he militia is necessary to the state, for its security and freedom.
The uncanny insights of the men who signed the Constitution were informed by their victory over the British Army by the Continental Army, composed largely of self-armed and unarmed American militias. Regardless of our guesses at their "intent", the Constitution indicates that the army they formed was to be made of militias.
There's no need to guess. Those men left behind many writings that made their feelings on the subject abundantly clear. If you require something more substantial than the private writings of our founding fathers, I suggest you look at state constitutions of the time.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Some other state constitutions raise the very question you post, though most of them are also VERY clear about who the actual right belongs to.
Massachussetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by
North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The issue of whether to switch the gigantic US military to a smaller, more self-organized (and supplied) force is another interesting policy issue. But as we interpret the 2nd Amendment, we can find only a choice between it and that standing army.
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals.
Personally (I'm not speaking for all "right to keep and bear arms" advocates) I try not to--I even note something to that effect elsewhere in this thread. That said, I think we can agree that the majority of them are--PARTICULARLY in cities such as DC, Chicago, and New York where ownership is heavily restricted.
The common thread in these was that self-loading rifles made it too easy for such people to kill a lot of people at once. We restricted their ownership to the few people who actually need them for professional reasons. Voila, no more spree killings since.
While I'm very happy that nothing has happened since Port Arthur, I'm not sure that this is a result of the weapons ban you mention. I'm sorry to say that something similar will likely happen in the future. Maybe not with an AK-47--a pistol, a shotgun, maybe not even a gun. On June 8th, 2001, a japanese man killed 8 children, and injured 15 other people with a knife. What that says to me is that people who are going to commit these kinds of acts are going to do so no matter what. Removing firearms from the equation (Japan has extremely strong gun control) merely makes them less efficient.
I believe that punishing the law abiding for the acts of a very, very few is morally reprehensible. I believe conflating "safety" with gun control is akin to claiming that invading Iraq makes America safe from terrorists attacks.
I wish the world was different--I really do. It would be nice to live in a world without violence, without people who would murder for $10, or an expensive piece of clothing. Without brutal dictators who would murder their own people. But we don't live in that world.
Until we do, I retain the right to protect myself and my family, by any and all available means. Anyone who attempts to restrict me from doing so is a fool at best, an outright enemy at worst.
However, Black also contended that IBM had to maintain all the equipment it supplied, meaning that IBM engineers and other staff had to be onsite and that there was no way that they could have not known what was going on in those concentration camps.
Because, after all, shipping the thing to the IBM rep in Berlin for OFFsite repair would be impossible, right?
What's your point? That very same argument can be applied to any sort of trade, and nobody is arguing that gun manufacturers are being discriminatory by not selling to known bad people (except of course, that they are)
Gun manufacturers ONLY sell weapons to Federally licensed distributors. Federally licensed distributors ONLY sell weapons to Federally licensed dealers. Federally licensed dealers are REQUIRED (and do) conduct background checks on EVERYONE who buys a firearm.
Sometimes those buyers are people with clean records who nonetheless have an intent to commit a crime. Sometimes those buyers are straw purchasers, who are buying the weapon for a prohibited person (a felony--actually, two felonies in one--by the way.) I think it's POSSIBLE that one could make a convincing case that the dealer knew or should have known that the sale would be illegal. But the manufacturer, who is removed three degrees from the transaction? Yeah, that's the guilty party right there!
In the end, it's a "manufacturer/user" argument, which has been discussed to death (hopefully not a pun) in the US where every shop will sell machine guns to anyone who wanders in, and claim "it's not my fault how they're used".
Machine guns manufactured after May 1986 are illegal to possess in the United States (unless you happen to by a law enforcement agency, or a dealer authorized to sell machine guns--and those weapons can only be sold to law enforcement agencies.) Machine guns made before May 1986 are indeed legal to own. It only requires paying a $200 tax, being fingerprinted twice, asking your local law enforcement agency for permission (they can say no,) being investigated by the BATF and the FBI, and waiting six months (longer since 9/11.) Easy, isn't it? Those same "pre-1986" weapons are, as I'm sure you can imagine, relatively rare (it's been 20 years since any were made, after all) and supply and demand being what it is, are very expensive. Like $8000 for an M-16 , $15000 for an MP5, etc. Not exactly within the reach of your average person, you know?
But hey, this is America, and our insane gun laws make it possible for anyone to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a machine gun, right?
I belive the conclusion was that legally, it didn't matter because the gun-manufacturers owned the government.
