The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.
Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.
The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.
Yea it's pretty cool but I think the scale is where the costs come into play. Also, you have to keep in minds some things about estimates -they are often optimistic in order to justify their goals.
At one time, it was estimated that Ethanol would be cheaper then gasoline until the practical reality of it set in and they applied the same taxes to it. Currently, gasoline in the US is almost cheaper then ethanol in raw numbers compared at the pump. This means that when you take into account the differences in fuel efficiencies for most cars, ethanol of now more expensive the gasoline because it takes more to do the same work.
So they are comparing the production cost of biomethane to the actual of diesel to them. This is most likely the pump cost meaning that they might turn around and find themselves in the same troubles as the french fry grease diesel people do when government wasn't their taxes.
The government does something no one wants, acting as if it knows best, then fucks the implementation up in ways few thought about making it worthless for the time being. It's like the drunk who swears he is able to drive, refuses to give up his keys, then gets into an accident before he gets out of the parking spot.
There are several levels of peak energy demands and a base load for an area. The base load is sort of an average over the median usages in the area. This is what is needed from the primary power suppliers. Then as peak usages approach, extra capacity has to be added to the grid. This is often done by natural gass or diesel generators and are more expensive to operate then the coal or Nuclear or other superheated steam plants. There is no capacitor or battery at the other end that sucks up all the unused energy so some goes to waste. Currently, there is what they call a reserve requirement where something like 10% more energy that what is being used needs to be availible for use.
The problem with wind and solar is that it isn't as predictable as the other source which means that equipment needs to be in place to make up the differences. This provides a level of inefficiencies which is a driving point to why energy providers don't want to deal with consumer provided power. With weather forecasts, Solar is somewhat more dependable then wind and now with a wind forecast, Planning and routing of peak energy as well as base loads can be computed in advance and it can mean a much more efficient over all operation.
In my opinion it is educational to look at what people have said in the past, but it is also instructive to look at what they did. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc SAID a lot of things. They also DID a lot of things, and frankly their actions speak louder than their words. Jefferson DID take an expansive interpretation. He DID purchase Louisiana. There are numerous other examples as well.
Well, sort of. You see, second hand quarterbacking can always see the flaws in the logic but it can't see the motivations that led to the flaws unless you consider what they said. For the most part, even when they strayed away from what they were saying, they believed they were being true to it. Also, it's a little unfair to just ramble quotes off because some of them were meant to address specific situations and don't necessarily translate to different one. However, I believe for the most part that we can derive intent from them.
Beyond that it is IMHO a quite limited view of the thinking of that time period to believe that one or a few people's views adequately encompass all the diversity of opinion of that time as to what was intended by the Constitution. It wasn't written or put in force by a few men. The Constitutional Convention was a whole body of people and if you continue to read, even within those sets of documents you or I have mentioned you will find a whole range of things considered and things said.
I'm confident that the conversations over the constitution went between fears of a to powerful government and thoughts that the government was limited. That certainly was the debate surrounding the bill of rights in which the argument against them was that the constitution didn't give the government the powers to encroach on the rights protected by it so they weren't necessary and the thinking that adding the bill of rights would somehow lead to people believing that those were the only rights they had.
That's a big part of the theory that the constitution give the government permission to do limited things. You had founders who thought it would be misinterpreted into making those the only rights the people held when in fact the people were supposed to hold all the rights and the government was only supposed to have a limited role. Also, the arguments for the bill of rights largely support the same sentiment. It states that even though there is a limited government, we want assurances. Of the 12 original amendments to the constitution, only 10 were ratified alongside the ratification of the constitution. The two that weren't were not specific restrictions on the government as a whole (like the original 10 are) but changes to article on. One of those eventually was ratified and became the 27th amendment.
There may have been other views, some were completely against the constitution and wanted the weakness of the confederacy while others wanted to be repatriated with England. The views that I think are most important are the ones then ended up shaping the constitution and rallied enough support for it's passage.
