Name a member of Congress that has indicated that he or she intends to introduce an article of impeachment. If not that, then name a candidate for the next Congress who has gone on record to indicate that impeachment is a possibility.
The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):
House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate; by charges preferred by a memorial, which
is usually referred to a committee for examination; or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; by a message from the President; by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or Territory or from a grand jury; or from facts developed and reported by an investigating
committee of the House.
Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.
With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p
If you announce before that, it's considered sort of rude.
The exception, of course, is if you make the discovery by noticing someone else already actively exploiting the vulnerability against your systems; then it's a judgement call.
Remember that the net was designed to be an alternate method of communication for the US Defense Dept in the event of a nuclear conflict.
No, it wasn't. There are many scholarly books that detail the complicated conditions that brought about the Internet; I suggest you find and read a few. While intertwined with the cold war, and the product of research into how such resiliant communication might be possible, that wasn't the intent of the effort that began ARPAnet and the Internet. Hafner's "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet" is lay-readable and on my bookshelf, but there are others.
The claim that the Internet could survive a nuclear strike has been refuted several times. In theory, the construction of the internet could be expanded to withstand a nuclear strike; in practice, there are currently too many single points of failure in routing and operation located too close to prominent nuclear targets. It probably wouldn't die outright (many small LANs might still work, assuming they survive the initial EMP, especially where a paranoid Sysadmin still maintains an/etc/hosts file), but I doubt you'd have any nodes able to connect to more than 25% of the surviving machines... if that.
The initial nodes were "trusted", but not because they were secure military machines. Most of the earliest (pre-1970) network sites were universities.
As for your claims about the media greatly understates the depth of their cluelessness. The last mass media piece about computing that got it right was "SPACEWAR : Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums," published by Rolling Stone in 1972. I've seen nothing with comparable understanding published in national newspapers, magazines, or broadcast (TV/Radio) that's gotten the details so consistently right since.
I don't know what it is that those magical boxes emit, but it must be akin to the stupidity ray used in Zak McCracken. Lucas got it wrong there, it's not transmitted through the phone line, it comes out of your computer screen.
According to my contact in R&D at Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow, the ray also works quite well over CAT-5 ethernet, due to the similarity to phone wire. Adapting it to run over 802.11a/b/g/pre-n wireless took more work.
A response to that sort of ignorant mentality is Yes, Sure, No problem, I just need you to send me a memo resolving me of an internal and external legal action and contractual reasonability I have when corporate information IS lost or maliciously changed.
You may need to first draft a memo, spelling out the potential security consequences you anticipate, and insist that the boss provide a responding memo that specifically lists them, states that he has considered them, and that you are completely absolved of internal and external responsibility for any of the consequences. If you get one in response, be sure to forward a "file copy" to the company's legal department (which may result in a panicky highest-level countermanding order), and keep a personal copy off-site in the file with your copy of your employment agreements and NDA. (You do have such a file, right?) If your company has an internal audit department that handles security audits, forwarding a copy of it in their direction may also generate abrupt entertaining activity.
More troublesome is if a problem happens later, and although you are not held responsible (having sensibly covered your ass beforehand as above), you're told to "cover it up". If your company has an omsbudsman, a rapid visit is in order; otherwise, lawyer up and find a new job... fast.
This is completely different from the trademarking of "Linux". While (as TFA notes) the Frenchman's claim of invention isn't undisputed, he HAS been using it commercially since the late 60's. In fact, my sister still has a ~1975 era Girl Scout handbook on the shelf that I defaced with about forty day-glo smiley face stickers (from Highlights IIR) shortly after it was bought. (Never leave a 5 year old boy to his own devices during a girl scout meeting.) While the smiley doesn't quite predate WalMart (founded 1962), it clearly predates WalMart's first use of it circa 1996. WalMart is the newcomer here, trying to take over a previously well-established symbol for their own private use.
That the Frenchman hasn't bothered (or perhaps succeeded) in getting a trademark on it before now in the US is a weakness is his position. While Wally World probably has a case for a trademark on the smiley, given the prior and widespread use of the smiley, the scope of the trademark deserved ought to be exceedingly narrow. I doubt the USPTO will get that, though. So of course, whoever gets the trademark, the public is likely to get it up the backside. =(
Fortunately, the frowny has already been trademarked separately.
