It's a tad too early for that. All that NASA has done are one-off projects with specially-designed equipment. Even the dual-purpose shuttle is highly specialized. It's just too expensive right now, because the reseach and fabrication cannot be done on a mass scale. There would have to be a mass-market for it in order for prices to become reasonable. I'd think that would be actively discouraged in the interest of national security and also litigation. Also, a good portion of capital that NASA invested in equipment is simply left out in space. Technically, it is discarded. That is a bad fit with private enterprise.
Most big companies currently look about 5 years into the future when considering capital investments. It's not because corporations are evil, immoral, or greedy. It's because no one wants to lose their jobs or the value of their stock. I'd say that with our current level of space-worthy technology, it would be impossible for a private company to set their sites on an extra-terrestrial venture, and at least break even within that 5-year window. For the life of me, I can't think of one thing that is "out there" that cannot be had for much less on our resource-rich world.
Don't use Social Security as an excuse for not managing your finances throughout a roughly 55 year opportunity to do so. I strongly suggest you remove Social Security from your retirement plans as soon as possible.
I'm kind of neutral on this one. I don't want to see Microsoft shafted just for the hell of it, (I'd like to see them shafted for the other crap they did.) I don't think the patent is a junk patent. I can't recall any prior art in existence when the patent was filed. I'm just wondering why they sat on it for almost a decade.
Well, actually I don't wonder. If they had enforced it immediately, software developers would have worked around it, and the patent would have been worthless, since both the University and Eolas aren't producing a product to benefit from the patent. In the grand scheme of things, I guess this just points out how the patent system is really a poor fit for the computer industry, especially when it involves software.
But, what I would like to know: Is this patent going to fix some annoyances with the current implementation of embedded content by forcing s/w developers to change things? For example, my Linux box is perfectly capable of playing both complete files and streams of just about any format on the planet. But, when I go to a site that calls for an embedded Quicktime player, it looks for specific Windows registry hooks, or a program with a specific name, so I can't use my media player, even though there is no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to. Likewise with sites that want Winamp, and only Winamp, when XMMS works just fine.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping Netscape/Mozilla developers with add some feature to ignore this embed tag bullshit if I so desire, and will consult my helper apps list first. Call me naive, or call me an optimist, but one of these days all this litigation is going to have to result in some good for the consumer. Entropy must play into it. Just something good, even if by accident, would be nice.
I exercise caution when I can. I'm a packrat by nature, but anything with important information about myself, or even about my employer is shredded. I have two shredders; one for speed and a nice cross-cut model.:)
Part of the problem is the government's willingness to give out the information. It's outrageous that this information would be given to political hopefuls. What is wrong with a cheap bulk mailing? What is wrong with a voluntary list, where you can sign up with your party (sans SSN) to receive flyers?
The other part of the problem is agencies, both public and private, that insist on having an SSN when they don't need it. Starting very recently, some government agencies are collecting SSNs of people who wouldn't even know better to question it, (I know about it from the "inside.") And the retention of the information is a problem too. Not so much with the SSN, but credit card numbers. I don't understand why banks still have a single account number of checking account status, making deposits and making withdrawals. Also, credit applications take the SSN at face value, even though it's easily memorized and duplicated. How come they never bother to call or investigate the applicant to verify?
About post and parcel services: The Amazon.com purchase wasn't really the focal point of the article, it was the credit report. And yes, there is a difference between regular postal parcel and UPS/FedEx. You can request than an adult signature be required. They can't leave it without a signature. Unforunately, it could be anyone's signature.
His local post office is treating the case in an appalling manner. His mailbox is federal property. It is a pretty serious crime to remove items from it, regardless of whether the recipient is on leave. Something's wrong with that picture.
About having a PO box: This doesn't prevent gathering this information by dumpster diving, or simply getting a copy of the CD-ROM.
