We have a whole slew of laws that sit idle until there is a crisis, emergency, or war. So while technically you're right, in practice you're not because of all the wartime laws which most people ignore as if they didn't exist. One of those pre-existing laws is the US Constitution's commander-in-chief clause which has all sorts of well adjudicated and not so well adjudicated implications. Bush, like every president since FISA was passed, claims inherent authority under the commander-in-chief provision to do the sort of spying that is under discussion here. That makes his claim to power a constitutional one. This changes the problem completely.
Congress can strip statutory authorizations away from the President by majority vote but they can't strip constitutional authorizations without a 2/3rds vote in both houses and ratification by the states. So it's pretty settled that something illegal's going on but it's an open question whether it's the President or Congress that is behaving illegally.
That's not strictly true. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen all have the right to petition Congress. Some are doing so. A petition supporting the war has garnered 3000+ active duty signatories and I believe that they're still collecting more.
Anti-war military have the constitutional right to make a similar appeal which is protected under the UCMJ. They do not seem to have done it.
Actually, deficit spending is pretty normal all across the 1st world and US debt as a proportion of our income is fairly middle of the road. On the bright side, Bush's tax cuts seem to have driven income through the roof and we're now increasing spending at a lower rate, shrinking the deficit. We'll get in the black between 2008 and 2012 absent major changes which is extremely good considering that we're spending a lot more on security than we used to prior to 9/11.
It's not an occupation according to the UN. It's not an occupation according to the Iraqi government.
It's us trying to train up their army and policy, build up their infrastructure and get out as soon as what we've built up becomes self-sustainable. The Iraqi government can meet any day and request that we leave. We would do so as soon as we finished packing.
You keep talking about the Iraqi government being a puppet government. You've got zero evidence for it and certainly haven't presented any. The Iraqi government was voted by the people. They regularly tell us to do things that we don't like (like catch and release BS with terrorists) but our hands our tied because it *is* their country and we are *not* occupiers.
What Saddam did to Kuwait was an unprovoked act of aggression. The US signed on to kick them out and ensure that Saddam didn't do it a third time. We've officially been at war with that regime until we handed sovereignty back over to the Iraqis after Saddam's ouster. Since then, the Iraqi government has requested we hang around and help them stand up their institutions.
The whole UN diplomatic dance was about upping our tempo of bombing and US troop incursions into Iraq from the reactive "norm" during the cease-fire period. We've been firing at and killing Iraqis with little effect for a decade before OIF.
WNight - Yeah, because UN military missions have such a great record of military success and good troop behavior. In case you're just clueless, the UN currently has several open pedophilia scandals (prepubescent kids, not just jail bait mistakes), food for sex scandals, and significant pimping rings operating out of their blue helmet operations. UN military success when the operation isn't backed up by US troops is also less than impressive.
Your idea is so impractical that it's breathtaking.
sgt_doom - Thanks for your service. I can't disagree more with you about Iraq. Irregardless of the justification for removing Saddam's evil regime, the current government of Iraq officially wants us there and the UN has a nice piece of paper authorizing us to help in getting that internationally recognized government on its feet and completely independent.
Unless you want to become a muslim, the other side either wants to ritually humiliate you (if you're a quiet christian/jew) or kill you outright. And the humiliation route is no barrel of laughs.
Maybe you're making a fashion statement with your salespeople (silly but it can actually make a difference in sales) or maybe you're tired of the CAL nonsense and you've maintained enough platform neutrality that the new unit you're setting up can work fine as a pure Mac OS X unit. There's a bunch of reasons why an executive might want to switch over. My company's CEO asks me every 6 months whether we could switch over to Mac. I keep answering that it's not quite time but the objections are down to two things, Visio and Project, both of which are necessary because we keep getting clients who insist that we receive, modify, and generate in these file formats.
white box v mac is the usual way you get large price differences but most corps don't buy white box, they buy branded machines. For branded PC v Mac you get much closer to the same price and often it's the Mac that's the cheaper option.
That would be fine except for all huge number of OEM Windows licenses that are tied to the hardware. It doesn't make sense to go after 1 or 5 units but if you've got hundreds of units, somebody is going to snitch and get a reward while you get a big legal headache and a huge bill.