It's a pity that the current law requiring vigorous defense of a trademark to prevent loosing it logically precludes making the voiding of trademark a legal penalty for attempting to unreasonably extend the trademark against reasonable public domain and fair uses. Imagine if Bass started sending threatening letters to gay pride groups. Whoever wins this fight, the rest of the world is likely to see similar nonsense on anything smiley-like anywhere... which, saccharine though the smiley is, will not help make the planet a happier place.
This use should have zero effect on any "potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"
It demonstrates that the service manual gives bad instructions, which may damage the potential market for this and ALL of their service manuals. Apple lawyers would find any US judge viewing such a position with a highly jaundiced eye, but it might work better overseas where Truth is not ipso facto a perfect defense against Libel.
The warnings outside are one step. However, some non-verbal warnings might help, too.
First, there should only be a single route of access through the rock. Block it off with a series of airtight barriers, repeating the warnings. Between the barriers, you'll want a non-verbal warning of a highly specialized form. For each, you need:
* A few dead bodies, from people who have died (naturally) of cancer; the more pronounced the cancer, the better.
* A radiation source in about the 10000 Curie range, using an isotope with a half-life on the order of 1 year... sufficent to kill any bacteria in the area.
The radiation source will be harmless in 20 years. However, it will leave behind a dead body, perfectly preserved for centuries as a primitive warning. If they're advanced enough to do an autopsy, they get a more detailed warning, which hopefully might give a clue to decipher the warning.
In the first meter of soil there is already more than two million tons of natural uranium. Adding a few thousand tons of depleted uranium will have no effect on the people of Iraq.
There's roughly comparable amounts of arsenic; however, giving people a concentrated exposure to that is also not a good thing.
DU isn't harmless, but I suspect the main cause of the problem may be chemical, rather than nuclear.
I respectfully submit that when a person starts to think that they can cure all humanity's ills by themselves, that they are the only enlightened leader capable of doing so, and that the end justifies the means, even if the means is killing millions, that that person has no right to any political classification but Fascist.
No; Fascist implies they work to do so via means of governmental action. Monarchist would be another alternative. And while considering -ists, Terrorist incidentally fits Ozy's methods rather well.
In no way can it be claimed they are a liberal, not even in the distorted US meaning of the word.
Liberal: "I'm free to try; you're free to try and stop me." =)
(Yes, I realize that's closer to anarchist than Ozy comes.)
Myself, I think the best political classification for Ozymandias is "Whacko".
However, I was under the impression that only the US Federal Reserve had the authority and responsibility to coin (or print) money.
Easily relevant sections of the US Constitution and amendments:
The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; [...] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
AFAIK, Congress hasn't passed a law requiring the use of US currency for interstate commerce, but there are laws about the use of gambling tokens. Certainly a State couldn't make an MMORPG with money; however, since almost all companies are incorporated under state law, that might make the basis for problems. (Non-US companies may be in a different boat, such as Blizzard?) And I suppose that one could make the case since that the power to "coin" money on being prohibited to the states is reserved to the people (although I've never understood the wording or working of Amendment X; IAmNotALawyer).
Of course, since Congress can regulate the value of "foreign" currencies, that would imply that Congress could pass laws defining how MMORPG currencies could be converted for tax purposes.... hopefully as "of zero value". But given the average congresscritter, I doubt anything so sensible would happen, and have no intention of pointing this out to any elected official until the IRS has already done something stupid.
what makes it "illegal" to sell in-game items exactly? That the companies say you can't? That isn't legally binding.
I'd be peripherally interested (without prejudice) by what argument you would like to claim that a Terms Of Service agreement prohibiting such sale is not legally binding.
However, the legality of sale (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to my point: Legal or not, if it's any form of income, it's taxable.
In most MMOs there is no transaction. The service contract clearly states that all items remain property of the service provider. Because the items cannot be traded for real money they have no value.
An interesting arguement. However, the listings on Ebay seem to indicate that they have de facto fair market value; it is merely not legal for them to be traded for real money. And illegal income is still considered taxable income, as Al Capone discovered.
