Just a guess but I suspect the reason is that previous legislation directly mandated the states to participate in the identity legislation scheme, whereas this one just withholds federal funding for states that refuse to comply.
It's the same reason why directly requiring states to raise their drinking ages to 21 is unconstitutional, but withholding highway funds for states that decline to do so is not.
Fortunately, if your office has any digital copiers, (in my case, a Ricoh 1045), they are the ultimate solution to this problem. Plug the copier into your ethernet, configure your computer to send it PS or PCL over TCP/IP, and bingo - you have an very high-speed monochrome printer that also duplexes and (optionally) hole punches. I printed the entire Adobe PostScript manual (around 1000 pages) in about 45 minutes, duplexed and hole-punched, and plopped into a 4 or 5 inch binder. Job complete.
Check out the video on Channel 9.
>a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostI D=65355">http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?Po stID=65355
They talk about some stuff, then go inside the lab, where they are testing clustering on a Linux distro and have racks and racks of different distros (and reveal that the copmany favorite is apparently...Gentoo!)
Side note: can't "legalese" be a lot less verbose?
Side note: can't "computer code" be a lot more verbose? Consider this an open letter to all my computer-science graduates: make the code understandable, so that no one is forced to be locked into the libraries (or consulting-fee desires) of coders.
Statutes are usually not hard to understand - they define their own terms, and are written in fairly plain language in a way so as to avoid possible confusioin. It's just that nobody bothers to actually read them. Why? Because there's too damn many of them!
Because, as we all know, there is no difference between hackers and crackers. The only reason anybody would want to probe security weaknesses is for illicit profit.
secularism [wikipedia.org] is a vital component of Hobbes' vision for a stable society.
I'm going to have to ask for some sort of basis for that statement. Before you answer, might I suggest you skim Part III of The Leviathan: OF A CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH.
In any case, let me assure you that you are not the only one who is concerned, but that I also believe such concerns are, at present, overblown. Surely if freedom of conscience is to have any meaning, it must mean the freedom to base one's moral views on religious teachings? I don't, myself, but I am not offended by those who do.
Is that the same democracy that executes juvenile offenders and the mentally impaired?
This is no longer true. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). Please update your canned talking points.
Remember that the state has sovereign immunity. You can only sue the state if it consents to be sued. So virtually any victory is ultimately illusory, as it can be undone with legislation.
I think you're misreading your parent post. He's not saying that the US has a monopoly on the worldwide use of force, he's making the Hobbesian argument that the sole entity in the United States that can use or authorize the use of force against another is the state. Corporations, as non-government organizations, may have considerable wealth and influence, but they are forever banished from having the power to use force, unless the state itself so authorizes.
Baloney. Tiger Direct has been disputing Apple's claim to the "Tiger" trademark since December, so it's utterly ridulous to claim that Apple had no notice.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Hand-write a letter (that means in handwriting - I know, low-tech, but it works) stating your opposition and the reasons.
2. A polite phone call stating the same.
In both cases, be sure to mention that this an issue you care about strongly and will remember it during the next election.
It's the same reason why directly requiring states to raise their drinking ages to 21 is unconstitutional, but withholding highway funds for states that decline to do so is not.
Fortunately, if your office has any digital copiers, (in my case, a Ricoh 1045), they are the ultimate solution to this problem. Plug the copier into your ethernet, configure your computer to send it PS or PCL over TCP/IP, and bingo - you have an very high-speed monochrome printer that also duplexes and (optionally) hole punches. I printed the entire Adobe PostScript manual (around 1000 pages) in about 45 minutes, duplexed and hole-punched, and plopped into a 4 or 5 inch binder. Job complete.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=6535 5
Check out the video on Channel 9. >a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostI D=65355">http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?Po stID=65355
They talk about some stuff, then go inside the lab, where they are testing clustering on a Linux distro and have racks and racks of different distros (and reveal that the copmany favorite is apparently...Gentoo!)
1. Fire guns into air.
2. Get arrested for reckless endangerment (or reckless homicide if you kill somebody.)
3. Receive felony conviction.
4. Be prohibited by federal law from owning guns.
Be sure you're ready for what comes out of that box, before you open the lid.
Side note: can't "computer code" be a lot more verbose? Consider this an open letter to all my computer-science graduates: make the code understandable, so that no one is forced to be locked into the libraries (or consulting-fee desires) of coders.
Statutes are usually not hard to understand - they define their own terms, and are written in fairly plain language in a way so as to avoid possible confusioin. It's just that nobody bothers to actually read them. Why? Because there's too damn many of them!
AND! It rhymes with "fiasco!" Perfect!
Jesus, even MARQUETTE law school has wireless!
Because, as we all know, there is no difference between hackers and crackers. The only reason anybody would want to probe security weaknesses is for illicit profit.
Han Solo has force capability? This is news to me!
Does anyone else ever wonder at the economic value of the man-hours wasted doing the "hard work" of ranking up in a video game?
I'm going to have to ask for some sort of basis for that statement. Before you answer, might I suggest you skim Part III of The Leviathan: OF A CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH.
In any case, let me assure you that you are not the only one who is concerned, but that I also believe such concerns are, at present, overblown. Surely if freedom of conscience is to have any meaning, it must mean the freedom to base one's moral views on religious teachings? I don't, myself, but I am not offended by those who do.
This is no longer true. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) and Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005). Please update your canned talking points.
Remember that the state has sovereign immunity. You can only sue the state if it consents to be sued. So virtually any victory is ultimately illusory, as it can be undone with legislation.
I think you're misreading your parent post. He's not saying that the US has a monopoly on the worldwide use of force, he's making the Hobbesian argument that the sole entity in the United States that can use or authorize the use of force against another is the state. Corporations, as non-government organizations, may have considerable wealth and influence, but they are forever banished from having the power to use force, unless the state itself so authorizes.
Unless there is some kind of law requiring a USB standard, I'm pretty sure it's "de facto" and not "de jure."
Oddly enough, I've never really had a problem with my Radeon using a Nvidia chipset...
If they were actually intelligent, they'd construe that as an act of war!
The answers you seek can be found here.
Baloney. Tiger Direct has been disputing Apple's claim to the "Tiger" trademark since December, so it's utterly ridulous to claim that Apple had no notice.
Exactly. Because if there's one thing software should NOT be about, it's choice.
There can be only One True Way, and it should be the unchangeable default.
Then why would Apple trademark "Tiger?" A trademark is a mark or word(s) used to specifically identify a brand or product in the marketplace.