No I say just because YOU say it does doesn't mean it exist! And the courts (stupidly) agree. Implied consent is not recognized as a human right, not in america, nor most other western cultures. It has never withstood supreme court challenge. I'm not saying that should be the case, I'm saying it's not currently the case in these countries. If you were paying attention, I actually call out the fact that there are other countries with such rights chartered. But WE THE PEOPLE don't recognize it as such. I have no problem with Classic Liberalism, and as a matter of fact, am a Ron Paul-like Conservative. However, claiming a "Right" that has no legal standing IN COURT as a defense is not a solution to this issue.
So now you're changing the topic to implied consent from privacy? The right to privacy HAS been reconized in court.
As Justice Stewart wrote in his dissent in the case, "Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone.... What provision of the Constitution, then, makes this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy 'created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.' With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court." This holds true through today. Practices like implied consent would be struck down but continue to remain on the books. The bill of rights can't grant you a right. However that doesn't mean anything you claim as a right IS a right. The article you discuss is very interesting and definitely well intentioned, but I take exception to some of it's content. Marriage is not a right under the law. Under the law it's a legal contract under which the state's relationship with you changes. You do not have a "right" to the tax breaks and property distribution, co-ownership considerations and other 'perks' associated with the legal concept of marriage. Just like you don't have a 'right' to a stimulus package check. These are incentives the government supplies. As for "right to eat, have children, etc..." I believe they are preying on a warped concept of right. Here's one I hold true:
Did you read the ENTIRE article? I don't think you did.. because later judges found Stewarts ruling incorrect. It also explans why the word "privacy" never appears. Languages change over time. Please, read the ENTIRE article.
You claim that there is no right to marry; I disagree. The state creates a legal definition of marriage. People also have a right not to be discriminated against by the state. The Equal Protection amendment provides for this. Also, marriage to some is a religous ceremony as well as a legal binding. Two consenting adults have the right to practice their religon. Again, it's right, and the government can only get involved if the practice violates the rights of someone else.. and two gay people marrying does not violate anyone else's rights.
So, if the state wants to provide a legal way to marry and grant tax breaks or whatever, they must do so in a non-discimatory way. They also can't interfere in the religous practices of two consenting adults.
You always possess the ability to eat, and you don't always possess the capability to have kids. Are they really rights, or are they just things we are capable of? plenty of people are homeless without food. Are they being "denied the right to eat"? Is the government failing to provide them food "violating their right"? Is everything you can do a right? this is a warped philosophy.
Homeless aren't being denied their rights because either their choice of actions lead them to be homeless, or they are crazy. In the former case, they have a right to earn a living and buy food. If they make poor choices and end up homeless and without food, they have not been denied their right, because their choices lead them to a sitution where they no longer have food. In the latter case, I think w
Hell is being forced to live in a world of morons like you.
and the little girls all want ponies. I want to go to bed with a supermodel, but just because I want something has no relevance in the real world.
So are you suggesting that it be made illegal for girls to have ponies or for you to sleep with a supermodel, just because the former may or may not happen, and certainly the latter will not?
IMO what you do in private is none of my damned business. I don't care if you're hiring hookers, hitting a hookah, gambling, pole dancing, pole smoking, or anything else.
Fine, then you should have no problem with two men marrying.
I just pointed out that it is, indeed, legal for gays to marry. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to do it with, and your not being able to find a woman to fall in love with is no different from my not being able to find one. You're either just more pessimistic about it, or you're a misogynist.
It's not legal for men to marry other men though. And according to your previous statement, you don't care what other's do in their private life, so they should be able to. I already found a woman to love; I happen to support a gay man's right to marry another gay man, because I really have no right to tell them not to marry.
Of course, if you think you can interfere with the lives of other's simply because you don't like it, then I suppose I have the right to interfere with your life because I don't like something you do. So I'm ordering you to stop posting here, because I don't like being reminded that morons exist.
Either let any human being marry any other human being, or do away with the concept of legal marriages completely. Those are the only two options I see.
What, you think because YOU say we have no right to privacy, it doesn't exist? Sorry, that doesn't wash. Privacy certainly is an interaction with the government; the goverment is examining you or your life.
If YOU really want some factual basis for your arguement, READ WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WROTE ON THE MATTER. I already have, which is why I understand your argument is garbage. RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE INHERENT IN EVERY HUMAN. Once you get that point, you'll better understand the Constitution. It's called Classic Liberalism.
