe this is something that can be adaquately addressed at the federal level. "Community standards" is a more appropriate way to settle the question: What works in Berkeley doesn't necessarily work in the Bible Belt.
The state level is the proper place to decide such controversial questions.
I agree with the general principle that states should have more rights and the federal government should have less. But I also believe, above all, that individuals should have more rights than either, and deserve constitutional protection against either type of government usurping those rights.
I agree with you completely! The problem again is that abortion is one of those areas where it's NOT clear cut whether or not something is a right. Let me pose the following question to you: Assuming one has the right to terminate a pregnancy (at any point, which is what the pro-abortion hardliners champion) why doesn't one have the right to smother their newborn with a pillow? It's a disgusting analogy that I've just propsed, but I believe the comparison is fair. WHY is the latter unacceptable when the former is regarded by some as an absolute right? In the end, you've accomplished the exact same thing.
I don't have a problem with states being prevented from passing laws against abortions (even aside from the idiotic and self-defeating consequences of such a law - they may as well call it "The Clothes Hanger and Back Street Abortioners Welfare Act" if they ever do)
If you live somehwere where it's illegal and you're dead set on doing it, I agree it'll get done anyway. But that doesn't mean the local residents have to stomache it being done in their backyard. We live in a free society with open borders and free travel through the several states. Airfare is cheap. If you can take it upon yourself to end the life of a child that your choice (there's that word) led to the creation of, you can damn well deal with the inconvenience of having to cross state lines to get it done.
Yes, it is--which is why I'm wondering why you proposed it.
By your argument, the case of, say, Loving v. Virginia that found marriage law prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional should have invalidated the entire marriage law meaning that everybody who was married would instantly become unmarried until the legislature passed a new marriage law to take its place
How about simply striking down the portion of the law that is unconsitutional? Seems fairly easy to me.
Yes, exactly, and rightly so because many laws passed are unconstitutional. That's the entire point of having a branch of government largely unburdoned with reelection considerations. Just because you may not like some of their decisions doesn't make them wrong.
I agree--not liking the result doesn't make them wrong. You seem to miss the equally true inverse of that statement, however: Just because you like the result doesn't make them RIGHT, either.
In fact, look at the very text you responded to: Right now, judges issue executive orders. Judges write new law, or they order new laws to be written. They disobey current laws.
Judges have NO contitutional power to write law (that's what the legislature is for) or order new law to be written. I'm all for striking down those laws that are unconsitutional, but making new law is reserved for Congress and state legislatures--AND NOBODY ELSE.
The 10th would actually be on the side of women having the right to have an abortion, as it reserves all rights not given by the constitution to the government to the people.
I agree completely that the 10th amendment would bar a FEDERAL law against abortion. I do NOT agree that it would bar a STATE law to that effect, nor do I see anything in the constitution that would give the federal supreme court the lawful power to prevent states from passing such a measure.
I'm continually amazed that people (I'm not talking about you, I'm going off on a tangent) can take a system designed with a weak federal government and strong sovereign states and end up with that we have today--an almost all-powerful federal government--without changing a single word related to the actual balance of powers, checks, and balances in the consitution.
The other part is based on the razor-thin profit margins in the PC arena. IIRC, Intel Inside is a co-marketing agreement. Co-market, play those little notes and display the Intel logo as part of your ad, and you get a nice co-marketing fee from Intel. With next-to-no profit margin, that co-marketing fee just might be your profit, or a large part thereof.
IIRC, the payola for Intel Inside consists(ed) of cash back from Intel. Part of your CPU purchases (again IIRC, but I believe it was either 3% or 6%) went into a marketting fund.
Maybe the days of "You MUST use our CPUs in 100% of your products!" are gone, but I'll bet the days of, "You must use our CPUs in 100% of your products in order to participate in Intel Inside!" are still here.
About the first one, ask Dell. Intel doesn't REQUIRE them to be a 100% Intel shop, but pays them an incentive (in the form of discounts) that make it worth Dell's while.