Since IBM will probably also maintain your Macs under their maintenance services agreement, maybe you just might want to talk to your IBM rep. IBM is a huge firm and is willing to incur the overhead for that level of support of both IBM and non-IBM hardware so since they're already in your shop why aren't you taking advantage of it?
I think you're looking for Open Directory. Mac people look at you funny if you insist that a 6 person group has a server and a security domain but that's about where MS starts recommending that you get out of workgroup mode and gain all that security ability with AD. If you run Open Directory on a Mac server, you're pretty good on the security front and it integrates into AD if you need it to.
I don't think that the CIO is the problem but rather his normalization of his TCO metrics.
Here's a common support level ratio: Secretary on Mac requires X support Secretary on PC requires 1.3X support Creative on Mac requires 2x support Creative on PC requires 2.5x support
When you have all your secretaries on PCs and all your creatives on Macs, you'll get a higher TCO on Mac when you compare the two because most people don't normalize TCO across job specialties as they should to get an apples to apples comparison.
One of the things that an Apple Admin absolutely can't afford to get trapped in is the religious wars aspect of OS advocacy. The shell is a key element of remote administration and I'm glad I have it.
If there's no way to know that "Many Worlds" is right, that would seem to take it out of the realm of science and straight into the realm of faith and religion. So what's attractive about "Many Worlds"? What problems does it solve?
Sorry, AC but that doesn't wash. When the Book of Genesis was first created, there truly was no way they could have figured out the Big Bang. And when the Big Bang was first theorized, there was significant resistence to it precisely on the grounds that it sounded way too much like Genesis (the book, not the band). This song has played out before. But let's take this scientifically
"mumbo jumbo" - name calling derision and not an argument at all "made up by people" - assumes the answer to the question of whether scripture actually is divinely inspired "the road to understanding this" - Well aren't we full of ourselves that there is only one way to look at things and, coincidentally you have it. "Demanding that the system as a whole needs an external observer" - is nobody's demand actually and therefore a straw man. The result of the research posits that unobserved reality just doesn't exist. So why do things just not fall apart? That's a real question and I'm saying that people don't honestly know. Of course, Mr AC *you* know. You just don't bother to share how you know ahead of the followup research. "postulating a god" - You've entirely got things backwards. Nobody's postulating a god based on this scientific result. The result happens to resemble some very basic theistic beliefs that have been around for millenia in western monotheism much as the Big Bang sounds an awful lot like the opening lines to the Book of Genesis. You don't like that, fine. But please quit it with the name calling.
Good handwaving, but ultimately unsatisfying. If non-observation itself changes things then God cannot observe and simultaneously maintain reality while having no effect. I've no idea whether any of the underlying science will pan out but if it does, the Deists have a problem.
What part of omniscient are you having a problem with? God's been dealing with brother issues ever since Cain and Abel. I doubt you're going to shock Him.
From what I understand there isn't a quantum mechanical model that explains this phenomenon entirely from a theistic, deistic, or atheistic perspective, period. People don't know the full story from a scientific perspective but if the universe requires an observer to exist, the theists get to have a quiet little smile and a gentle "we already knew that". They'll have earned it.
I hope you realize that the amount of USD circulating is enormous and physical currency is only a small fraction of what's out there. Most of it almost never makes it back to the US and certainly isn't created merely by selling bonds. Try reading up on fractional reserve banking and you might be a bit more informed.
The US is a popular currency because we've got a 200+ year record of not defaulting on our debts. Virtually nobody else can match that and people will bid up our money to absurd lengths to buy into that security record. There are lots of rich people who own worthless, defaulted bonds from all over the world but the US keeps paying its debts.
To keep the value of the USD reasonably valued, we have to constantly inject new currency into the market. Reducing the amount of money out there is as simple as the Federal reserve upping US bank reserve requirements a bit, reducing the amount that can be created through new loans.
Theists have a ready answer to these problems. God's always watching, therefore there's always somebody observing, and thus maintaining reality. The clockmaker universe guys known as Deists have a bit of trouble though. Who is their observer?