Read the rest of the threads, you find examples there, as well as some good recommendations. When someone asks "what is a good OSS database clustering solution," and you feel compelled to answer, "MS SQL," don't bother answering.
That was my purpose for posting the original flame.
My company ships products with SQL Server or Oracle as the back end. I've tried to put together an OSS solution so I could impress the big boss with millions of bucks of saved license fees. They just aren't anywhere close IMO.
Your livelihood depends on MS and Oracle products. Wow, you're an unbiased source for information. For an empirical study of a successful OSS solution, learn something about the site on which you are posting.
Why are you posting this drivel here anyway? The original thread asks what open source clustering solutions are to be had. You just posted what amounts to a Microsoft advertisement.
Will this make it faster and easier for AT&T to transfer mobile phone numbers from other carriers? (Are they even going to cave on this one?)
Will this make long-distance call costs lower?
Will this enable small- to medium-sized organizations to get package deals for long-distance like the big dogs get?
Will this trickle down to the remaining teenaged Bells, so I can get a new phone line set up immediately, or get a new circuit activated within a normal 8-hour business day?
Will this have any effect whatsoever on the outrageous cost of bandwidth?
Wow, did you read your own link? All it states is that foreign creditors may want to cash in and get tangible assets if the value of the dollar drops... And American exports are more attractive when their prices fall. Plus it shows the debt at 5% of the GDP. It hasn't jumped appreciably, (it wasn't 0.05% five years ago, for example.) We have a long way to go before your economic holocaust occurs. We are still an attractive buyer to sellers abroad. What other country buys so much worthless shit every year? It wouldn't be incredibly bright of a creditor to suddenly cash in his chips and lose the buying power of the most deep-pocketed nation in the world, (or more likely find additional tariffs on his goods.) It's not as if we're defaulting on debts, we're just paying them late.
There are other angles to this too. Taxing the living shit out of your citizens isn't the best way to help business either. And some of that tax money goes in the form of aid (indirectly) to those countries, so that futher complicates the situation.
But, one thing that I find alarming is that we can't get over the hump of early-20th century manufacturing processes, and we wonder why foreign competitors walk all over us. It's not just that American-made products are expensive. I could deal with that. They're also mostly poorly made. Like many areas of the country, we've got a lot of small to medium-sized manufacturing business churning out parts on 30+ year-old equipment, using 70+ year-old methods. About the only improvement in cost-savings has been the hiring of gullible immigrants to do minimum-wage labor. The factories that are modernized mainly use foreign-built automation equipment that has to be maintained by foreign technicians.
I'm not surprised at all. I've always maintained that the OS installation's security is dependent on its administrator. Obviously Linux doesn't magically impart motivation or know-how on administrators. Neither does Windows. It's going to get worse for a while, as tech workers are asked to do more so that their employers don't have to take on new hires in this shaky economy. There will be less time to audit internally, and less people to do it.
By the way, how does one audit another private company's security record? Witness testimony? Crackers' boasting? Or did this firm actually send an expert out to look over every potential security issue the moment it happened? How did they know? Did the client know this information was being collected for a report?
It's ironic that Microsoft provides that service for free, whereas Linux requires paying money.
Not so! Windows 2003 server costs how much up front? Windows XP Pro clients cost how much? How much do per-seat CALs cost? It most certainly isn't "free." No wonder it is so easy for your government to hide the cost of "free" services in your tax bill.
About the only thing this is illustrating is that the performance problems with D3D are pretty severe now. DX couldn't correctly render fog or water in the original Half-Done(tm) engine, and going to OpenGL drivers would not only boost the frame rate by as much as 66%, but would also correctly render those effects.
Also, RTFA, Nvidia is a little shy about "optimized" drivers for benchmarking certain applications. They specifically requested that the optimized drivers not be used. No indication that ATI did the same.
I doubt there will be a Linux version of HL2 either, because this new 3D engine appears to only support DirectX.
