The name of the magazine is not linuxgazette.com. It is Linux Gazette. The fact that their host decided to appropriate the site for a different and unwelcome format does not mean they lose the right to the name of the magazine they created prior to their host being their host. So, they took their magazine, Linux Gazette, elsewhere.
The second biggest mistake in all of this is that somebody somewhere trusted SSC, a for-profit business, enough to let them register linuxgazette.com, rather than place that domain the hands of a core volunteer or the magazine founder. That is the huge, primary source of the issue, as there are so many people (you included it seems) who presume that who owns the domain therefore owns the content. That isn't always true, and it isn't true here.
The first biggest mistake is that people are too trustworthy. Projects such as this should recognize that they exist in the real world, and in the real world formalities are needed. Linux Gazette (and all other projects with a group concept of "ownership") should have been incorporated and then registered as a non-profit organization. The paperwork isn't that hard, the yearly costs are minimal, and it helps avoid these issues because then there is in fact a real tangible owner.
As it is, this is a he-said she-said issue, which it seems will have to be sorted out by a court and lawyers. Though it is obvious to me who is right, and it isn't SSC.
I too am sick of the greed happening here. Fact: Linux Gazette was started by people other than SSC. SSC later hosted it. That doesn't mean they own it, doesn't mean they own the name. If SSC can show some legal documents saying otherwise, please show them. But I doubt they have such. Unfortunatly, some overly trusting person permitted SSC to register and own the linuxgazette.com domain name. Given the likely lack of other documentary evidence, that may count for something if this actually goes to court. Hopefully the fact that Linux Gazette existed prior to SSC's involvement will count for more.
Another comment mentioned problems with their LJ subscription. I have subscribed since LJ was a thin little staple-bound magazine. I renewed my subscription yet again, a while ago, but the magazines stopped coming and I started getting bills. My AMEX card had been charged. So I figured no big deal, write email. I got a canned response stating that my payment had not been received. Responded that no, my card was charged, such and such date. No response. So I wrote a paper letter to their "customer service" address, with a copy of the AMEX statement and charge circled. No response. Sent another copy. No response. No magazines. Finally disputed it with AMEX, but too much time had passed.
Final resort: looked up SSC's corporate records, sent a certified letter to their registered legal address, with copy of prior letter/statement copy, and said please either send my money back, or I will sue you. That got a a nearly INSTANT response, and a phone call. But no apology, just a request to discuss "this issue." They restarted my subscription.
Given the poor customer service, the direction LJ has taken, and the behavior of SSC in this Linux Gazette issue, I won't be renewing my subscription either.
Larry
Re:Set time limit on First Amendment?
on
Who Owns The Facts?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The section heading is "Nonseverability." What 10(a) means is that if within ten years the Supreme Court holds section 3 void, then the ENTIRE act is repealed, not merely the portion the Supremes find unconstitutional.
10(b) means that after ten years, then the Supremes get to decide piece by piece whether the act is legal.
Also, keep in mind that when the Supremes rule a law unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it became unconstitutional from the date of the ruling. It means that the law was *never* a valid law. From day one. So, Congress inserts things into laws to try to accomodate that possibility. Though the purpose of this particular section appears to be an appeasement to 1st amendment concerns. Very interesting language.
Precisely. I started in astronautical engineering, switched about half way through to undecided when I figured I didn't like it so much, and the cold war was ending and putting the squeeze on that field. Wanted to do naval engineering, wasn't available at my school. Switched to computer science since I'd been programming on 8bit machines since a kid. Have been in tech for over a decade now. Bought a racing sailboat. Got into woodworking (wooden boat). Got into cars (rebuilt a couple engines, transmissions, race on a real track a few times a year). And the point is?
I do IT consulting now, after all the years in the field. Own my own corp, have an employee earning some money for me. I am involved in my yacht club, serving on committees. Doctors there... making contacts with health care people to try to enter that field in a new venture, with an also lightly-employed colleague with whom I've worked off and on for many years. Started a wireless business earlier this year with a couple other colleagues, one who got an MBA a few years ago... went nowhere, little money in the pay-for-wifi-access business. Working on that again I think, some mesh networking this time. Probably going to start a woodworking/custom furniture company, put all those tools I have for maintaining my boat to work (and buy more!). Working on starting a boat yard with like-minded owners too, oriented toward self-maintaining boat owners, it's getting harder to find amendable yards these days.
And the point there? Use what you know, use your interests, use your contacts, join some organizations other than technology, meet people, get involved, start something up either yourself or with some others. Don't just hang out with geeks. Don't just depend on some jerk in some office to give you a job.
I have read numerous times that the future of work in the US will be in small business, more and more. Makes sense. Large corporations are focused like never before on productivity and cost-cutting, due to global competition. Large companies will out-source more and more. It makes a lot of sense to pare a business down to what actually makes money, and hire others to manage everything else. This isn't going to end. Jobs in those companies are going to tenuous unless you are core to the business, what actually makes money for the owners/shareholders. One option: get out of the ratrace, use your brain, be entrepreneurial. I scrape more for my money now, it isn't as easy as clocking in every day and taking home $85k a year in bi-weekly steady checks. But, I enjoy it more, I see my wife more. I do what I like more. My last full-time regular W2 job was a couple years ago, and I don't think I'll ever go back. I'll try my ideas, see what works, and run with it. And be happier.
Yes, and because GWB was elected as Grand Dictator of the World (uh, rather, installed by the Nine Old Men and Women), he is single-handly responsible for the economic malaise affecting, oh, the vast majority of the "Western" world. Including that pesky recession that began before he was elected, uh, installed. After all, the Grand Dictator of the World is omnipotent.
Why on earth do people think that way? Maybe the economic issues go a wee little bit deeper than who happens to sit in the White House this year.
The Florida case wasn't about stopping votes from being counted. They had been counted. The results had been determined.
Then the Democrats went to court to attempt to get the court to determine the election. The Republicans were open to counting *all* the votes again under uniform standards. The Democrats were not. They wanted their looser standards to be applied only in districts where they felt stronger.