This one ALWAYS amazes me. While the NRA has 4,000,000 members, very few of them (i.e. less than 1%) are in the gun industry. The industry itself doesn't make much money--except maybe the ones that have military contracts (and strangely enough, all of those are European companies--FN, Sig, Beretta, H&K.) The largest American manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, has a market cap just under $45Million, and made a profit of $671,000.00 on sales of $29Million last quarter.
That being the case, I've gotta ask: How in hell do you believe "the gun indistry" controls the American government? Have they perfected the art of mind control or something? Because they certainly aren't BUYING more influence than anyone else!
It's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you. ALL of the major gun control groups have made statements along the lines of "we want to ban all guns" over the years.
I don't know any gunowners (and I know ALOT of them) that don't want to keep firearms out of the hands of crminals. The problem is that most of the solutions involve restricting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose on the off chance that you'll succeed in reducing the use of guns by criminals.
Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns. New York has almost done so. Those places don't seem to have a shortage of armed criminals though, do they? So who, I ask you, is really affected by the law? The good guys, or the bad guys?
How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?
Slashdot(TM) is a registered trademark of OSDN. Use of this mark without authorization is prohibited. In the future, please refer to Slashdot(TM) as "The Big Website" or we will be forced to seek legal recourse via our attorneys of record, Schmeckel, Schwartz, and Putz (LP).
Re:Don't forget the ad CBS is refusing to air.
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets.
While I disagree with MoveON on most issues (though I happen to AGREE with them on this one) I have to call Bullshit on CBS. Superbowl ads (for the network, at least) are about as making as much money as possible. It costs a few million bucks to get a 30 second ad aired, and that number increases every year. For CBS to claim that they;re trying to "keep advertising rates low" is a lie on par with "I didn't inhale."
I run an almost identical setup to yours: Inflex is running on my mail gateway (sendmail) and calls BitDefenderAV to scan every message. Total cost of Sendmail, Inflex, and the Linux version of Bitdefender: $0.
I also run Syamntec corporate on my windows servers and desktops, and the initial cost was a few thousand. We also pay about $20 a seat yearly for updates (which, btw, you should be doing too--the product comes with a year of virus updates--after that, you need another license if you want to continue to receive them. Just because LiveUpdate lets you download the virus defs doesn't mean that you're in the clear legally speaking.)
Any company that has to take down their mail server due to volumes generated by a worm (and it happens a lot), and that is reliant on e-mail for internal communication (also very common), can write off $270 per employee per hour that the server is down. That's up to $27000 per hour in a 100-person company. Ouch.
<sarcasm>Right, because if you can't send email to the guy in the next cube, your productivity drops to zero.</sarcasm>
...oh sorry that "liberty and justice for all" has been replaced with "liberty and justice for all those who can afford it".
You are aware that "liberty and justice for all" is an American phrase (though I grant the concept is universal) and that this took place in Norway, right?
I may not like Bill Gates and the way his company acts, but I have to give credit to a man who can admit his mistakes. It's not an easy thing to do.
Once upon a time (1993) Bill Gates made a comment about the internet not being important, and something MS wasn't particularly interested in.
I agree with you: You can't help but admire someone who can make a mistake that could potentially cripple the company, admit the mistake, and then go on to the successes that they have.
Disclaimer: I am not an EE, so I could very well be full of shit.
I'm not an EE either, but yes, you are full of shit. "Typical desktop apps" leave your CPU spending most of its time in an idle loop. Blaming "poorly performing deep pipelines" for whatever problem you're having is like assuming that the missing TYPE-R stickers on your Honda Civic are responsible for the strange sound your engine is making.
In future ISP contracts, make sure there is a clause stating that you can terminate the contract (maybe even have them pay you a penalty fee as well) if the ISP allows spam to be sent from their networks, causing an interruption in service for you.
Maybe if I'm a large webhost buying multiple DS-3s, or a multi-site company that is building a fairly large voice/data WAN, I have that kind of bargaining power. Nobody is going to expose themselves to the liability you suggest above (i.e. penalties) for a single T1.
If your ISP is also providing spam services to spammers, do you really want to be grouped in with them?
Not particularly, but what's my alternative? Buy myself out of the contract I have with my ISP? Then pay another ISP a "setup fee" along with entering into another contract, just so in a few months I can repeat the whole process when THEY get listed by SPEWS? Some of us (and I'm talking about small businesses here, not home users) can't afford to just throw away thousands or tens of thousands of dollars because our ISP hosts spammers.
I don't think they can legally ask if you have ever had a warrant out for your arrest. Don't job applications ask about "convicted" at most?
These days, many employers conduct background checks before hiring. Just imagine you're trying to land a job at $SOFTWARE_COMPANY and they see that you were investigated by the secret service and FBI for breaking into a corporate network and stealing data.