Those things which are NEEDFUL to be done must be done. Pure and simple. Congress may, and does, appropriate money for those needful purposes. There ARE real and practicable limits to the authority of Congress which are substantial and tangible today. I don't agree that Congress is outside of its authority to requisition funds for those needful purposes. Its POWERS, the specific means which it can take to its ends are limited, but not its ability to work to those ends. Even Jefferson obviously saw that.
The way money is appropriated and spent today is a direct consequence of the way the Congress is structured. Unless that is changed there will not be a substantive change in the way it functions. You're perfectly welcome to have a different opinion on that, but if you actually look at what Congress HAS done, historically, throughout the history of the United St
Back in the days of early Java, wasn't the joke about it something like they named it Java because when you downloaded an applet on your blazing fast 14.4 or 28.8 modem, you could go make a cup of coffee, come back and drink it, and you would be ready to go by the time your done.
Do you think the little kid is going to take a felony spot for a $40 bag of weed? Hell no, he is going to rat you out in a heart beat when someone ID's them off the corporate office's parking lot surveillance camera footage.
That doesn't quite work like that. Phone calls from cell phones in certain areas at certain times aren't enough on their own to convict or release anyone. It takes someone talking to the person to verify that they actually had the phone at the time otherwise it's just circumstantial.
In other words, your cell phone being 2 hours away and making a call the night of a crime doesn't mean that you were with it. However, someone claiming they were contacted by you on the cell phone at that time or near it will show that you were with it. Anything else is only in support of some other evidence and doesn't prove anything in and of itself.
Having a passport or credit card or anything with an RFID somewhere else when the crime was committed is not enough to establish that you were with it or away from it. Someone has to support that you were somewhere at the time. With something like credit cards, they ask the store clerk if they remember you, look at store video and anything else they can find. As far as cloning it to implicate someone else goes, they still have to establish that you had the RFID device at the time. And this gets even more complicated when they can find your RFID device in two locations at the same time. Your not going to go down for blowing up a federal building because they got your RFID tag from your passport at some reader when your at the border talking to a customs agent at the same time 2000 miles away.
Furthermore, if everyone has RFID devices, what is going to make the authorities look at your tag over anyone else's? Certainly being in the area isn't a crime, so something would have to connect you to the act or crime. Something would also have to connect you to some other place if you where there too. All it can do is support other evidence that neither in their own right would necessarily prove anything.
See, I have read it. I've read all of this stuff, many times no less. I don't know where you get this idea that there was ever some mythical interpretation of the Constitution that was ever universally held that is what you are advocating. It has NEVER been interpreted that way. Well, certainly there have been people who have claimed to interpret it that way, like say Thomas Jefferson, who as soon as he was elected President immediately went out and made the Louisiana Purchase.
I call bullshit. Or at least a misdirection.
""They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148"
While Jefferson did expand the power for making treaties in the Louisiana purchase, at least he had an actual goal in mind within the purpose of the constitution, to maintain peaceful relations with France which is well within the established bounds of the state as well as within the limits of the constitution and to protect our borders and commerce lanes. You might not agree that the purchase itself was constitutional but the entire intent behind it was. That being said, Jefferson acted on grounds that the authority was granted to by the constitution even if the act didn't meet the strict interpretation. This still falls within the bounds of my interpretations and the interpretation of the founding fathers.
Besides, it doesn't matter how someone acts when it is contrary to their stated positions, the positions still remain and still reflected the intent. What I mean by that is, even if he was wrong, which he felt he wasn't, he never left his interpretation that the constitution prescribes what the government can do and and restricts them in areas of rights the people hold. Just because his act was or could have been unconstitutional, he still thought it was and that it was justified by the constitution.