As to the 2nd part, in order to qualify for "Intel Inside" money, every model in a given product group of yours that you wanted to advertise for had to be exclusively Intel chips...if you wanted to use other chips, you had to come up with a separate model (i.e. if Compaq wanted to make a "Presario" commercial, Intel would only pay back that 3-6% figure for advertising if every Presario had an Intel chip.)
That said, you may be interested to know that the U2 is basically a jet powered glider that carries a big camera at high altitudes. It is completely unarmed (I don't believe the pilots even carry sidearms) and classifying it as a "bomber" is ludicrous.
If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
Many states have such laws. If you hadn't noticed, the 4th amendment is slowly but surely being gutted (mostly in the name of the "war on drugs" but now the "war on terror" is an even better method) and the courts no longer seem to hold the Constitution in high regard. Words like "Congress shall make no law," and "Shall not be infringed" seem pretty straightforward to me, but increasingly the Constitution is merely a guideline instead of the "supreme law of the land."
What do you expect when Supreme Court Justices make statements like "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
By the way, you are also legally allowed to resist arrest if you beleive the officer intends to harm you in an unlawful manner -- but just try arguing THAT one in court!
In Tennessee, it's legal to shoot a police officer if they are attempting to use unlawful force upon you.
TN Code 39-11-611(e) states:
(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
This is of course (as you noted) something you will NEVER successfully argue in court (the circumstances would have to be pretty extreme, and even then...) but the law is indeed on the books.
The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad.
"Just scientists" don't organize to engage in "public advocacy, and educational activities focus[ing] on global environmental problems, climate change, energy policy and technology, transportation reform, sustainable agriculture and biotechnology, arms control, and nuclear power safety."
It's a fucking POLITICAL group of scientists. As the grandparent said, that doesn't necessarily make their claims incorrect, but to deny that they are politically motiviated WHEN THEY THEMSELVES claim to just plain pathetic.
Yeah, I mean, politicians are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to science than scientists...pffft, what do they know?
Whoever moderated the above as "insightful" is a moron. The grandparent closes with the words, "I don't trust the Bush administration, either. I expect the scientists and the politicians to be completely biased and untrustworthy until proven otherwise." In other words, DON'T TAKE ANYBODY'S WORD AS TRUSTWORTHY UNLESS YOU HAVE A REAL REASON.
"We're just in it for the noble pursuit of science" rings just as hollow as "We're from the government, and we're here to help."
AMD won't have won until Intel starts rating its processors in "equivalent Athlon64 performance".;)
I'm assuming you're referring to AMD's "Performance Rating." If you are, you might be interested to know that AMD compares their CPUs to a 1Ghz Duron, and NOT any sort of intel chip.
robably numerous other ones. To further clarify: we're mostly talking 'Lennon and McCartney' Beatles. They as songwriters have always been pretty firm about it: not allowed. So the label / publishing companies always enforce this. Contrary to what this discussion is heading into, the label would be bound by whatever Paul McCartney would prefer rather than whatever the label would prefer, and this is likely due to the unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold in the annals of pop music. Even if the label felt it was a great idea, they'd still mostly have to go back to Lennon's estate (ie: Yoko) and Mr. McCartney just to be sure.
They actually need go no further than Michael Jackson, who owns the rights to the complete works of the Beatles.
What was that,8,1 all about anyways? I remember you had to type it to load certain programs but I never knew the reason.
The 8 is the device address. Floppy 0 was 8, Floppy 1 was 9. I'm fuzzy on this because it's been years, but, IIRC the,1 was used to indicate that the program should execute after loading--which is why when you loaded the directory listing of the floppy you NEVER used the,1.
Of course, this lawsuit is based on the AT&T Unix which "Classic SCO" got from Novell, not from Xenix, but... well, there's a lot of mixed up stuff here.
IIRC, Microsoft has an AT&T license, which they bought prior to starting work on Xenix. So either way, they're probably clean.
What would be interesting, however, would be someone at SCO claiming that since some of the code that was leaked was a derivative of SYSV, Microsoft has breached their contracts....
I find the above VERY unlikely though. if SCO tried such a thing, Novell would probably do the same thing for Microsoft that they have for IBM, despite the years of bad blood. What SCO is doing is bad for EVERYBODY.