The original piece by Julian Dibbell was more informative. I still think it's a pity he wasn't willing to cough up the cash to get a final ruling from the IRS.
See, that's the entire point. Google/FF is a cooperation between two independent parties.
When Google reportedly represents 76% of the Mozilla foundation's income, that's the same kind of "independence" as many of the groups doing Windows TCO studies get accused of.
More to the point, I think, is that Firefox includes an "Add engines" page, which lets anyone interested add MSN to those available by default. And, as many people have noted, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which Google is not.
From what I've heard, his personal drive, vision, and perfectionism are one of the keys to Apple's success.... but he doesn't react well to those anyone within the company with a different vision. If they can't be easily persuaded that Jobs Is Right, they are marginalized or chased out. Since visionaries do not tend to all think the same way, this would tend to reduce the internal pool for profound visionaries for selecting a replacement.
I don't work for Apple, so anyone there should feel free to explain how my hearsay reports about his behavior patterns are wrong.
No, you're looking at it backwards: think of all the excess fat we have available for automobile fuel! Every liposuction could be like a little oil well....
Variant on the old Argon Fuels joke, dating back to the 1970's fuel crunch....
Technically, it appears to be a bug in GCC - Linus patched the kernel to work around the bug.
Actually, it's easy to make a case that both had bugs. GCC made the assumption that the Kernel does not mess with user registers. Since the assumption was wrong (and not required to be true under the kernel spec), it is a bug in the compiler. Since the assumption was reasonable (although not required), it is a bug (or at least a wart) in the kernel. Hopefully, the GCC will eventually get patched, too.
What he is actually saying about nuclear power is not terribly worth discussing; it's the nuke-industry party line he's paid to spout. It's as irrationally pro-nuclear as the actual founders of Greenpeace are anti-nuclear.
That he is likely paid to be spouting this position does not change that the issue is worth discussing. It's not irrationally pro-nuclear; the "Here's why" paragraph presents a coherent reasoned argument. It is oversimplified — at a glance, there are gross oversimplifications and/or assumptions regarding future power requirements, the measurement of radioactive waste hazards, the weaponization risks associated with reprocessing, the total costs of nuclear electricity, the usability of nuclear fuel, and substitutibility of energy sources (including the uselessness of nuclear for peak load). This is because it's a brief editorial, not a two semester undergraduate course sequence. And, were anyone willing to devote the column inches to it, most of those oversimplifications could be fleshed out with the gory details, even with mathematical rigor.
This isn't to say that those arguments are necessarily dead right, either. The weaponization hazards are far too trivially dismissed, and nuclear power is not fully substitutable for some carbon resource applications. But the debate urgently needs to be held. If a decision is not made, inaction seems certain to lead to unpleasant — or even disastrous — results.
There are alternatives to nuclear power... but all require more work before being useful as carbon-fuel substitutes. Biodiesel is promising, but will likely cut into available food cropland. Solar and wind would require improvements in energy storage methods, due to their intermittency. Nuclear power's problems are at this point 99.44% political. And, as a peak oil kook, I think the problem is imminent.
So, yeah, it's a puff piece, and probably paid. Maybe some of the marching morons (who don't realize that) will be swayed enough by the initial appeal to authority to be willing to listen to a reasoned argument, rather than just saying "NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!" all the time.
In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D,
The attempt to move would, anyway...
it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.
You presume at least one detail: that an economically viable substitute for oil is possible. EROEI, NIMBY, and the limits of available cropland leave that doubtful.
Slashdot Mirror
The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):
Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.
With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p
The exception, of course, is if you make the discovery by noticing someone else already actively exploiting the vulnerability against your systems; then it's a judgement call.
No, it wasn't. There are many scholarly books that detail the complicated conditions that brought about the Internet; I suggest you find and read a few. While intertwined with the cold war, and the product of research into how such resiliant communication might be possible, that wasn't the intent of the effort that began ARPAnet and the Internet. Hafner's "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet" is lay-readable and on my bookshelf, but there are others.