That's a shame, because the world didn't end with the America's Army developers ported AA:O to Linux. As a matter of fact, it runs quite well, and it didn't take them 5 years to produce nothing but vaporware.
Rome wasn't torn down every day, either. (See: Antitrust suits, Microsoft.)
Blaming the alternatives' lack of success on the inability to compete, when Microsoft prevents future competitors, is, well... It's kind of like watching Nelson Muntz bullying some poor dweeb: "Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
I can understand the "good faith" approach here in our country, but the nature of Internet-connected networks is that you may be dealing with people who aren't even on your native soil, or people that have absolutely no qualms about seriously messing-up your network, or even people who lack the maturity to exercise some restraint. This can be due to either malicious intent, different social customs, or the fact that the person on the other end is a latchkey kid bereft of character and ethics. It's a different ballgame, and social expectation is no excuse for poor security practice!
It isn't the analog of a bank. People that frequent a bank are mostly locals, and if they are not local, they are at least fellow citizens, and they programmed from birth to follow our puritanical social customs. In addition, there is a pretty good chance that they are mature adults who have managed to budget and save some money.
Imagine if you will this fictional example: A bank from a western culture opens up a bank in the country of Ugrabit. In this culture, it is perfectly legal to run up and grab things of value out of the hands of the unsuspecting, and perfectly legal for the potential victim to bludgeon the perpetrator with a yak's femur. Western visitors are shocked and appalled when local residents run and grab the cash out of their hands as they stand in front of the teller. Westernized bank employees also refuse to beat the perpetrators senseless as it goes against their beliefs. Is it the fault of the locals? No! The bank didn't understand the potential hazards before placing themselves in harm's way.
... the PA AG turns over a list of those ping zombies that are hitting Philly.com. I'm sure they're part of the same cadre of machines that script kiddies use on other sites.
A more useful move by the ISPs (the FBI should do their own job) would be to suspend service for those locations that are host to ping zombies.
Agreed! Speaking in strictly constitutional terms, the US government was not granted the power to catalogue a citizen's preference in books, movies, or correspondence. It's not an arguable point, that power isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So, "the pursuit of happiness" need not even enter into the discussion. The Constitution definitely doesn't grant that power to the federal government. There is no argument in the matter.
I've even heard El Rushbo say, "you don't have a right to privacy." Even Rush doesn't completely understand how the Constitution works. Of course you have the right. Your rights originate from the fact that you were born here, they are not granted by your government. Rights originate from government in dictatorships and strict socialist regimes. That's not how our government works! It is assumed that you are granted the right unless the Constitution specifically mentions a government power to curtail it. The lengthy process for admending the Constitution is purposely designed so that granting the federal government some ungodly power like Total Information Awareness is almost impossible -- but only if the people give a hoot.
How ridiculous is the alternative? To have a Constitution that mentions any possible combination of actions, "just in case?" We'd have an even more unwieldly set of laws. That all powers not mentioned are automatically granted the federal government? No! That would be outrageous!
I'm just your typical dumb, redneck, Rebuplican, gun-toting hick, and even I can understand this principal. Why don't my fellow countrymen understand or even care?
Help me out here! Is there a decoder ring or something I need to see the Constitution as Congress sees it? Is my understanding of the Constitution flawed?
So I've seen the argument that the shuttle wasn't specialized. I'm not seeing where the small-capsule-on-huge-rocket approach is going to improve things, other than NASA's budget. I'm trying to imagine an Apollo-style capsule shoring up to an artificial satellite, grasping it, and a crew doing repairs. I'm not seeing it happen.
Definitely a step backwards. Multiple, specialized capsules are going to be as expensive as the shuttle, because multiple capsules are going to require multiple launch vehicles. My opinion is that it is a cost-saving measure, and there are things that NASA just isn't going to do anymore.
"In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so - SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.
Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void."