It was not about letting the people speak and counting all the votes. It was about getting your guy in the office. The Democrats did what they felt would be best in achieving that goal. The Republicans did the same. And the Republicans won that partisan battle which the Democrats started. That's politics. To decry the actions of one side and not decry the other is simply hypocritical.
The US Supreme Court decision was about law. It was certainly perceived by those on the losing side as partisan, and nothing anybody ever says will ever change their viewpoint. That is fully understood.
But it was about law, and was a correct decision in that context. The legislature of the state of Florida is explicitly charged with setting the rules regarding the operation of elections. The legislature set those rules, and the US Supreme Court ruled that those are the rules. The Florida Supreme Court was not empowered to write new rules. Legislatures create law. Courts either enforce it, or throw it out. But courts do not write new laws to replace ones they dislike. That power belongs to the elected representatives of the people of the state of Florida.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, decided that it can write new laws. It decided that it had that power, one not granted to it by the state constitution and thereby not by the people. Rather than rule that the legislature's rules are invalid, and then throw the ball back to the legislature to correct, it crafted a complex procedure, wholely substituted for the explicit will of the legislature. The US Supreme Court very correctly ruled that that was not legitimate. And further, ruled that under the law of Florida, the election was over.
And your guy didn't get into office. And you are terribly bitter about it. You surely won't agree with what I just wrote, because of that bitterness. Well, that's life. The beauty of our system is that you get another shot. Good luck. Personally, I hope my guy beats both of the Demopublicans this time.
I believe the same waiver should be adopted by any user of any transportation device if they do not have full safety equipment, whether bike, car, motorcycle, moped, whatever.
I race cars. I toss a car into a 90 degree turn after doing 130mph to the absolute last possible moment before braking. My definition of full safety equipment is different from yours. Do you wear a helment in your car? Do you have a five point harness with anti-submarining strap? Roll cage? Nomex suit? Automatic fire suppression system? I feel patently exposed when driving a regular car with a comparative joke of a restraint system, that DOT-approved three-point harness, surrounded by all those morons in their multi-ton SUVs. Do you know how many lives would be saved in cars if everybody was required to be as safety concious as racing drivers are? Good lord, there would be so much money saved. I shouldn't be responsible for your injuries when you are in a car crash and you could have been protected by a cage, helmet, full harness and a fire-proof jumpsuit. Should I?
Yet, people won't do that because it wouldn't be "convenient." Where do you draw the line? And how does the line get placed? Who decides it? If I had my way, your car would cost a lot more money due to safety devices. But our expenses on emergency response and patching up the hundreds of drivers injured daily would surely plummet.
Oh, Vikings. That changes things a little due to the Viking construction method. Lapstrake planking (the overlapping method they used) did not promote a dry hull. They edge nailed (riveted actually) the strakes (planks) together, and did not fasten them rigidly to an internal framework. They were sealed between each strake before riveting, with rope/hair & pitch. As this was done before the hull was wet, as the planking swelled and changed dimentions, it leaked. They would coat pitch/tar in there to try to control it. The Viking method created a flexible hull, one with no decks possible on an oceangoing hull.
This is unlike a carvel hull, where the planks are fastened to a rigid internal structure (the ribs & decks) and caulk is paved between each plank. As the planks swell when wet, they actually create a tighter hull, and become drier. Though generally not totally dry, and especially not when under way in a rough sea.
Now, a lapstrake (Viking) hull. upon being launched may have been drier than a carvel hull, as the hull was riveted together and sealed that way. After a few days though, as the strakes work and swell, as the boat is loaded, as it moves, it too would begin to leak, possibly a lot.
So, with the Vikings, I can buy a cup of leakage as some tradition. Like putting pennies beneath the mast before it is stepped, to pay Charon the ferryman on your way to the afterlife. Lots of us still do that. I have been into wooden boats for many years, and have read much about their construction and the traditions. I also have experience in maintaining several. But with the Vikings thrown into the mix, I can possibly buy such a tradition in their particular case. After all, these are the guys who would allegedly do a human sacrifice to commemorate a ship launch.
Uh, I call bullshit on that ship builder bit at least. I happen to own a wooden sailboat. It is 100% normal and acceptable for them to take on a good quantity of water for the first few weeks of being wet. I'll have a foot or so in the bilge during that time, pumping out every few days. My keel has half to one inch gaps in the deadwood when put in, and when taken out seven months later, those gaps are completely gone due to the hull swell. A commercial/warship in the days of wooden vessels would have taken on hundreds of gallons of water after being launched, until the planks swelled shut, and even then, would take on dozens/hundreds of gallons daily while at sea as the hull worked.
We can only take wage cuts to a point. On top of our expensive social structures, paid through taxes/high insurance, we have fixed costs, in the form of rent/mortgages/loan obligations. If globalisation of skilled labor causes widespread wage deflation or stagnation, and if that starts hitting the ability of people to make their fixed payments, leading to a downward pressure on the value of fixed assets, we will have a shitstorm of pain in store.
Not to mention incentives to become educated. Unionized garbagemen are now making more than formally educated and experienced professionals. While that may be amusing, if the wage gap between professionals, under global competition, and service industry workers, gets smaller and smaller, it will be a tremendous dis-incentive to young people to go to school and take out massive loans.
These are some very serious concerns... we will all certainly be fine in the short term, this economic malaise will pass, but longer term the structural issues in global competition between the western world and the developing world are going to be, well, scarey.
You are spot on regarding standard of living. This is something people must understand. We in the "Western" world are in for a rough ride. We have prospered greatly for many years, and we have built a social structure on that prosperity. We have a very high standard of living. Our educational systems and transparent economies have fostered our wealth. However, other nations are learning, are becoming just as well educated, are reforming their legal and economic systems, and they will be far better positioned to compete with us on an equal footing in the skills department. With falling costs of transport, and dramatically falling costs of communication, as we all know it doesn't matter where you are for many jobs.
