there is no statute requiring individuals to pay income tax - corperations yes, but not individuals. There is a crapload of tax-code, but no statute which specifically authorizes the IRS to collect income tax from individuals.
Thanks. The first extension works nicely. As for rendering, all I meant is that for me fixing the rendering for Indian and some other non-Western writing systems is of much greater interest than a lot of the things that they've been working on. This is an area in which IE is definitely better.
Most of the changes deal with things that I don't much care about. I'd like it to freeze up less often and leak less memory, but what I would REALLY like would be for the rendering to work properly in Indian writing systems. And it would sure be nice to have a little button to click on for clearing the URL like in Galeon.
While limitations on advertising by lawyers have been around for a long time, they seem to have their roots in in pre-democratic times, when legal representation was to available to the wealthy if at all and the very practice of law was considered a somewhat questionable activity that had to be strictly regulated in order to be kept respectable. I fail to see any justification for restrictions on the speech of lawyers different from those that apply to everyone else. Lawyers would still be deterred from false advertising and libel by the existing laws of general application. Is there any good reason that censorship by the bar associations should not be eliminated?
Unless you've got more up-to-date information than I have, Lua in fact does not support Unicode. It is true that you can kind of, sort of, manipulate Unicode strings in Lua, but to call this ability support is unwarranted. Here is the discussion of the topic from the
Lua Users' Wiki. It says that the length functions do not return the number of characters in a string, only the number of bytes. It says that Lua's built-in pattern matching does not work on Unicode. It says that there is no notation that allows you to specify a Unicode character without hand-encoding it in UTF-8 and specifying each byte - you can't write something like "\u0561" in a Lua program to get the character U+0561 Armenian letter ayb. It says that Lua does not perform Unicode normalization for you, so unless you can guarantee that your strings are appropriately normlized, Lua will not determine string equality correctly and you will not be able to use Unicode strings as table keys.
I submit therefore that Lua does not support Unicode in the sense that languages like Tcl and Python do. It is much easier to work with Unicode in those languages than in Lua.
Lua is a nice language for some purposes, but it has two major limitations. One is that it has no regexp support. It has some limited pattern matching stuff that looks superficially like regexp matching but isn't. This is intentional, in order to keep the footprint small. For game programming you probably don't need regular expressions, but it makes Lua much less suitable than Tcl, Python, or various other scripting languages for anything involved string processing.
Secondly, Lua does not support Unicode, which is a defect not only for text processing but for anything requiring serious localization.
I neglected to ask, what makes you think that rogue governments and criminal organizations can necessarily be imprisoned or put in assylums? Interfering with their access to weapons is a lot more practical.
Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms
Yes, because it's impossible for that to actually happen: if a person is a felon, he's in jail and can't obtain a weapon. If a person is mentally ill [to the point of being dangerous], he's in an asylum and can't contain a weapon. If a person is not in a jail or an asylum, he is innocent until proven guilty and has every right guaranteed by the US Constitution!
Sorry but you're wrong. In current law and usage a felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony, whether or not he or she is in prison. In most jurisdictions in the US even after release
a felon cannot obtain a carry permit and may not be able to obtain firearms at all. Now, some felons are not dangerous, but many people who have been convicted of crimes of violence are still
dangerous and should not have easy access to weapons. Similarly, there are plenty of people who are mentally unstable but are not in assylums. Some of them probably should be, but for good, civil libertarian, reasons, only the most severely ill people are in assylums.
he people in "rogue governments" (whatever the fuck that means -- I can only assume you're referring to something like this - stupid pointer to Wikipedia article on the Continental Congress) and criminal organizations have either broken the law, or they haven't. Either way, go re-read the above paragraph.
If you don't know what a rogue government is there's no point in debating this with you.
You've lost. And I note you've dropped my point about criminal organizations.
I think that the key thing here is that you were entering Canada. In my experience, Canadian customs and immigration are always pleasant and reasonable. US customs and immigration are much more likely to be a pain in the neck, and this has been true for decades. It isn't due to 9/11.
While I agree with many of these, there are a couple I have problems with. With regard to small arms trafficking, your comment suggests that it isn't a problem because people have a right to bear arms. First, that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to carry arms. Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms, restricting the ability of rogue governments and criminal organizations to obtain them? Second, "small arms" includes a lot of things other than hunting rifles and handguns suitable for self-defense. It includes everything short of mortars and howitzers. Do you really think that sales of AK-47s, Browning Automatic Rifles, flame throwers, and rocket propelled grenades should be unregulated?