I think someone is trying to prove a point here. I don't think the issue is that there is actually copyrighted code in the kernel, but that there was, if only briefly, and that the development process of the kernel doesn't have suitable checks for this. I'm trying to figure out why SCO would want to go down in flames for this. McBride is metaphorically driving a car-bomb into GNU city; SCO isn't going to make it out alive on this one, and he knows full well that this is the case. I'd like to know what kind of personal gain he's getting out of this. I highly doubt his stock portfolio is going to be his reward, since SCO/Caldera stock is nowhere near its peak, (and he isn't likely to have purchased stock as it plummeted.)
It seems stupid to place the copyrighted code there, then claim the copyrighted code was present. Of course there isn't written permission, they didn't grant it. What is wrong with this picture? I can't think of a better way to illustrate this than if the RIAA unloaded dozens of copyrighted music onto Kazaa, then filed suit against the perpetrator. Wouldn't it be... the RIAA? It's an outlandishly bad business decision, and no company officer in his right mind would make that decision. No stock-holder in his right mind would support it. If the code was placed without permission, wouldn't SCO fire the employee that did so? Wouldn't we have heard from that individual by now? If the employee parted on bad terms, wouldn't SCO try to get the courts to gag him? I'm not seeing any evidence of the sort. Odd, no?
The other piece of the puzzle that doesn't make sense is the license fee "extortion" scheme. SCO has received a mere pittance from this. It has been a more effective tool for getting attention that for bringing in income. Come on, look at what it has netted them. That would scarcely cover their attorney's fees. It is either a distraction, or a way to get the attention of the business press.
Chances are that there are precious few lines of code in the kernel, (or other GPL software) that could be proven in a court of law to be property of whomever it is that actually owns the Unix code. It's obvious at this point that SCO is not seeking damages for this, or they would have already named specific parties and brought it before a judge. Hastiness would be desirable considering the rate at which SCO is burning up funds without a reliable stream of revenue to fill up their coffers.
Some party is trying to spring a trap for GNU software, or perhaps open source software in general. If SCO wins in the courts (unlikely since they haven't even taken legal action -- involving the courts -- against specific parties) then open source development model shows that it cannot prevent tainted code from being included. If SCO loses, I'm presuming they'll have a case with which to show the business world that open source software absorbed their intellectual property, and they were powerless to stop it.
There is also another point, but perhaps it is a bit too esoteric for the business world to grasp -- the business world, where their estimations of a situation general fall into an "is a" or "is bigger than" mode of thought. That point is that the open source model heavily depends on the honesty of its custodians. SCO has shown solid proof that an unethical business does indeed have to power to throw a wrench into the works. That really isn't possible with closed-source developers now, unless there is cross-licensing. For example, Microsoft couldn't taint Sun's Java source code without a hefty dose of corporate espionage, i.e. at great risk. However, with publicly available source, the situation is different. Considering the pace of software development, perhaps this is an unforseen weakness with open source?
You can bet that SCO has taken this to the authorities, especially since it was all so public and there was no way SCO could hide the fact. So, given that ESR has quite likely been contacted by the authorites, why is Darl able to make a claim that ESR is obstructing justice by withholding the name?
I'd like to just put this out there on behalf of the Linux user community: Stop DDoS-ing SCO. It's childish and doesn't help the cause.
Also: What do you mean by "SCO has taken it to the authorities?" What authority? The local police? The W3C? There is no authority for dealing with this matter, which I am sure makes it especially frustrating for anyone who happens to be a target. You pretty much have to connect the dots yourself, then see if the FBI can get involved, (if... if, the FBI has the man-power to dedicate to something this minor.)
No really, take a look at Ammonman's shipping information page. There is listed all the states to which they cannot ship the ammunition. And it isn't.50 BMG specifically, it's everything.
Remember that the BATFE only handles federal law. State and local laws apply as well.:)
There is a federal law requiring that "handgun" ammo only be sold to those 21 and older? When was that law passed? What's "handgun" ammo?