The thing is, we have this huge built-in cost that we, as individuals, cannot overcome. We have far higher real-estate costs, fixed living expenses. We have high taxation, government entitlements, economic and environmental regulations, health care for our aging (and soon to be non-tax-paying) populations, and so on. These are expenses that most developing nations do not have. Workers in western society can only compete to a point on price, before the wealth we have stored in fixed assets (homes, real estate, investments, so on) have to take a hit.
The problem will get only worse... many have a belief that a new, unforeseen industry will pop up to employ not only those who are displaced by foreign competition in "old" industries, but also all the new workers entering the economy each and every month. Yet, with the advances in foreign skills, communication and transportation continuing, there is no reason that the incubation period of a new industry will be long enough to create many long-term jobs in the United States, other than in service sectors.
The solution will be, as you said, a re-balancing. The standard of living, expressed in real money, must fall in the western nations. The EU attempts to fight this through the UN and treaties on global environmental/labor/human rights standards and so on, which we in the US ironically often fight on principle. In reality, we cannot compel the developing world to voluntarily raise the costs of their labor and products; they do, and will, resist. The solution will be painful for us, as we have nowhere to go but down. The rest of the world has nowhere to go but up. We will have to get used to no longer being the dominant wealthy societies, better educated, better able to demand high wages and high social/governmental benefits. Developing nations will become more expensive as their populations demand more of the "benefits" we have, yet they will be starting with, essentially, blank slates, while we have decades, even centuries, of built-up high costs and expectations to overcome. Hopefully rising costs overseas will be expressed in "Internet time." We will all see.
To pick a nit, most corporations are not trans-nationals. Mine (as in the one I own) operates in just two states. The word "corporation" does not mean mega-business. The vast majority of coporations in the US at least have fewer than five employees. "Corporation" seems to have become a dirty word to so many. I personally though would not operate my business as anything else, there are too many advantages to being incorporated.
Not a graphics card, but I ran into an insane issue once with W2k and RAM. I installed more RAM in three identical Dell PCs. The BIOS saw it fine. However, two of the boxes would start booting into W2k, and then blue screen. Thought it was bad RAM, so we exchanged it. Exact same problem with new RAM. All PCs with the same BIOS revision. I wound up googling on the particular blue screen error message I got, and found that I was not alone with this problem. Those with it reported that a re-install fixed it. So I re-installed with the new RAM in place. Haven't had a problem since. Bizarre.
I tried FreeBSD once, but it wouldn't talk over my NIC. It saw it, configured it, and acted like it worked. But there was never any network activity out of it. Installed Linux, worked fine. This was on a HP Kayak with a NIC which, I believe, FreeBSD used the pcnet driver for. I was rather disappointed: I started Unix with pre-Solaris SunOS, and BSD OSes on Gould & DEC. Maybe I'll try again with a 3com NIC. So I suppose in my case, I used Linux because it worked.
The "enemy" are our thoughts that we are the "good guys" and the others are "evil". Thoughts of separation, which is the ONLY reason we go to war.
Blah, blah blah blah, blah. Moron. People have gone to war, and will go to war, for a hell of a lot more reasons (and yet, more fundamentally simple) than "good v. evil." It is in our nature. Competition is life, it leads directly to conflict, and conflict sometimes leads to war when other means of resolution don't work out. War isn't "bad," no more than my cat chasing, tormenting, killing with small wounds, and finally eating a mouse. It's nature at work, nature isn't nice, and surprise surprise, we are a part of that game, and there is nothing wrong with that. All the rules we build up to govern our little time amongst the breathing can't change the underlying nature of man's existence in a "cruel" world. I'm sure you're also an enviro-fan. Man is man's only natural predator. If we don't kill each other, if we keep reducing "human suffering" by curing disease, if we keep multiplying, what will become of our environment? Birth control? Bah. Strife, conflict, war, destruction, death... 100% natural and good for you, a road lined with profit, innovation and progress! We've been fortunate that we could fight our wars through proxies far away for so long, but now those damn Muslim whackos are out for blood against the Christian/Jewish whackos, bringing it home to us. They're not fighting over oil, land, or anything that can be negotiated. They are fighting over who has the better imaginary friend. Crazy. Too bad we're too 'nice' and Europe is too cowardly to go for the throat and make a proper war of it. The Muslim whackos have no such qualms.
Larry
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da
Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love,
they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they
produce? The cuckoo clock." -- The Third Man
Define "will work." Europe knows that it has to adapt to survive. It can adapt, or build walls and trade barriers and tariffs to vainly attempt to preserve the status quo and protect native industry. Europe will try the latter, within the EU. And Europe will fail. The US will adapt more readily to the downward slide.
The reality is that much of the rest of the world, what we call the "third-world" is on the verge of no longer being that. They will no longer be merely our cheap source of virtual slave labor, to import here and underpay, or to employ there and *really* underpay. Third-world nations are getting better eduational systems, infrastructure, legal/trade/economic systems, and so on. China & India will rock our worlds. It will take time, but it will happen "sooner rather than later." Again, they have nowhere to go but up. Fat and happy US and Europe and others are not so fortunate.
The demographic facts in Europe are facts. The population is aging. The birthrate is falling. The ratio of tax paying workers to retired workers is declining. Those nations pay for retirement pensions, healthcare, and so on. They don't pay for it through big fat savings accounts. They pay for it through current receipts. If the number of working people declines as the number of retired people climbs, the tax burden on the workers will become unbearable. And this is before the impact on European industry by global competition, which will drive down European wages (and tax revenue) to better match the world market.
EU governments are fully aware of this. The enlargement of the EU to eastern European countries is driven largely by an attempt to enlarge the European economic market, creating a larger self-contained, commonly regulated, commonly taxed, commonly legislated market, sucking in nations with a larger proportion of young people who will pay taxes in the future, nations with lower standards of living and consequently higher birthrates. But are the citizens of Poland really going to be happy paying high EU-wide taxes to support the retirees in Switzerland? Not unless the EU truly becomes a federated nation like the US, and there is *huge* opposition to that.
It will be really fun when Europe realizes it needs to suck another nation in, and tries to absorb Turkey. That, or realizes that it has to really open the floodgates to immigration.