"For authority to apply the surplus [of taxes] to objects of improvement, an amendment of the Constitution would have been necessary." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:354
"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"If, wherever the Constitution assumes a single power out of many which belong to the same subject, we should consider it as assuming the whole, it would vest the General Government with a mass of powers never contemplated. On the contrary, the assumption of particular powers seems an exclusion of all not assumed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:83
Now that I got some of my more memorable Jefferson quotes out of the way, we should not that he wasn't present in writing the constitution as he was stationed in France at th
Do you have any advice for the other 80-90%? Those are the ones that need it. The top 5-10% probably won't be unemployed long enough to have to start dipping into their savings anyway.
That's what I was thinking.
The story say that someone went to a place where MS is laying off 5000 workers, has 100 resumes that he looking at to fill about a dozen jobs. The first thing I find troubling is that he is only looking at 100 resumes, that's something like 2% of the jobs lost. Only some of them are exMS employees but of those resumes he has around 12 opening. That means.24% of the lost jobs. I guess things are looking up!
Interesting, I always thought it had something to do with pack animals where a few would distract the prey from the front while one or two came in from behind. Dogs are common on this too, a lot of them will byte when your eyes are looking away from them rather when you are at them.
Of course that goes out the windows with trained guard dogs who will attack without fear. Most won't, or should I say tend not to attack straight on unless they see fear though.
The way they need to handle it if it is as you say would be to just buy the software, ship it to them and invoice it against their accounts.
I'm not sure why a single branch is allowed to make their own software decisions anyways. Granted, they are in a different country but if it's the same company and not a contracted company or some partner thing between several companies, then it only makes sense that the company has control over this regardless of what the local management say. It's not like they can refuse to report income or something or steer the branch in the opposite direction the company is aiming for and start selling car parts or anything, likewise, it isn't like they shouldn't be obligated to follow corporate policy.
It seems that his Beijing offices are hell bent on using the MS software anyways as they no doubt already know of OSS products.
That being said, he should probably just nip this in the butt, buy the licenses needed and ship them to the office. It's only 5 systems and corporate can probably transfer the billing or invoice them anyways. Even if they don't, it's the same company so bitching about a branch office not doing something they aren't prepared to do is a little hypocritical.
It's really in the company's best interest this way anyways. Being the same company or operating as the same company (IE branch office), if there is an audit, the parent company can still be liable for their actions. 5 licenses to cover everything needed on the workstations shouldn't be too over costly or they aren't making enough money to use proprietary software in the first place.
I don't think this is about creating lasting Linux users. I think it is more like the Irony of having to resort to fixes like that instead of having the code secure in the first place. The installing linux is where the irony part comes in, it wouldn't be so much as to get Linux users as it would be to show MS the dangers of relying on something like this.
Actually, windows 98 had some half way decent fix tools inside it is you got into a jam. I'm surprised that there wasn't something more appropriate availible for the NT line.
Take regedit for instance, from a command line you could use the/opt switch to remove whitespace and more or less compact the registry resulting in a faster operating system. You could use the/fix switch that repaired file errors and did something with invalid keys that could cause all sorts of issues. You could even use the/restore switch to go to a recent version of the registry. You could also save an active state registry when everything was working fine, store it off the computer, then reload it when necessary. Of course the ERD programs sort of did this automatically but in WinNT systems, you have to do a repair install in order to restore something from it.
Fdisk also had the ability to back up the boot sector and store it on another drive. The chkdsk and fixboot utilities seem to have these functions but fail to restore more then the first partition leaving you sort of stuck doing data recovery instead of just having the second partitions.
There are quite a but more useful tools that came with windows 98. Most of the Fix it tools either automated their uses for most of us who didn't want to learn ever function of every file on the computer. Some of them actually replaced the tools with their own that could be run from recovery disks too. I imagine win doctor was similar to that. Something I generally liked was Fix It Utilities from ontrack/ it seems they are avanquest now (or maybe my memory is losing it). I haven't used them since version 5 or something, they are up to 9 now if that gives you an idea of how long ago we are talking.