Seriously, stop posting on/. and educate yourself. If you find you don't like the ideas in Classical Liberalism, please find another country to live in.
Um, the gay man wants to marry another gay man. It's not the same as you not meeting a woman, the gay man may met a man he wants to marry, but can't. So he is worse off, in that he did find someone to marry (just not a woman) but isn't allowed.
Of course I would throw out there that you as a person have no right to interfere with the lives of others. There is no basis to justify your interference.
Well, you tell your friends that you have a new CD. You also leave it in the car, where other's can see it. You COULD make it available to them... so should you be charged? What if you even offered to let your friend copy it?
The law is specific; actually copying it would be illegal, telling someone they could it not.
No, the 4th amendment makes it CLEAR the government cannot arbitrary search anyone it wants without good reason. The Bill of Rights are RESTRICTIONS on the government, not a list of the government's "rights."
Before you spout anymore of your ignorant nonsense, please actually READ the many volumes our founders wrote on rights. You fail to understand the basic premise upon which our country was founded.
I've been doing WinForms.Net development for a while now, and haven't had to use Hwnds, WndProc, or WM_messages. So I guess the answer is that you normally don't need them in.Net either, but they're there if you do.
Because, as we all know, a kernel is useless without applications to run, and that it only takes on application that someone wants and can't get installed to make someone ditch Linux.
I don't think I'd call Ruby in "common use." Or Python for that matter; still lots more Java, C# or PHP it seems. Also, Linq is "built-in," so I'm not really sure why you are trying to imply it's not. Granted it's a bunch of compiler magic (aka syntatic sugar), but it's proving to be EXTEREMLY useful.
I think "MS fanatics" are excited about it because it's now in the tools they use. I don't know of that many python / ruby developers that target the MS platform exclusively..
You should check out Linq. Also, I'm loving Wpf for creating UIs. Controls that I had to either spend hours coding myself or lots of money purchasing I can now easily create on my own.
Honestly, there are a lot of things in C# i would love to see in Java; real generics, explicit interface implemenation, etc.
Right, because they can't "raise shit or break into shit" while people are at home. It might also suprise you that there ARE people at home in your neighborhood at any given time. Not to mention police patrols. Or do you think your neigherhood becomes a ghost town at 7AM, complete with tumbleweed?
Bull. First, it's not trade marked. Second, "open source" has been around a lot longer than the OSI, which only came into being around 1998. I can call something I want open source if I want, and there's nothing OSI could do about it.
Huh? For almost three quarters of our countries existance, we didn't have a standing army in peace time. It was only out of fear we kept one around after WW2, and I'd venture a guess that if we didn't have a standarding army the past 60 years or so, we wouldn't BE in Iraq or Afganistan right now, and a good number of other countries may not hate us as much.
As for the literacy rate, it stands to reason you need basic reading skills to be a solider and so they either won't let you in or make you learn to read. Might as well say Hooters employs more women waitresses than any other chain...
The comment was about coverage on SLASHDOT, which you would think would be up on those kinds of things. Given that has been press about it, but not one submission on/.? Does seem odd.
What history are you looking at? I've been applying all updates as they come for some time now (years), including service packs. So far, so good. The preceived problem is exaggerated because you only hear about the people that are having problems, but the people that AREN'T having any issues don't typically say anything.
Those empty spots in Ohio are called "farms." That's where we grow our food. If we reduce the empty space, we reduce the amount of food we can grow. Also, there's a big empty space a bit to the west where we can't grow food and is a bit lacking in water. It would be difficult to live there.
Well, it sounds like the concept of shelving; a kind of partial commit that only you can see, and if you like, can later make public. I don't believe you need distributed SC for that; there's nothing inherient that requires a local server running. I believe MS' Team Foundation Server already supports this. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181283(VS.80).aspx
Maybe it's not the same thing though. To me, the key difference would be running your own private SC server locally to handle the feature vs. not having any local server but the central server knows to "hide" it. At least that's how I would think a distributed source control system would work.
By local checkins, do you mean the idea of shelving? I don't think you necessarly need a distributed system to have that feature. A centralized repositry can support such features as well. Or are local checkins something else I don't know about?
Slashdot Mirror
No I say just because YOU say it does doesn't mean it exist! And the courts (stupidly) agree.
Implied consent is not recognized as a human right, not in america, nor most other western cultures. It has never withstood supreme court challenge. I'm not saying that should be the case, I'm saying it's not currently the case in these countries. If you were paying attention, I actually call out the fact that there are other countries with such rights chartered. But WE THE PEOPLE don't recognize it as such.