England, keep away!
As for "socialism" working for Europe, hah. State-owned industries are being sold off left and right. Market capitalism is the economic model adopted Europe-wide. The only thing "socialist" about Europe that will remain is high taxation to fund a social safety net.
In the broad sense, of course, it is "law." The federal constitution however predates the federal government, so it cannot be "federal" law. The point being, the first amendment is not merely a law. It is a portion of the "contract" among the people which authorizes and empowers the federal government to create law. The federal constitution as a whole is a grant of authority, binding upon government, not individuals. The people later agreed to extend protected "rights" as enumerated in the federal constitution to also be binding against action by the state governments. So the Supremes declared long ago.
I agree 100% that that is reality. However, it is a bad thing for the US as a whole in the long run, something our government will realize and react against at some point. (Why do you think the EU exists?) The system "we" built, the high-tech interconnected world, is leveling the playing field world-wide, good for the vast majority of humankind, but bad for us.
Cheap, efficient shipping has moved much manufacturing overseas, and will move most of the rest. Technical interconnectedness will move "white-collar" jobs overseas at a startling rate. Companies cannot be faulted for doing what is required to survive. But the result will be a rise in the standard of living in many "third-world" nations, and a lowering of our standard of living over the coming decades. It may not be terribly swift, but it is the future.
Europe is attempting to forestall this through their EU moves and attempts to level the playing field economically (in their favor) through international accords. But we are already seeing the death of the stranglehold unions have on manufacturing in Europe, the writing is on the wall for the liberal holidays and other social practices. The EU surely hopes that by letting in the eastern European nations, they can use them as a valve to get cheaper labor and production costs yet maintain control over them and retain tax revenue, and live as much as they can within the walls of the EU for as long as they can. It won't work.
I fear greatly for the future of "first-world" nations. We have aging populations, declining birth rates, fewer taxpayers to pay increasing government funded burdens (health care, pensions, welfare for old people, so on). Governments pay you to have kids in some dying European nations. Our standard of living will fall as high-paid careers move overseas to nations which compete with far lower expenses, far lower population ages, equivalent talent-pools and education, and nowhere to go but up (on the standard of living pole). We'll be left with service-industry jobs, selling products (designed by a dwindling cadre of professionals who direct off-shore professionals) to people with less and less money to spare.
The first amendment is not a "federal law." It is a component of the federal constitution which restricts federal power, and through the 14th amendment, it is considered "incorporated" to restrict state power as well. This has been well-settled since shortly after the Civil War.
Here is a quick little tutorial. I'm not a lawyer, but I have started a couple businesses. It is pretty easy. You do not need a lawyer to do all this stuff for you. You just have to be able to read and do some simple research.
There are two business types of interest: sole proprietor, or corporation.
A sole proprietor means you just start your business. You file with your city and/or county to use an assumed name, and file the fee(s). However, I do not recommend this. The cost to incorporate is relatively low, and the benefits are high (limited liability).
So, you incorporate. You file Articles of Incorporation with your state's Secretary of State office. You pay a $100-$200 fee typically. You also put in, say, $1000 of equity for the corporation. You wait for the state to send your papers back, after which your new corporation officially exists.
Have a board meeting (with yourself). Keep minutes! This sounds silly, but is important to maintain the concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Elect yourself chair. Adopt a corporate charter. Authorize yourself to act for the corporation, open a checking account, file forms and all. Issue shares to yourself for the money you put into the corporation as equity.
Next, you download a SS-4 form from the IRS to get an Employer Identification Number (EIN). You can get that via fax/phone. The same form will clue in the IRS as to what other forms you need. You'll get a letter and forms automatically. Also, file with the IRS as a S-Corp, meaning that your corporation is NOT taxed independently. Rather, your corporation is taxed through the shareholders (you). So you would then file another schedule with your personal income taxes (which you DO NOT have to itemize, you can still take the standard deduction and all) claiming a profit or loss, and pay the corporation's taxes yourself.
Register with your state, for tax purposes (business, employer, unemployment insurance, so on) mainly. Check the state web site, it generally has a tutorial, or call the secretary of state's office. The filing fee, if any, is low.
Open a business checking account, fee-free preferably. You have to pay for checks usually. Deposit your equity.
Register with your city if required. Call them. Small fee, again, if any.
Call an insurance broker. You need business insurance to cover liability. You also need worker's compensation insurance. You can't get it probably, not by yourself. You will have to join a state-sponsored pool for high-risk (e.g. brand new) businesses. You will pay maybe $500 a year total in insurance. If you are concerned about liability, talk to your broker about an umbrella policy.
Hire yourself. Notify the state (likely the unemployment department). Fill out W-4 and I-9 forms.
Write a business check to yourself to pay back your expenses (or wait until later, and keep money in the bank for a bit).
Get business cards, start marketing yourself!
A few rules.
1. Your corporation is a separate legal entity. Do not intermingle funds, and keep separate records. Keep all business money in the checking account. Reimburse yourself for expenses by filing receipts and such with your company records.
2. Pay yourself a salary, keep it low, but reasonable. You must pay employment taxes on your salary. However, you do not need to pay employment taxes on profits you take out of the company beyond salary. On that, you pay only income tax (or the new low 15% dividend tax). Talk to an accountant.
3. Deduct expenses! Businesses can deduct every expense. Form filing fees, bank fees, business cards, paper, paperclips, computer stuff, books, employee education, business travel, meals with clients, so on. Income used to pay for those things is tax-free. Talk to an accountant. And charge your corporation rent. Your corporation uses space in your home, charge it for that space, electricity, DSL line, so on. Do it realistically (% of space of home used). Again, the rent is tax-deducti
How do you know Chilliware no longer exists? Most "failed" corporations stick around for years. They often have to by law, to provide a period for lawsuits and such.
Chilliware, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware, like a great many corporations. See the following:
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?Query CorpNumber=C2194403
In California, it was only a "foreign" corporation registration, and shows the jurisdiction as Delaware. On Delaware's Secretary of State site:
http://www.state.de.us/corp/index.htm
it states that Delaware *charges* to look up corporation information. So, you must pay $30 for a written certificate, $10 to talk to somebody, or visit 401 Federal Street in Dover, Delaware to search for free.