Listen, the constitution defined what the government can do, not what it can't do except with specific roles concerned with rights the people hold. By not limiting the government or even speaking about giving money away, the constitution has made it perfectly clear that it is not within the limits of the government.
For over 100 years, that was the norm for the interpretation of the constitution. The prohibition amendment was a constitutional amendment because nothing gave congress the power to forbid the sale of alcohol, they needed an amendment to give that power. Then the newdeal comes around and despite most of it being found unconstitutional with Roosevelt telling the courts "i control the executive so you can't force me to stop" the courts then claimed an exantion of the interstate commerce clause to give latitude to the government that was never there before then. Only after this, did the constitution become a whatever I can get out of it type document. This is when the "Living document" ideology came into play where people think that they can just reinterpret anything to fit the modern times despite the fact that there is a process to amend the document is something outlives it's usefulness.
There are many people who have interpreted the constitution in this way. Nothing being in article one means that nothing give the congress the power to do so. They can't act without power granted by the constitution. That's the difference between out government and England's parliament. You should actually read some of the supporting documents for the constitution and learn the damn history surrounding it and the formation of this country before latching onto the problems that make the government in the shape you claim needs replaced. You should also look at the rational behind many of the interpretation that you seem to think agree with you, they actually point to specific places in the constitution that allows the behavior or law which contradicts what you just said.
Didn't you get the Memo? Nothing supports those legations including the condition of the Prisoner. He wrote the letter of apology in attempts to get out of a sentence and that was just an excise given for being a chicken when it mattered. All of his injuries were acquired during his initial arrest except for the reports of Cigurete burns which isn't apparent if they even exist.
So that's both torture and beating.
No, that is not torture or beating. That could very well be containing the suspect. He resisted arrest and attempted to flee, the law enforcment has an obligation to use anything other then lethal means to capture him where appropriate. That doesn't mean it was torture or beatings. There has been an investigation and it says all of his injuries was suffered when he was attempting to allude capture. Here is the difference between that and torture or beatings, they didn't control him, they didn't know the full level of threat he possessed and he wouldn't follow lawful orders. The cops, in Iraq, the US, Russia, or anywhere are faced with that, they are obligated to use as much force as necessary to subdue the suspect and ensure they no longer pose a threat to anyone. That is a legitimate law enforcement goal where as torture and beatings are done after the suspect is controlled and the threats are known and neutralized.
Do you see the difference there? Striking someone in the face while they are attempting to escape capture is different from striking someone in the face who is hand cuffed and completely controlled by the cops. Tazing someone who is threatening to kill someone right beside him is totally different then tazing someone who is hand cuffed, face down on the ground and just cussing at the cops. Because it is bad in one situation doesn't mean it is bad in the others. Now grow up and quit being an ass. The guy was not beaten outside attempts to capture him.
"Elected" (or "referendum") does not mean "democratic" in all places, least of which is Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was often "elected" with 100% of the vote.
Hamas was also "elected". And also shot all opposition in Gaza.
And that doesn't really mean jack here. There were multiple candidates, multiple news organizations reporting on them and as of now, multiple elections as their own sovereign nation.
What the people of Iraq voted for, in all likelihood, was "It's getting worse, God make it stop, I'll do anything - sacrifice a chicken, donate to the mosque, vote 'yes' to this complex political document which I, who have never read it, am probably not literate enough to understand if I saw it". In that situation, I bet they could have been convinced to vote for anything or anyone.
Actually, no. At least not on a large scale. The constitution originally was a provisional one that they voted in effect while the elected leaders drafted a real constitution. Both of them were published in almost every news paper as well as discussed in depth on news programs and so on. Mosques even held readings on it and held discussions from their POV. They understood it, and while not everyone agreed with it, enough to make it happen did and your probable ignorant of the history surrounding it or you have some malicious intent in claiming they were forced or tricked somehow. The Iraqi people were no more dumber then the Americans when they created their country.
