But most distributions provide the software in a pre-compiled, and often pre-configured, form.
SuSE 6.2, for instance, included a noncommercial personal-use license for StarOffice if memory serves; now they can have fewer restrictions on it.
Compilers, et al -- check the box, select the package, and often there's no setup time afterwards.
Support's the dodgier issue -- how's Linuxcare doing, or their ilk? ISTR also that RHAT has some higher-end expensive distros... hopefully they provide something a bit more than basic 30-day installation support for those.
You're not THAT outrageously far off, probably. I doubt it'll happen, but on a smaller scale --
ISTR that the People's Liberation Army, and a number of others around the globe, sometimes cater to military/thrill tourists by letting them try out shoulder-fired rockets, drive a tank for a while, and so forth.
If they've really been forced to divest themselves of their numerous other business interests (hotel chains, et al) then maybe they're amenable to other sources of funding.;-)
Hmmm. They're dealing with the IMF or World Bank folks regarding the Three Gorges Dam project already, right? Hm.
I was under the impression that they did not have that many nuclear devices, but probably the estimates I've seen only counted "strategic"-scale warheads those suitable for ICBM delivery, not suitcase nukes.
The Yugoslav people are remarkably well-armed compared to most other societies. It's notable that many of the worst scenes of armed repression have been against UNARMED people; the fact that both sides were armed may well have AVOIDED mass bloodshed due to the ambiguity of the outcome at the personal level (namely, soldiers/police knowing they CANNOT attack with impunity...).
They do not NEED a "backdoor" to do this. Their judicial system is not transparent, free of corruption, or in any significant way independent of the Party...
With a single, less easily duplicated device for authentication -- one that could potentially be used for MANY systems and services -- the overall enforcement costs could be reduced. They refer to the current ID card system as being prone to forgery...
But if you can tie access to a single card, and develop a cheap, reliable man-portable card reader (which presumably already exists...) detecting a probable fake should be much faster/more reliable than eyeballing documents. And figure fewer documents to handle as well...
You can donate unlimited (IIRC) "soft money" to the Libertarians, if they'll accept it; they cannot use it for advertising that says "vote for Harry Browne" or "vote for this particular Libertarian", but there's a LOT they can do with it. Or, if memory serves, set up a PAC; ISTR that PACs have a somewhat higher limit on 'hard' money donations to a candidate than an individual. But check the FEC site before you do.
You're not one of those Bush-is-going-to-take-away-abortion-rights fanatics, are you?
He's not. He'd like to send the issue back to the states, where Constitutionally it belongs. A private homicide, justified or not, is still a homicide, and if a state wishes to exclude it from prosecution under the doctrine of self-defense (that is, justifiable homicide in this case, since it's a fatal procedure...) that's the state's business.
A lot of public schools, frankly, bite. I'm sure your workplace is really a representative sample... unless your HR people are seriously insane.
Now, I did attend one. It performed well -- but the demographics were a bit intriguing. In particular, the community as a whole was pretty upper-middle class, and fairly homogeneous at that.
For pretty much all the years that I competed in high-school-ish academic events, my school and a *very* few others were predictably, practically without fail, trouncing others in the metro area. Not all schools perform well. The same happened at the state level in most events -- certain schools would dominate year after year.
There's a pretty big difference between a school like, IIRC, Stuyvesant (which I've heard is public, albeit a magnet school of sorts) and its ilk, and the various schools that get thrashed by the former group.
For another sample, I once spent a summer at a research-intensive program (it's intensive enough that, for instance, helping interested members to win the Westinghouse, er, Intel talent search competition is an explicit priority. They usually claim multiple spots out of the top ten.) Of those that were from the US (roughly, hm, 75% if memory serves -- the others ranged from Singapore to Jordan and elsewhere), the vast majority were from private schools. That's pretty suggestive.
Among the best-performing schools in the country, if memory serves, are actually the pariochial schools... but we can't have parents directing their money in THAT direction, can we? Heh.