So spend the $10 and find out what actually happened to the company. The records will show who to contact if it does, and likely who to contact if it was dissolved.
Larry
Slashdot Mirror
The name of the magazine is not linuxgazette.com. It is Linux Gazette. The fact that their host decided to appropriate the site for a different and unwelcome format does not mean they lose the right to the name of the magazine they created prior to their host being their host. So, they took their magazine, Linux Gazette, elsewhere.
The second biggest mistake in all of this is that somebody somewhere trusted SSC, a for-profit business, enough to let them register linuxgazette.com, rather than place that domain the hands of a core volunteer or the magazine founder. That is the huge, primary source of the issue, as there are so many people (you included it seems) who presume that who owns the domain therefore owns the content. That isn't always true, and it isn't true here.
The first biggest mistake is that people are too trustworthy. Projects such as this should recognize that they exist in the real world, and in the real world formalities are needed. Linux Gazette (and all other projects with a group concept of "ownership") should have been incorporated and then registered as a non-profit organization. The paperwork isn't that hard, the yearly costs are minimal, and it helps avoid these issues because then there is in fact a real tangible owner.
As it is, this is a he-said she-said issue, which it seems will have to be sorted out by a court and lawyers. Though it is obvious to me who is right, and it isn't SSC.
Larry
I too am sick of the greed happening here. Fact: Linux Gazette was started by people other than SSC. SSC later hosted it. That doesn't mean they own it, doesn't mean they own the name. If SSC can show some legal documents saying otherwise, please show them. But I doubt they have such. Unfortunatly, some overly trusting person permitted SSC to register and own the linuxgazette.com domain name. Given the likely lack of other documentary evidence, that may count for something if this actually goes to court. Hopefully the fact that Linux Gazette existed prior to SSC's involvement will count for more.
Another comment mentioned problems with their LJ subscription. I have subscribed since LJ was a thin little staple-bound magazine. I renewed my subscription yet again, a while ago, but the magazines stopped coming and I started getting bills. My AMEX card had been charged. So I figured no big deal, write email. I got a canned response stating that my payment had not been received. Responded that no, my card was charged, such and such date. No response. So I wrote a paper letter to their "customer service" address, with a copy of the AMEX statement and charge circled. No response. Sent another copy. No response. No magazines. Finally disputed it with AMEX, but too much time had passed.
Final resort: looked up SSC's corporate records, sent a certified letter to their registered legal address, with copy of prior letter/statement copy, and said please either send my money back, or I will sue you. That got a a nearly INSTANT response, and a phone call. But no apology, just a request to discuss "this issue." They restarted my subscription.
Given the poor customer service, the direction LJ has taken, and the behavior of SSC in this Linux Gazette issue, I won't be renewing my subscription either.
Larry
The section heading is "Nonseverability." What 10(a) means is that if within ten years the Supreme Court holds section 3 void, then the ENTIRE act is repealed, not merely the portion the Supremes find unconstitutional.
10(b) means that after ten years, then the Supremes get to decide piece by piece whether the act is legal.
Also, keep in mind that when the Supremes rule a law unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it became unconstitutional from the date of the ruling. It means that the law was *never* a valid law. From day one. So, Congress inserts things into laws to try to accomodate that possibility. Though the purpose of this particular section appears to be an appeasement to 1st amendment concerns. Very interesting language.
Larry
Precisely. I started in astronautical engineering, switched about half way through to undecided when I figured I didn't like it so much, and the cold war was ending and putting the squeeze on that field. Wanted to do naval engineering, wasn't available at my school. Switched to computer science since I'd been programming on 8bit machines since a kid. Have been in tech for over a decade now. Bought a racing sailboat. Got into woodworking (wooden boat). Got into cars (rebuilt a couple engines, transmissions, race on a real track a few times a year). And the point is?
I do IT consulting now, after all the years in the field. Own my own corp, have an employee earning some money for me. I am involved in my yacht club, serving on committees. Doctors there... making contacts with health care people to try to enter that field in a new venture, with an also lightly-employed colleague with whom I've worked off and on for many years. Started a wireless business earlier this year with a couple other colleagues, one who got an MBA a few years ago... went nowhere, little money in the pay-for-wifi-access business. Working on that again I think, some mesh networking this time. Probably going to start a woodworking/custom furniture company, put all those tools I have for maintaining my boat to work (and buy more!). Working on starting a boat yard with like-minded owners too, oriented toward self-maintaining boat owners, it's getting harder to find amendable yards these days.
And the point there? Use what you know, use your interests, use your contacts, join some organizations other than technology, meet people, get involved, start something up either yourself or with some others. Don't just hang out with geeks. Don't just depend on some jerk in some office to give you a job.
I have read numerous times that the future of work in the US will be in small business, more and more. Makes sense. Large corporations are focused like never before on productivity and cost-cutting, due to global competition. Large companies will out-source more and more. It makes a lot of sense to pare a business down to what actually makes money, and hire others to manage everything else. This isn't going to end. Jobs in those companies are going to tenuous unless you are core to the business, what actually makes money for the owners/shareholders. One option: get out of the ratrace, use your brain, be entrepreneurial. I scrape more for my money now, it isn't as easy as clocking in every day and taking home $85k a year in bi-weekly steady checks. But, I enjoy it more, I see my wife more. I do what I like more. My last full-time regular W2 job was a couple years ago, and I don't think I'll ever go back. I'll try my ideas, see what works, and run with it. And be happier.
Larry
Yes, and because GWB was elected as Grand Dictator of the World (uh, rather, installed by the Nine Old Men and Women), he is single-handly responsible for the economic malaise affecting, oh, the vast majority of the "Western" world. Including that pesky recession that began before he was elected, uh, installed. After all, the Grand Dictator of the World is omnipotent.
Why on earth do people think that way? Maybe the economic issues go a wee little bit deeper than who happens to sit in the White House this year.