The claim that the Internet could survive a nuclear strike has been refuted several times. In theory, the construction of the internet could be expanded to withstand a nuclear strike; in practice, there are currently too many single points of failure in routing and operation located too close to prominent nuclear targets. It probably wouldn't die outright (many small LANs might still work, assuming they survive the initial EMP, especially where a paranoid Sysadmin still maintains an /etc/hosts file), but I doubt you'd have any nodes able to connect to more than 25% of the surviving machines... if that.
The initial nodes were "trusted", but not because they were secure military machines. Most of the earliest (pre-1970) network sites were universities.
As for your claims about the media greatly understates the depth of their cluelessness. The last mass media piece about computing that got it right was "SPACEWAR : Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums," published by Rolling Stone in 1972. I've seen nothing with comparable understanding published in national newspapers, magazines, or broadcast (TV/Radio) that's gotten the details so consistently right since.
According to my contact in R&D at Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow, the ray also works quite well over CAT-5 ethernet, due to the similarity to phone wire. Adapting it to run over 802.11a/b/g/pre-n wireless took more work.
More troublesome is if a problem happens later, and although you are not held responsible (having sensibly covered your ass beforehand as above), you're told to "cover it up". If your company has an omsbudsman, a rapid visit is in order; otherwise, lawyer up and find a new job... fast.
This does lead me to wonder how they would respond to the classic Linux error message: "You don't exist. Go away."
That the Frenchman hasn't bothered (or perhaps succeeded) in getting a trademark on it before now in the US is a weakness is his position. While Wally World probably has a case for a trademark on the smiley, given the prior and widespread use of the smiley, the scope of the trademark deserved ought to be exceedingly narrow. I doubt the USPTO will get that, though. So of course, whoever gets the trademark, the public is likely to get it up the backside. =(
Fortunately, the frowny has already been trademarked separately.
It's a pity that the current law requiring vigorous defense of a trademark to prevent loosing it logically precludes making the voiding of trademark a legal penalty for attempting to unreasonably extend the trademark against reasonable public domain and fair uses. Imagine if Bass started sending threatening letters to gay pride groups. Whoever wins this fight, the rest of the world is likely to see similar nonsense on anything smiley-like anywhere... which, saccharine though the smiley is, will not help make the planet a happier place.
Objective conclusion: at least some MacBook Pros are getting way too much thermal goop during manufacture/service. =)
But yes, there's not enough data for solid conclusions about Apple's legal/management team.
It demonstrates that the service manual gives bad instructions, which may damage the potential market for this and ALL of their service manuals. Apple lawyers would find any US judge viewing such a position with a highly jaundiced eye, but it might work better overseas where Truth is not ipso facto a perfect defense against Libel.
First, there should only be a single route of access through the rock. Block it off with a series of airtight barriers, repeating the warnings. Between the barriers, you'll want a non-verbal warning of a highly specialized form. For each, you need:
* A few dead bodies, from people who have died (naturally) of cancer; the more pronounced the cancer, the better.
* A radiation source in about the 10000 Curie range, using an isotope with a half-life on the order of 1 year... sufficent to kill any bacteria in the area.
The radiation source will be harmless in 20 years. However, it will leave behind a dead body, perfectly preserved for centuries as a primitive warning. If they're advanced enough to do an autopsy, they get a more detailed warning, which hopefully might give a clue to decipher the warning.
There's roughly comparable amounts of arsenic; however, giving people a concentrated exposure to that is also not a good thing.
DU isn't harmless, but I suspect the main cause of the problem may be chemical, rather than nuclear.
Yeah, but he's a Nassau County Democrat, which I'd expect means he's roughly as far left as Joe Liberman.
No; Fascist implies they work to do so via means of governmental action. Monarchist would be another alternative. And while considering -ists, Terrorist incidentally fits Ozy's methods rather well.
In no way can it be claimed they are a liberal, not even in the distorted US meaning of the word.
Liberal: "I'm free to try; you're free to try and stop me." =)
(Yes, I realize that's closer to anarchist than Ozy comes.)
Myself, I think the best political classification for Ozymandias is "Whacko".