Question: Which of these are "rifle ammo," and which are "handgun ammo?" .357 S&W Mag.::.45-70 Gov't::.223 Rem.::.44 Rem. Mag.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a tad too early for that. All that NASA has done are one-off projects with specially-designed equipment. Even the dual-purpose shuttle is highly specialized. It's just too expensive right now, because the reseach and fabrication cannot be done on a mass scale. There would have to be a mass-market for it in order for prices to become reasonable. I'd think that would be actively discouraged in the interest of national security and also litigation. Also, a good portion of capital that NASA invested in equipment is simply left out in space. Technically, it is discarded. That is a bad fit with private enterprise.
Most big companies currently look about 5 years into the future when considering capital investments. It's not because corporations are evil, immoral, or greedy. It's because no one wants to lose their jobs or the value of their stock. I'd say that with our current level of space-worthy technology, it would be impossible for a private company to set their sites on an extra-terrestrial venture, and at least break even within that 5-year window. For the life of me, I can't think of one thing that is "out there" that cannot be had for much less on our resource-rich world.
Don't use Social Security as an excuse for not managing your finances throughout a roughly 55 year opportunity to do so. I strongly suggest you remove Social Security from your retirement plans as soon as possible.
I'm kind of neutral on this one. I don't want to see Microsoft shafted just for the hell of it, (I'd like to see them shafted for the other crap they did.) I don't think the patent is a junk patent. I can't recall any prior art in existence when the patent was filed. I'm just wondering why they sat on it for almost a decade.
Well, actually I don't wonder. If they had enforced it immediately, software developers would have worked around it, and the patent would have been worthless, since both the University and Eolas aren't producing a product to benefit from the patent. In the grand scheme of things, I guess this just points out how the patent system is really a poor fit for the computer industry, especially when it involves software.
But, what I would like to know: Is this patent going to fix some annoyances with the current implementation of embedded content by forcing s/w developers to change things? For example, my Linux box is perfectly capable of playing both complete files and streams of just about any format on the planet. But, when I go to a site that calls for an embedded Quicktime player, it looks for specific Windows registry hooks, or a program with a specific name, so I can't use my media player, even though there is no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to. Likewise with sites that want Winamp, and only Winamp, when XMMS works just fine.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping Netscape/Mozilla developers with add some feature to ignore this embed tag bullshit if I so desire, and will consult my helper apps list first. Call me naive, or call me an optimist, but one of these days all this litigation is going to have to result in some good for the consumer. Entropy must play into it. Just something good, even if by accident, would be nice.
I exercise caution when I can. I'm a packrat by nature, but anything with important information about myself, or even about my employer is shredded. I have two shredders; one for speed and a nice cross-cut model. :)
Part of the problem is the government's willingness to give out the information. It's outrageous that this information would be given to political hopefuls. What is wrong with a cheap bulk mailing? What is wrong with a voluntary list, where you can sign up with your party (sans SSN) to receive flyers?
The other part of the problem is agencies, both public and private, that insist on having an SSN when they don't need it. Starting very recently, some government agencies are collecting SSNs of people who wouldn't even know better to question it, (I know about it from the "inside.") And the retention of the information is a problem too. Not so much with the SSN, but credit card numbers. I don't understand why banks still have a single account number of checking account status, making deposits and making withdrawals. Also, credit applications take the SSN at face value, even though it's easily memorized and duplicated. How come they never bother to call or investigate the applicant to verify?
About post and parcel services: The Amazon.com purchase wasn't really the focal point of the article, it was the credit report. And yes, there is a difference between regular postal parcel and UPS/FedEx. You can request than an adult signature be required. They can't leave it without a signature. Unforunately, it could be anyone's signature.
His local post office is treating the case in an appalling manner. His mailbox is federal property. It is a pretty serious crime to remove items from it, regardless of whether the recipient is on leave. Something's wrong with that picture.