The other problem I see is with illegal fishing. Private habitat development may be a solution to the loss of habitat for some exotic animals and plants with limited ranges, but how is it going to stop overfishing for cod in the Atlantic, for example? I don't see how a private party can protect sufficient habitat for wide-ranging fish in international waters.
I have an HP Pavillion 750n desktop and a Pavillion zt1130 laptop, both about
four years old, still working nicely. I've never had any problem with them other than
getting the sound card on the laptop working under Linux, which is hardly an HP-specific problem. Back in the late 80s and early 90s when I used them, HP's 9000/300 series workstations were really nice. Maybe in the past few years things have gone downhill, but until a few years ago at any rate HP computers were fine in my experience.
When I suggested that SCO's case is "essentially fraudulent", I said "essentially"
precisely because it isn't easy to establish. There is arguably an argument for sanctions under Rule 11(b)(3):
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
since SCO evidently had little or no evidentiary support for its claims, but it has waffled so much as to what its actual legal claims (as opposed to the claims it has
made in the press) are that this is pretty slippery. In any case, it may be that IBM decided that it would be better to spend the time and money to cream SCO and resolve these issues definitively.
Your general point is well taken, but I doubt that the SCO case will establish a precedant of much interest since as far as I can see there are no interesting legal issues at stake, just an essentially fraudulent complaint.
In case the history of the last century escapes you, there once was a sovereign nation called Palestine.
Sorry, wrong. There has never been a sovereign nation called Palestine. Palestine was a province of the Roman Empire. As of 1918 it was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottomans were defeated in World War I, Palestine became a British Mandate under the League of Nations. It was not a nation, just a region, and it was most certainly not sovereign. The Palestine of the mandate was only a portion of the region historically known as "Palestine" which also included Jordan. The partition of 1948 did not turn Palestine into Israel - it split Palestine up, giving part to Israel and part to the Arabs.
If Israel changed it's name to something ethnically neutral and renounced all discrimination then it would be left alone. The key problem is that Israel wants to be segregated. They don't want complete ethnic purity - they like to have a few token members of other ethnic groups around to pretend to be inclusive.
Hunh? Israel explicitly asked the Arabs to stay and gave citizenship to the many who did.
Hundreds of thousands of Arabs are citizens of Israel with full legal rights. Some are members of the Knesset. They are not segregated - they can live and work anywhere in Israel.
Actually, Israel comprises only 20% of Palestine, so Israel didn't exactly wipe it
off the map. Most Palestinians live where they have always lived, in Jordan, which, by the way, controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. In any case, Palestine is simply the name used
by the Romans for the administrative unit they set up when they conquered the region. (They chose the name, by the way, as a dig at the Jews, of whom the Philistines were great enemies. There has never been any such thing as a Palestinian nation.
You're confused. The fact that Christians were violently anti-Semitic throughtout much of their history does not show that Muslims were not.
The question here is not whether Christians or Muslims have a better record: both have long and sordid histories of intolerance of other religions. The question at hand is whether Muslims were anti-Semitic prior to 1948. Even the rather sparse list of examples in that Wikipedia article provides evidence that they were.
The Jimena site may be an advocacy site, but it not only quotes the personal testimony of Jewish refugees from the Arab world but, if you actually read the articles, you'll see that there is much quotation from other sources.
It is your assumption that the Muslim bigot whom I cited is unrepresentative. If you spend any time reading Muslim sites on the net or the Muslim press, you won't think that. And what makes you think that his explicit citations of the Qur'an and from other Muslim sources are in some way biased? The Qur'an is quite explicit in its anti-Semitism - its not as if he is stretching to interpret it that way.
No, sorry. You've ignored my argument. This is Spamhaus's fault, not the judge's.
The judge was correct in ruling against Spamhaus since Spamhaus failed to defend the suit, and as a non-techie cannot be expected to realize what the consequences of taking down Spamhaus would be. Had Spamhaus behaved responsibly, they might well not have lost the suit, but if they had, they would have had the chance to explain to the judge the consequences of different remedies.
I'm amazed at the knee-jerk reaction of so many people here. I hate spam as much as the next person, but claiming that the judge is ignorant, stupid, or malicious is ridiculous. The fact is, Spamhaus responded to the suit in the most inappropriate way imaginable, by acknowledging the federal court's jurisdiction and thereafter ignoring it. If you get a traffic ticket, even if it is unwarranted, what would you expect to happen if you turn up in court, then walk out and refuse to communicate any further with the court? What Spamhaus has done is the equivalent, only federal judges have a LOT more power. Spamhaus should either have challenged the court's jurisdiction from the outset or, having accepted it, complied with its orders and defended the suit.