Iraq was terrible under Saddam Hussein, and it's terrible now. Those were not the only two choices, and I'm sick of those who act like they are. The Russian plan sounded better, for example.
Russia wasn't involved in Iraq. They didn't get a say in the matter. The people of Iraq did and it's really that simple. The idea was to set up a democracy so that whatever government formed was because the people wanted it. It had no requirements to remain a democracy nor did it have any requirements to remain friendly with the US. The Current leader of Iraq has more then often spoken out against the US and he played a pivotal role in requiring times lines on the US involvements after the UN mandate expired in 2008.
You can cry that this system would have been better or that system is worse, the bottom line is that the current system has the blessing of the Iraqi people and was built by them as well as they are free to change it at anytime they wish.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, in the future, make you links larger then the number 7.
Your point is sort of too important to miss.
The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.
Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.
The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.
Really? You think all those minor things amount to all that?
I mean seriously, do you think funding abortions now somehow stops the religious right? Do you think that an couple of executive orders.....
Wow.. I think you sense of what was screwed up in this country was blown way out of portion and your just a crazy kid.
Yea it's pretty cool but I think the scale is where the costs come into play. Also, you have to keep in minds some things about estimates -they are often optimistic in order to justify their goals.
At one time, it was estimated that Ethanol would be cheaper then gasoline until the practical reality of it set in and they applied the same taxes to it. Currently, gasoline in the US is almost cheaper then ethanol in raw numbers compared at the pump. This means that when you take into account the differences in fuel efficiencies for most cars, ethanol of now more expensive the gasoline because it takes more to do the same work.
So they are comparing the production cost of biomethane to the actual of diesel to them. This is most likely the pump cost meaning that they might turn around and find themselves in the same troubles as the french fry grease diesel people do when government wasn't their taxes.
Really? Sounds like time to restaff that office then.
Well, if you would pull your smurfing smurf out of your smurf, you would smurf it perfectly fine.
Can't you see the irony here?
The government does something no one wants, acting as if it knows best, then fucks the implementation up in ways few thought about making it worthless for the time being. It's like the drunk who swears he is able to drive, refuses to give up his keys, then gets into an accident before he gets out of the parking spot.
$$$$$$ is why.
It costs more money to harvest it and make it usable. Plus storage and transportation bugs have been worked out of the petroleum industry.
I think this hits the nail on the head.
There are several levels of peak energy demands and a base load for an area. The base load is sort of an average over the median usages in the area. This is what is needed from the primary power suppliers. Then as peak usages approach, extra capacity has to be added to the grid. This is often done by natural gass or diesel generators and are more expensive to operate then the coal or Nuclear or other superheated steam plants. There is no capacitor or battery at the other end that sucks up all the unused energy so some goes to waste. Currently, there is what they call a reserve requirement where something like 10% more energy that what is being used needs to be availible for use.
The problem with wind and solar is that it isn't as predictable as the other source which means that equipment needs to be in place to make up the differences. This provides a level of inefficiencies which is a driving point to why energy providers don't want to deal with consumer provided power. With weather forecasts, Solar is somewhat more dependable then wind and now with a wind forecast, Planning and routing of peak energy as well as base loads can be computed in advance and it can mean a much more efficient over all operation.
Well, sort of. You see, second hand quarterbacking can always see the flaws in the logic but it can't see the motivations that led to the flaws unless you consider what they said. For the most part, even when they strayed away from what they were saying, they believed they were being true to it. Also, it's a little unfair to just ramble quotes off because some of them were meant to address specific situations and don't necessarily translate to different one. However, I believe for the most part that we can derive intent from them.
I'm confident that the conversations over the constitution went between fears of a to powerful government and thoughts that the government was limited. That certainly was the debate surrounding the bill of rights in which the argument against them was that the constitution didn't give the government the powers to encroach on the rights protected by it so they weren't necessary and the thinking that adding the bill of rights would somehow lead to people believing that those were the only rights they had.