About having a PO box: This doesn't prevent gathering this information by dumpster diving, or simply getting a copy of the CD-ROM.
Read the rest of the threads, you find examples there, as well as some good recommendations. When someone asks "what is a good OSS database clustering solution," and you feel compelled to answer, "MS SQL," don't bother answering.
That was my purpose for posting the original flame.
Your livelihood depends on MS and Oracle products. Wow, you're an unbiased source for information. For an empirical study of a successful OSS solution, learn something about the site on which you are posting.
Why are you posting this drivel here anyway? The original thread asks what open source clustering solutions are to be had. You just posted what amounts to a Microsoft advertisement.
Will this make it faster and easier for AT&T to transfer mobile phone numbers from other carriers? (Are they even going to cave on this one?)
Will this make long-distance call costs lower?
Will this enable small- to medium-sized organizations to get package deals for long-distance like the big dogs get?
Will this trickle down to the remaining teenaged Bells, so I can get a new phone line set up immediately, or get a new circuit activated within a normal 8-hour business day?
Will this have any effect whatsoever on the outrageous cost of bandwidth?
...Logitec honors its 500 millionth RMA on a mouse product.
Oddly enough, the MS mouse is the one reliable MS product I've owned.
Wow, did you read your own link? All it states is that foreign creditors may want to cash in and get tangible assets if the value of the dollar drops... And American exports are more attractive when their prices fall. Plus it shows the debt at 5% of the GDP. It hasn't jumped appreciably, (it wasn't 0.05% five years ago, for example.) We have a long way to go before your economic holocaust occurs. We are still an attractive buyer to sellers abroad. What other country buys so much worthless shit every year? It wouldn't be incredibly bright of a creditor to suddenly cash in his chips and lose the buying power of the most deep-pocketed nation in the world, (or more likely find additional tariffs on his goods.) It's not as if we're defaulting on debts, we're just paying them late.
There are other angles to this too. Taxing the living shit out of your citizens isn't the best way to help business either. And some of that tax money goes in the form of aid (indirectly) to those countries, so that futher complicates the situation.
But, one thing that I find alarming is that we can't get over the hump of early-20th century manufacturing processes, and we wonder why foreign competitors walk all over us. It's not just that American-made products are expensive. I could deal with that. They're also mostly poorly made. Like many areas of the country, we've got a lot of small to medium-sized manufacturing business churning out parts on 30+ year-old equipment, using 70+ year-old methods. About the only improvement in cost-savings has been the hiring of gullible immigrants to do minimum-wage labor. The factories that are modernized mainly use foreign-built automation equipment that has to be maintained by foreign technicians.
I'm not surprised at all. I've always maintained that the OS installation's security is dependent on its administrator. Obviously Linux doesn't magically impart motivation or know-how on administrators. Neither does Windows. It's going to get worse for a while, as tech workers are asked to do more so that their employers don't have to take on new hires in this shaky economy. There will be less time to audit internally, and less people to do it.
By the way, how does one audit another private company's security record? Witness testimony? Crackers' boasting? Or did this firm actually send an expert out to look over every potential security issue the moment it happened? How did they know? Did the client know this information was being collected for a report?
Not so! Windows 2003 server costs how much up front? Windows XP Pro clients cost how much? How much do per-seat CALs cost? It most certainly isn't "free." No wonder it is so easy for your government to hide the cost of "free" services in your tax bill.
About the only thing this is illustrating is that the performance problems with D3D are pretty severe now. DX couldn't correctly render fog or water in the original Half-Done(tm) engine, and going to OpenGL drivers would not only boost the frame rate by as much as 66%, but would also correctly render those effects.
Also, RTFA, Nvidia is a little shy about "optimized" drivers for benchmarking certain applications. They specifically requested that the optimized drivers not be used. No indication that ATI did the same.
I doubt there will be a Linux version of HL2 either, because this new 3D engine appears to only support DirectX.