Yes, the death of the astronauts last year was very sad, but even sadder is that now they are so worried about someone getting hurt that even willing participants are not allowed to go fix a damn telescope!
It's an excuse.
The idea is to cut costs by removing the large hubble ground support--and the $500 Million cost of a shuttle mission.
"Safety" is a bullshit reason to avoid the PR disaster of saying Hubble is too expensive while ISS continues to soak up money and produce no science.
Yes--200 years ago. Today, a splendid definition of liberalism would be "We're responsible for our own actions--unless we're poor, or had a bad childhood, or there is someone with deeper pockets who our actions can be blamed on."
Yes, an at-sea platform that the british government could annex if it so chose--or anyone could sink--run my a man with delusions of grandeur is a MUCH BETTER choice than a nation surrounded by the Alps with a 400+ year history of neutrality and a multi-million man militia.
Slashdot Mirror
The company I worked for last year, for instance, poured a significant quantity of time and money into a corporate VPN based on FreeS/WAN, and even bundled it into products. They don't have the resources or experience to support FreeS/WAN in house themselves, so they'll be in for an intersting ride if problems are discovered.
So you worked for a company that bundled something into a product they sell, but has no resources or experience to actually support it? Tell me who they are, so I can avoid them like the plague!
- mozilla
Err... Mozilla is open source.
This is the funniest thing I've seen this week. A slashdotting described as "a slight problem with the database"
That's the funniest thing you could pick out of that message? My personal favorite has GOTTA be "Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser."
Can't do it according to you for that would create a law different from the original and thus legislating new law.
Which is why we have the legal concept of "severability."
Note that your privileges and immunities are defined by the (federal) constitution, including the 10th Amendment.
The 10th amendment doesn't only reserve rights for the people--it also delegates powers to the states. This certainly leaves things open for debate just what constitutes a "right" and I agree that the proper venue to determine this (since it's a federal issue based on Article I as you note) would be the Supreme Court. That said, due to the controversial nature of the entire issue (is a fetus a child?) I don't believe this is something that can be adaquately addressed at the federal level. "Community standards" is a more appropriate way to settle the question: What works in Berkeley doesn't necessarily work in the Bible Belt.
The state level is the proper place to decide such controversial questions.
I agree with the general principle that states should have more rights and the federal government should have less. But I also believe, above all, that individuals should have more rights than either, and deserve constitutional protection against either type of government usurping those rights.
I agree with you completely! The problem again is that abortion is one of those areas where it's NOT clear cut whether or not something is a right. Let me pose the following question to you: Assuming one has the right to terminate a pregnancy (at any point, which is what the pro-abortion hardliners champion) why doesn't one have the right to smother their newborn with a pillow? It's a disgusting analogy that I've just propsed, but I believe the comparison is fair. WHY is the latter unacceptable when the former is regarded by some as an absolute right? In the end, you've accomplished the exact same thing.
I don't have a problem with states being prevented from passing laws against abortions (even aside from the idiotic and self-defeating consequences of such a law - they may as well call it "The Clothes Hanger and Back Street Abortioners Welfare Act" if they ever do)
If you live somehwere where it's illegal and you're dead set on doing it, I agree it'll get done anyway. But that doesn't mean the local residents have to stomache it being done in their backyard. We live in a free society with open borders and free travel through the several states. Airfare is cheap. If you can take it upon yourself to end the life of a child that your choice (there's that word) led to the creation of, you can damn well deal with the inconvenience of having to cross state lines to get it done.
Clearly, that's an absurd consequence
Yes, it is--which is why I'm wondering why you proposed it.
By your argument, the case of, say, Loving v. Virginia that found marriage law prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional should have invalidated the entire marriage law meaning that everybody who was married would instantly become unmarried until the legislature passed a new marriage law to take its place
How about simply striking down the portion of the law that is unconsitutional? Seems fairly easy to me.
Yes, exactly, and rightly so because many laws passed are unconstitutional. That's the entire point of having a branch of government largely unburdoned with reelection considerations. Just because you may not like some of their decisions doesn't make them wrong.