The fact that you weren't convicted (or were even innocent) doesn't change the fact that your prospective employer knows you were investigated--and they would have to be smoking crack to offer you a job.
I thought that he had legally changed his last name to "Rowesoft" (hey, it's 6 in the morning, gimme a break), in which case I think it would be totally within his right to have his own name as his domain name.
You would be incorrect--just ask Uzi Nissan. And he was BORN with that name, he didn't change it.
(For the humor impaired, the joke is that 6*9 is not, actually, 42, implying there's something seriously wrong with the Universe when it can't even answer its own question correctly.)
I'm not quite certain this was the point of the "6x9" joke, given that the program of the computer called Earth was corrupted by the arrival of the Gulgafrincham. OTOH, I do agree about the premise that there is something seriously wrong with the Universe.:)
First off, the initial gun powder weapons were BUILT as muzzle loading, single shot weapons. I can certainly sweep this fact aside as "outdated". This does not say that the black powder weapons were NOT successful in their time, but now, they would not go anywhere. Really.
Modern "black powder" (actually, they use Pyrodex now) weapons are currently made in large numbers--and are VERY successful commercially. Really.:)
Most of these weapons are not replica antiques, either (though some, of course, are) but rather involve modern design, manufacturing, and features. Most US states have special "black powder only" hunting seasons as well, which will continue to drive their popularity.
The Shuttle was designed in the early 1970s. And they want to keep flying it for another 10+ years?
The B-52 was designed in the late 1940s, and went into service in the mid-50s. We stopped building them in 1962. It is currently projected that they will remain in service until at least the 2040s. The youngest airframes will then be 80 years old!
Just because it's old doesn't mean it should be scrapped. (Not to say that the shuttle shouldn't be--but AGE alone is not a good reason.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm always sure to mention mine. Has got me some really interesting job offers...
:)
Any of them from NineNine or autopr0n by any chance?
he militia is necessary to the state, for its security and freedom.
The uncanny insights of the men who signed the Constitution were informed by their victory over the British Army by the Continental Army, composed largely of self-armed and unarmed American militias. Regardless of our guesses at their "intent", the Constitution indicates that the army they formed was to be made of militias.
There's no need to guess. Those men left behind many writings that made their feelings on the subject abundantly clear. If you require something more substantial than the private writings of our founding fathers, I suggest you look at state constitutions of the time.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Some other state constitutions raise the very question you post, though most of them are also VERY clear about who the actual right belongs to.
Massachussetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by
North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The issue of whether to switch the gigantic US military to a smaller, more self-organized (and supplied) force is another interesting policy issue. But as we interpret the 2nd Amendment, we can find only a choice between it and that standing army.
I'm confused as to why you
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals.
Personally (I'm not speaking for all "right to keep and bear arms" advocates) I try not to--I even note something to that effect elsewhere in this thread. That said, I think we can agree that the majority of them are--PARTICULARLY in cities such as DC, Chicago, and New York where ownership is heavily restricted.
The common thread in these was that self-loading rifles made it too easy for such people to kill a lot of people at once. We restricted their ownership to the few people who actually need them for professional reasons. Voila, no more spree killings since.
While I'm very happy that nothing has happened since Port Arthur, I'm not sure that this is a result of the weapons ban you mention. I'm sorry to say that something similar will likely happen in the future. Maybe not with an AK-47--a pistol, a shotgun, maybe not even a gun. On June 8th, 2001, a japanese man killed 8 children, and injured 15 other people with a knife. What that says to me is that people who are going to commit these kinds of acts are going to do so no matter what. Removing firearms from the equation (Japan has extremely strong gun control) merely makes them less efficient.
I believe that punishing the law abiding for the acts of a very, very few is morally reprehensible. I believe conflating "safety" with gun control is akin to claiming that invading Iraq makes America safe from terrorists attacks.
I wish the world was different--I really do. It would be nice to live in a world without violence, without people who would murder for $10, or an expensive piece of clothing. Without brutal dictators who would murder their own people. But we don't live in that world.
Until we do, I retain the right to protect myself and my family, by any and all available means. Anyone who attempts to restrict me from doing so is a fool at best, an outright enemy at worst.
However, Black also contended that IBM had to maintain all the equipment it supplied, meaning that IBM engineers and other staff had to be onsite and that there was no way that they could have not known what was going on in those concentration camps.
Because, after all, shipping the thing to the IBM rep in Berlin for OFFsite repair would be impossible, right?