Larry
The Florida case wasn't about stopping votes from being counted. They had been counted. The results had been determined.
Then the Democrats went to court to attempt to get the court to determine the election. The Republicans were open to counting *all* the votes again under uniform standards. The Democrats were not. They wanted their looser standards to be applied only in districts where they felt stronger.
It was not about letting the people speak and counting all the votes. It was about getting your guy in the office. The Democrats did what they felt would be best in achieving that goal. The Republicans did the same. And the Republicans won that partisan battle which the Democrats started. That's politics. To decry the actions of one side and not decry the other is simply hypocritical.
The US Supreme Court decision was about law. It was certainly perceived by those on the losing side as partisan, and nothing anybody ever says will ever change their viewpoint. That is fully understood.
But it was about law, and was a correct decision in that context. The legislature of the state of Florida is explicitly charged with setting the rules regarding the operation of elections. The legislature set those rules, and the US Supreme Court ruled that those are the rules. The Florida Supreme Court was not empowered to write new rules. Legislatures create law. Courts either enforce it, or throw it out. But courts do not write new laws to replace ones they dislike. That power belongs to the elected representatives of the people of the state of Florida.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, decided that it can write new laws. It decided that it had that power, one not granted to it by the state constitution and thereby not by the people. Rather than rule that the legislature's rules are invalid, and then throw the ball back to the legislature to correct, it crafted a complex procedure, wholely substituted for the explicit will of the legislature. The US Supreme Court very correctly ruled that that was not legitimate. And further, ruled that under the law of Florida, the election was over.
And your guy didn't get into office. And you are terribly bitter about it. You surely won't agree with what I just wrote, because of that bitterness. Well, that's life. The beauty of our system is that you get another shot. Good luck. Personally, I hope my guy beats both of the Demopublicans this time.
Larry
I believe the same waiver should be adopted by any user of any transportation device if they do not have full safety equipment, whether bike, car, motorcycle, moped, whatever.
I race cars. I toss a car into a 90 degree turn after doing 130mph to the absolute last possible moment before braking. My definition of full safety equipment is different from yours. Do you wear a helment in your car? Do you have a five point harness with anti-submarining strap? Roll cage? Nomex suit? Automatic fire suppression system? I feel patently exposed when driving a regular car with a comparative joke of a restraint system, that DOT-approved three-point harness, surrounded by all those morons in their multi-ton SUVs. Do you know how many lives would be saved in cars if everybody was required to be as safety concious as racing drivers are? Good lord, there would be so much money saved. I shouldn't be responsible for your injuries when you are in a car crash and you could have been protected by a cage, helmet, full harness and a fire-proof jumpsuit. Should I?
Yet, people won't do that because it wouldn't be "convenient." Where do you draw the line? And how does the line get placed? Who decides it? If I had my way, your car would cost a lot more money due to safety devices. But our expenses on emergency response and patching up the hundreds of drivers injured daily would surely plummet.
Larry
Oh, Vikings. That changes things a little due to the Viking construction method. Lapstrake planking (the overlapping method they used) did not promote a dry hull. They edge nailed (riveted actually) the strakes (planks) together, and did not fasten them rigidly to an internal framework. They were sealed between each strake before riveting, with rope/hair & pitch. As this was done before the hull was wet, as the planking swelled and changed dimentions, it leaked. They would coat pitch/tar in there to try to control it. The Viking method created a flexible hull, one with no decks possible on an oceangoing hull.
This is unlike a carvel hull, where the planks are fastened to a rigid internal structure (the ribs & decks) and caulk is paved between each plank. As the planks swell when wet, they actually create a tighter hull, and become drier. Though generally not totally dry, and especially not when under way in a rough sea.
Now, a lapstrake (Viking) hull. upon being launched may have been drier than a carvel hull, as the hull was riveted together and sealed that way. After a few days though, as the strakes work and swell, as the boat is loaded, as it moves, it too would begin to leak, possibly a lot.
So, with the Vikings, I can buy a cup of leakage as some tradition. Like putting pennies beneath the mast before it is stepped, to pay Charon the ferryman on your way to the afterlife. Lots of us still do that. I have been into wooden boats for many years, and have read much about their construction and the traditions. I also have experience in maintaining several. But with the Vikings thrown into the mix, I can possibly buy such a tradition in their particular case. After all, these are the guys who would allegedly do a human sacrifice to commemorate a ship launch.
Larry
Uh, I call bullshit on that ship builder bit at least. I happen to own a wooden sailboat. It is 100% normal and acceptable for them to take on a good quantity of water for the first few weeks of being wet. I'll have a foot or so in the bilge during that time, pumping out every few days. My keel has half to one inch gaps in the deadwood when put in, and when taken out seven months later, those gaps are completely gone due to the hull swell. A commercial/warship in the days of wooden vessels would have taken on hundreds of gallons of water after being launched, until the planks swelled shut, and even then, would take on dozens/hundreds of gallons daily while at sea as the hull worked.
Larry
Not to mention incentives to become educated. Unionized garbagemen are now making more than formally educated and experienced professionals. While that may be amusing, if the wage gap between professionals, under global competition, and service industry workers, gets smaller and smaller, it will be a tremendous dis-incentive to young people to go to school and take out massive loans.
These are some very serious concerns... we will all certainly be fine in the short term, this economic malaise will pass, but longer term the structural issues in global competition between the western world and the developing world are going to be, well, scarey.
Larry
The thing is, we have this huge built-in cost that we, as individuals, cannot overcome. We have far higher real-estate costs, fixed living expenses. We have high taxation, government entitlements, economic and environmental regulations, health care for our aging (and soon to be non-tax-paying) populations, and so on. These are expenses that most developing nations do not have. Workers in western society can only compete to a point on price, before the wealth we have stored in fixed assets (homes, real estate, investments, so on) have to take a hit.
The problem will get only worse... many have a belief that a new, unforeseen industry will pop up to employ not only those who are displaced by foreign competition in "old" industries, but also all the new workers entering the economy each and every month. Yet, with the advances in foreign skills, communication and transportation continuing, there is no reason that the incubation period of a new industry will be long enough to create many long-term jobs in the United States, other than in service sectors.