I agree--not liking the result doesn't make them wrong. You seem to miss the equally true inverse of that statement, however: Just because you like the result doesn't make them RIGHT, either.
In fact, look at the very text you responded to: Right now, judges issue executive orders. Judges write new law, or they order new laws to be written. They disobey current laws.
Judges have NO contitutional power to write law (that's what the legislature is for) or order new law to be written. I'm all for striking down those laws that are unconsitutional, but making new law is reserved for Congress and state legislatures--AND NOBODY ELSE.
The 10th would actually be on the side of women having the right to have an abortion, as it reserves all rights not given by the constitution to the government to the people.
I agree completely that the 10th amendment would bar a FEDERAL law against abortion. I do NOT agree that it would bar a STATE law to that effect, nor do I see anything in the constitution that would give the federal supreme court the lawful power to prevent states from passing such a measure.
I'm continually amazed that people (I'm not talking about you, I'm going off on a tangent) can take a system designed with a weak federal government and strong sovereign states and end up with that we have today--an almost all-powerful federal government--without changing a single word related to the actual balance of powers, checks, and balances in the consitution.
It's unreal.
Google's Palm Version already looks like the above.
The other part is based on the razor-thin profit margins in the PC arena. IIRC, Intel Inside is a co-marketing agreement. Co-market, play those little notes and display the Intel logo as part of your ad, and you get a nice co-marketing fee from Intel. With next-to-no profit margin, that co-marketing fee just might be your profit, or a large part thereof.
IIRC, the payola for Intel Inside consists(ed) of cash back from Intel. Part of your CPU purchases (again IIRC, but I believe it was either 3% or 6%) went into a marketting fund.
Maybe the days of "You MUST use our CPUs in 100% of your products!" are gone, but I'll bet the days of, "You must use our CPUs in 100% of your products in order to participate in Intel Inside!" are still here.
About the first one, ask Dell. Intel doesn't REQUIRE them to be a 100% Intel shop, but pays them an incentive (in the form of discounts) that make it worth Dell's while.
As to the 2nd part, in order to qualify for "Intel Inside" money, every model in a given product group of yours that you wanted to advertise for had to be exclusively Intel chips...if you wanted to use other chips, you had to come up with a separate model (i.e. if Compaq wanted to make a "Presario" commercial, Intel would only pay back that 3-6% figure for advertising if every Presario had an Intel chip.)
Your post needs to be modded "Incoherent."
That said, you may be interested to know that the U2 is basically a jet powered glider that carries a big camera at high altitudes. It is completely unarmed (I don't believe the pilots even carry sidearms) and classifying it as a "bomber" is ludicrous.
If you mean statute, I have strong doubts that any states have such laws -- or, more to the point, that such a law would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
See, we have this concept called "unwarranted search or seizure". Unless a policeman has a good, justifiable reason for asking for my ID, he shouldn't be asking, and I shouldn't have to show it to him.
Many states have such laws. If you hadn't noticed, the 4th amendment is slowly but surely being gutted (mostly in the name of the "war on drugs" but now the "war on terror" is an even better method) and the courts no longer seem to hold the Constitution in high regard. Words like "Congress shall make no law," and "Shall not be infringed" seem pretty straightforward to me, but increasingly the Constitution is merely a guideline instead of the "supreme law of the land."
What do you expect when Supreme Court Justices make statements like "I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."
In Tennessee, it's legal to shoot a police officer if they are attempting to use unlawful force upon you.
TN Code 39-11-611(e) states:
This is of course (as you noted) something you will NEVER successfully argue in court (the circumstances would have to be pretty extreme, and even then...) but the law is indeed on the books.
The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad.
. html
"Just scientists" don't organize to engage in "public advocacy, and educational activities focus[ing] on global environmental problems, climate change, energy policy and technology, transportation reform, sustainable agriculture and biotechnology, arms control, and nuclear power safety."
It's a fucking POLITICAL group of scientists. As the grandparent said, that doesn't necessarily make their claims incorrect, but to deny that they are politically motiviated WHEN THEY THEMSELVES claim to just plain pathetic.