Slashdot Mirror
We have a whole slew of laws that sit idle until there is a crisis, emergency, or war. So while technically you're right, in practice you're not because of all the wartime laws which most people ignore as if they didn't exist. One of those pre-existing laws is the US Constitution's commander-in-chief clause which has all sorts of well adjudicated and not so well adjudicated implications. Bush, like every president since FISA was passed, claims inherent authority under the commander-in-chief provision to do the sort of spying that is under discussion here. That makes his claim to power a constitutional one. This changes the problem completely.
Congress can strip statutory authorizations away from the President by majority vote but they can't strip constitutional authorizations without a 2/3rds vote in both houses and ratification by the states. So it's pretty settled that something illegal's going on but it's an open question whether it's the President or Congress that is behaving illegally.
That's not strictly true. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen all have the right to petition Congress. Some are doing so. A petition supporting the war has garnered 3000+ active duty signatories and I believe that they're still collecting more.
Anti-war military have the constitutional right to make a similar appeal which is protected under the UCMJ. They do not seem to have done it.
Actually, deficit spending is pretty normal all across the 1st world and US debt as a proportion of our income is fairly middle of the road. On the bright side, Bush's tax cuts seem to have driven income through the roof and we're now increasing spending at a lower rate, shrinking the deficit. We'll get in the black between 2008 and 2012 absent major changes which is extremely good considering that we're spending a lot more on security than we used to prior to 9/11.
It's not an occupation according to the UN.
It's not an occupation according to the Iraqi government.
It's us trying to train up their army and policy, build up their infrastructure and get out as soon as what we've built up becomes self-sustainable. The Iraqi government can meet any day and request that we leave. We would do so as soon as we finished packing.
You keep talking about the Iraqi government being a puppet government. You've got zero evidence for it and certainly haven't presented any. The Iraqi government was voted by the people. They regularly tell us to do things that we don't like (like catch and release BS with terrorists) but our hands our tied because it *is* their country and we are *not* occupiers.
What Saddam did to Kuwait was an unprovoked act of aggression. The US signed on to kick them out and ensure that Saddam didn't do it a third time. We've officially been at war with that regime until we handed sovereignty back over to the Iraqis after Saddam's ouster. Since then, the Iraqi government has requested we hang around and help them stand up their institutions.
The whole UN diplomatic dance was about upping our tempo of bombing and US troop incursions into Iraq from the reactive "norm" during the cease-fire period. We've been firing at and killing Iraqis with little effect for a decade before OIF.
WNight - Yeah, because UN military missions have such a great record of military success and good troop behavior. In case you're just clueless, the UN currently has several open pedophilia scandals (prepubescent kids, not just jail bait mistakes), food for sex scandals, and significant pimping rings operating out of their blue helmet operations. UN military success when the operation isn't backed up by US troops is also less than impressive.
Your idea is so impractical that it's breathtaking.
sgt_doom - Thanks for your service. I can't disagree more with you about Iraq. Irregardless of the justification for removing Saddam's evil regime, the current government of Iraq officially wants us there and the UN has a nice piece of paper authorizing us to help in getting that internationally recognized government on its feet and completely independent.
Stop living in the past.
So?
Unless you want to become a muslim, the other side either wants to ritually humiliate you (if you're a quiet christian/jew) or kill you outright. And the humiliation route is no barrel of laughs.
Maybe you're making a fashion statement with your salespeople (silly but it can actually make a difference in sales) or maybe you're tired of the CAL nonsense and you've maintained enough platform neutrality that the new unit you're setting up can work fine as a pure Mac OS X unit. There's a bunch of reasons why an executive might want to switch over. My company's CEO asks me every 6 months whether we could switch over to Mac. I keep answering that it's not quite time but the objections are down to two things, Visio and Project, both of which are necessary because we keep getting clients who insist that we receive, modify, and generate in these file formats.
white box v mac is the usual way you get large price differences but most corps don't buy white box, they buy branded machines. For branded PC v Mac you get much closer to the same price and often it's the Mac that's the cheaper option.
That would be fine except for all huge number of OEM Windows licenses that are tied to the hardware. It doesn't make sense to go after 1 or 5 units but if you've got hundreds of units, somebody is going to snitch and get a reward while you get a big legal headache and a huge bill.