Careful. Thanks to Federal harrassment laws, certain classes of people shouldn't be offended...
It is, if memory serves, still OK to make rude generalizations about, oh, people wearing flannel shirts; short people; tall people; conservatives; liberals; those making above $100k/year; and so forth. But, apparently, speech on that might possibly appear critical on the basis of gender or race (and, perhaps soon if not already, sexual orientation) is a haul-yer-rear-into-court offense...
(Grrrrrrrr. This is NOT what the 14th would seem to be about. Bother.)
I'm sure Gore is fully capable of hiring a lawyer if he believes libel was committed. The material may be slanted, but direct claims about what he has said can be tested in a court of law should he desire.
I certainly was watching the debate live when Gore repeatedly claimed, in all seriousness, that a very specific child in a very specific district was going without a desk -- and doing his best to imply that it was due to Jeb Bush denying schools vital funds.
Apparently he wasn't counting on a reporter actually doing the research and finding out that the reason the desk wasn't there -- for a day -- was that there was a shortage of space while they were moving in $100,000 worth of new lab equipment.
It's very reminiscent of how Clinton eulogized a police officer at a rally, and tearfully used the opportunity to call for a ban on "cop killer" bullets. Again, very specific details useful for reporters...
The cause of death? A traffic accident. No bullets or firearms involved, period.
It already did. 1876 -- The Republican ticket of Hayes and Wheeler got 4,034,311 popular votes and 185 EC votes; the Democratic ticket of Tilden and Hendricks got 4,288,546 popular votes -- barely more -- but only 184 EC votes.
Ditto in 1888, Harrison and Morton vs Cleveland and Thurman (again, Republicans with fewer popular votes but more ECs -- 47.82%/233 vs 48.62%/168).
One also gets wildly disproportionate counts -- like Landon and Knox in '36 losing with 36.54% popular, but only 8 EC votes out of 531... and Mondale got 40.56% popular but only 13 out of 538. Ouch.
of course. Grrrr. My thinking on that restriction was that, for instance, if you want to work for the CIA, it seems reasonable to make as a condition of employment not spilling classified secrets like crazy, not to hang out at the Cuban/PRC/etc Embassy every weeknight, and so forth.
Here's a Washington Post article on the topic, dated 14-Dec-1998.
In the 1950s, it was Communism; now, political speech may be more tolerated, but if you look at the second half of the article, certain other types of speech would not be protected...
I was under the impression that even the Defense of Marriage Act may be unconstitutional.
It's arguable that Article IV, Section 1 applies.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The normal interpretation includes the idea that if you're married in one state, ALL states have to recognize this. Congress may specify a central registry or other sharing/publication methods, they still have to be recognized... It strikes me as odd that the DoMA would be considered compatible with this -- as a law and not an amendment, it cannot override it.
Even if the amendment specified that local "community standards" were to apply, it should still be objectionable.
Why, after all, is this a Federal matter? It's not even completely an interstate issue; it seems likely that there are probably sites that at least some folks would find objectionable in most or all of the fifty states, plus territories.
It's not an issue in which Federal coordination of state activity seems appropriate; what one district chooses to filter, or in fact whether it chooses to do so at all, should have little bearing on the decisions of adjacent districts -- unless they choose to share lists of blocked sites, or their filtering techniques. But states may share such information and methods without there being a Federal database for doing so.
At least to me, filtering decisions would seem to be a power nominally reserved to the states. The only way they can do this is the method they have chosen -- extortion via threatening the withdrawal of Federal funds. Perhaps there should be an Constitutional amendment specifically stating that funding to associations, governments, individuals or any other domestic, intrastate entities that are part of the Federal government (directly or indirectly) may not be tied to Federally-imposed conditions that result in the foreiture of rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution in its effective form...
First, its a bacterium, not a virus. The differences are a fairly significant -- a bacterium is more clearly "alive", it reproduces on its own via mitosis (rather than hijacking the machinery of a host cell), and is significantly less robust (for instance, may be vulnerable to antibiotics).