That's a shame, because the world didn't end with the America's Army developers ported AA:O to Linux. As a matter of fact, it runs quite well, and it didn't take them 5 years to produce nothing but vaporware.
Rome wasn't torn down every day, either.
(See: Antitrust suits, Microsoft.)
Blaming the alternatives' lack of success on the inability to compete, when Microsoft prevents future competitors, is, well... It's kind of like watching Nelson Muntz bullying some poor dweeb: "Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
I can understand the "good faith" approach here in our country, but the nature of Internet-connected networks is that you may be dealing with people who aren't even on your native soil, or people that have absolutely no qualms about seriously messing-up your network, or even people who lack the maturity to exercise some restraint. This can be due to either malicious intent, different social customs, or the fact that the person on the other end is a latchkey kid bereft of character and ethics. It's a different ballgame, and social expectation is no excuse for poor security practice!
It isn't the analog of a bank. People that frequent a bank are mostly locals, and if they are not local, they are at least fellow citizens, and they programmed from birth to follow our puritanical social customs. In addition, there is a pretty good chance that they are mature adults who have managed to budget and save some money.
Imagine if you will this fictional example: A bank from a western culture opens up a bank in the country of Ugrabit. In this culture, it is perfectly legal to run up and grab things of value out of the hands of the unsuspecting, and perfectly legal for the potential victim to bludgeon the perpetrator with a yak's femur. Western visitors are shocked and appalled when local residents run and grab the cash out of their hands as they stand in front of the teller. Westernized bank employees also refuse to beat the perpetrators senseless as it goes against their beliefs. Is it the fault of the locals? No! The bank didn't understand the potential hazards before placing themselves in harm's way.
... the PA AG turns over a list of those ping zombies that are hitting Philly.com. I'm sure they're part of the same cadre of machines that script kiddies use on other sites.
A more useful move by the ISPs (the FBI should do their own job) would be to suspend service for those locations that are host to ping zombies.
Agreed! Speaking in strictly constitutional terms, the US government was not granted the power to catalogue a citizen's preference in books, movies, or correspondence. It's not an arguable point, that power isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So, "the pursuit of happiness" need not even enter into the discussion. The Constitution definitely doesn't grant that power to the federal government. There is no argument in the matter.
I've even heard El Rushbo say, "you don't have a right to privacy." Even Rush doesn't completely understand how the Constitution works. Of course you have the right. Your rights originate from the fact that you were born here, they are not granted by your government. Rights originate from government in dictatorships and strict socialist regimes. That's not how our government works! It is assumed that you are granted the right unless the Constitution specifically mentions a government power to curtail it. The lengthy process for admending the Constitution is purposely designed so that granting the federal government some ungodly power like Total Information Awareness is almost impossible -- but only if the people give a hoot.
How ridiculous is the alternative? To have a Constitution that mentions any possible combination of actions, "just in case?" We'd have an even more unwieldly set of laws. That all powers not mentioned are automatically granted the federal government? No! That would be outrageous!
I'm just your typical dumb, redneck, Rebuplican, gun-toting hick, and even I can understand this principal. Why don't my fellow countrymen understand or even care?
Help me out here! Is there a decoder ring or something I need to see the Constitution as Congress sees it? Is my understanding of the Constitution flawed?
So I've seen the argument that the shuttle wasn't specialized. I'm not seeing where the small-capsule-on-huge-rocket approach is going to improve things, other than NASA's budget. I'm trying to imagine an Apollo-style capsule shoring up to an artificial satellite, grasping it, and a crew doing repairs. I'm not seeing it happen.
Definitely a step backwards. Multiple, specialized capsules are going to be as expensive as the shuttle, because multiple capsules are going to require multiple launch vehicles. My opinion is that it is a cost-saving measure, and there are things that NASA just isn't going to do anymore.