Other than Spamhaus trying to correct the situation, I wonder if third parties might be able to submit an amicus brief to the court along the lines of: "Yes, Spamhaus behaved liked idiots, but cutting them off is not in the public interest.":
Slashdot Mirror
How could they? Surely no /. editor uses Windows.
Thanks. The first extension works nicely. As for rendering, all I meant is that for me fixing the rendering for Indian and some other non-Western writing systems is of much greater interest than a lot of the things that they've been working on. This is an area in which IE is definitely better.
Most of the changes deal with things that I don't much care about. I'd like it to freeze up less often and leak less memory, but what I would REALLY like would be for the rendering to work properly in Indian writing systems. And it would sure be nice to have a little button to click on for clearing the URL like in Galeon.
It looks like they have useful stuff, but their web site is really annoying.
While limitations on advertising by lawyers have been around for a long time, they seem to have their roots in in pre-democratic times, when legal representation was to available to the wealthy if at all and the very practice of law was considered a somewhat questionable activity that had to be strictly regulated in order to be kept respectable. I fail to see any justification for restrictions on the speech of lawyers different from those that apply to everyone else. Lawyers would still be deterred from false advertising and libel by the existing laws of general application. Is there any good reason that censorship by the bar associations should not be eliminated?
Unless you've got more up-to-date information than I have, Lua in fact does not support Unicode. It is true that you can kind of, sort of, manipulate Unicode strings in Lua, but to call this ability support is unwarranted. Here is the discussion of the topic from the Lua Users' Wiki. It says that the length functions do not return the number of characters in a string, only the number of bytes. It says that Lua's built-in pattern matching does not work on Unicode. It says that there is no notation that allows you to specify a Unicode character without hand-encoding it in UTF-8 and specifying each byte - you can't write something like "\u0561" in a Lua program to get the character U+0561 Armenian letter ayb. It says that Lua does not perform Unicode normalization for you, so unless you can guarantee that your strings are appropriately normlized, Lua will not determine string equality correctly and you will not be able to use Unicode strings as table keys.
I submit therefore that Lua does not support Unicode in the sense that languages like Tcl and Python do. It is much easier to work with Unicode in those languages than in Lua.
Lua is a nice language for some purposes, but it has two major limitations. One is that it has no regexp support. It has some limited pattern matching stuff that looks superficially like regexp matching but isn't. This is intentional, in order to keep the footprint small. For game programming you probably don't need regular expressions, but it makes Lua much less suitable than Tcl, Python, or various other scripting languages for anything involved string processing.
Secondly, Lua does not support Unicode, which is a defect not only for text processing but for anything requiring serious localization.
I neglected to ask, what makes you think that rogue governments and criminal organizations can necessarily be imprisoned or put in assylums? Interfering with their access to weapons is a lot more practical.
Sorry but you're wrong. In current law and usage a felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony, whether or not he or she is in prison. In most jurisdictions in the US even after release a felon cannot obtain a carry permit and may not be able to obtain firearms at all. Now, some felons are not dangerous, but many people who have been convicted of crimes of violence are still dangerous and should not have easy access to weapons. Similarly, there are plenty of people who are mentally unstable but are not in assylums. Some of them probably should be, but for good, civil libertarian, reasons, only the most severely ill people are in assylums.
If you don't know what a rogue government is there's no point in debating this with you. You've lost. And I note you've dropped my point about criminal organizations.
I think that the key thing here is that you were entering Canada. In my experience, Canadian customs and immigration are always pleasant and reasonable. US customs and immigration are much more likely to be a pain in the neck, and this has been true for decades. It isn't due to 9/11.
While I agree with many of these, there are a couple I have problems with. With regard to small arms trafficking, your comment suggests that it isn't a problem because people have a right to bear arms. First, that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to carry arms. Do you really object to restrictions on felons and mentally ill people obtaining firearms, restricting the ability of rogue governments and criminal organizations to obtain them? Second, "small arms" includes a lot of things other than hunting rifles and handguns suitable for self-defense. It includes everything short of mortars and howitzers. Do you really think that sales of AK-47s, Browning Automatic Rifles, flame throwers, and rocket propelled grenades should be unregulated?
The other problem I see is with illegal fishing. Private habitat development may be a solution to the loss of habitat for some exotic animals and plants with limited ranges, but how is it going to stop overfishing for cod in the Atlantic, for example? I don't see how a private party can protect sufficient habitat for wide-ranging fish in international waters.