That's a big part of the theory that the constitution give the government permission to do limited things. You had founders who thought it would be misinterpreted into making those the only rights the people held when in fact the people were supposed to hold all the rights and the government was only supposed to have a limited role. Also, the arguments for the bill of rights largely support the same sentiment. It states that even though there is a limited government, we want assurances. Of the 12 original amendments to the constitution, only 10 were ratified alongside the ratification of the constitution. The two that weren't were not specific restrictions on the government as a whole (like the original 10 are) but changes to article on. One of those eventually was ratified and became the 27th amendment.
There may have been other views, some were completely against the constitution and wanted the weakness of the confederacy while others wanted to be repatriated with England. The views that I think are most important are the ones then ended up shaping the constitution and rallied enough support for it's passage.
Back in the days of early Java, wasn't the joke about it something like they named it Java because when you downloaded an applet on your blazing fast 14.4 or 28.8 modem, you could go make a cup of coffee, come back and drink it, and you would be ready to go by the time your done.
I think your right, it was to sell more coffee.
Do you think the little kid is going to take a felony spot for a $40 bag of weed? Hell no, he is going to rat you out in a heart beat when someone ID's them off the corporate office's parking lot surveillance camera footage.
That doesn't quite work like that. Phone calls from cell phones in certain areas at certain times aren't enough on their own to convict or release anyone. It takes someone talking to the person to verify that they actually had the phone at the time otherwise it's just circumstantial.
In other words, your cell phone being 2 hours away and making a call the night of a crime doesn't mean that you were with it. However, someone claiming they were contacted by you on the cell phone at that time or near it will show that you were with it. Anything else is only in support of some other evidence and doesn't prove anything in and of itself.
Having a passport or credit card or anything with an RFID somewhere else when the crime was committed is not enough to establish that you were with it or away from it. Someone has to support that you were somewhere at the time. With something like credit cards, they ask the store clerk if they remember you, look at store video and anything else they can find. As far as cloning it to implicate someone else goes, they still have to establish that you had the RFID device at the time. And this gets even more complicated when they can find your RFID device in two locations at the same time. Your not going to go down for blowing up a federal building because they got your RFID tag from your passport at some reader when your at the border talking to a customs agent at the same time 2000 miles away.
Furthermore, if everyone has RFID devices, what is going to make the authorities look at your tag over anyone else's? Certainly being in the area isn't a crime, so something would have to connect you to the act or crime. Something would also have to connect you to some other place if you where there too. All it can do is support other evidence that neither in their own right would necessarily prove anything.
I call bullshit. Or at least a misdirection.
""They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148"
While Jefferson did expand the power for making treaties in the Louisiana purchase, at least he had an actual goal in mind within the purpose of the constitution, to maintain peaceful relations with France which is well within the established bounds of the state as well as within the limits of the constitution and to protect our borders and commerce lanes. You might not agree that the purchase itself was constitutional but the entire intent behind it was. That being said, Jefferson acted on grounds that the authority was granted to by the constitution even if the act didn't meet the strict interpretation. This still falls within the bounds of my interpretations and the interpretation of the founding fathers.
Besides, it doesn't matter how someone acts when it is contrary to their stated positions, the positions still remain and still reflected the intent. What I mean by that is, even if he was wrong, which he felt he wasn't, he never left his interpretation that the constitution prescribes what the government can do and and restricts them in areas of rights the people hold. Just because his act was or could have been unconstitutional, he still thought it was and that it was justified by the constitution.
"For authority to apply the surplus [of taxes] to objects of improvement, an amendment of the Constitution would have been necessary." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:354
"Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133
"If, wherever the Constitution assumes a single power out of many which belong to the same subject, we should consider it as assuming the whole, it would vest the General Government with a mass of powers never contemplated. On the contrary, the assumption of particular powers seems an exclusion of all not assumed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:83
Now that I got some of my more memorable Jefferson quotes out of the way, we should not that he wasn't present in writing the constitution as he was stationed in France at th
That's what I was thinking.