If memory serves (it's been several years since I last looked at this subject...)
When a foreign object enters the system, it may be encountered by a macrophage. Your own cells normally are recognizable to the macrophage via some sort of identifying 'self' protein upon its outer structure, and can pass unmolested barring the occurence of certain auto-immune disorders. A foreign particle, however, may be consumed by the macrophage in its role as a system janitor of sorts.
Macrophages can, essentially, present a protein suitable for identifying that foreign object -- if any are found, such as those on the cell wall of a bacterium -- to one type of T-cell, which coordinates an immune response. This may involve the replication of B-cells, which in turn produce antibodies specific to that foreign protein. Chemicals such as interleukins come into play here, if memory serves -- regulating replication and production. A second type of T-cell will target that foreign object as well during this phase.
After the episode, you retain a number of the apppropriate T- and B-cells, so that the next time that exact protein is encountered, the overall immune response can happen much more quickly.
HIV takes one approach to defeating the system -- it has basically evolved to conceal itself from, and (if memory serves) within the T-cells itself, thus circumventing the defense system. In addition, certain viruses and bacteria have high replication/mutation rates, which increases the probability that a specimen will change significantly to the point that to the immune system, it appears to be a new strain and new T- and B-cells have to be propagated...
Immunity is never permanently off. One has to have a virulent strain -- perhaps many virulent strains -- simultaneously introduced in masse to circumvent the system completely.
He has been talking with ISPs regarding rating content, if memory serves, and trying to work with them to provide parental controls.
I'd guess that he claims to be working towards an agreement by which parents can have their ISPs basically provide filterware -- that is, parents activate controls and then access to a covered page is blocked.
The 95% rate would appear to be an admission that the system is not, and never will be perfect; even if all you want to censor is, say, hard-core porn video involving more than four participants, I'd guess that more pop up or move VERY frequently.
(Blocking the pay sites might be somewhat feasible, actually, depending upon how they solicit credit cards... if there are a few CYA credit card "age checks"/scams that AREN'T used by non-porn sites, it might be a reasonable red flag.)
I could see a prankster setting the default home page on a public terminal to something like the oft-mentioned goatse.cx, clicking 'load home page at start', and then exiting the browser...
They might also have in mind erotic text/sound (if headphones are connected), both of which might arguably be harder for a passerby to notice than full-screen bestiality streaming video.
I'm sure the surviving author of the "The Bell Curve" would welcome your refutation of his statistical analysis or of the data that he gathered from impartial, trusted testing organizations on behalf of himself and his late co-author. If you're curious, there is a LOT of data in the back of the book, as well as a huge amount of detail regarding his exact analytical methods. Feel free to refute the math.
One worry that comes to mind -- that decides the proportion of seats, but who decides who fills them? The party leaders?
The reason that bothers me is that the leaders of a party are often more homogenous in ideas, and often much more ideological in general, than the rank-and-file. Sometimes even elected officials get snubbed... the late Gov. Casey, if memory serves, was snubbed at Democratic Party events, most likely for being anti-abortion. The Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, a Rep. Klink, is also quite conservative on certain issues -- notably gun control (we're an NRA stronghold, if memory serves), and in such a system I'd worry that folks like him would get shafted by his part -- that this would be used to suppress party dissidents. If the Democrats weren't hopeful of controlling the Senate (those hopes having dimmed rather sharply due to the death of the Gov. of Missouri), and this weren't a convenient stop to boost Gore as well (we still have a decent number of electoral votes), I'd wonder if even partial dissidents like Klink would get ANY support from the national party.
Slashdot Mirror
But most distributions provide the software in a pre-compiled, and often pre-configured, form.
SuSE 6.2, for instance, included a noncommercial personal-use license for StarOffice if memory serves; now they can have fewer restrictions on it.
Compilers, et al -- check the box, select the package, and often there's no setup time afterwards.