I have no problem with Classic Liberalism, and as a matter of fact, am a Ron Paul-like Conservative. However, claiming a "Right" that has no legal standing IN COURT as a defense is not a solution to this issue.
So now you're changing the topic to implied consent from privacy? The right to privacy HAS been reconized in court.
As Justice Stewart wrote in his dissent in the case, "Since 1879 Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone.... What provision of the Constitution, then, makes this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy 'created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.' With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court."
This holds true through today. Practices like implied consent would be struck down but continue to remain on the books.
The bill of rights can't grant you a right. However that doesn't mean anything you claim as a right IS a right. The article you discuss is very interesting and definitely well intentioned, but I take exception to some of it's content. Marriage is not a right under the law. Under the law it's a legal contract under which the state's relationship with you changes. You do not have a "right" to the tax breaks and property distribution, co-ownership considerations and other 'perks' associated with the legal concept of marriage. Just like you don't have a 'right' to a stimulus package check. These are incentives the government supplies. As for "right to eat, have children, etc..." I believe they are preying on a warped concept of right. Here's one I hold true:
Did you read the ENTIRE article? I don't think you did.. because later judges found Stewarts ruling incorrect. It also explans why the word "privacy" never appears. Languages change over time. Please, read the ENTIRE article.
You claim that there is no right to marry; I disagree. The state creates a legal definition of marriage. People also have a right not to be discriminated against by the state. The Equal Protection amendment provides for this. Also, marriage to some is a religous ceremony as well as a legal binding. Two consenting adults have the right to practice their religon. Again, it's right, and the government can only get involved if the practice violates the rights of someone else.. and two gay people marrying does not violate anyone else's rights.
So, if the state wants to provide a legal way to marry and grant tax breaks or whatever, they must do so in a non-discimatory way. They also can't interfere in the religous practices of two consenting adults.
You always possess the ability to eat, and you don't always possess the capability to have kids. Are they really rights, or are they just things we are capable of? plenty of people are homeless without food. Are they being "denied the right to eat"? Is the government failing to provide them food "violating their right"? Is everything you can do a right? this is a warped philosophy.
Homeless aren't being denied their rights because either their choice of actions lead them to be homeless, or they are crazy. In the former case, they have a right to earn a living and buy food. If they make poor choices and end up homeless and without food, they have not been denied their right, because their choices lead them to a sitution where they no longer have food. In the latter case, I think w
People in hell want ice water
Hell is being forced to live in a world of morons like you.
and the little girls all want ponies. I want to go to bed with a supermodel, but just because I want something has no relevance in the real world.
So are you suggesting that it be made illegal for girls to have ponies or for you to sleep with a supermodel, just because the former may or may not happen, and certainly the latter will not?
IMO what you do in private is none of my damned business. I don't care if you're hiring hookers, hitting a hookah, gambling, pole dancing, pole smoking, or anything else.
Fine, then you should have no problem with two men marrying.
I just pointed out that it is, indeed, legal for gays to marry. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to do it with, and your not being able to find a woman to fall in love with is no different from my not being able to find one. You're either just more pessimistic about it, or you're a misogynist.
It's not legal for men to marry other men though. And according to your previous statement, you don't care what other's do in their private life, so they should be able to. I already found a woman to love; I happen to support a gay man's right to marry another gay man, because I really have no right to tell them not to marry.
Of course, if you think you can interfere with the lives of other's simply because you don't like it, then I suppose I have the right to interfere with your life because I don't like something you do. So I'm ordering you to stop posting here, because I don't like being reminded that morons exist.
Either let any human being marry any other human being, or do away with the concept of legal marriages completely. Those are the only two options I see.
What, you think because YOU say we have no right to privacy, it doesn't exist? Sorry, that doesn't wash. Privacy certainly is an interaction with the government; the goverment is examining you or your life.
/. and educate yourself. If you find you don't like the ideas in Classical Liberalism, please find another country to live in.
If YOU really want some factual basis for your arguement, READ WHAT OUR FOUNDERS WROTE ON THE MATTER. I already have, which is why I understand your argument is garbage. RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE INHERENT IN EVERY HUMAN. Once you get that point, you'll better understand the Constitution. It's called Classic Liberalism.
This article also summarizes your errors: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0703-09.htm.
Seriously, stop posting on
Um, the gay man wants to marry another gay man. It's not the same as you not meeting a woman, the gay man may met a man he wants to marry, but can't. So he is worse off, in that he did find someone to marry (just not a woman) but isn't allowed.