The solution will be, as you said, a re-balancing. The standard of living, expressed in real money, must fall in the western nations. The EU attempts to fight this through the UN and treaties on global environmental/labor/human rights standards and so on, which we in the US ironically often fight on principle. In reality, we cannot compel the developing world to voluntarily raise the costs of their labor and products; they do, and will, resist. The solution will be painful for us, as we have nowhere to go but down. The rest of the world has nowhere to go but up. We will have to get used to no longer being the dominant wealthy societies, better educated, better able to demand high wages and high social/governmental benefits. Developing nations will become more expensive as their populations demand more of the "benefits" we have, yet they will be starting with, essentially, blank slates, while we have decades, even centuries, of built-up high costs and expectations to overcome. Hopefully rising costs overseas will be expressed in "Internet time." We will all see.
Larry
To pick a nit, most corporations are not trans-nationals. Mine (as in the one I own) operates in just two states. The word "corporation" does not mean mega-business. The vast majority of coporations in the US at least have fewer than five employees. "Corporation" seems to have become a dirty word to so many. I personally though would not operate my business as anything else, there are too many advantages to being incorporated.
Larry
Not a graphics card, but I ran into an insane issue once with W2k and RAM. I installed more RAM in three identical Dell PCs. The BIOS saw it fine. However, two of the boxes would start booting into W2k, and then blue screen. Thought it was bad RAM, so we exchanged it. Exact same problem with new RAM. All PCs with the same BIOS revision. I wound up googling on the particular blue screen error message I got, and found that I was not alone with this problem. Those with it reported that a re-install fixed it. So I re-installed with the new RAM in place. Haven't had a problem since. Bizarre.
I tried FreeBSD once, but it wouldn't talk over my NIC. It saw it, configured it, and acted like it worked. But there was never any network activity out of it. Installed Linux, worked fine. This was on a HP Kayak with a NIC which, I believe, FreeBSD used the pcnet driver for. I was rather disappointed: I started Unix with pre-Solaris SunOS, and BSD OSes on Gould & DEC. Maybe I'll try again with a 3com NIC. So I suppose in my case, I used Linux because it worked.
Larry
The "enemy" are our thoughts that we are the "good guys" and the others are "evil". Thoughts of separation, which is the ONLY reason we go to war.
Blah, blah blah blah, blah. Moron. People have gone to war, and will go to war, for a hell of a lot more reasons (and yet, more fundamentally simple) than "good v. evil." It is in our nature. Competition is life, it leads directly to conflict, and conflict sometimes leads to war when other means of resolution don't work out. War isn't "bad," no more than my cat chasing, tormenting, killing with small wounds, and finally eating a mouse. It's nature at work, nature isn't nice, and surprise surprise, we are a part of that game, and there is nothing wrong with that. All the rules we build up to govern our little time amongst the breathing can't change the underlying nature of man's existence in a "cruel" world. I'm sure you're also an enviro-fan. Man is man's only natural predator. If we don't kill each other, if we keep reducing "human suffering" by curing disease, if we keep multiplying, what will become of our environment? Birth control? Bah. Strife, conflict, war, destruction, death... 100% natural and good for you, a road lined with profit, innovation and progress! We've been fortunate that we could fight our wars through proxies far away for so long, but now those damn Muslim whackos are out for blood against the Christian/Jewish whackos, bringing it home to us. They're not fighting over oil, land, or anything that can be negotiated. They are fighting over who has the better imaginary friend. Crazy. Too bad we're too 'nice' and Europe is too cowardly to go for the throat and make a proper war of it. The Muslim whackos have no such qualms.
Larry
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da
Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love,
they had five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they
produce? The cuckoo clock." -- The Third Man
Use your real name or be ignored? Are you saying your parents named you dacarr?
fingusernames
Define "will work." Europe knows that it has to adapt to survive. It can adapt, or build walls and trade barriers and tariffs to vainly attempt to preserve the status quo and protect native industry. Europe will try the latter, within the EU. And Europe will fail. The US will adapt more readily to the downward slide.
The reality is that much of the rest of the world, what we call the "third-world" is on the verge of no longer being that. They will no longer be merely our cheap source of virtual slave labor, to import here and underpay, or to employ there and *really* underpay. Third-world nations are getting better eduational systems, infrastructure, legal/trade/economic systems, and so on. China & India will rock our worlds. It will take time, but it will happen "sooner rather than later." Again, they have nowhere to go but up. Fat and happy US and Europe and others are not so fortunate.
The demographic facts in Europe are facts. The population is aging. The birthrate is falling. The ratio of tax paying workers to retired workers is declining. Those nations pay for retirement pensions, healthcare, and so on. They don't pay for it through big fat savings accounts. They pay for it through current receipts. If the number of working people declines as the number of retired people climbs, the tax burden on the workers will become unbearable. And this is before the impact on European industry by global competition, which will drive down European wages (and tax revenue) to better match the world market.
EU governments are fully aware of this. The enlargement of the EU to eastern European countries is driven largely by an attempt to enlarge the European economic market, creating a larger self-contained, commonly regulated, commonly taxed, commonly legislated market, sucking in nations with a larger proportion of young people who will pay taxes in the future, nations with lower standards of living and consequently higher birthrates. But are the citizens of Poland really going to be happy paying high EU-wide taxes to support the retirees in Switzerland? Not unless the EU truly becomes a federated nation like the US, and there is *huge* opposition to that.
It will be really fun when Europe realizes it needs to suck another nation in, and tries to absorb Turkey. That, or realizes that it has to really open the floodgates to immigration.
England, keep away!
As for "socialism" working for Europe, hah. State-owned industries are being sold off left and right. Market capitalism is the economic model adopted Europe-wide. The only thing "socialist" about Europe that will remain is high taxation to fund a social safety net.