Since IBM will probably also maintain your Macs under their maintenance services agreement, maybe you just might want to talk to your IBM rep. IBM is a huge firm and is willing to incur the overhead for that level of support of both IBM and non-IBM hardware so since they're already in your shop why aren't you taking advantage of it?
I think you're looking for Open Directory. Mac people look at you funny if you insist that a 6 person group has a server and a security domain but that's about where MS starts recommending that you get out of workgroup mode and gain all that security ability with AD. If you run Open Directory on a Mac server, you're pretty good on the security front and it integrates into AD if you need it to.
I don't think that the CIO is the problem but rather his normalization of his TCO metrics.
Here's a common support level ratio:
Secretary on Mac requires X support
Secretary on PC requires 1.3X support
Creative on Mac requires 2x support
Creative on PC requires 2.5x support
When you have all your secretaries on PCs and all your creatives on Macs, you'll get a higher TCO on Mac when you compare the two because most people don't normalize TCO across job specialties as they should to get an apples to apples comparison.
Then again, there's always Tivoli.
One of the things that an Apple Admin absolutely can't afford to get trapped in is the religious wars aspect of OS advocacy. The shell is a key element of remote administration and I'm glad I have it.
If there's no way to know that "Many Worlds" is right, that would seem to take it out of the realm of science and straight into the realm of faith and religion. So what's attractive about "Many Worlds"? What problems does it solve?
Sorry, AC but that doesn't wash. When the Book of Genesis was first created, there truly was no way they could have figured out the Big Bang. And when the Big Bang was first theorized, there was significant resistence to it precisely on the grounds that it sounded way too much like Genesis (the book, not the band). This song has played out before. But let's take this scientifically
"mumbo jumbo" - name calling derision and not an argument at all
"made up by people" - assumes the answer to the question of whether scripture actually is divinely inspired
"the road to understanding this" - Well aren't we full of ourselves that there is only one way to look at things and, coincidentally you have it.
"Demanding that the system as a whole needs an external observer" - is nobody's demand actually and therefore a straw man. The result of the research posits that unobserved reality just doesn't exist. So why do things just not fall apart? That's a real question and I'm saying that people don't honestly know. Of course, Mr AC *you* know. You just don't bother to share how you know ahead of the followup research.
"postulating a god" - You've entirely got things backwards. Nobody's postulating a god based on this scientific result. The result happens to resemble some very basic theistic beliefs that have been around for millenia in western monotheism much as the Big Bang sounds an awful lot like the opening lines to the Book of Genesis. You don't like that, fine. But please quit it with the name calling.
Good handwaving, but ultimately unsatisfying. If non-observation itself changes things then God cannot observe and simultaneously maintain reality while having no effect. I've no idea whether any of the underlying science will pan out but if it does, the Deists have a problem.
What part of omniscient are you having a problem with? God's been dealing with brother issues ever since Cain and Abel. I doubt you're going to shock Him.
From what I understand there isn't a quantum mechanical model that explains this phenomenon entirely from a theistic, deistic, or atheistic perspective, period. People don't know the full story from a scientific perspective but if the universe requires an observer to exist, the theists get to have a quiet little smile and a gentle "we already knew that". They'll have earned it.
But in this case, observation by definition is interference so the deists are still behind the 8 ball on this.
I hope you realize that the amount of USD circulating is enormous and physical currency is only a small fraction of what's out there. Most of it almost never makes it back to the US and certainly isn't created merely by selling bonds. Try reading up on fractional reserve banking and you might be a bit more informed.
The US is a popular currency because we've got a 200+ year record of not defaulting on our debts. Virtually nobody else can match that and people will bid up our money to absurd lengths to buy into that security record. There are lots of rich people who own worthless, defaulted bonds from all over the world but the US keeps paying its debts.
To keep the value of the USD reasonably valued, we have to constantly inject new currency into the market. Reducing the amount of money out there is as simple as the Federal reserve upping US bank reserve requirements a bit, reducing the amount that can be created through new loans.
Just emailed an inquiry to their jobs email address (find their website and click on the contact link). I wonder how many other people did it as well.
Theists have a ready answer to these problems. God's always watching, therefore there's always somebody observing, and thus maintaining reality. The clockmaker universe guys known as Deists have a bit of trouble though. Who is their observer?