What's your point? That very same argument can be applied to any sort of trade, and nobody is arguing that gun manufacturers are being discriminatory by not selling to known bad people (except of course, that they are)
Gun manufacturers ONLY sell weapons to Federally licensed distributors. Federally licensed distributors ONLY sell weapons to Federally licensed dealers. Federally licensed dealers are REQUIRED (and do) conduct background checks on EVERYONE who buys a firearm.
Sometimes those buyers are people with clean records who nonetheless have an intent to commit a crime. Sometimes those buyers are straw purchasers, who are buying the weapon for a prohibited person (a felony--actually, two felonies in one--by the way.) I think it's POSSIBLE that one could make a convincing case that the dealer knew or should have known that the sale would be illegal. But the manufacturer, who is removed three degrees from the transaction? Yeah, that's the guilty party right there!
In the end, it's a "manufacturer/user" argument, which has been discussed to death (hopefully not a pun) in the US where every shop will sell machine guns to anyone who wanders in, and claim "it's not my fault how they're used".
Machine guns manufactured after May 1986 are illegal to possess in the United States (unless you happen to by a law enforcement agency, or a dealer authorized to sell machine guns--and those weapons can only be sold to law enforcement agencies.) Machine guns made before May 1986 are indeed legal to own. It only requires paying a $200 tax, being fingerprinted twice, asking your local law enforcement agency for permission (they can say no,) being investigated by the BATF and the FBI, and waiting six months (longer since 9/11.) Easy, isn't it? Those same "pre-1986" weapons are, as I'm sure you can imagine, relatively rare (it's been 20 years since any were made, after all) and supply and demand being what it is, are very expensive. Like $8000 for an M-16 , $15000 for an MP5, etc. Not exactly within the reach of your average person, you know?
But hey, this is America, and our insane gun laws make it possible for anyone to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a machine gun, right?
I belive the conclusion was that legally, it didn't matter because the gun-manufacturers owned the government.
This one ALWAYS amazes me. While the NRA has 4,000,000 members, very few of them (i.e. less than 1%) are in the gun industry. The industry itself doesn't make much money--except maybe the ones that have military contracts (and strangely enough, all of those are European companies--FN, Sig, Beretta, H&K.) The largest American manufacturer, Smith & Wesson, has a market cap just under $45Million, and made a profit of $671,000.00 on sales of $29Million last quarter.
That being the case, I've gotta ask: How in hell do you believe "the gun indistry" controls the American government? Have they perfected the art of mind control or something? Because they certainly aren't BUYING more influence than anyone else!
For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities.
Because we are.
Or do you think that this website, operated by the Violence Policy Center is only going after criminals?
It's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you. ALL of the major gun control groups have made statements along the lines of "we want to ban all guns" over the years.
I don't know any gunowners (and I know ALOT of them) that don't want to keep firearms out of the hands of crminals. The problem is that most of the solutions involve restricting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose on the off chance that you'll succeed in reducing the use of guns by criminals.
Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns. New York has almost done so. Those places don't seem to have a shortage of armed criminals though, do they? So who, I ask you, is really affected by the law? The good guys, or the bad guys?
Is it anything like SCMODS?
For those not blessed to have seen The Blues Brothers, SCMODS stands for State County Munincipal Offender Data System.
How can we live in a age where you cant refer to something by its official name without paying money??? I read slashdot all the time and I am so disgusted by the crap going on around us, what IS this world coming to?
Slashdot(TM) is a registered trademark of OSDN. Use of this mark without authorization is prohibited. In the future, please refer to Slashdot(TM) as "The Big Website" or we will be forced to seek legal recourse via our attorneys of record, Schmeckel, Schwartz, and Putz (LP).
CBS defends the policy by saying that if they allowed issue ads, large corporations could buy time to push their favorite issues and it would disenfranchise us folks with smaller ad budgets.
While I disagree with MoveON on most issues (though I happen to AGREE with them on this one) I have to call Bullshit on CBS. Superbowl ads (for the network, at least) are about as making as much money as possible. It costs a few million bucks to get a 30 second ad aired, and that number increases every year. For CBS to claim that they;re trying to "keep advertising rates low" is a lie on par with "I didn't inhale."
Gnarg - why are optical drives louder than ever now!
Because they're spinning faster. Simple enough answer, no?
I run an almost identical setup to yours: Inflex is running on my mail gateway (sendmail) and calls BitDefenderAV to scan every message. Total cost of Sendmail, Inflex, and the Linux version of Bitdefender: $0.
I also run Syamntec corporate on my windows servers and desktops, and the initial cost was a few thousand. We also pay about $20 a seat yearly for updates (which, btw, you should be doing too--the product comes with a year of virus updates--after that, you need another license if you want to continue to receive them. Just because LiveUpdate lets you download the virus defs doesn't mean that you're in the clear legally speaking.)