I have an HP Pavillion 750n desktop and a Pavillion zt1130 laptop, both about four years old, still working nicely. I've never had any problem with them other than getting the sound card on the laptop working under Linux, which is hardly an HP-specific problem. Back in the late 80s and early 90s when I used them, HP's 9000/300 series workstations were really nice. Maybe in the past few years things have gone downhill, but until a few years ago at any rate HP computers were fine in my experience.
When I suggested that SCO's case is "essentially fraudulent", I said "essentially" precisely because it isn't easy to establish. There is arguably an argument for sanctions under Rule 11(b)(3):
since SCO evidently had little or no evidentiary support for its claims, but it has waffled so much as to what its actual legal claims (as opposed to the claims it has made in the press) are that this is pretty slippery. In any case, it may be that IBM decided that it would be better to spend the time and money to cream SCO and resolve these issues definitively.
Your general point is well taken, but I doubt that the SCO case will establish a precedant of much interest since as far as I can see there are no interesting legal issues at stake, just an essentially fraudulent complaint.
I don't think that the Russian mafia is quite the public service organization you think it is.
I use Pine only when I need to send attachments. Otherwise, I just use good old Berkeley mail. Pine is a bit too gui-ish for me.
Sorry, wrong. There has never been a sovereign nation called Palestine. Palestine was a province of the Roman Empire. As of 1918 it was part of the Ottoman Empire. When the Ottomans were defeated in World War I, Palestine became a British Mandate under the League of Nations. It was not a nation, just a region, and it was most certainly not sovereign. The Palestine of the mandate was only a portion of the region historically known as "Palestine" which also included Jordan. The partition of 1948 did not turn Palestine into Israel - it split Palestine up, giving part to Israel and part to the Arabs.
Hunh? Israel explicitly asked the Arabs to stay and gave citizenship to the many who did. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs are citizens of Israel with full legal rights. Some are members of the Knesset. They are not segregated - they can live and work anywhere in Israel.
Actually, Israel comprises only 20% of Palestine, so Israel didn't exactly wipe it off the map. Most Palestinians live where they have always lived, in Jordan, which, by the way, controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967. In any case, Palestine is simply the name used by the Romans for the administrative unit they set up when they conquered the region. (They chose the name, by the way, as a dig at the Jews, of whom the Philistines were great enemies. There has never been any such thing as a Palestinian nation.
You're confused. The fact that Christians were violently anti-Semitic throughtout much of their history does not show that Muslims were not. The question here is not whether Christians or Muslims have a better record: both have long and sordid histories of intolerance of other religions. The question at hand is whether Muslims were anti-Semitic prior to 1948. Even the rather sparse list of examples in that Wikipedia article provides evidence that they were.
The Jimena site may be an advocacy site, but it not only quotes the personal testimony of Jewish refugees from the Arab world but, if you actually read the articles, you'll see that there is much quotation from other sources.
It is your assumption that the Muslim bigot whom I cited is unrepresentative. If you spend any time reading Muslim sites on the net or the Muslim press, you won't think that. And what makes you think that his explicit citations of the Qur'an and from other Muslim sources are in some way biased? The Qur'an is quite explicit in its anti-Semitism - its not as if he is stretching to interpret it that way.
I guess you haven't studied the history of Islam or the Arab world. You might start with the Wikipedia history of anti-semitism. You might then check out the website of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa. Here is piece by a contemorary Muslim bigot that cites the Qur'an and the attitude of Mohammed himself.
The title may be obscure. Spamhaus' motion to remove the case to federal court is listed on e360's website under the heading Notice of Removal.
No, sorry. You've ignored my argument. This is Spamhaus's fault, not the judge's. The judge was correct in ruling against Spamhaus since Spamhaus failed to defend the suit, and as a non-techie cannot be expected to realize what the consequences of taking down Spamhaus would be. Had Spamhaus behaved responsibly, they might well not have lost the suit, but if they had, they would have had the chance to explain to the judge the consequences of different remedies.
I'm amazed at the knee-jerk reaction of so many people here. I hate spam as much as the next person, but claiming that the judge is ignorant, stupid, or malicious is ridiculous. The fact is, Spamhaus responded to the suit in the most inappropriate way imaginable, by acknowledging the federal court's jurisdiction and thereafter ignoring it. If you get a traffic ticket, even if it is unwarranted, what would you expect to happen if you turn up in court, then walk out and refuse to communicate any further with the court? What Spamhaus has done is the equivalent, only federal judges have a LOT more power. Spamhaus should either have challenged the court's jurisdiction from the outset or, having accepted it, complied with its orders and defended the suit.
Other than Spamhaus trying to correct the situation, I wonder if third parties might be able to submit an amicus brief to the court along the lines of: "Yes, Spamhaus behaved liked idiots, but cutting them off is not in the public interest.":