I think someone is trying to prove a point here. I don't think the issue is that there is actually copyrighted code in the kernel, but that there was, if only briefly, and that the development process of the kernel doesn't have suitable checks for this. I'm trying to figure out why SCO would want to go down in flames for this. McBride is metaphorically driving a car-bomb into GNU city; SCO isn't going to make it out alive on this one, and he knows full well that this is the case. I'd like to know what kind of personal gain he's getting out of this. I highly doubt his stock portfolio is going to be his reward, since SCO/Caldera stock is nowhere near its peak, (and he isn't likely to have purchased stock as it plummeted.)
It seems stupid to place the copyrighted code there, then claim the copyrighted code was present. Of course there isn't written permission, they didn't grant it. What is wrong with this picture? I can't think of a better way to illustrate this than if the RIAA unloaded dozens of copyrighted music onto Kazaa, then filed suit against the perpetrator. Wouldn't it be... the RIAA? It's an outlandishly bad business decision, and no company officer in his right mind would make that decision. No stock-holder in his right mind would support it. If the code was placed without permission, wouldn't SCO fire the employee that did so? Wouldn't we have heard from that individual by now? If the employee parted on bad terms, wouldn't SCO try to get the courts to gag him? I'm not seeing any evidence of the sort. Odd, no?
The other piece of the puzzle that doesn't make sense is the license fee "extortion" scheme. SCO has received a mere pittance from this. It has been a more effective tool for getting attention that for bringing in income. Come on, look at what it has netted them. That would scarcely cover their attorney's fees. It is either a distraction, or a way to get the attention of the business press.
Chances are that there are precious few lines of code in the kernel, (or other GPL software) that could be proven in a court of law to be property of whomever it is that actually owns the Unix code. It's obvious at this point that SCO is not seeking damages for this, or they would have already named specific parties and brought it before a judge. Hastiness would be desirable considering the rate at which SCO is burning up funds without a reliable stream of revenue to fill up their coffers.
Some party is trying to spring a trap for GNU software, or perhaps open source software in general. If SCO wins in the courts (unlikely since they haven't even taken legal action -- involving the courts -- against specific parties) then open source development model shows that it cannot prevent tainted code from being included. If SCO loses, I'm presuming they'll have a case with which to show the business world that open source software absorbed their intellectual property, and they were powerless to stop it.
There is also another point, but perhaps it is a bit too esoteric for the business world to grasp -- the business world, where their estimations of a situation general fall into an "is a" or "is bigger than" mode of thought. That point is that the open source model heavily depends on the honesty of its custodians. SCO has shown solid proof that an unethical business does indeed have to power to throw a wrench into the works. That really isn't possible with closed-source developers now, unless there is cross-licensing. For example, Microsoft couldn't taint Sun's Java source code without a hefty dose of corporate espionage, i.e. at great risk. However, with publicly available source, the situation is different. Considering the pace of software development, perhaps this is an unforseen weakness with open source?
I'd like to just put this out there on behalf of the Linux user community: Stop DDoS-ing SCO. It's childish and doesn't help the cause.
Also: What do you mean by "SCO has taken it to the authorities?" What authority? The local police? The W3C? There is no authority for dealing with this matter, which I am sure makes it especially frustrating for anyone who happens to be a target. You pretty much have to connect the dots yourself, then see if the FBI can get involved, (if... if, the FBI has the man-power to dedicate to something this minor.)
No really, take a look at Ammonman's shipping information page. There is listed all the states to which they cannot ship the ammunition. And it isn't .50 BMG specifically, it's everything.
:)
.357 S&W Mag. :: .45-70 Gov't :: .223 Rem. :: .44 Rem. Mag.
Remember that the BATFE only handles federal law. State and local laws apply as well.
There is a federal law requiring that "handgun" ammo only be sold to those 21 and older? When was that law passed? What's "handgun" ammo?
Question: Which of these are "rifle ammo," and which are "handgun ammo?"
(hint: it's a trick question)
There's plenty of room in mine, so no, it wouldn't be anything special.