Support's the dodgier issue -- how's Linuxcare doing, or their ilk? ISTR also that RHAT has some higher-end expensive distros... hopefully they provide something a bit more than basic 30-day installation support for those.
You're not THAT outrageously far off, probably. I doubt it'll happen, but on a smaller scale --
;-)
ISTR that the People's Liberation Army, and a number of others around the globe, sometimes cater to military/thrill tourists by letting them try out shoulder-fired rockets, drive a tank for a while, and so forth.
If they've really been forced to divest themselves of their numerous other business interests (hotel chains, et al) then maybe they're amenable to other sources of funding.
Hmmm. They're dealing with the IMF or World Bank folks regarding the Three Gorges Dam project already, right? Hm.
I was under the impression that they did not have that many nuclear devices, but probably the estimates I've seen only counted "strategic"-scale warheads those suitable for ICBM delivery, not suitcase nukes.
The Yugoslav people are remarkably well-armed compared to most other societies. It's notable that many of the worst scenes of armed repression have been against UNARMED people; the fact that both sides were armed may well have AVOIDED mass bloodshed due to the ambiguity of the outcome at the personal level (namely, soldiers/police knowing they CANNOT attack with impunity...).
Ummm, they're totalitarian.
They do not NEED a "backdoor" to do this. Their judicial system is not transparent, free of corruption, or in any significant way independent of the Party...
Cost, in the long run?
With a single, less easily duplicated device for authentication -- one that could potentially be used for MANY systems and services -- the overall enforcement costs could be reduced. They refer to the current ID card system as being prone to forgery...
But if you can tie access to a single card, and develop a cheap, reliable man-portable card reader (which presumably already exists...) detecting a probable fake should be much faster/more reliable than eyeballing documents. And figure fewer documents to handle as well...
That's one possible adminstrative POV, at least.
You can donate unlimited (IIRC) "soft money" to the Libertarians, if they'll accept it; they cannot use it for advertising that says "vote for Harry Browne" or "vote for this particular Libertarian", but there's a LOT they can do with it. Or, if memory serves, set up a PAC; ISTR that PACs have a somewhat higher limit on 'hard' money donations to a candidate than an individual. But check the FEC site before you do.
*sigh*
You're not one of those Bush-is-going-to-take-away-abortion-rights fanatics, are you?
He's not. He'd like to send the issue back to the states, where Constitutionally it belongs. A private homicide, justified or not, is still a homicide, and if a state wishes to exclude it from prosecution under the doctrine of self-defense (that is, justifiable homicide in this case, since it's a fatal procedure...) that's the state's business.
A lot of public schools, frankly, bite. I'm sure your workplace is really a representative sample... unless your HR people are seriously insane.
Now, I did attend one. It performed well -- but the demographics were a bit intriguing. In particular, the community as a whole was pretty upper-middle class, and fairly homogeneous at that.
For pretty much all the years that I competed in high-school-ish academic events, my school and a *very* few others were predictably, practically without fail, trouncing others in the metro area. Not all schools perform well. The same happened at the state level in most events -- certain schools would dominate year after year.
There's a pretty big difference between a school like, IIRC, Stuyvesant (which I've heard is public, albeit a magnet school of sorts) and its ilk, and the various schools that get thrashed by the former group.
For another sample, I once spent a summer at a research-intensive program (it's intensive enough that, for instance, helping interested members to win the Westinghouse, er, Intel talent search competition is an explicit priority. They usually claim multiple spots out of the top ten.) Of those that were from the US (roughly, hm, 75% if memory serves -- the others ranged from Singapore to Jordan and elsewhere), the vast majority were from private schools. That's pretty suggestive.
Among the best-performing schools in the country, if memory serves, are actually the pariochial schools... but we can't have parents directing their money in THAT direction, can we? Heh.
Interesting. More power to him, then.
;-)
15% poll support probably should have been something like 5%, as well. The more verbal mayhem on stage, the more interesting.