Any company that has to take down their mail server due to volumes generated by a worm (and it happens a lot), and that is reliant on e-mail for internal communication (also very common), can write off $270 per employee per hour that the server is down. That's up to $27000 per hour in a 100-person company. Ouch.
<sarcasm>Right, because if you can't send email to the guy in the next cube, your productivity drops to zero.</sarcasm>
...oh sorry that "liberty and justice for all" has been replaced with "liberty and justice for all those who can afford it".
You are aware that "liberty and justice for all" is an American phrase (though I grant the concept is universal) and that this took place in Norway, right?
Fair play to SCO - their site is still up, and serving pages.
The DDOS portion of the worm is only active Feb1-Feb12, so they haven't been hit by it yet.
I may not like Bill Gates and the way his company acts, but I have to give credit to a man who can admit his mistakes. It's not an easy thing to do.
Once upon a time (1993) Bill Gates made a comment about the internet not being important, and something MS wasn't particularly interested in.
I agree with you: You can't help but admire someone who can make a mistake that could potentially cripple the company, admit the mistake, and then go on to the successes that they have.
Disclaimer: I am not an EE, so I could very well be full of shit.
I'm not an EE either, but yes, you are full of shit. "Typical desktop apps" leave your CPU spending most of its time in an idle loop. Blaming "poorly performing deep pipelines" for whatever problem you're having is like assuming that the missing TYPE-R stickers on your Honda Civic are responsible for the strange sound your engine is making.
In future ISP contracts, make sure there is a clause stating that you can terminate the contract (maybe even have them pay you a penalty fee as well) if the ISP allows spam to be sent from their networks, causing an interruption in service for you.
Maybe if I'm a large webhost buying multiple DS-3s, or a multi-site company that is building a fairly large voice/data WAN, I have that kind of bargaining power. Nobody is going to expose themselves to the liability you suggest above (i.e. penalties) for a single T1.
If your ISP is also providing spam services to spammers, do you really want to be grouped in with them?
Not particularly, but what's my alternative? Buy myself out of the contract I have with my ISP? Then pay another ISP a "setup fee" along with entering into another contract, just so in a few months I can repeat the whole process when THEY get listed by SPEWS? Some of us (and I'm talking about small businesses here, not home users) can't afford to just throw away thousands or tens of thousands of dollars because our ISP hosts spammers.
I don't think they can legally ask if you have ever had a warrant out for your arrest. Don't job applications ask about "convicted" at most?
These days, many employers conduct background checks before hiring. Just imagine you're trying to land a job at $SOFTWARE_COMPANY and they see that you were investigated by the secret service and FBI for breaking into a corporate network and stealing data.
The fact that you weren't convicted (or were even innocent) doesn't change the fact that your prospective employer knows you were investigated--and they would have to be smoking crack to offer you a job.
I thought that he had legally changed his last name to "Rowesoft" (hey, it's 6 in the morning, gimme a break), in which case I think it would be totally within his right to have his own name as his domain name.
You would be incorrect--just ask Uzi Nissan. And he was BORN with that name, he didn't change it.
My mom is the directory of a public library.
Your mom is a card catalog?
Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.
You would be incorrect. As text. If you want, you can find PDFs of the originals somewhere on Groklaw.
(For the humor impaired, the joke is that 6*9 is not, actually, 42, implying there's something seriously wrong with the Universe when it can't even answer its own question correctly.)
:)
I'm not quite certain this was the point of the "6x9" joke, given that the program of the computer called Earth was corrupted by the arrival of the Gulgafrincham. OTOH, I do agree about the premise that there is something seriously wrong with the Universe.
First off, the initial gun powder weapons were BUILT as muzzle loading, single shot weapons. I can certainly sweep this fact aside as "outdated". This does not say that the black powder weapons were NOT successful in their time, but now, they would not go anywhere. Really.
:)
Modern "black powder" (actually, they use Pyrodex now) weapons are currently made in large numbers--and are VERY successful commercially. Really.
Most of these weapons are not replica antiques, either (though some, of course, are) but rather involve modern design, manufacturing, and features. Most US states have special "black powder only" hunting seasons as well, which will continue to drive their popularity.
For an example, see Knight Rifles.
The Shuttle was designed in the early 1970s. And they want to keep flying it for another 10+ years?
The B-52 was designed in the late 1940s, and went into service in the mid-50s. We stopped building them in 1962. It is currently projected that they will remain in service until at least the 2040s. The youngest airframes will then be 80 years old!
Just because it's old doesn't mean it should be scrapped. (Not to say that the shuttle shouldn't be--but AGE alone is not a good reason.)