The UCS site is currently slashdotted. The quote above is from http://www.eere.energy.gov/bro/neen/resources/ucs
Yeah, I mean, politicians are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to science than scientists...pffft, what do they know?
Whoever moderated the above as "insightful" is a moron. The grandparent closes with the words, "I don't trust the Bush administration, either. I expect the scientists and the politicians to be completely biased and untrustworthy until proven otherwise." In other words, DON'T TAKE ANYBODY'S WORD AS TRUSTWORTHY UNLESS YOU HAVE A REAL REASON.
"We're just in it for the noble pursuit of science" rings just as hollow as "We're from the government, and we're here to help."
Unless Microsoft included some of *cough* SCO's code into Windows, I don't think you will have a chance of being sued.
Microsoft recently bought a license from SCO. One would expect this to preclude lawsuits over SCO's IP in Windows.
How do they deliver it?
:)
Airborne Express?
AMD won't have won until Intel starts rating its processors in "equivalent Athlon64 performance". ;)
I'm assuming you're referring to AMD's "Performance Rating." If you are, you might be interested to know that AMD compares their CPUs to a 1Ghz Duron, and NOT any sort of intel chip.
PR3200+ would be 3.2x faster than a 1Ghz Duron.
robably numerous other ones. To further clarify: we're mostly talking 'Lennon and McCartney' Beatles. They as songwriters have always been pretty firm about it: not allowed. So the label / publishing companies always enforce this. Contrary to what this discussion is heading into, the label would be bound by whatever Paul McCartney would prefer rather than whatever the label would prefer, and this is likely due to the unbelievably unique position The Beatles hold in the annals of pop music. Even if the label felt it was a great idea, they'd still mostly have to go back to Lennon's estate (ie: Yoko) and Mr. McCartney just to be sure.
They actually need go no further than Michael Jackson, who owns the rights to the complete works of the Beatles.
What was that ,8,1 all about anyways? I remember you had to type it to load certain programs but I never knew the reason.
,1 was used to indicate that the program should execute after loading--which is why when you loaded the directory listing of the floppy you NEVER used the ,1.
The 8 is the device address. Floppy 0 was 8, Floppy 1 was 9. I'm fuzzy on this because it's been years, but, IIRC the
Of course, this lawsuit is based on the AT&T Unix which "Classic SCO" got from Novell, not from Xenix, but... well, there's a lot of mixed up stuff here.
IIRC, Microsoft has an AT&T license, which they bought prior to starting work on Xenix. So either way, they're probably clean.
What would be interesting, however, would be someone at SCO claiming that since some of the code that was leaked was a derivative of SYSV, Microsoft has breached their contracts....
I find the above VERY unlikely though. if SCO tried such a thing, Novell would probably do the same thing for Microsoft that they have for IBM, despite the years of bad blood. What SCO is doing is bad for EVERYBODY.
I know they have at least the TCP/IP stack from BSD. I would be interested to see if the copyright comments are still on the files.
Err, yes, they are. How else do you suppose we know they're using BSD code? Running strings on the executables turns up the Regents copyright notice.
Yes, the death of the astronauts last year was very sad, but even sadder is that now they are so worried about someone getting hurt that even willing participants are not allowed to go fix a damn telescope!
It's an excuse.
The idea is to cut costs by removing the large hubble ground support--and the $500 Million cost of a shuttle mission.
"Safety" is a bullshit reason to avoid the PR disaster of saying Hubble is too expensive while ISS continues to soak up money and produce no science.
We're responsible for our own actions.
This is a splendid definition of liberalism.
Yes--200 years ago. Today, a splendid definition of liberalism would be "We're responsible for our own actions--unless we're poor, or had a bad childhood, or there is someone with deeper pockets who our actions can be blamed on."
Sealand would be a better choice methinks.
Yes, an at-sea platform that the british government could annex if it so chose--or anyone could sink--run my a man with delusions of grandeur is a MUCH BETTER choice than a nation surrounded by the Alps with a 400+ year history of neutrality and a multi-million man militia.