Easily relevant sections of the US Constitution and amendments:
AFAIK, Congress hasn't passed a law requiring the use of US currency for interstate commerce, but there are laws about the use of gambling tokens. Certainly a State couldn't make an MMORPG with money; however, since almost all companies are incorporated under state law, that might make the basis for problems. (Non-US companies may be in a different boat, such as Blizzard?) And I suppose that one could make the case since that the power to "coin" money on being prohibited to the states is reserved to the people (although I've never understood the wording or working of Amendment X; IAmNotALawyer).Of course, since Congress can regulate the value of "foreign" currencies, that would imply that Congress could pass laws defining how MMORPG currencies could be converted for tax purposes.... hopefully as "of zero value". But given the average congresscritter, I doubt anything so sensible would happen, and have no intention of pointing this out to any elected official until the IRS has already done something stupid.
I'd be peripherally interested (without prejudice) by what argument you would like to claim that a Terms Of Service agreement prohibiting such sale is not legally binding.
However, the legality of sale (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to my point: Legal or not, if it's any form of income, it's taxable.
An interesting arguement. However, the listings on Ebay seem to indicate that they have de facto fair market value; it is merely not legal for them to be traded for real money. And illegal income is still considered taxable income, as Al Capone discovered.
The original piece by Julian Dibbell was more informative. I still think it's a pity he wasn't willing to cough up the cash to get a final ruling from the IRS.
When Google reportedly represents 76% of the Mozilla foundation's income, that's the same kind of "independence" as many of the groups doing Windows TCO studies get accused of.
More to the point, I think, is that Firefox includes an "Add engines" page, which lets anyone interested add MSN to those available by default. And, as many people have noted, Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which Google is not.
Wrong. Motive is about desired consequences, evil is about actual consequences.
(Of course, there are certain ends that you can only achieve by doing evil -- like deciding to f*ing kill someone.)
Unless, of course, you are partial to Time as a murder weapon....
If he's not chasing those people out, then my concern is misplaced.
I don't work for Apple, so anyone there should feel free to explain how my hearsay reports about his behavior patterns are wrong.
Variant on the old Argon Fuels joke, dating back to the 1970's fuel crunch....
A professional code of ethics.
Actually, it's easy to make a case that both had bugs. GCC made the assumption that the Kernel does not mess with user registers. Since the assumption was wrong (and not required to be true under the kernel spec), it is a bug in the compiler. Since the assumption was reasonable (although not required), it is a bug (or at least a wart) in the kernel. Hopefully, the GCC will eventually get patched, too.
That he is likely paid to be spouting this position does not change that the issue is worth discussing. It's not irrationally pro-nuclear; the "Here's why" paragraph presents a coherent reasoned argument. It is oversimplified — at a glance, there are gross oversimplifications and/or assumptions regarding future power requirements, the measurement of radioactive waste hazards, the weaponization risks associated with reprocessing, the total costs of nuclear electricity, the usability of nuclear fuel, and substitutibility of energy sources (including the uselessness of nuclear for peak load). This is because it's a brief editorial, not a two semester undergraduate course sequence. And, were anyone willing to devote the column inches to it, most of those oversimplifications could be fleshed out with the gory details, even with mathematical rigor.
This isn't to say that those arguments are necessarily dead right, either. The weaponization hazards are far too trivially dismissed, and nuclear power is not fully substitutable for some carbon resource applications. But the debate urgently needs to be held. If a decision is not made, inaction seems certain to lead to unpleasant — or even disastrous — results.
There are alternatives to nuclear power... but all require more work before being useful as carbon-fuel substitutes. Biodiesel is promising, but will likely cut into available food cropland. Solar and wind would require improvements in energy storage methods, due to their intermittency. Nuclear power's problems are at this point 99.44% political. And, as a peak oil kook, I think the problem is imminent.
So, yeah, it's a puff piece, and probably paid. Maybe some of the marching morons (who don't realize that) will be swayed enough by the initial appeal to authority to be willing to listen to a reasoned argument, rather than just saying "NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!" all the time.
The attempt to move would, anyway...
it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.
You presume at least one detail: that an economically viable substitute for oil is possible. EROEI, NIMBY, and the limits of available cropland leave that doubtful.