Of course I would throw out there that you as a person have no right to interfere with the lives of others. There is no basis to justify your interference.
Well, you tell your friends that you have a new CD. You also leave it in the car, where other's can see it. You COULD make it available to them... so should you be charged? What if you even offered to let your friend copy it?
The law is specific; actually copying it would be illegal, telling someone they could it not.
Airports are private property owned by private companies. The ones in the US are on US soil.
No, the 4th amendment makes it CLEAR the government cannot arbitrary search anyone it wants without good reason. The Bill of Rights are RESTRICTIONS on the government, not a list of the government's "rights."
Before you spout anymore of your ignorant nonsense, please actually READ the many volumes our founders wrote on rights. You fail to understand the basic premise upon which our country was founded.
I've been doing WinForms .Net development for a while now, and haven't had to use Hwnds, WndProc, or WM_messages. So I guess the answer is that you normally don't need them in .Net either, but they're there if you do.
Would you count Mandriva 2006 as semi-modern?
Because, as we all know, a kernel is useless without applications to run, and that it only takes on application that someone wants and can't get installed to make someone ditch Linux.
I don't think I'd call Ruby in "common use." Or Python for that matter; still lots more Java, C# or PHP it seems. Also, Linq is "built-in," so I'm not really sure why you are trying to imply it's not. Granted it's a bunch of compiler magic (aka syntatic sugar), but it's proving to be EXTEREMLY useful.
I think "MS fanatics" are excited about it because it's now in the tools they use. I don't know of that many python / ruby developers that target the MS platform exclusively..
You should check out Linq. Also, I'm loving Wpf for creating UIs. Controls that I had to either spend hours coding myself or lots of money purchasing I can now easily create on my own.
Honestly, there are a lot of things in C# i would love to see in Java; real generics, explicit interface implemenation, etc.
Fortunately the moderaters have seen your post for the garbage it is.
Right, because they can't "raise shit or break into shit" while people are at home. It might also suprise you that there ARE people at home in your neighborhood at any given time. Not to mention police patrols. Or do you think your neigherhood becomes a ghost town at 7AM, complete with tumbleweed?
I don't know, but it started happening to me. Seems you now need to wait five minutes between postings. Haven't heard an explaination as to why..
Bull. First, it's not trade marked. Second, "open source" has been around a lot longer than the OSI, which only came into being around 1998. I can call something I want open source if I want, and there's nothing OSI could do about it.
No... open used to mean just that it was available to look at. Free meant you could do what you like. Stop with revisionist history.
Huh? For almost three quarters of our countries existance, we didn't have a standing army in peace time. It was only out of fear we kept one around after WW2, and I'd venture a guess that if we didn't have a standarding army the past 60 years or so, we wouldn't BE in Iraq or Afganistan right now, and a good number of other countries may not hate us as much.
As for the literacy rate, it stands to reason you need basic reading skills to be a solider and so they either won't let you in or make you learn to read. Might as well say Hooters employs more women waitresses than any other chain...
The comment was about coverage on SLASHDOT, which you would think would be up on those kinds of things. Given that has been press about it, but not one submission on /.? Does seem odd.
Who wants to eat 1.0 dogfood? I bet they are like me; waiting for Silver Light 2.0 so they can use .Net instead of some crap javascript thing.
Or the farming business is being outsourced: http://www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2005/Feb/imports.htm
What history are you looking at? I've been applying all updates as they come for some time now (years), including service packs. So far, so good. The preceived problem is exaggerated because you only hear about the people that are having problems, but the people that AREN'T having any issues don't typically say anything.
Those empty spots in Ohio are called "farms." That's where we grow our food. If we reduce the empty space, we reduce the amount of food we can grow. Also, there's a big empty space a bit to the west where we can't grow food and is a bit lacking in water. It would be difficult to live there.
Well, it sounds like the concept of shelving; a kind of partial commit that only you can see, and if you like, can later make public. I don't believe you need distributed SC for that; there's nothing inherient that requires a local server running. I believe MS' Team Foundation Server already supports this. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181283(VS.80).aspx
Maybe it's not the same thing though. To me, the key difference would be running your own private SC server locally to handle the feature vs. not having any local server but the central server knows to "hide" it. At least that's how I would think a distributed source control system would work.
By local checkins, do you mean the idea of shelving? I don't think you necessarly need a distributed system to have that feature. A centralized repositry can support such features as well. Or are local checkins something else I don't know about?