Larry
In the broad sense, of course, it is "law." The federal constitution however predates the federal government, so it cannot be "federal" law. The point being, the first amendment is not merely a law. It is a portion of the "contract" among the people which authorizes and empowers the federal government to create law. The federal constitution as a whole is a grant of authority, binding upon government, not individuals. The people later agreed to extend protected "rights" as enumerated in the federal constitution to also be binding against action by the state governments. So the Supremes declared long ago.
I agree 100% that that is reality. However, it is a bad thing for the US as a whole in the long run, something our government will realize and react against at some point. (Why do you think the EU exists?) The system "we" built, the high-tech interconnected world, is leveling the playing field world-wide, good for the vast majority of humankind, but bad for us.
Cheap, efficient shipping has moved much manufacturing overseas, and will move most of the rest. Technical interconnectedness will move "white-collar" jobs overseas at a startling rate. Companies cannot be faulted for doing what is required to survive. But the result will be a rise in the standard of living in many "third-world" nations, and a lowering of our standard of living over the coming decades. It may not be terribly swift, but it is the future.
Europe is attempting to forestall this through their EU moves and attempts to level the playing field economically (in their favor) through international accords. But we are already seeing the death of the stranglehold unions have on manufacturing in Europe, the writing is on the wall for the liberal holidays and other social practices. The EU surely hopes that by letting in the eastern European nations, they can use them as a valve to get cheaper labor and production costs yet maintain control over them and retain tax revenue, and live as much as they can within the walls of the EU for as long as they can. It won't work.
I fear greatly for the future of "first-world" nations. We have aging populations, declining birth rates, fewer taxpayers to pay increasing government funded burdens (health care, pensions, welfare for old people, so on). Governments pay you to have kids in some dying European nations. Our standard of living will fall as high-paid careers move overseas to nations which compete with far lower expenses, far lower population ages, equivalent talent-pools and education, and nowhere to go but up (on the standard of living pole). We'll be left with service-industry jobs, selling products (designed by a dwindling cadre of professionals who direct off-shore professionals) to people with less and less money to spare.
Get used to it.
The first amendment is not a "federal law." It is a component of the federal constitution which restricts federal power, and through the 14th amendment, it is considered "incorporated" to restrict state power as well. This has been well-settled since shortly after the Civil War.
Larry
Here is a quick little tutorial. I'm not a lawyer, but I have started a couple businesses. It is pretty easy. You do not need a lawyer to do all this stuff for you. You just have to be able to read and do some simple research.
There are two business types of interest: sole proprietor, or corporation.
A sole proprietor means you just start your business. You file with your city and/or county to use an assumed name, and file the fee(s). However, I do not recommend this. The cost to incorporate is relatively low, and the benefits are high (limited liability).
So, you incorporate. You file Articles of Incorporation with your state's Secretary of State office. You pay a $100-$200 fee typically. You also put in, say, $1000 of equity for the corporation. You wait for the state to send your papers back, after which your new corporation officially exists.
Have a board meeting (with yourself). Keep minutes! This sounds silly, but is important to maintain the concept of the corporation as a separate legal entity. Elect yourself chair. Adopt a corporate charter. Authorize yourself to act for the corporation, open a checking account, file forms and all. Issue shares to yourself for the money you put into the corporation as equity.
Next, you download a SS-4 form from the IRS to get an Employer Identification Number (EIN). You can get that via fax/phone. The same form will clue in the IRS as to what other forms you need. You'll get a letter and forms automatically. Also, file with the IRS as a S-Corp, meaning that your corporation is NOT taxed independently. Rather, your corporation is taxed through the shareholders (you). So you would then file another schedule with your personal income taxes (which you DO NOT have to itemize, you can still take the standard deduction and all) claiming a profit or loss, and pay the corporation's taxes yourself.
Register with your state, for tax purposes (business, employer, unemployment insurance, so on) mainly. Check the state web site, it generally has a tutorial, or call the secretary of state's office. The filing fee, if any, is low.
Open a business checking account, fee-free preferably. You have to pay for checks usually. Deposit your equity.
Register with your city if required. Call them. Small fee, again, if any.
Call an insurance broker. You need business insurance to cover liability. You also need worker's compensation insurance. You can't get it probably, not by yourself. You will have to join a state-sponsored pool for high-risk (e.g. brand new) businesses. You will pay maybe $500 a year total in insurance. If you are concerned about liability, talk to your broker about an umbrella policy.
Hire yourself. Notify the state (likely the unemployment department). Fill out W-4 and I-9 forms.
Write a business check to yourself to pay back your expenses (or wait until later, and keep money in the bank for a bit).
Get business cards, start marketing yourself!
A few rules.
1. Your corporation is a separate legal entity. Do not intermingle funds, and keep separate records. Keep all business money in the checking account. Reimburse yourself for expenses by filing receipts and such with your company records.
2. Pay yourself a salary, keep it low, but reasonable. You must pay employment taxes on your salary. However, you do not need to pay employment taxes on profits you take out of the company beyond salary. On that, you pay only income tax (or the new low 15% dividend tax). Talk to an accountant.
3. Deduct expenses! Businesses can deduct every expense. Form filing fees, bank fees, business cards, paper, paperclips, computer stuff, books, employee education, business travel, meals with clients, so on. Income used to pay for those things is tax-free. Talk to an accountant. And charge your corporation rent. Your corporation uses space in your home, charge it for that space, electricity, DSL line, so on. Do it realistically (% of space of home used). Again, the rent is tax-deducti
How do you know Chilliware no longer exists? Most "failed" corporations stick around for years. They often have to by law, to provide a period for lawsuits and such. Chilliware, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware, like a great many corporations. See the following: http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?Query CorpNumber=C2194403
In California, it was only a "foreign" corporation registration, and shows the jurisdiction as Delaware. On Delaware's Secretary of State site:
http://www.state.de.us/corp/index.htm
it states that Delaware *charges* to look up corporation information. So, you must pay $30 for a written certificate, $10 to talk to somebody, or visit 401 Federal Street in Dover, Delaware to search for free.
So spend the $10 and find out what actually happened to the company. The records will show who to contact if it does, and likely who to contact if it was dissolved.
Larry