Careful. Thanks to Federal harrassment laws, certain classes of people shouldn't be offended...
It is, if memory serves, still OK to make rude generalizations about, oh, people wearing flannel shirts; short people; tall people; conservatives; liberals; those making above $100k/year; and so forth. But, apparently, speech on that might possibly appear critical on the basis of gender or race (and, perhaps soon if not already, sexual orientation) is a haul-yer-rear-into-court offense...
(Grrrrrrrr. This is NOT what the 14th would seem to be about. Bother.)
I'm sure Gore is fully capable of hiring a lawyer if he believes libel was committed. The material may be slanted, but direct claims about what he has said can be tested in a court of law should he desire.
I certainly was watching the debate live when Gore repeatedly claimed, in all seriousness, that a very specific child in a very specific district was going without a desk -- and doing his best to imply that it was due to Jeb Bush denying schools vital funds.
Apparently he wasn't counting on a reporter actually doing the research and finding out that the reason the desk wasn't there -- for a day -- was that there was a shortage of space while they were moving in $100,000 worth of new lab equipment.
It's very reminiscent of how Clinton eulogized a police officer at a rally, and tearfully used the opportunity to call for a ban on "cop killer" bullets. Again, very specific details useful for reporters...
The cause of death? A traffic accident. No bullets or firearms involved, period.
That's chutzpah in the name of demagoguery.
IIRC, the tickets weren't originally his. Were they transferrable?
It already did. 1876 -- The Republican ticket of Hayes and Wheeler got 4,034,311 popular votes and 185 EC votes; the Democratic ticket of Tilden and Hendricks got 4,288,546 popular votes -- barely more -- but only 184 EC votes.
Ditto in 1888, Harrison and Morton vs Cleveland and Thurman (again, Republicans with fewer popular votes but more ECs -- 47.82%/233 vs 48.62%/168).
One also gets wildly disproportionate counts -- like Landon and Knox in '36 losing with 36.54% popular, but only 8 EC votes out of 531... and Mondale got 40.56% popular but only 13 out of 538. Ouch.
s/part/not part/
of course. Grrrr. My thinking on that restriction was that, for instance, if you want to work for the CIA, it seems reasonable to make as a condition of employment not spilling classified secrets like crazy, not to hang out at the Cuban/PRC/etc Embassy every weeknight, and so forth.
Here's a Washington Post article on the topic, dated 14-Dec-1998.
In the 1950s, it was Communism; now, political speech may be more tolerated, but if you look at the second half of the article, certain other types of speech would not be protected...
I was under the impression that even the Defense of Marriage Act may be unconstitutional.
It's arguable that Article IV, Section 1 applies.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
The normal interpretation includes the idea that if you're married in one state, ALL states have to recognize this. Congress may specify a central registry or other sharing/publication methods, they still have to be recognized... It strikes me as odd that the DoMA would be considered compatible with this -- as a law and not an amendment, it cannot override it.
Even if the amendment specified that local "community standards" were to apply, it should still be objectionable.
Why, after all, is this a Federal matter? It's not even completely an interstate issue; it seems likely that there are probably sites that at least some folks would find objectionable in most or all of the fifty states, plus territories.
It's not an issue in which Federal coordination of state activity seems appropriate; what one district chooses to filter, or in fact whether it chooses to do so at all, should have little bearing on the decisions of adjacent districts -- unless they choose to share lists of blocked sites, or their filtering techniques. But states may share such information and methods without there being a Federal database for doing so.
At least to me, filtering decisions would seem to be a power nominally reserved to the states. The only way they can do this is the method they have chosen -- extortion via threatening the withdrawal of Federal funds. Perhaps there should be an Constitutional amendment specifically stating that funding to associations, governments, individuals or any other domestic, intrastate entities that are part of the Federal government (directly or indirectly) may not be tied to Federally-imposed conditions that result in the foreiture of rights otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution in its effective form...