The story say that someone went to a place where MS is laying off 5000 workers, has 100 resumes that he looking at to fill about a dozen jobs. The first thing I find troubling is that he is only looking at 100 resumes, that's something like 2% of the jobs lost. Only some of them are exMS employees but of those resumes he has around 12 opening. That means .24% of the lost jobs. I guess things are looking up!
Who said any of these managers were skilled? A few might but more often then not, they are the same people they are hoping your not.
Interesting, I always thought it had something to do with pack animals where a few would distract the prey from the front while one or two came in from behind. Dogs are common on this too, a lot of them will byte when your eyes are looking away from them rather when you are at them.
Of course that goes out the windows with trained guard dogs who will attack without fear. Most won't, or should I say tend not to attack straight on unless they see fear though.
Anyways, thanks. It's cool to know.
The way they need to handle it if it is as you say would be to just buy the software, ship it to them and invoice it against their accounts.
I'm not sure why a single branch is allowed to make their own software decisions anyways. Granted, they are in a different country but if it's the same company and not a contracted company or some partner thing between several companies, then it only makes sense that the company has control over this regardless of what the local management say. It's not like they can refuse to report income or something or steer the branch in the opposite direction the company is aiming for and start selling car parts or anything, likewise, it isn't like they shouldn't be obligated to follow corporate policy.
It seems that his Beijing offices are hell bent on using the MS software anyways as they no doubt already know of OSS products.
That being said, he should probably just nip this in the butt, buy the licenses needed and ship them to the office. It's only 5 systems and corporate can probably transfer the billing or invoice them anyways. Even if they don't, it's the same company so bitching about a branch office not doing something they aren't prepared to do is a little hypocritical.
It's really in the company's best interest this way anyways. Being the same company or operating as the same company (IE branch office), if there is an audit, the parent company can still be liable for their actions. 5 licenses to cover everything needed on the workstations shouldn't be too over costly or they aren't making enough money to use proprietary software in the first place.
I don't think this is about creating lasting Linux users. I think it is more like the Irony of having to resort to fixes like that instead of having the code secure in the first place. The installing linux is where the irony part comes in, it wouldn't be so much as to get Linux users as it would be to show MS the dangers of relying on something like this.
Actually, windows 98 had some half way decent fix tools inside it is you got into a jam. I'm surprised that there wasn't something more appropriate availible for the NT line.
Take regedit for instance, from a command line you could use the /opt switch to remove whitespace and more or less compact the registry resulting in a faster operating system. You could use the /fix switch that repaired file errors and did something with invalid keys that could cause all sorts of issues. You could even use the /restore switch to go to a recent version of the registry. You could also save an active state registry when everything was working fine, store it off the computer, then reload it when necessary. Of course the ERD programs sort of did this automatically but in WinNT systems, you have to do a repair install in order to restore something from it.
Fdisk also had the ability to back up the boot sector and store it on another drive. The chkdsk and fixboot utilities seem to have these functions but fail to restore more then the first partition leaving you sort of stuck doing data recovery instead of just having the second partitions.
There are quite a but more useful tools that came with windows 98. Most of the Fix it tools either automated their uses for most of us who didn't want to learn ever function of every file on the computer. Some of them actually replaced the tools with their own that could be run from recovery disks too. I imagine win doctor was similar to that. Something I generally liked was Fix It Utilities from ontrack/ it seems they are avanquest now (or maybe my memory is losing it). I haven't used them since version 5 or something, they are up to 9 now if that gives you an idea of how long ago we are talking.
That would make prison sentences even more ridiculous- when they've never been to in the first place.