First, its a bacterium, not a virus. The differences are a fairly significant -- a bacterium is more clearly "alive", it reproduces on its own via mitosis (rather than hijacking the machinery of a host cell), and is significantly less robust (for instance, may be vulnerable to antibiotics).
If memory serves (it's been several years since I last looked at this subject...)
When a foreign object enters the system, it may be encountered by a macrophage. Your own cells normally are recognizable to the macrophage via some sort of identifying 'self' protein upon its outer structure, and can pass unmolested barring the occurence of certain auto-immune disorders. A foreign particle, however, may be consumed by the macrophage in its role as a system janitor of sorts.
Macrophages can, essentially, present a protein suitable for identifying that foreign object -- if any are found, such as those on the cell wall of a bacterium -- to one type of T-cell, which coordinates an immune response. This may involve the replication of B-cells, which in turn produce antibodies specific to that foreign protein. Chemicals such as interleukins come into play here, if memory serves -- regulating replication and production. A second type of T-cell will target that foreign object as well during this phase.
After the episode, you retain a number of the apppropriate T- and B-cells, so that the next time that exact protein is encountered, the overall immune response can happen much more quickly.
HIV takes one approach to defeating the system -- it has basically evolved to conceal itself from, and (if memory serves) within the T-cells itself, thus circumventing the defense system. In addition, certain viruses and bacteria have high replication/mutation rates, which increases the probability that a specimen will change significantly to the point that to the immune system, it appears to be a new strain and new T- and B-cells have to be propagated...
Immunity is never permanently off. One has to have a virulent strain -- perhaps many virulent strains -- simultaneously introduced in masse to circumvent the system completely.
Support? Manuals? Media? Or by assuming that the university would have paid full retail? ($350,000 worth of CheapBytes CDs would be a LOT...)
He has been talking with ISPs regarding rating content, if memory serves, and trying to work with them to provide parental controls.
I'd guess that he claims to be working towards an agreement by which parents can have their ISPs basically provide filterware -- that is, parents activate controls and then access to a covered page is blocked.
The 95% rate would appear to be an admission that the system is not, and never will be perfect; even if all you want to censor is, say, hard-core porn video involving more than four participants, I'd guess that more pop up or move VERY frequently.
(Blocking the pay sites might be somewhat feasible, actually, depending upon how they solicit credit cards... if there are a few CYA credit card "age checks"/scams that AREN'T used by non-porn sites, it might be a reasonable red flag.)
I could see a prankster setting the default home page on a public terminal to something like the oft-mentioned goatse.cx, clicking 'load home page at start', and then exiting the browser...
They might also have in mind erotic text/sound (if headphones are connected), both of which might arguably be harder for a passerby to notice than full-screen bestiality streaming video.
I'm sure the surviving author of the "The Bell Curve" would welcome your refutation of his statistical analysis or of the data that he gathered from impartial, trusted testing organizations on behalf of himself and his late co-author. If you're curious, there is a LOT of data in the back of the book, as well as a huge amount of detail regarding his exact analytical methods. Feel free to refute the math.
One worry that comes to mind -- that decides the proportion of seats, but who decides who fills them? The party leaders?
The reason that bothers me is that the leaders of a party are often more homogenous in ideas, and often much more ideological in general, than the rank-and-file. Sometimes even elected officials get snubbed... the late Gov. Casey, if memory serves, was snubbed at Democratic Party events, most likely for being anti-abortion. The Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania, a Rep. Klink, is also quite conservative on certain issues -- notably gun control (we're an NRA stronghold, if memory serves), and in such a system I'd worry that folks like him would get shafted by his part -- that this would be used to suppress party dissidents. If the Democrats weren't hopeful of controlling the Senate (those hopes having dimmed rather sharply due to the death of the Gov. of Missouri), and this weren't a convenient stop to boost Gore as well (we still have a decent number of electoral votes), I'd wonder if even partial dissidents like Klink would get ANY support from the national party.