Listen, the constitution defined what the government can do, not what it can't do except with specific roles concerned with rights the people hold. By not limiting the government or even speaking about giving money away, the constitution has made it perfectly clear that it is not within the limits of the government.
For over 100 years, that was the norm for the interpretation of the constitution. The prohibition amendment was a constitutional amendment because nothing gave congress the power to forbid the sale of alcohol, they needed an amendment to give that power. Then the newdeal comes around and despite most of it being found unconstitutional with Roosevelt telling the courts "i control the executive so you can't force me to stop" the courts then claimed an exantion of the interstate commerce clause to give latitude to the government that was never there before then. Only after this, did the constitution become a whatever I can get out of it type document. This is when the "Living document" ideology came into play where people think that they can just reinterpret anything to fit the modern times despite the fact that there is a process to amend the document is something outlives it's usefulness.
There are many people who have interpreted the constitution in this way. Nothing being in article one means that nothing give the congress the power to do so. They can't act without power granted by the constitution. That's the difference between out government and England's parliament. You should actually read some of the supporting documents for the constitution and learn the damn history surrounding it and the formation of this country before latching onto the problems that make the government in the shape you claim needs replaced. You should also look at the rational behind many of the interpretation that you seem to think agree with you, they actually point to specific places in the constitution that allows the behavior or law which contradicts what you just said.
Fuck dude, just learn some history.
Didn't you get the Memo? Nothing supports those legations including the condition of the Prisoner. He wrote the letter of apology in attempts to get out of a sentence and that was just an excise given for being a chicken when it mattered. All of his injuries were acquired during his initial arrest except for the reports of Cigurete burns which isn't apparent if they even exist.
No, that is not torture or beating. That could very well be containing the suspect. He resisted arrest and attempted to flee, the law enforcment has an obligation to use anything other then lethal means to capture him where appropriate. That doesn't mean it was torture or beatings. There has been an investigation and it says all of his injuries was suffered when he was attempting to allude capture. Here is the difference between that and torture or beatings, they didn't control him, they didn't know the full level of threat he possessed and he wouldn't follow lawful orders. The cops, in Iraq, the US, Russia, or anywhere are faced with that, they are obligated to use as much force as necessary to subdue the suspect and ensure they no longer pose a threat to anyone. That is a legitimate law enforcement goal where as torture and beatings are done after the suspect is controlled and the threats are known and neutralized.
Do you see the difference there? Striking someone in the face while they are attempting to escape capture is different from striking someone in the face who is hand cuffed and completely controlled by the cops. Tazing someone who is threatening to kill someone right beside him is totally different then tazing someone who is hand cuffed, face down on the ground and just cussing at the cops. Because it is bad in one situation doesn't mean it is bad in the others. Now grow up and quit being an ass. The guy was not beaten outside attempts to capture him.
And that doesn't really mean jack here. There were multiple candidates, multiple news organizations reporting on them and as of now, multiple elections as their own sovereign nation.
Actually, no. At least not on a large scale. The constitution originally was a provisional one that they voted in effect while the elected leaders drafted a real constitution. Both of them were published in almost every news paper as well as discussed in depth on news programs and so on. Mosques even held readings on it and held discussions from their POV. They understood it, and while not everyone agreed with it, enough to make it happen did and your probable ignorant of the history surrounding it or you have some malicious intent in claiming they were forced or tricked somehow. The Iraqi people were no more dumber then the Americans when they created their country.
Russia wasn't involved in Iraq. They didn't get a say in the matter. The people of Iraq did and it's really that simple. The idea was to set up a democracy so that whatever government formed was because the people wanted it. It had no requirements to remain a democracy nor did it have any requirements to remain friendly with the US. The Current leader of Iraq has more then often spoken out against the US and he played a pivotal role in requiring times lines on the US involvements after the UN mandate expired in 2008.
You can cry that this system would have been better or that system is worse, the bottom line is that the current system has the blessing of the Iraqi people and was built by them as well as they are free to change it at anytime they wish.